Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Ivan Beaver" data-source="post: 50279" data-attributes="member: 30">Re: 3x12+2&quot;wNL8&#039;s&amp;4Xti4000&#039;sIf you have a &quot;problem&quot; with caps and coils-you better not hook up a loudspeaker to an amp.&nbsp; All loudspeaker are mostly inductive (coils) and also have a capacitive component.&nbsp; Along with the resistive element of the wire itself in the voice COIL.&nbsp; It is called that for a reason.Historically passive crossovers have gotten a bad rap.&nbsp; Kinda a lot like Peavey equipment.&nbsp; It is not so much the gear itself-but how it is used that makes the difference.In &quot;days of old&quot; large coils and decent value high voltage capacitors were very hard to come by (caps more than the coils).&nbsp; So people used what was available.&nbsp; And the typical way of &quot;designing&quot; a crossover was to go cheap in the design-and therefore the result was not as good as it could have been.It is not so much that passive crossover &quot;chew up power&quot;, but you can get more SPL out of a box by using more (2 or 3 typically) smaller amplifiers-if the total &quot;wattage&quot; is the same.For example if you have a 1500 watt amp into a passive crossover, a 1000 watt and a 500 watt may be a little bit louder.HOWEVER if you use a large amp on the passive (which you can-because the passive crossover is &quot;dividing&quot; the power-along with the freq) so not all the 1500 watts is going to a single driver.So with the larger amp-the same (1000 watts) would be going to the driver.You ALSO have to forget the whole &quot;wattage&quot; thing.&nbsp; It all needs to be divided into VOLTAGE and impedance.&nbsp; Watts is a VERY loose term-that people get to hung up on.&nbsp; Thinking in terms of voltage per device is a lot better way of looking at things.This difference is also not huge.&nbsp; But passive crossovers have gotten a bad rap-because typically only the cheaper cabinets have used them-and the sound that comes from those cabinets is not always optimal.Kinda like the whole &quot;line array vs point source thing&quot;.&nbsp; First of all there are VERY few boxes that should be called &quot;point sources&quot;.&nbsp; Most of the so called &quot;point sources&quot; ARE NOT-they are simply speakers stuck in a box-and since they are not &quot;line arrays&quot; they get the &quot;other&quot; name.In years past (before prediction software and DSP&#039;s and measurement platforms (except TEF and very few others) the way to get louder was to simple pile up more boxes.&nbsp; This resulted in lots of interference and the sound quality suffered.Along comes the line array-at about the same time as easily accessable measurement software-the internet and the huge sharing of knowlege-that we all have benifited from.So line array designers actually started DESIGNING the cabnets so as to minimize the interactions-not only in the individual cabinet-but also in multiple cabinets (not just throwing drivers into cabinets). So the result is better real engineering.So the old &quot;point source&quot; boxes (with all kinds of interaction-not only within the box-but also greatly between boxes) are compared to the new &quot;line arrays&quot;, which have better engineering.But when you start to compare a cabinet that is close to a real point source (due to modern design/engineering)-to the interaction of the line array-things start to sound different.So you just have to be careful when comparing designs of old vs new designs.Ad this carries on to other industries-such as car racing.&nbsp; In years past who thought the winner would be driving a diesal engine?&nbsp; Don&#039;t tell that to some of the road track winners. Diesals are only good for pulling heavy loads-thats why they are used in trucks------------Not exaclty.Technology has changed a lot of things.Old wives tales are not always relivant to todays situations.Getting off the soap box now----------------</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Ivan Beaver, post: 50279, member: 30"] Re: 3x12+2"wNL8's&4Xti4000's If you have a "problem" with caps and coils-you better not hook up a loudspeaker to an amp. All loudspeaker are mostly inductive (coils) and also have a capacitive component. Along with the resistive element of the wire itself in the voice COIL. It is called that for a reason. Historically passive crossovers have gotten a bad rap. Kinda a lot like Peavey equipment. It is not so much the gear itself-but how it is used that makes the difference. In "days of old" large coils and decent value high voltage capacitors were very hard to come by (caps more than the coils). So people used what was available. And the typical way of "designing" a crossover was to go cheap in the design-and therefore the result was not as good as it could have been. It is not so much that passive crossover "chew up power", but you can get more SPL out of a box by using more (2 or 3 typically) smaller amplifiers-if the total "wattage" is the same. For example if you have a 1500 watt amp into a passive crossover, a 1000 watt and a 500 watt may be a little bit louder. HOWEVER if you use a large amp on the passive (which you can-because the passive crossover is "dividing" the power-along with the freq) so not all the 1500 watts is going to a single driver. So with the larger amp-the same (1000 watts) would be going to the driver. You ALSO have to forget the whole "wattage" thing. It all needs to be divided into VOLTAGE and impedance. Watts is a VERY loose term-that people get to hung up on. Thinking in terms of voltage per device is a lot better way of looking at things. This difference is also not huge. But passive crossovers have gotten a bad rap-because typically only the cheaper cabinets have used them-and the sound that comes from those cabinets is not always optimal. Kinda like the whole "line array vs point source thing". First of all there are VERY few boxes that should be called "point sources". Most of the so called "point sources" ARE NOT-they are simply speakers stuck in a box-and since they are not "line arrays" they get the "other" name. In years past (before prediction software and DSP's and measurement platforms (except TEF and very few others) the way to get louder was to simple pile up more boxes. This resulted in lots of interference and the sound quality suffered. Along comes the line array-at about the same time as easily accessable measurement software-the internet and the huge sharing of knowlege-that we all have benifited from. So line array designers actually started DESIGNING the cabnets so as to minimize the interactions-not only in the individual cabinet-but also in multiple cabinets (not just throwing drivers into cabinets). So the result is better real engineering. So the old "point source" boxes (with all kinds of interaction-not only within the box-but also greatly between boxes) are compared to the new "line arrays", which have better engineering. But when you start to compare a cabinet that is close to a real point source (due to modern design/engineering)-to the interaction of the line array-things start to sound different. So you just have to be careful when comparing designs of old vs new designs. Ad this carries on to other industries-such as car racing. In years past who thought the winner would be driving a diesal engine? Don't tell that to some of the road track winners. Diesals are only good for pulling heavy loads-thats why they are used in trucks------------Not exaclty. Technology has changed a lot of things. Old wives tales are not always relivant to todays situations. Getting off the soap box now---------------- [/QUOTE]

Verification