Q&A for me

[Kirghiz]

In layman's terms, any time you put a component (passive crossover) between the amplifier and speaker, that component will cause a voltage drop from inherent resistance as the power passes through it, which in turn reduces the wattage that the speaker will see. The passive crossover actually has it's own impedance, which causes resistance. Another byproduct of a voltage drop from resistance is heat, and passive crossovers are known to get hot. They are also known to cause speaker non-linearities around the crossover frequency. They have their uses certainly, they are foolproof at protecting tweeters from the low frequency thump of the amp powering on/off for example, which is why you see them in component sets. But, generally any time they can be avoided it's best to do so.

An active crossover on the other hand, does its work at the preamp section and crosses over the amplifier's signal before it gets to the output level of the amplification process. The power output of the amplifier is uninterrupted and you have none of those issues. The most significant disadvantage to active crossovers versus passive is the added cost (more components and cables) and complexity of them. They are more functionally advantageous in every conceivable way.

[Drock]

Thanks, I'm just reading up on this. I think I'm understanding this better now.
Active crossovers require power sources, but they don’t waste power by filtering out amplified signals the way passive crossovers do. In other words in a passive setup the amplifier is working hard to push a full range signal to the speakers, but the passive crossover is putting the breaks on some of the frequencies, therefore reducing the power that flows through the crossover, essentially power is wasted to amplify a signal to the passive crossover only to have it cut down/reduced before the speaker.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

[Kirghiz]

More or less what you said, but you left out the part where the passive set up creates its own resistance too, which also reduces the total power, not just the power spent on the filtered frequencies. It actually bites you on the output power twice. The power loss from resistance isn't a lot generally, granted, but it all adds up by the time it gets to the speaker. Really the only time you see passive crossovers in common use is between a midrange and tweeter, and it isn't a huge deal there because the tweeters generally don't require a lot of power, not nearly as much as the mid, and the crossover is in-line after the midrange, so it isn't being robbed of power. Plus, as mentioned before, the passive crossover is best at protecting tweeters from blowing from low frequencies.

[Drock]

So in my case, where ill be driving multiple drivers on a single channel running an active setup will definitely be better. Also my amps are switched via the dd10 and delayed a couple seconds. So turn on and off pops are not a problem to worry about on tweeters.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

[ttocs]

as they are saying while there is power lost by cutting out certain freqs there is also a good amount of power lost to heat in the x-over. For example a simple coil can work as a lowpass x-over and years and years ago I was running an amp with no built in cross-over and running a sub off of it. So I threw a coil in the box to take out the highs and while it did a great job of that, I could also tell that there was a little less bass signal to play as well. Now on component systems they tune the cross overs to the speakers so that they are matched(as well as they are allowed to) to get the best sound of of them so by going active you will not have the same sound as was originally intended with out tuning it some how. That may or may not be good for you as if you do not have the ability to tune/adjust the system enough you might not be happy. For example in my system I am using that rane x-over to do the work splitting up the signal, after running it through an EQ232. Between the 1/3 octave EQ and the adjustability of the rane(both freq and level is adjustable) I should be able to match the levels on the 3 speakers as well as tune the freqs going to them all while not burning off any power with the passive cross overs.

[ttocs]

So in my case, where ill be driving multiple drivers on a single channel running an active setup will definitely be better. Also my amps are switched via the dd10 and delayed a couple seconds. So turn on and off pops are not a problem to worry about on tweeters.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

I think you have that backwards. Active filtering requires multiple amplifier channels to drive a single component set. Again in my system for example I am running a .5, and a .2 to drive my 3 ways up front, nothing in back and a sub channel.

[Drock]

Yes I'm using more channels but the power is more efficient than using a passive crossover after the amp.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

[ttocs]

ok I was just confused because you said a single channel above.

[Drock]

Also in theory running active should be the opposite. If the signal is filtered before the amp then the amp would not have to work so hard to amplify such a large bandwidth. So this would explain the big difference I heard in the two systems I put together today.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

[Drock]

Sorry, what I meant was that I'm running three ti6m on a single channel and two tweeters on another channel.
With this many speakers I don't want to waste power.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

[Kirghiz]

Also in theory running active should be the opposite. If the signal is filtered before the amp then the amp would not have to work so hard to amplify such a large bandwidth. So this would explain the big difference I heard in the two systems I put together today.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

Further, if you use something like what ttocs has that can boost the input signal, an active crossover can actually gain you volume while filtering the signals.

[Drock]

Yes I have a TLD66. Although after talking to Morgan the Elite amps are capable of driving max power even with low inputs below 2v. So not sure if it would really help much.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

[Drock]

So I had a thought today. There is so mush gear out there that has balanced input and outputs. But realized I don't really understand what this is. Also. Why does say an eq215 have left and right gain controls? I find it annoying trying to set the levels the same. Even my RCA's say they are balanced. Can anyone explain this? Thanks


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

[Drock]

I have a question about the ti amps.
I recently made a deal to trade a couple amps but in the process realized some of the amps i have say titanium on the shroud, but in the plexy window it says zero point on the board.
Then I also have a couple amps that actually say zx titanium.
So what's the difference? Are they ti or zx?

[kg1961]

there is no difference on the inside. the fist gen had zxti on the top cover and or zero point on the board only the later production unit have titanium.
btw im fine with either the 500.4 or the nib 400.2
you said you had like 5 500.4 so if it better for the sound board set up I will keep it lmk either way is fine

[Drock]

Well I'm a bit discouraged today, I've been using on old denon mini receiver as my pre amp with my iPhone hooked to it. But today I thought I'd try out my old teq in dash eq in the system to increase my line voltage. But unfortunately there is something wrong with it. Now I'll have to come up with another solution. On that note I have an eq 215x and an eq 215ix. Thing is they look exactly the same. I can not tell what the difference is. Can anyone shed some light on this?

[Drock]

Well I'm a bit discouraged today, I've been using on old denon mini receiver as my pre amp with my iPhone hooked to it. But today I thought I'd try out my old teq in dash eq in the system to increase my line voltage. But unfortunately there is something wrong with it. Now I'll have to come up with another solution. On that note I have an eq 215x and an eq 215ix. Thing is they look exactly the same. I can not tell what the difference is. Can anyone shed some light on this?

[ttocs]

The "I" offers a time delay on the rear/aux outputs if I am not mistaken.

[Drock]

The "I" offers a time delay on the rear/aux outputs if I am not mistaken.

Yes your right. Just figured that out yesterday.
Thanks.

[Drock]

I'm just wondering what the nice wire covering is called that was shown in the thread of the gmc pickup install. I want to get some. Just not sure what to ask for.
As well, I'm still looking for a dual or even better triple alt mounting bracket for a 2001 gmc Sierra 2500 hd.

[Kirghiz]

As well, I'm still looking for a dual or even better triple alt mounting bracket for a 2001 gmc Sierra 2500 hd.

The body style is less important than the engine size when shopping for alt brackets for trucks. They'll all pretty much fit under the hood. The question is will they mount to your engine. The link below should get you where you want to go.

https://www.dcpowerinc.com/brackets-and ... &year=2001

[ttocs]

I'm just wondering what the nice wire covering is called that was shown in the thread of the gmc pickup install. I want to get some. Just not sure what to ask for.
As well, I'm still looking for a dual or even better triple alt mounting bracket for a 2001 gmc Sierra 2500 hd.

Which thread? Techflex or split loom is probably what your looking at if I had to guess

[Drock]

Audio innovations pg build.
Their work is amazing.

[Kirghiz]

Techflex is what they used.

[Drock]

Thanks. Any idea where I can find it? I will google it. But any referral would be helpful.
Thanks