electronic v. passive crossover, opinons?

Thanks for asking.  I have a nephew who works for DEi so I'm working a deal on an Orion DEQ30.  I love Audio Control, but sometimes you have to go for the best price!  Support the12volt.com

Nope, I agree with Dyohn, funny thing....... I'm just about as far West as anyone in North America though so I don't get to respond until you guys have already sorted things out.Top Secret, I can tell you but then my wife will kill me.

I agree wholeheartedly with DYohn. The voice of the set comes from the passives. The ability to provide off axis responce comes from the passive. The smoothing of an otherwise rough dynamic impedance curve comes from the passive (this leads to a smoother more natural presentation). None of these things are possible with an active crossover, without a lot of EQ work... and even still, some of it is not possible at all following that route. I always reccomend passives.

ummm... without stepping on anyones toes, and please believe this is just my opinion, in the digital domain, with semi-parametric equalization (which is what your deck has, not TRUE parametric equalization) you COULD get better response with separates that are bi-amped and crossed over actively. Most likely, (and here, I am talking out of my a$$ - not being completely familiar with the Quart lines puts me at a bit of a disadvantage) the crossovers in your Quart system do nothing more than basic crossover functions. I would almost be willing to bet there is nothing in the crossover boxes that allow or provide for padding, damping, impedance control, or any of the other thing the guys are referring to. True, the crossover does all of those things, but unless it is DESIGNED FOR THE SPACE TO BE PLAYED IN and THE SPACING OF THE DRIVERS, there is little, if any possibility that the crossovers have those functions built in. Quart simply CAN'T build a crossover for every car on the road; they could recommend a spacing though... Do they? Everybody that has responded has raised some good (and perfectly accurate) points. Steven said "unless you have the ability to measure the driver in-car" and I agree with that COMPLETELY! Without a good RTA for measuring, you CAN end up with worse response than the passives might allow. DYohn said that "passives add subtle qualities to the sound". This also is true. This is based completely on the quality and construction of the components used in the crossover. The difficulty with most of the mass market separate systems of today is that the manufacturer will likely save money by building one crossover, but packaging it with two or three different woofers. (Same tweeter, to be sure) The problem with this is that a larger driver i.e. a 6.5 inch driver will "beam" sooner than a 4 inch driver (just below 2kHz, vs just above 3.5kHz). That's just physics, and NO AMOUNT of equalization will fix it... You need an intermediary driver to fill in the "hole". This is why you need to make certain that the spacing of your drivers is within one half the diameter of the largest driver in the array. This will minimize the drop in sound power at the crossover slope. This will keep the sound power in your environment as smooth as possible. (this gives the best imaging) And sandt38 said "the ability to provide off axis responce comes from the passive" Also true, but this rule only applies if you follow the rule I stated above. It is true, but this applies primarily to more on-axis response, and in the car you are nowhere NEAR on-axis. Have you ever seen a speaker cabinet with a slanted baffle? This is to place all of the drivers' voice coils on a common vertical line in space, but now the manufacturer must "align" the drivers electrically, (to steer the sound downward, so you don't have to be sitting 8 feet in the air...) so the sound fronts all arrive coincidentally at your ear, and they do this with passive crossovers. There are advanced acoustic rules why this happens, but I am still trying to understand those a little better before I go on. Also, there are MANY more things to do with this subject, but I do not have the space to do it here. I think I got a little off my point... my point is, if you have the tools to do it correctly, then use the active crossovers in your deck, after all you paid for 'em. There are many benefits to active crossovers and equalization, such as driver output matching, amplifier efficiency, no power lost in passive devices, improved transient response, and other things. If you do not have the tools necessary, you might be better with sticking with the passive crossovers provided by the manufacturer, but be aware, you may need to do some experimenting with placement to find your optimal "heads-up" listening position. In NO case is it a good idea to put your tweeters on the "A" pillars, or more than about 5 to 8 inches from your midbass. Again, sorry guys, and please belive I hold your opinions very high, but I needed to say these things. I am in no way saying any of you are wrong.It all reminds me of something that Molière once said to Guy de Maupassant at a café in Vienna: "That's nice. You should write it down."

holy sh*te! 1/18 octave and 72dB!?!? well smack my ass and call me sally! I thought I had some sweet stuff at up to 10 bands per output (6 of em) 18 global bands, and 48dB per octave... damn, son when you getting to Bakersfield to share some of that stuff? I have some pretty good testing gear as well, and I am aware that not everybody does. i am also of the opinion that that Eclipse deck, as nice as it is, should not be sold to just anybody. Those of you that have one, please take no offense, but it is far too powerful a deck with too many functions for everybody to use, please refer to stevens and my previous posts...It all reminds me of something that Molière once said to Guy de Maupassant at a café in Vienna: "That's nice. You should write it down."