Has anyone had madisound custom build you crossovers?

[Eric D]

Shawn, it looks like we finally found something we can both agree upon, I too don't listen to sine waves, I listen to music.

You are also right, in that if you were to play a 10kHz tone for example, all 50W would be going to the tweeter, none would be going to the midrange. In an active system with a 10kHz tone, none would be going to the midrange, as there is no signal for the midrange to play.

Now, suppose our source unit has the capability of (+) or (-) 3V of output. Past that it clips. If you play a 10kHz tone recorded at 0db, the signal will swing from -3V up to +3V, and back, over and over, 10,000 times a second. OK, now we feed this signal into our amp, and from it into the passive crossover. With our amp we get (+) or (-) some level of voltage. In the case of the 50W amp, set for 0db of overlap, I think we get about -10V to +10V of swing. My math might be off on that by some factor, but for the sake of argument it does not matter.

We can measure our -10V to +10V going into the passive crossover, and since we are a long way from the crossover point, we will get close to that -10V to +10V swing at our tweeters terminals.

OK, now we will play two tones at the same time. Yes, this is not music, but we are getting closer. Say we play a 100Hz tone with a 10kHz tone at the same time. Since one is riding on the other, our +3V to -3V source unit will have 2V of 100Hz, with another 2V 10kHz riding on that. This will get us up to our 3V capacity of the source unit but with no clipping. All this is pretty hard to explain without a picture, but hopefully anyone reading it will get the idea.

When we feed this modulated signal with a 3V peak into our active crossover we get a 100Hz signal with a 2V peak on one output, and a 10kHz signal with a 2V peak on the other output. The crossover splits out the original signals.

Now this is the good part of an active crossover. Since the split signal does not clip as soon, you can increase the gain setting on the amps connected to the system, and get more usable power out of them. This is why people advocate that an active setup can be louder (have more output) than a passive one. Each amp can play past its effective range a bit without clipping, since it only plays a specific bandwidth of the original signal. With the setup I am talking about, one could get 10V peak on the midrange, and 10V peak on the tweeter, at the same time, with the modulated input signal. This is something you just cannot get with a passive setup, as both voltages will fall short of the 10V.

There is a small problem with this though. Since our setup is counting on an original signal made of smaller ones, at lesser levels than 0db, what happens when we feed something closer to a pure sine wave into it. Well, if it is near 0db your active setup will clip. There are all kinds of music to listen too, plenty of which has beeps, tones, you name it, and any of which may cause clipping in the active setup run at a higher gain level. If you wish to setup your system to not clip (ever), you will find you don't get any more power with the active than the passive setup, other than the small amount of loss in the passive crossover (inaudible).

All of this is very tough to understand, but it is even harder to correctly explain.

OK back to a point made early on in this thread. The assumption is that a passive setup is more inefficient than an active one. Well, if someone uses a single 50W amp to get "X"db SPL on a passive setup, and with a 50W amp on mids, and 25W on tweeters for an active setup, they still only get "X"db SPL, how can the active setup be more efficient? It requires 50% more power to accomplish the same thing...

[Eric D]

I also need to admit that yes Shawn, you are correct in that System A won't be twice as loud as System C from my previous example. System A will have twice the power, which is the point where people begin to notice one is louder than the other. It would take between 6db and 10db to "perceive" the difference as being twice as loud (all of which is dependent on the particular person's ears). 6db would be the mathematically twice as loud point, but human ears don't always follow math.

Either way, the guy with System A will be louder than the guy with System C, and the guy with System A will have invested less into his setup.

[shawn k]

Wow, all I can say is wow.

Look, I'm frign' done here. I could easily enough dispute these latests posts, but it won't do any good. I've come to the conclusion that I'm just waisting time by constantly weeding through and correcting the misinformation and relentless hypothetical scenarios (most of which don't make any sense). You consistantly backtrack on your own posts after I have provided the correct information only to come up with some new scenario to argue. You also say I'm right about certain things, and then turn right around and dispute the very same things you claim I was correct on Interestingly, you not only do this with me, but you do it to yourself! Time and time again you state one thing and yet you appose it in later posts

It's just a big vicious circle with you man!

[kg1961]

OMG there is alot to go over. Im not in car audio like you guys but i got good points from both ends.
I used to sell car audio and i would love it if eveyone spent more money so i would make more $$
but i have found with the 75 or so differnt set ups( i have used not owned ) in 35 car i have owned i like the 2 channel with a higher end brand with oem xover
not to say its right or other just my personal taste
boston pro 65 were the best set up to date

[ttocs]

boston was one of the first speakers to really impress me, great stuff.

[shawn k]

boston was one of the first speakers to really impress me, great stuff.

Same here. Both Boston and a/d/s really opened up SQ (for a vehicle anyway) for me. Pretty cool considering both companies, at the time, were from Massachuesettes and were no more than several miles away from each other

[Eric D]

Boston Pro 6.5s were one of the first set of components I ever used. Boston was one of the few companies to design their speakers and crossovers for performance in a vehicle not on a sound board. The ones we had on display did not sound all that great compared to other brands we sold, but put them in a car and they won out over most things. We made sure at least one employee had them in their vehicle at all times, and sold many sets after letting potential customers have a listen to them with what ever CD they wanted to.

[ttocs]

back on topic.

Now I know you are trying to put something custom together and save a few bucks, but after hearing all the work that goes into a properly made/tuned x-over I would find it hard to believe that in the end you will be as happy as you would with a nice set of bostons for example. They are just not as simple to just slap together and make them sound good on the first try, it takes time and tuning/listening to get the numbers right and get a smooth transition to where they will play flat.

I too commend you for trying it but I have a hard time thinking that you will be happy with the first set you get. It would be a learning experience but one of those lessons that in the end will probably either cost more $$$ to get it right or just bearing with the parts that you do not like.

[smgreen20]

Now that Shawn and Eric have calmed down a bit, I must put in my .02 worth. I read in a book, though it wasn't the loudspeaker design cookbook, it was still by the same author or co-author, Vance Dickerson.

ON AVERAGE, for EVERY 6dB the xover slope is, IT'S ROUGHLY A 5% LOSS in power.

Hopefully that will put some end to this. I value both Eric and Shawn and their points of views, but which one want's to argue with Vance??????

Example:
50 wpc x 2
Slope.......output
6dB = 47.5 w
12dB = 45 w
18dB = 42.5 w
24dB = 40 w
30dB = 37.5 w
36dB = 35 w..........

Now, about the original topic, A reputable company taylor made passive, I would. AS LONG AS the cost didn't outweigh my goals be it space, cost (2nd amp vs passives).....

[Eric D]

Please don't include me in the "calmed down a bit" statement.

Anyone can read through this whole thread and see I was not the one throwing out personal attacks (for a change), or extensively using foul language, and loads of emoticons...

[dwnrodeo]

Didnt expect to see all this... I really Just wanted to keep amps minimal, and keep it less complicated. My system will be loud, so I just wanted an efficient mid, and a tweet that can take abuse. Im going to search around, and also see what madisound recommends aswell. Pricing if I read it right was 30 per crossover, or for both, not sure. The drivers can be had for pretty cheap, so for 200 or less I could have a much better front stage.

That's cool man. I understand the need for minimizing amps. There are certain requirements for every system. Curious which drivers you have decided to go with? Any links? I commend you for trying the DIY route with picking raw drivers. You can more often than not have better performance for less $$ by going this route. I'm sure the crossovers Madisound builds are nice, but I can't see that they will be anything "super" nice for the $30 range. Even a 6 or 12db slope (minimul parts) can run much MUCH more than that when using high-end components. All in all, I'm sure they will do what you need.

Madisound will DESIGN passive crossovers for you for $30.00. http://www.madisoundspeakerstore.com/cr ... madisound/ It is then up to you to purchase the necessary components (capacitors, inductors, resistors, etc...) and build them yourself. Madisound will build them for you if you'd like, but they'll charge for assembly in addition to the components you purchase. Depending on the number of components and the quality of the components you choose, the passives can get quite costly going this route.

[shawn k]

Please don't include me in the "calmed down a bit" statement.

Anyone can read through this whole thread and see I was not the one throwing out personal attacks (for a change), or extensively using foul language, and loads of emoticons...

Going back through the posts, I see only one where I might have been too aggressive. I don't see how I "extensively" used foul language. I also don't feel I went overboard on the emoticons either. I mean, isn't that what they're there for?

That being said, I appologize if I was an ass.

In my own defense, justified or not, I was aggressive because it drives me freakn' crazy when people do not completely read through posts. Then they argue/debate on what someone has said but misconstrue and twist what the poster truely said. (You do this constantly Eric!!) It's completely fine to debate and share one's own opinion and or knowledge, but if you're going to do so then please at least read and re-read (I do this constantly) through the posts that you're debating on.

[Eric D]

One other issue I see with Madisound crossovers, is they will be designed for optimal use in a home audio environment. From my experience LEAP designed crossovers are close to being on target in a large open space, but not even close in the closed environment of a vehicle. They might not even get you "in the ballpark".

To further compound things, if you design your system for driver placement (some do, some don't), you won't even have the same crossover design for the left channel as you do for the right. The radically different response curves you get from such different path lengths, and reflection angles, call for different designs of the left and right crossovers.

[dwnrodeo]

One other issue I see with Madisound crossovers, is they will be designed for optimal use in a home audio environment. From my experience LEAP designed crossovers are close to being on target in a large open space, but not even close in the closed environment of a vehicle. They might not even get you "in the ballpark".

To further compound things, if you design your system for driver placement (some do, some don't), you won't even have the same crossover design for the left channel as you do for the right. The radically different response curves you get from such different path lengths, and reflection angles, call for different designs of the left and right crossovers.

Excellent point on driver placement. This is why I try to get the mid and tweeter as close to each other as possible, on the same plane facing the driver and with no interference from obstacles between the speakers and the listener. Sure, my A-pillars are a bit gaudy looking, but it makes tuning much simpler in my opinion. It is difficult to design a component set passive crossover for the many different driver mounting locations that people use in an install. Bottom line is, I do think a Madisound designed crossover will get you "in the ballpark". I'm guessing they're going to design based on the drivers T/S parameters in an open room like you mentioned and choose a slope, crossover point, and maybe add a notch filter to make the drivers work best with each other. Maybe a description of how the drivers will be mounted (on plane, off-axis from each other, etc...) will help them design better for a car, but for the most part EQ-ing or changing the phase of the drivers wiring will help fine tune the speakers once installed. We all know that a car is not a very good environment for good sound; small closed space, harsh materials for reflections, poor listener position for L/R balance, road noise..., but I believe that is the fun part of the challenge. I have a friend that I have used in examples before as a self proclaimed "audiophile", and he is always asking why I bother putting time and effort into a car audio installation when it will never be as good as a stereo installation at home. Number one is I sit in my car more than I sit at home, and number two is because of the challenge.

[Eric D]

Shawn, to claim I don't read your posts, or don’t read all of them, implies to me you actually do read mine, which is not and has not been the case.

Here is a point I made way back at the beginning...

50W x 2 can run a set of components with a passive crossover, but if you want to go active you would need 50W x 4, or twice the amplifier as you had before.

Your response to it was…

but this is not true. You don't "need" to double your power just because you're running active! You can easily enough run four channels @ 25w each and have the same current damand from the charging system.

However, if you read the very next sentence I had posted, you find…

You could probably get by in my example here with only 25W x 2 on the tweeters, but that is still 75W a channel needed active, over only 50W a channel passive.

You did not read all of my post.

It is also kind of obvious you don’t even read any of my examples. The discussion we are having here is pretty hard to explain to anyone with just plain text. If you took the time to read an example I had posted, you would probably find a way to explain where my logic is wrong, instead of just claiming I am wrong simply because you are right.

Anyone can search the web for info relating to the differences between active and passive crossovers. There is a ton of information out there. However it seems 95% or so of this information is related directly to home audio use.

Although home and car audio share a lot of the same equipment, they have their differences. I have only 50W x 2 for my home stereo, and I can play it at very loud levels well below the max capability of my amplifier, and it remains clean.

In my vehicle I have 100W x 2 to my components which are only a few feet from my ears, yet I routinely play my system at full volume. Why do I do this? In my case, road noise is to blame. I need a lot more power to overcome it, so where my amplifier clips at becomes an important aspect of my setup.

Running active in a home makes sense to me as one can get by with two smaller amplifiers, since systems are generally far enough from clipping, the gain can be increased on the two smaller amps, but stay well within the limits of the equipment. In a car audio system, where most setups are at or even above clipping, running an active setup with lower power amplifiers than passive (say 75Wx2+25Wx2 active vs 100Wx2 passive) won’t get you as much output prior to clipping.

There are tradeoffs to be made in any of these cases,

Passive lets you run asymmetrical crossover points. For example 4kHz on a tweeter, and 3.5kHz on a mid. Not all active crossovers have this option, as most are symmetrical. Sometimes you need this flexibility to fill in a hole or lower a spike in the frequency response.

Passive lets you run a different setup on the right and left sides. In some cases you may need a totally different frequency point, or even a different slope of the response to bring the left to match the right. This could be from reflections due to the steering column, or if you are trying to get the best sound at the drivers seating position with little regard for the passenger seating position. I don’t know of any active crossovers which can do this. Not to say they don’t exist, just I have not come across one.

And lastly, back to the very beginning point of this whole thread. The guy starting the thread wants more efficiency. To me efficiency implies more output with less power (maybe that is the whole problem, I am “assuming” the wrong point). The poster could be referring to more output with less space for all I know.

I am 100% confident a passive system with 100W a channel will have more output than an active system with 75W a channel on the mid, and 25W a channel on the tweeter. Now if for some reason the installation would only need 10W on the tweeter, and 90W on the mid, then there is a good chance the active system will have the same or even slightly more output.

However you slice it, there are a lot of variables here, and stating that passive is not as efficient as active is not a blanket statement I am willing to make.

[Eric D]

One other issue I see with Madisound crossovers, is they will be designed for optimal use in a home audio environment. From my experience LEAP designed crossovers are close to being on target in a large open space, but not even close in the closed environment of a vehicle. They might not even get you "in the ballpark".

To further compound things, if you design your system for driver placement (some do, some don't), you won't even have the same crossover design for the left channel as you do for the right. The radically different response curves you get from such different path lengths, and reflection angles, call for different designs of the left and right crossovers.

Excellent point on driver placement. This is why I try to get the mid and tweeter as close to each other as possible, on the same plane facing the driver and with no interference from obstacles between the speakers and the listener. Sure, my A-pillars are a bit gaudy looking, but it makes tuning much simpler in my opinion. It is difficult to design a component set passive crossover for the many different driver mounting locations that people use in an install. Bottom line is, I do think a Madisound designed crossover will get you "in the ballpark". I'm guessing they're going to design based on the drivers T/S parameters in an open room like you mentioned and choose a slope, crossover point, and maybe add a notch filter to make the drivers work best with each other. Maybe a description of how the drivers will be mounted (on plane, off-axis from each other, etc...) will help them design better for a car, but for the most part EQ-ing or changing the phase of the drivers wiring will help fine tune the speakers once installed. We all know that a car is not a very good environment for good sound; small closed space, harsh materials for reflections, poor listener position for L/R balance, road noise..., but I believe that is the fun part of the challenge. I have a friend that I have used in examples before as a self proclaimed "audiophile", and he is always asking why I bother putting time and effort into a car audio installation when it will never be as good as a stereo installation at home. Number one is I sit in my car more than I sit at home, and number two is because of the challenge.

The last time I used LEAP was around 8 years ago. Back then it only had options for environment volume, nothing like path lengths or the like. That does not mean they have not improved it with new features in that time span. But, then again they are often pretty slow to make updates. I personally own an LMS, and an RTAjr, both of which seldom see any updates or new features. I have contacted the company on a few occasions and I think it is only 3 or 4 people in all.

[shawn k]

Shawn, to claim I don't read your posts, or don’t read all of them, implies to me you actually do read mine, which is not and has not been the case..

Awesome! I love how you don't dispute what I said about you. You simply turn around a falsely accuse me of do the same

Here is a point I made way back at the beginning...

Your response to it was…

but this is not true. You don't "need" to double your power just because you're running active! You can easily enough run four channels @ 25w each and have the same current damand from the charging system.

However, if you read the very next sentence I had posted, you find…

You could probably get by in my example here with only 25W x 2 on the tweeters, but that is still 75W a channel needed active, over only 50W a channel passive.

You did not read all of my post..

I absolutely read through every last word man. The thing is, I didn't feel it was necessary to argue on BOTH statements! I mean seriously...

In the first scentence you state: "50W x 2 can run a set of components with a passive crossover, but if you want to go active you would "need" 50W x 4, or twice the amplifier as you had before"

and in the 2nd scentence you state: "You could probably get by in my example here with only 25W x 2 on the tweeters, but that is still 75W a channel needed active, over only 50W a channel passive."

This wasn't a matter of not reading your post man. I mean come on, you completely contradicted your own statements!!! In the first statement you say "NEED" and the the very next statement you say "GET BY WITH"

I still disagree with BOTH statements, I just simply decided to tackle one @ a time!

Do you understand how hard it is to dispute something with someone when they themselves are disputing their own statements???

It is also kind of obvious you don’t even read any of my examples. The discussion we are having here is pretty hard to explain to anyone with just plain text. If you took the time to read an example I had posted, you would probably find a way to explain where my logic is wrong, instead of just claiming I am wrong simply because you are right.

Obvious eh? Maybe in your eyes man. I don't know what to tell you. Like I said before, time and time again I've tried to "explain" "the" logic (not my logic) behind my posts but it's just apparently never good enough for you.

Anyone can search the web for info relating to the differences between active and passive crossovers. There is a ton of information out there. However it seems 95% or so of this information is related directly to home audio use.

Although home and car audio share a lot of the same equipment, they have their differences. I have only 50W x 2 for my home stereo, and I can play it at very loud levels well below the max capability of my amplifier, and it remains clean.

In my vehicle I have 100W x 2 to my components which are only a few feet from my ears, yet I routinely play my system at full volume. Why do I do this? In my case, road noise is to blame. I need a lot more power to overcome it, so where my amplifier clips at becomes an important aspect of my setup..

I agree with just about everything in this statement and I completely understand why you need more power in your vehicle to overcome road noise. Finally something we can agree apon!

Running active in a home makes sense to me as one can get by with two smaller amplifiers, since systems are generally far enough from clipping, the gain can be increased on the two smaller amps, but stay well within the limits of the equipment.

I don't see the logic at all here. If anything, running "passive" makes "more" sense for home and "not" car!!! Think about it. With all of the variables inherant with passive xovers, wouldn't you want the enviornment with the "least" amount of variables??? Well this would be the home and NOT car! In home audio, you "know" how the drivers are going to be aligned on the baffle so a baffle step correction circuitry can be designed accordingly into the passive crossover. Now how many different potential baffles are there in a vehicle?? Dozens!!! (actually it could even be considered infinite!) For this reason alone, it makes it nearly impossible to design a passive crossover to accomodate all of these possibilities. The Focal Be xover is about as close as you're going to get for car audio.... and that xover is something like $1500!!!! Furthemore, Home audio typically (almost always) does not ulitize mulitple amplifiers and extensive processing(I'm referring to tunable/adjustable processors) that we (the car audio realm) have a lot of access to!

In a car audio system, where most setups are at or even above clipping, running an active setup with lower power amplifiers than passive (say 75Wx2+25Wx2 active vs 100Wx2 passive) won’t get you as much output prior to clipping.

I think that saying "most" car audio systems are at or above clipping is a grosly exaggerated statement! As for the last part of this statement, I disagree, but untill either one of us gets off our asses and does some actual measurements it's not worth arguing over.

There are tradeoffs to be made in any of these cases,

Passive lets you run asymmetrical crossover points. For example 4kHz on a tweeter, and 3.5kHz on a mid. Not all active crossovers have this option, as most are symmetrical. Sometimes you need this flexibility to fill in a hole or lower a spike in the frequency response. Passive lets you run a different setup on the right and left sides. In some cases you may need a totally different frequency point, or even a different slope of the response to bring the left to match the right. This could be from reflections due to the steering column, or if you are trying to get the best sound at the drivers seating position with little regard for the passenger seating position. I don’t know of any active crossovers which can do this. Not to say they don’t exist, just I have not come across one..

Sometimes yes, sometimes no! First and formost, I'm assuming by "assymmetrical" you mean each individual channel (left high, left low, right high, right low) I'm only trying to clarify this because "most" xovers out there that have the ability of a bandpass are usually infinitely adjustable. And so, your argument really only applies now to adjusting the left vs right phase correlations of all of the drivers! .....

The only way to run asymmetrical xover points utilizing passive xovers is to design and build them yourself. You will not find (well hardly ever anyway) any premade xovers that can/will do this. And even if you do go this route and build your own... you're now getting super suPER SUPER tweeky!!! IMO, far more tweeky than throwing in a processor and tackling it with an active system. I mean think about it... Much of the reason why you suggest to go with passive xovers (your words here) is because of their simplicity and apparently you don't have much confidence with people correctly tuning an active system. If this is truly your views (definitely what I've gathered from you anyway), then how can designing and building assymmetrical xovers actually be easier or more simplistic than using processors???

At this point you're trying to tackle phase issues and is not really on topic. That being said, why the hell would you even consider trying to rectify phase issues with a passive xover when there are so many nice processors out there that can:

provide time correction (phase response issues) Many processors can even do this for each individual channel, therefor each individual driver
provide "mulitple" xover points
provide "mulitple" slopes for the xover points
provide a variety of eq'ing

This to me is the ultimate way tweek/tune/& try different scenarios to come up with optimal results

Now granted, this does involve more of an investment from the enthusiast so it's "NOT" (yep I said it) for everyone! But.... There's absolutely NO way that someone (I don't care how good you are with Leap or any other program) can design/build and implement a passive xover to do all of these things that a good processor can do for even close to the same $$. (take a look at that Focal Be price tag again!! )

And lastly, back to the very beginning point of this whole thread. The guy starting the thread wants more efficiency. To me efficiency implies more output with less power (maybe that is the whole problem, I am “assuming” the wrong point). The poster could be referring to more output with less space for all I know.

I am 100% confident a passive system with 100W a channel will have more output than an active system with 75W a channel on the mid, and 25W a channel on the tweeter. Now if for some reason the installation would only need 10W on the tweeter, and 90W on the mid, then there is a good chance the active system will have the same or even slightly more output.

However you slice it, there are a lot of variables here, and stating that passive is not as efficient as active is not a blanket statement I am willing to make.

I am going to try and work on this.....

[Eric D]

Shawn,

I have read though everything you have posted down to the letter. I can never find any places where you state “I believe X is true because of Y reason”. All I ever find is “no, that is not true”, and “X is true”. So where is any of the reasoning?

******************************

So if I put “need”, in one sentence, and then “probably” in another you are going to analyze that in detail and establish that I contradict myself?

Do you really want me to start doing the same to you? If my credibility is based on grammar, sentence structure, and other facets of the English language, I might as well concede the whole argument to you then.

I am pretty sure that everyone else who read those sentences understood my point to be you need more total power for the active system than for the passive one.

Showing that I contradict myself still does nothing to prove you are right. You really don’t post anything to prove anything. You just tip toe around the subjects being discussed, and eventually state you are right simply because it is you.

You never try to explain any logic behind your claims. You only call someone out and say they are wrong (not always me, you do this for everyone), with no evidence, explanation, or anything solid to back it up.

******************************

My claim that most car audio systems are ran above clipping is actually based on a study I did in the summer of 2001, or 2002 (can’t remember which year). During that summer I purchased an SPL meter (Linear-X RTAjr). I offered to measure the SPL of customers vehicles at the shop I worked at for a small fee to help offset the cost of buying the meter. I also kept my oscilloscope at the shop, and measured for clipping prior to any other testing. I found 100% of installations to be at least 3db into clipping. Many were hovering around 6db, and some much higher. This was not just on the subwoofer amplifiers. All amplifiers used were measuring this way. If one whole summer’s worth of testing yield everyone running their systems clipped, I am willing to extrapolate that out to the whole audio industry. Especially more so now, as I have seen nothing but a decline in quality car audio from about 2000 on.

*****************************

By asymmetrical I am referring to the ability to have a different point for the tweeter and midrange. In other words, if you had a simple 2-way electronic crossover, you would have two knobs, one to adjust the frequency of the tweeter, and another for the midrange. Many crossovers on the market have only one knob, and you are stuck with the same frequency for each driver. Some crossovers use “chips” to set their crossover point and do have dedicated ones for each driver both high and low pass.

Imagine a typical PG amp with a built in crossover. Say a ZX350 for example. It has a 4th order crossover built in, but only one control. If you were to run the internal amp with a 100Hz highpass, you are stuck with a 100Hz lowpass on the AUX RCA outputs of the amp. A lot of standalone crossovers are like this.

Also, because the driver sits farther away from the passenger side speakers, does not mean this is only a phase related issue. Virtually no vehicles are symmetrical internally (the steering wheel is usually on one side or another), so you end up with totally different paths, reflections, other items which absorb sound, etc. Using a different crossover all together may be beneficial, and may also allow for a lot less EQing later on. This could range from as simple as cutting a few winds off an inductor to going up a value on a capacitor, to a total redesign of the whole circuit.

****************************

Are you willing to go out on a limb and actually make a response you are willing to stand behind with some sort of evidence?

If so, here you go...

I have a 75W x 2 amp and a 25W x 2 amp I am going to run actively on my midranges and tweeters. If I did not want to go active, and chose to use the included passive crossover what is a “ballpark” figure for the power needed to have the “same level of output”?

[shawn k]

ok.. so here we go again... having fun yet??

I'm having a blast!

Shawn,

I have read though everything you have posted down to the letter. I can never find any places where you state “I believe X is true because of Y reason”. All I ever find is “no, that is not true”, and “X is true”. So where is any of the reasoning?



******************************

So if I put “need”, in one sentence, and then “probably” in another you are going to analyze that in detail and establish that I contradict myself?

Do you really want me to start doing the same to you? If my credibility is based on grammar, sentence structure, and other facets of the English language, I might as well concede the whole argument to you then.

I am pretty sure that everyone else who read those sentences understood my point to be you need more total power for the active system than for the passive one.

Showing that I contradict myself still does nothing to prove you are right. You really don’t post anything to prove anything. You just tip toe around the subjects being discussed, and eventually state you are right simply because it is you.

You never try to explain any logic behind your claims. You only call someone out and say they are wrong (not always me, you do this for everyone), with no evidence, explanation, or anything solid to back it up.

This is exactly where you get too sensitive and completely ignore the facts. Look, I've tried to go the whole quoting route with you. I specifically remember quoting Professor Linkwitz (co-designer of the Linkwitz Reily xover network) (this was froma while ago) where he stated that passive xovers were poor performers and a waist of power. You quickly tried to discredit his statements and made some bullshit comment on how he's a German engineer and his statement doesn't deserver merrit. I mean come on man... this guy knows more about crossover design and implementation more than everyone on this phorum combined yet YOU try to discredit him!!!??? WTF? So I've learned I also cannot go this route with you because anyone I try and quote, you're just going to blow off or attempt to discredit them!

You say I "tip toe" around subjects and don't provide evidence. I disagree. But even "if" I did, I still feel this is better than throwing out a whole shitload of hypothetical scenarios with completey made up numbers and then trying to pass it off as if it's legitimate findings! Your smoke and mirrors don't fool me, nor anyone else who is truly educated on the subject.



******************************

My claim that most car audio systems are ran above clipping is actually based on a study I did in the summer of 2001, or 2002 (can’t remember which year). During that summer I purchased an SPL meter (Linear-X RTAjr). I offered to measure the SPL of customers vehicles at the shop I worked at for a small fee to help offset the cost of buying the meter. I also kept my oscilloscope at the shop, and measured for clipping prior to any other testing. I found 100% of installations to be at least 3db into clipping. Many were hovering around 6db, and some much higher. This was not just on the subwoofer amplifiers. All amplifiers used were measuring this way. If one whole summer’s worth of testing yield everyone running their systems clipped, I am willing to extrapolate that out to the whole audio industry. Especially more so now, as I have seen nothing but a decline in quality car audio from about 2000 on..

You can make any system clip man. From your statement above, this would mean that virtually every "100%" system that you metered for that summer was played @ full volume (into clipping) all of the time!!!??? WTF again??? Even "if" this were true, it only further reinforces the benefits of running an active system. Think abou it... if these systems are clipping constantly, it is almost inevitable that the drivers (voice coils) are heating up... which in turn, means the impedance is going to change as well as the crossover points. In an active system, the impedance of the driver can be anywhere and everywhere, yet the xover point will be the same no matter what!

*****************************

By asymmetrical I am referring to the ability to have a different point for the tweeter and midrange. In other words, if you had a simple 2-way electronic crossover, you would have two knobs, one to adjust the frequency of the tweeter, and another for the midrange. Many crossovers on the market have only one knob, and you are stuck with the same frequency for each driver. Some crossovers use “chips” to set their crossover point and do have dedicated ones for each driver both high and low pass.Imagine a typical PG amp with a built in crossover. Say a ZX350 for example. It has a 4th order crossover built in, but only one control. If you were to run the internal amp with a 100Hz highpass, you are stuck with a 100Hz lowpass on the AUX RCA outputs of the amp. A lot of standalone crossovers are like this

I agree to a point. Sure, there are a lot of "on-board" xovers in amplifiers that are simple in design. But most of these are "NOT" designed to run 3way systems. Those xovers and processory that "ARE" inteded for 3way systems usually comprise of infinitely adjustable points..... which is something you will "NEVER" get with a passive.

Also, because the driver sits farther away from the passenger side speakers, does not mean this is only a phase related issue.

WTF again? YES IT IS MAN! Any frequencies not arriving to the listener @ the same time IS a phase shift!!! (hence the need/desire for time delay processing) No matter how you spin it man...... that's what it is... a phase shift!!!!!

Virtually no vehicles are symmetrical internally (the steering wheel is usually on one side or another), so you end up with totally different paths, reflections, other items which absorb sound, etc.

Yep, still a phase shift!!!

Using a different crossover all together may be beneficial, and may also allow for a lot less EQing later on. This could range from as simple as cutting a few winds off an inductor to going up a value on a capacitor, to a total redesign of the whole circuit.

Yep, this is CERTAINLY a simple, quick, easy fix for the diy guy eh???

****************************

Are you willing to go out on a limb and actually make a response you are willing to stand behind with some sort of evidence?

If so, here you go...

I have a 75W x 2 amp and a 25W x 2 amp I am going to run actively on my midranges and tweeters. If I did not want to go active, and chose to use the included passive crossover what is a “ballpark” figure for the power needed to have the “same level of output”?

I'm just curious if I do.... will you actually believe the findings???

[Eric D]

I have no idea what you are talking about as far as not agreeing with someone because they are German. I have not even used the word German until just now. For almost every claim Linkwitz makes, you can find another authority in audio who will claim otherwise. That tends to be the running theme amongst the audio giants, they agree on very little. And for the record I am not saying I agree or disagree with Linkwitz, so don’t follow another of your assumptions.

*****

I measured people’s systems at the level they listen to them at (most of which was full volume). With music signals, the signals would clip at the limits of the amplifier’s outputs.

Instead of just discrediting a test I performed, why not mention one you did?

*****

Wow, I used an amplifier onboard crossover in an obviously failed attempt to explain to you the differences between a symmetrical and asymmetrical crossover. This has been like the third attempt I have made, and you still don’t know the difference. I never said anyone is forced to use the onboard crossover for an active system (although they have every right to if they wish)

*****

You actually have now claimed that the driver and passenger side speakers will have the exact same frequency response, and all that is different is a phase shift? So in other words the car itself has no affect on the response? This does not make any sense to me. There is a lot more going on than just a simple phase shift.

*****

It really does not matter if I believe your findings or not. All that matters is if you make some wild claim like it takes 200W a channel passive to equal 75W a channel active, something which I doubt anyone would believe.

[Eric D]

O, one more point I almost forgot. What is with you contradicting yourself?

You claim active crossovers are more suited to car audio than home. So you really think a car is an ideal environment to actually notice any improvement (power wise, SQ wise, you name it) made from the use of an active crossover?

And to go back to the mention of Linkwitz, you do realize the guy designs award wining HOME speakers with active crossovers, and has little to nothing to do with car audio, right? He would probably laugh if anyone started a discussion with him about “quality car audio”, and make the claim “it does not exist”. Of the handful of big name audio guys I have had the pleasure of meeting, or at the least listening to a lecture of, none of them have any respect for car audio at all.

[Eric D]

Here, to prove I am actually reading everything you post...

This is exactly where you get too sensitive and completely ignore the facts.

What facts? You never post anything which can be quantified, or even researched. Just “because Shawn said so”.

But even "if" I did, I still feel this is better than throwing out a whole shitload of hypothetical scenarios with completey made up numbers and then trying to pass it off as if it's legitimate findings!

Who said I pass examples off as legitimate findings? I am just putting up an example. If you understood the subject material, you would go right to the point in my example where I am wrong, explain why I am wrong, and then I would have no choice but to accept being wrong. Just stating I am wrong does nothing for me as far as understanding where I went wrong, nor does it do anything for anyone taking the time to read this thread.

You can make any system clip man

Huh? My current system does not clip. My last system did not clip, nor did the one before it. Unless I choose to listen to square waves, you won’t see any clipping in any setup of mine.

I agree to a point. Sure, there are a lot of "on-board" xovers in amplifiers that are simple in design. But most of these are "NOT" designed to run 3way systems.

Not true. The ZX450 has a built in three way crossover, as does the Ti475, and Ti500.2 models. These are just a few examples. Sure, you use the word “most”, but if an amp includes a three way crossover, what exactly do you think it is designed for other than a three way system?

Any frequencies not arriving to the listener @ the same time IS a phase shift!!!

True, and I never said it was not. I said a phase shift is not the only thing going on.

Yep, still a phase shift!!!

Yes, and some other things you don’t believe matter.

Yep, this is CERTAINLY a simple, quick, easy fix for the diy guy eh???

Who ever said it was?

[shawn k]

I have no idea what you are talking about as far as not agreeing with someone because they are German. I have not even used the word German until just now. For almost every claim Linkwitz makes, you can find another authority in audio who will claim otherwise. That tends to be the running theme amongst the audio giants, they agree on very little. And for the record I am not saying I agree or disagree with Linkwitz, so don’t follow another of your assumptions..

WTF!!!


No idea what I'm talking about??? Never even used the word German eh??? I "have" to follow my assumption when you make a comment like this!!!


shawn k wrote:
Just something I found earlier. I wasn't originally going to post it but what the heck right?

I'm sure most of us have heard of the different passive xover designs: Butterworth and Linkwitz Riley are probably the most used/common. Well I found a Quote from Mr Linkwitz himself:

Crossover design expert Siegfried Linkwitz said of passive crossovers that "the only excuse for passive crossovers is their low cost. Their behavior changes with the signal level dependent dynamics of the drivers. They block the power amplifier from taking maximum control over the voice coil motion. They are a waste of time, if accuracy of reproduction is the goal."



Eric, YOUR WORDS!
Great quote by the way. However, I don't know if it really adds or detracts from your points. With all due respect to Mr. Linkwitz, he is after all German, and the Germans are known around the world as over engineering perfectionists, who are quite often as far from practical as you can get (Ever hear of the "Dora" gun?)

Let me quote Gary Church chief acoustic engineer for the Rockford Fosgate and Halfler divisions of Rockford Corporation at the point when Rockford purchased MB Quart and we started analyzing their products...

"The effort put into these German speakers is like measuring a sponge with a dial caliper"

[shawn k]

The above was copied from this thread: http://phoenixphorum.com/viewtopic.php? ... z&start=25

WTF man!!!!!!

[Eric D]

And how exactly does my post about Linkwitz discredit him?

By the way, I kind of figured by not using German, I have not used it in this thread. Sure outside of this thread I have used the word German before, especially so since I do a lot of research on German tanks from WWII.

So, by digging up an unrelated post I made about a home audio crossover designer, that proves I am wrong, correct?