Powered monitors without AD conversion

[AudioStudies]

How is an analog crossover "active"?

check out Marchand

 

[Chrispy]

Simple, it's before the amps but not done via DSP. Instead it's a mix of active (i.e. done using op-amps) and passive filters done at line level.

So just not an active crossover?

 

[Chrispy]

check out Marchand

I've checked them out before, they're passive, not active.

 

[Sir Sanders Zingmore]

How is an analog crossover "active"?

Already answered by a couple of people. My understanding/definition is that any crossover that is implemented before the amplifiers is “active”. I’m certain this was done for years before the advent of digital active crossovers.

 

[stevenswall]

Does anyone else worry about this, or do I just worry too much?

I don't worry about this since the DACs in good speakers are transparent. Don't buy them to noticeably improve the sound as they make the least sifferencr/no difference in the most cases.

 

[Chrispy]

Already answered by a couple of people. My understanding/definition is that any crossover that is implemented before the amplifiers is “active”. I’m certain this was done for years before the advent of digital active crossovers.

I'm not that old at 65 I guess. If the crossover is of a passive construction vs active (digital), that's what defines it.

ps as speakers use analog signals, the amplification is always analog in some sense even with some of the so-called "digital" speakers....

 

[Sir Sanders Zingmore]

I'm not that old at 65 I guess. If the crossover is of a passive construction vs active (digital), that's what defines it.

I’m not overly keen to debate semantics. The OP is asking about analog crossovers that do their job before the amplifiers. That’s what I responded to

 

[dfuller]

So just not an active crossover?

No, it's still active as it's before the amplifiers and uses active filters. It's just not DSP. Active speakers have existed for decades, long before DSP was powerful enough to work as a crossover acceptably.

 

[AudioStudies]

I've checked them out before, they're passive, not active.

I think you are mistaken. Perhaps Marchand makes some passive crossover, but for years (and likely still) they made analog electronic crossovers that split the frequencies without any digital processing.

 

[Chrispy]

I think you are mistaken. Perhaps Marchand makes some passive crossover, but for years (and likely still) they made analog electronic crossovers that split the frequencies without any digital processing.

Yes, because they are of a passive design, not digital. They're famous as an alternative to a digital/active crossover.....

 

[dfuller]

Yes, because they are of a passive design, not digital. They're famous as an alternative to a digital/active crossover.....

Active =/= DSP based.

 

[AudioStudies]

An active crossover splits the frequencies prior to amplification of the drivers, and thus differs from a passive crossover network that an amplifier must drive through before the signal reaches the driver. I am pretty sure that active analog crossovers have been around long before digital signal processing was invented. Active does not necessarily mean digital.

 

[preload]

Yes and no. If you care about latency, DSP is never a good solution because you inevitably add 5+ms of latency between AD-DSP-DA. Otherwise, little concern to speak of.

It's a good thing that you bring up latency. Nowadays, youth are not accustomed to waiting for anything, so 5ms of latency is likely to be a dealbreaker for anyone born after a certain year.

 

[Chrispy]

An active crossover splits the frequencies prior to amplification of the drivers, and thus differs from a passive crossover network that an amplifier must drive through before the signal reaches the driver. I am pretty sure that active analog crossovers have been around long before digital signal processing was invented. Active does not necessarily mean digital.

My understanding is that is simply a passive crossover. Maybe I've got the wrong definition of "active" but as I've seen much more of that side than your definition.....meh.

 

[AudioStudies]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audio...guished from,to a separate loudspeaker driver.

The Wiki link on crossover can hopefully make it clear that a crossover does not have to be digital to be active. Certainly an active crossover can be digital, but not all analog crossovers are passive, some (like many of the Marchand products) are active.

 

[dfuller]

I am pretty sure that active analog crossovers have been around long before digital signal processing was invented.

Far as I can tell, the first analog active crossover was 1967. No way was computing advanced enough to do high fidelity audio DSP of any sort.

It's a good thing that you bring up latency. Nowadays, youth are not accustomed to waiting for anything, so 5ms of latency is likely to be a dealbreaker for anyone born after a certain year.

I mean, if you're in a situation where you need the lowest possible latency it isn't great. Doing overdubs where the artist is in the room with you for example is not a situation I'd want any additional latency. Not a problem in home audio land (usually, HT it can be), but in pro audio land it is something people care about.

 

[Chrispy]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audio_crossover#:~:text=Active crossovers are distinguished from,to a separate loudspeaker driver.

The Wiki link on crossover can hopefully make it clear that a crossover does not have to be digital to be active. Certainly an active crossover can be digital, but not all analog crossovers are passive, some (like many of the Marchand products) are active.

Haven't looked yet (let alone veracity of a wiki) but how does it make any passive crossover not "active" in that sense? Simply lack of direct amplification post-crossover? That's "active"? Seems another form of passive crossover to me.....

 

[AudioStudies]

Far as I can tell, the first analog active crossover was 1967. No way was computing advanced enough to do high fidelity audio DSP of any sort.

I mean, if you're in a situation where you need the lowest possible latency it isn't great. Doing overdubs where the artist is in the room with you for example is not a situation I'd want any additional latency. Not a problem in home audio land (usually, HT it can be), but in pro audio land it is something people care about.

For the most part, I am in Home Audio land, so perhaps I shouldn't worry. My HT is done in stereo without surrounds or center (for the moment).

 

[AudioStudies]

Haven't looked yet (let alone veracity of a wiki) but how does it make any passive crossover not "active" in that sense? Simply lack of direct amplification post-crossover? That's "active"? Seems another form of passive crossover to me.....

Just put it to rest. I know what an active crossover is, and I have told you. I have even explained the difference between an active and passive crossover. If you don't like Wiki, please do your own research. Like @dfuller stated, the first analog active crossover was in 1967, long before DSP existed. You are free not to believe me, but I can't explain it any better than I have, so please just drop it.

 

[Chrispy]

Just put it to rest. I know what an active crossover is, and I have told you. I have even explained the difference between an active and passive crossover. If you don't like Wiki, please do your own research. Like @dfuller stated, the first analog active crossover was in 1967, long before DSP existed. You are free not to believe me, but I can't explain it any better than I have, so please just drop it.

Whatever. It's still confusing using old terminology let alone advantages to a digital crossover. Good luck with your DAC purity.