[bob wald]

i just bought a pair. $70.
free shipping too.
figure ya only live once. might as well go high end.

[bob wald]

oops..$85 i meant..polk db690.
i choose them over kicker ks69.

[arthur[_5_]]

I went to a Circuit City this year to listen to some speakers. The
one's I wanted to hear were not working or hooked up or some dumb
excuse. Bye bye CC

Buying speakers unheard is a shade dumber than dumb.
Years ago a similar sound system could all be made to sound very much
alike if one played with the tone controls.

arthur


On Sat, 8 Sep 2007 15:41:47 -0500, (bob wald)
wrote:

oops..$85 i meant..polk db690.
i choose them over kicker ks69.

[bob wald]

arthur, i never heard these before but i'll chance buying from 1 of the
best speaker makers on earth.
how bad can they sound?
n ill eq them to my liking.lol
theyre marked down to $85 from $140. i think.
i'd put polk ahead of jl n others.
you never did say if you bought them.or why not.

[MOSFET]

Yah, Polk, wow. You're into the really super-duper high-end esoteric stuff
now, Bob.

Guess you'll need some tube amps and Cardas cable to go with those
"high-end" 6X9's.

6X9's?!?!?!

Well, I guess ANYTHING'S better than JVC.

MOSFET




"bob wald" wrote in message
...
oops..$85 i meant..polk db690.
i choose them over kicker ks69.

[bob wald]

mosfit polks better than anything you got.lol
bet you got jl n memphis.lol

[arthur[_5_]]

My point buddy is that sound is very much a subjective thing. All the
good brands are good. I do not buy sneakers untested or speakers
unheard. As to the rest of the story, it is not really worth the
bandwith since the leasons to be learned are not predicated on the end
of the story.

cheers
arthur



On Sat, 8 Sep 2007 18:28:16 -0500, (bob wald)
wrote:

arthur, i never heard these before but i'll chance buying from 1 of the
best speaker makers on earth.
how bad can they sound?
n ill eq them to my liking.lol
theyre marked down to $85 from $140. i think.
i'd put polk ahead of jl n others.
you never did say if you bought them.or why not.

[arthur[_5_]]

the point is comparing what you hear. No technical specifications can
describe how a speaker will sound ... once we get past the expected
quality issue.

Further, what an 18 year old hears and a 48 year old hears are totally
dissimilar. I assume we are not speaking of air volume movers.

Coloration is not a specification. The marketing types love their
hype.

arthur


On Sun, 09 Sep 2007 10:19:37 -0700, John Durbin
wrote:

Two points:

1) Listening to a 6x9 in a store doesn't tell you crap about what it
will sound like in your car

2) $85 isn't a huge investment, and car audio as a hobby does tend to
require some experimentation

As much as it pains me to agree with bob, I think his position here is
defendable.

JD

[MOSFET]

As much as it pains me to agree with bob, I think his position here is
defendable.

You obviously don't know Bob, our resident troll, very well yet.

MOSFET

[MOSFET]

Yes, Bob, I do have JL for my midbass. Big secret there. But I use
Infinity tweets and bi-amp my front stage. Do you know what "bi-amping"
means, Bob? Didn't think so.

How about "seperates"? Know what those are? Or are 6X9's about as
"high-end" as you get?

I'm sorry, Bob, I just couldn't help myself when you refered to your 6x9's
as "high-end". I usually just ignore your posts.

MOSFET

"bob wald" wrote in message
...
mosfit polks better than anything you got.lol
bet you got jl n memphis.lol

[bob wald]

mosfet, i guess you think 6x9s are useless.lol
i think most speakers can be used well. depends on the user.
first basic rule of installing..limit all connections as much as
possible. connections increase noise in your music. thats all i'm
teaching you..lol

[arthur[_5_]]

are you attempting to teach us the product of products and the
division of divisors laws?



On Sun, 9 Sep 2007 21:09:09 -0500, (bob wald)
wrote:
mosfet, i guess you think 6x9s are useless.lol
i think most speakers can be used well. depends on the user.
first basic rule of installing..limit all connections as much as
possible. connections increase noise in your music. thats all i'm
teaching you..lol

[arthur[_5_]]

aw, that's not fair asking hard questions.


On Sun, 9 Sep 2007 16:22:13 -0700, "MOSFET"
wrote:
Infinity tweets and bi-amp my front stage. Do you know what "bi-amping"
means, Bob? Didn't think so.

How about "seperates"? Know what those are? Or are 6X9's about as
"high-end" as you get?

[bob wald]

6x9s high end???? i thought it was brands that were high end not
sizes...lol
mosfit pplease dont waste no more of my time. ty

[bob wald]

heres another piece of advice for you. theres NEVER a need for over 4
amps in Any system.....
i usually use just 2. less connectionsss.

[MOSFET]

WRONG!

If you bi-amp your front stage (as I do, a vintage Fosgate for the mids and
a Phoenix Gold for the tweets) you will get much better dynamics and less
distortion. Think about it Bob, if you have one amp and it starts to
distort, this distortion will be heard through ALL FOUR seperates. If my
Fosgate begins to distort (though it's unlikely as it is rated at 112.5 X 2
RMS, 550 watts peak), it will NOT effect my tweeters. Get it?

ALSO, this allows me to use ONLY active X-overs instead of passive X-overs
that ALLWAYS introduce some distortion of their own, no matter how good the
pasive components are (of course active X-overs do too, but not to the same
degree).

I'm sure all of this is over your head as your advice, being the great sage
that you are, was to "limit all connections as much as possible.
connections increase noise in your music". Whoa, heavy Bob.

BTW, I use 4 amps in my system (two for the front stage, one for rear-fill
and one for the subs).

MOSFET

"bob wald" wrote in message
...
heres another piece of advice for you. theres NEVER a need for over 4
amps in Any system.....
i usually use just 2. less connectionsss.

[bob wald]

rf..lol....thats all i need to know.
i'd never use rf!!!!!!EVER.....
but i'd rate them a 8.5 outa 10.
they are alil better than i use to think they were....

[Mariachi]

On Sep 10, 12:33 pm, "MOSFET" wrote:
WRONG!

If you bi-amp your front stage (as I do, a vintage Fosgate for the mids and
a Phoenix Gold for the tweets) you will get much better dynamics and less
distortion. Think about it Bob, if you have one amp and it starts to
distort, this distortion will be heard through ALL FOUR seperates. If my
Fosgate begins to distort (though it's unlikely as it is rated at 112.5 X 2
RMS, 550 watts peak), it will NOT effect my tweeters. Get it?

ALSO, this allows me to use ONLY active X-overs instead of passive X-overs
that ALLWAYS introduce some distortion of their own, no matter how good the
pasive components are (of course active X-overs do too, but not to the same
degree).

I'm sure all of this is over your head as your advice, being the great sage
that you are, was to "limit all connections as much as possible.
connections increase noise in your music". Whoa, heavy Bob.

BTW, I use 4 amps in my system (two for the front stage, one for rear-fill
and one for the subs).

MOSFET

"bob wald" wrote in message

...

heres another piece of advice for you. theres NEVER a need for over 4
amps in Any system.....
i usually use just 2. less connectionsss.

I thought I heard someone dissing polk audio. Polk audio is a good
brand, better than most anyways.

Using two amps separately for mids and highs is not a bad idea (for
components)... Although I don't agree of the notion that 'if one amp
distorts the other one won't' will make anything sound better... if
anything distorts (midrange bass highs) it usually sounds horrible
overall anyways. Plus how loud do you listen to your music anyways...
above 110 decibels?

And 6x9's are crap for quality... There are some decent 6x9's out
there, but if you want high-end quality you will most likely have to
go with 6.5s. Round speakers do generally sound better because of
various reasons.

[bob wald]

yes i'm aware of 6.5 speakers can sound better that 6x9s.not in all
cases.
but you give up max watts tho.
n i'll bet any of you to tell me if a system is using 6x9s verses 6 1/2
in the system from outside the car.

[bob wald]

oh another thing you'll lose around 2watts per connection...1watt if you
use the best gear on the planet.
it varies thou. as how much power you'll lose.

[Christopher \Torroid\ Ott]

"bob wald" wrote in message
...
oh another thing you'll lose around 2watts per connection...1watt if you
use the best gear on the planet.
it varies thou. as how much power you'll lose.

Are you talking about speaker connectors? Two watts per connection? You need
to move the decimal point to the left one or two places...

Chris

[bob wald]

ok , just about every connection.

[Christopher \Torroid\ Ott]

"bob wald" wrote in message
...
ok , just about every connection.

Huh?

[MOSFET]

I didn't mean to diss Polk. They DO make quality products. It was the 6x9
size I was dissing and the inherent problems (often a topic of conversation
in this group) associated with 6X9's (remember, the 6x9 size was created by
car makers to accomodate space, NOT audio engineers focussed on what sounds
best). It was Bob calling 6x9's "high-end" and my response that you may be
mistaking for me dissing Polk, which of course makes some great speakers.

MOSFET

"Mariachi" wrote in message
oups.com...
On Sep 10, 12:33 pm, "MOSFET" wrote:
WRONG!

If you bi-amp your front stage (as I do, a vintage Fosgate for the mids
and
a Phoenix Gold for the tweets) you will get much better dynamics and
less
distortion. Think about it Bob, if you have one amp and it starts to
distort, this distortion will be heard through ALL FOUR seperates. If
my
Fosgate begins to distort (though it's unlikely as it is rated at 112.5
X 2
RMS, 550 watts peak), it will NOT effect my tweeters. Get it?

ALSO, this allows me to use ONLY active X-overs instead of passive
X-overs
that ALLWAYS introduce some distortion of their own, no matter how good
the
pasive components are (of course active X-overs do too, but not to the
same
degree).

I'm sure all of this is over your head as your advice, being the great
sage
that you are, was to "limit all connections as much as possible.
connections increase noise in your music". Whoa, heavy Bob.

BTW, I use 4 amps in my system (two for the front stage, one for
rear-fill
and one for the subs).

MOSFET

"bob wald" wrote in message

...

heres another piece of advice for you. theres NEVER a need for over 4
amps in Any system.....
i usually use just 2. less connectionsss.

I thought I heard someone dissing polk audio. Polk audio is a good
brand, better than most anyways.

Using two amps separately for mids and highs is not a bad idea (for
components)... Although I don't agree of the notion that 'if one amp
distorts the other one won't' will make anything sound better... if
anything distorts (midrange bass highs) it usually sounds horrible
overall anyways. Plus how loud do you listen to your music anyways...
above 110 decibels?

And 6x9's are crap for quality... There are some decent 6x9's out
there, but if you want high-end quality you will most likely have to
go with 6.5s. Round speakers do generally sound better because of
various reasons.

[bob wald]

i never called 6x9s high end...polk is a high end company,

[arthur[_5_]]

Who is in charge of the buyer;s money and happiness?
Your marketing department?

Get your hearing tested if you are no longer a kid and then report
back here.

arthur



On Sun, 09 Sep 2007 20:11:55 -0700, John Durbin
wrote:

arthur,

Most of what you post here seems ignorant at best... do you actually
know anything about audio in general or car audio in particular?

Sound boards with very few exceptions do NOT sound like cars. Almost
without exception, people pick the speaker that sounded loudest to them
in the store. Once you put that same speaker in a car, you are no longer
comparing one speaker to another so efficiency stops being the dominant
factor. Furthermore, the acoustic differences of the car interior vs.
the sound board are far more drastic than the probable differences
between speaker A and speaker B in the store. Hence my statement that
putting them in the car to see how they sound for the nominal cost of
$85 wasn't such a bad idea. Besides, it's not your money so who cares
whether you approve?

Now, what you MAY hear in the store are things you don't like that
likely will also show up in the car: screechy high frequency, no
midrange, etc. Bob's assessment that a respected audio company like Polk
probably didn't make those kinds of elementary mistakes in their design
is pretty reasonable. Wouldn't have hurt to have confirmed that with a
quick audition but he seems relatively pleased with his $85 outlay
anyway. Did you think it was productive to lecture him about what he
should have done? Has lecturing bob about anything EVER been productive?
Not in my experience... you mostly just feed his ego by responding.

As to the difference between the 18 year old & the 48 year old, your
assumption may be true but probably not the way you think. You were
likely implying that hearing acuity is worse in the middle-aged but that
is not at all a given. It depends on many things including exposure to
loud sounds over their lifetimes, diseases, etc. But, plenty of 48 year
olds still have reasonably good listening acuity... and maybe more to
the point, a lot of them have vastly more experience with listening to
audio gear than the typical 18 year old. So, you may be right that they
hear different things although your reasons for saying so are likely wrong.

Not sure why that mattered either, as there were no age issues
introduced prior to your comment.

MOSFET, I know very well who bob is & that he's a useless troll more
often than not. I may not post often but I've been here years now & I
still skim posts. Every dog has his day & I think this may have been his
only keeper. That's my opinion anyway...

JD

arthur wrote:

the point is comparing what you hear. No technical specifications can
describe how a speaker will sound ... once we get past the expected
quality issue.

Further, what an 18 year old hears and a 48 year old hears are totally
dissimilar. I assume we are not speaking of air volume movers.

Coloration is not a specification. The marketing types love their
hype.

arthur


On Sun, 09 Sep 2007 10:19:37 -0700, John Durbin
wrote:


Two points:

1) Listening to a 6x9 in a store doesn't tell you crap about what it
will sound like in your car

2) $85 isn't a huge investment, and car audio as a hobby does tend to
require some experimentation

As much as it pains me to agree with bob, I think his position here is
defendable.

JD

[arthur[_5_]]

"Passive Components" are actually reactive components which change
reactance, and therefore Impedence, with frequency.

Z = R + X

There is no amplification with passive filters. The advantage of
active filters is the greater control over a particular band.

This is all such a total waste of time.

arthur




On Mon, 10 Sep 2007 09:33:08 -0700, "MOSFET"
wrote:

ALSO, this allows me to use ONLY active X-overs instead of passive X-overs
that ALLWAYS introduce some distortion of their own, no matter how good the
pasive components are (of course active X-overs do too, but not to the same
degree).

I'm sure all of this is over your head as your advice, being the great sage
that you are, was to "limit all connections as much as possible.
connections increase noise in your music". Whoa, heavy Bob.

BTW, I use 4 amps in my system (two for the front stage, one for rear-fill
and one for the subs).

MOSFET

[Mister.Lull]

On Sep 10, 11:09 pm, arthur wrote:
"Passive Components" are actually reactive components which change
reactance, and therefore Impedence, with frequency.

Z = R + X

There is no amplification with passive filters. The advantage of
active filters is the greater control over a particular band.

This is all such a total waste of time.

arthur

On Mon, 10 Sep 2007 09:33:08 -0700, "MOSFET"
wrote:





ALSO, this allows me to use ONLY active X-overs instead of passive X-overs
that ALLWAYS introduce some distortion of their own, no matter how good the
pasive components are (of course active X-overs do too, but not to the same
degree).

I'm sure all of this is over your head as your advice, being the great sage
that you are, was to "limit all connections as much as possible.
connections increase noise in your music". Whoa, heavy Bob.

BTW, I use 4 amps in my system (two for the front stage, one for rear-fill
and one for the subs).

MOSFET- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

....Are we all so happy that the splorging is over - that we are
actually debating on one of Bob Wald's posts?! Damn. I missed you
guys too, but seriously...

}:-)

~Mister.Lull

[bob wald]

actually i find alot of good information comes out of disagreements.
i think anger/excitement can trigger memories long forgotten.

[GregS[_2_]]

In article , wrote:
"Passive Components" are actually reactive components which change
reactance, and therefore Impedence, with frequency.

Z = R + X

There is no amplification with passive filters. The advantage of
active filters is the greater control over a particular band.

One thing you find out real quick, is how passive crossovers can create
peaking effects, or actual amplification of the signal. A basic hig Q
scenereo. You can also use passive crossovers in the signal chain, before the
drivers.

I would say at least three main things good about active filters. The drive Z
remains constant to the drivers. Its easier to create poles. You can also
create delays to align time and phase.

This is all such a total waste of time.

arthur




On Mon, 10 Sep 2007 09:33:08 -0700, "MOSFET"
wrote:

ALSO, this allows me to use ONLY active X-overs instead of passive X-overs
that ALLWAYS introduce some distortion of their own, no matter how good the
pasive components are (of course active X-overs do too, but not to the same
degree).

I'm sure all of this is over your head as your advice, being the great sage
that you are, was to "limit all connections as much as possible.
connections increase noise in your music". Whoa, heavy Bob.

BTW, I use 4 amps in my system (two for the front stage, one for rear-fill
and one for the subs).

MOSFET

[MOSFET]

Yes Lull, I don't know what's worse, the splorging or the fact that we are
actually taking Bob Wald's posts seriously.

I guess since the topic is back to car audio THAT is first and foremost what
matters most, even if the things said are often ridiculous.

MOSFET


"Mister.Lull" wrote in message
ps.com...
On Sep 10, 11:09 pm, arthur wrote:
"Passive Components" are actually reactive components which change
reactance, and therefore Impedence, with frequency.

Z = R + X

There is no amplification with passive filters. The advantage of
active filters is the greater control over a particular band.

This is all such a total waste of time.

arthur

On Mon, 10 Sep 2007 09:33:08 -0700, "MOSFET"
wrote:





ALSO, this allows me to use ONLY active X-overs instead of passive
X-overs
that ALLWAYS introduce some distortion of their own, no matter how good
the
pasive components are (of course active X-overs do too, but not to the
same
degree).

I'm sure all of this is over your head as your advice, being the great
sage
that you are, was to "limit all connections as much as possible.
connections increase noise in your music". Whoa, heavy Bob.

BTW, I use 4 amps in my system (two for the front stage, one for
rear-fill
and one for the subs).

MOSFET- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

...Are we all so happy that the splorging is over - that we are
actually debating on one of Bob Wald's posts?! Damn. I missed you
guys too, but seriously...

}:-)

~Mister.Lull

[MOSFET]

One thing you find out real quick, is how passive crossovers can create
peaking effects, or actual amplification of the signal.

I can understand that as capacitors, by there very nature, store and release
current and therefore it stands to reason that in certain circumstances
(keep in mind, I am no EE) they MAY amplify a signal.

But I can't imagine this amplification being very much, or more importantly
noticable AT ALL as the caps used in passive filters are VERY small.

Howover, that being said, I would ALWAYS choose to use active filters over
passives any day of the week (if for no other reason, there is usually much
more control in setting X-over slopes and frequencies) . I use NO passive
filters in my car at all, all filtering is done by the HU (an Alpine 9853
with Bass Engine Pro which gives me a choice of 33 bands and 4 slope
options, 6, 12, 18, and 24 dB per octive) and a Coustic active filter I use
to X-over the tweets only (it is one of the few active X-overs that has an
adjustable filter in the 1000Hz-4000Hz range).

MOSFET

[bob wald]

well yall are way over my head with the talking you all are doin now.
but i know 1 thing. i learnt along time ago.. dont over think thinks..
keep it simple.
the more complicated it is. the more troubles you'll have.

[Christopher \Torroid\ Ott]

"MOSFET" wrote in message
m...
One thing you find out real quick, is how passive crossovers can create
peaking effects, or actual amplification of the signal.

I can understand that as capacitors, by there very nature, store and
release
current and therefore it stands to reason that in certain circumstances
(keep in mind, I am no EE) they MAY amplify a signal.

But I can't imagine this amplification being very much, or more
importantly
noticable AT ALL as the caps used in passive filters are VERY small.

Howover, that being said, I would ALWAYS choose to use active filters over
passives any day of the week (if for no other reason, there is usually
much
more control in setting X-over slopes and frequencies) . I use NO passive
filters in my car at all, all filtering is done by the HU (an Alpine 9853
with Bass Engine Pro which gives me a choice of 33 bands and 4 slope
options, 6, 12, 18, and 24 dB per octive) and a Coustic active filter I
use
to X-over the tweets only (it is one of the few active X-overs that has an
adjustable filter in the 1000Hz-4000Hz range).


I'm not aware of any passive crossover that will give signal gain, and I
*am* a EE. Passives attenuate and have a gain of less than one. Actives
buffer or amplify and have a gain of one or greater at the circuit level.

However that does not mean that passives aren't useful, or inferior to
active crossovers. Many people prefer the sound of a passive filter over the
active. Actives are sometimes plagued with a harsh or shrill sound in the
upper frequencies which tend to be masked a little better by passives. The
thing with audio is that it's really subjective. Two people can hear the
same sample and come up with different opinions of what sounds correct or
pleasing.

Passives are wasteful electrically, because they turn unwanted frequencies
to heat vs. actives which don't amplify the unwanted frequencies to begin
with. Actives are less likely to color the sound, which may seem great, but
is sometimes not pleasing to listen to.
The one bad thing about passives in the automotive environment is the
temperature swings really play havoc with capacitors. Electrolytics dry up
faster and change their value significantly with high temperature which can
make passives shift over time.

Basically, if you like to experiment with the crossover points than
obviously passives aren't the best choice, but I wouldn't rule them out
completely.

Chris

[Mariachi]

On Sep 11, 2:29 pm, "MOSFET" wrote:
One thing you find out real quick, is how passive crossovers can create
peaking effects, or actual amplification of the signal.

I can understand that as capacitors, by there very nature, store and release
current and therefore it stands to reason that in certain circumstances
(keep in mind, I am no EE) they MAY amplify a signal.

But I can't imagine this amplification being very much, or more importantly
noticable AT ALL as the caps used in passive filters are VERY small.

Howover, that being said, I would ALWAYS choose to use active filters over
passives any day of the week (if for no other reason, there is usually much
more control in setting X-over slopes and frequencies) . I use NO passive
filters in my car at all, all filtering is done by the HU (an Alpine 9853
with Bass Engine Pro which gives me a choice of 33 bands and 4 slope
options, 6, 12, 18, and 24 dB per octive) and a Coustic active filter I use
to X-over the tweets only (it is one of the few active X-overs that has an
adjustable filter in the 1000Hz-4000Hz range).

MOSFET

Yes capacitors store electric charge in DC circuits, but in AC
circuits, not really. Here is a couple general rules about capacitors

1. Oppose a change in voltage
2. DC reactance is infinity. (@ frequency = 0)
3. Higher the frequency, the lower the capacitor's reactance and the
higher the capacitor's conductance (this is why you have octave slopes
with passive crossovers, because of the inverse trend between
frequency and reactance, resistance.)
4. The electric field between the capacitor's "plates" represents the
charge stored on the "plates".

Since an audio output signal is always alternating above and below
zero volts, the capacitor has no real chance of building up any
significant charge. Even if a crossover capacitor does somehow get
fully charged, the charge stored on it is so minute that you wouldn't
even notice. Crossover capacitors have a very low capacitance (very
low storage for charge), because they usually cutoff at very high
frequencies. The more capacitance you have (more ability to store
charge), the lower the reactance is at a certain frequency. Let's say
that the crossover capacitor has a high capacitance and it releases
charge... it will not amplify the signal, but it would instead provide
a DC bias. Transistors amplify, capacitors don't. Something to talk
about...

[MOSFET]

Believe me, I trust you Torroid. I was just responding to another post that
asserted that passives, in certain circumstances, can boost the signal
slightly.

I was just pointing out that capacitors, by their nature, can discharge
current and THEREFORE it stands to reason that a signal may be boosted EVER
SO SLIGHTLY (and attenuated as well), again, I WOULD NOT except it to be
audible.

MOSFET
"Christopher "Torroid" Ott" spamtrap at ottelectronics dot com wrote in
message ...
"MOSFET" wrote in message
m...
One thing you find out real quick, is how passive crossovers can create
peaking effects, or actual amplification of the signal.

I can understand that as capacitors, by there very nature, store and
release
current and therefore it stands to reason that in certain circumstances
(keep in mind, I am no EE) they MAY amplify a signal.

But I can't imagine this amplification being very much, or more
importantly
noticable AT ALL as the caps used in passive filters are VERY small.

Howover, that being said, I would ALWAYS choose to use active filters
over
passives any day of the week (if for no other reason, there is usually
much
more control in setting X-over slopes and frequencies) . I use NO
passive
filters in my car at all, all filtering is done by the HU (an Alpine
9853
with Bass Engine Pro which gives me a choice of 33 bands and 4 slope
options, 6, 12, 18, and 24 dB per octive) and a Coustic active filter I
use
to X-over the tweets only (it is one of the few active X-overs that has
an
adjustable filter in the 1000Hz-4000Hz range).


I'm not aware of any passive crossover that will give signal gain, and I
*am* a EE. Passives attenuate and have a gain of less than one. Actives
buffer or amplify and have a gain of one or greater at the circuit level.

However that does not mean that passives aren't useful, or inferior to
active crossovers. Many people prefer the sound of a passive filter over
the
active. Actives are sometimes plagued with a harsh or shrill sound in the
upper frequencies which tend to be masked a little better by passives. The
thing with audio is that it's really subjective. Two people can hear the
same sample and come up with different opinions of what sounds correct or
pleasing.

Passives are wasteful electrically, because they turn unwanted frequencies
to heat vs. actives which don't amplify the unwanted frequencies to begin
with. Actives are less likely to color the sound, which may seem great,
but
is sometimes not pleasing to listen to.
The one bad thing about passives in the automotive environment is the
temperature swings really play havoc with capacitors. Electrolytics dry up
faster and change their value significantly with high temperature which
can
make passives shift over time.

Basically, if you like to experiment with the crossover points than
obviously passives aren't the best choice, but I wouldn't rule them out
completely.

Chris

[MOSFET]

Since an audio output signal is always alternating above and below
zero volts, the capacitor has no real chance of building up any
significant charge.

Exactly. As I said in the previous post, I would not expect it to be
audible.

MOSFET

[arthur[_5_]]

No. You have a DC mental image of how a capacitor operates.

There are 2 passive reactive devices for AC: capacitors and inductors.
Reactance is the name given to the resistance, measured in Ohms, of an
AC signal.

Place a resistance in a circuit and it must attenuate the signal by
converting some of the power to heat. Impedence is resistance with a
PhD.

I thought you would rather know the facts.

arthur


On Tue, 11 Sep 2007 19:02:29 -0700, "MOSFET"
wrote:
I was just pointing out that capacitors, by their nature, can discharge
current and THEREFORE it stands to reason that a signal may be boosted EVER
SO SLIGHTLY (and attenuated as well), again, I WOULD NOT except it to be
audible.

[arthur[_5_]]

DC is not audible.



On Tue, 11 Sep 2007 19:04:25 -0700, "MOSFET"
wrote:

Exactly. As I said in the previous post, I would not expect it to be
audible.

MOSFET

[Christopher \Torroid\ Ott]

"MOSFET" wrote in message
m...
Believe me, I trust you Torroid. I was just responding to another post
that
asserted that passives, in certain circumstances, can boost the signal
slightly.

I was just pointing out that capacitors, by their nature, can discharge
current and THEREFORE it stands to reason that a signal may be boosted
EVER
SO SLIGHTLY (and attenuated as well), again, I WOULD NOT except it to be
audible.

MOSFET
"Christopher "Torroid" Ott" spamtrap at ottelectronics dot com wrote in
message ...
"MOSFET" wrote in message
m...
One thing you find out real quick, is how passive crossovers can
create
peaking effects, or actual amplification of the signal.

I can understand that as capacitors, by there very nature, store and
release
current and therefore it stands to reason that in certain circumstances
(keep in mind, I am no EE) they MAY amplify a signal.

But I can't imagine this amplification being very much, or more
importantly
noticable AT ALL as the caps used in passive filters are VERY small.

Howover, that being said, I would ALWAYS choose to use active filters
over
passives any day of the week (if for no other reason, there is usually
much
more control in setting X-over slopes and frequencies) . I use NO
passive
filters in my car at all, all filtering is done by the HU (an Alpine
9853
with Bass Engine Pro which gives me a choice of 33 bands and 4 slope
options, 6, 12, 18, and 24 dB per octive) and a Coustic active filter I
use
to X-over the tweets only (it is one of the few active X-overs that has
an
adjustable filter in the 1000Hz-4000Hz range).


I'm not aware of any passive crossover that will give signal gain, and I
*am* a EE. Passives attenuate and have a gain of less than one. Actives
buffer or amplify and have a gain of one or greater at the circuit level.

However that does not mean that passives aren't useful, or inferior to
active crossovers. Many people prefer the sound of a passive filter over
the
active. Actives are sometimes plagued with a harsh or shrill sound in the
upper frequencies which tend to be masked a little better by passives.
The
thing with audio is that it's really subjective. Two people can hear the
same sample and come up with different opinions of what sounds correct or
pleasing.

Passives are wasteful electrically, because they turn unwanted
frequencies
to heat vs. actives which don't amplify the unwanted frequencies to begin
with. Actives are less likely to color the sound, which may seem great,
but
is sometimes not pleasing to listen to.
The one bad thing about passives in the automotive environment is the
temperature swings really play havoc with capacitors. Electrolytics dry
up
faster and change their value significantly with high temperature which
can
make passives shift over time.

Basically, if you like to experiment with the crossover points than
obviously passives aren't the best choice, but I wouldn't rule them out
completely.


It's cool Nick ;-) Just pointing out that even though it may seem reasonable
that the filter caps can store and boost a signal, they don't really work
like that.

Chris