Active crossover question

[Citizen-Y]

I'm installing two tweeters, two 7" woofers, 4 channel amp and a 3 way
crossover (already have a amp and subs installed) tomorrow.

My question is this, my buddy told me to run each speaker to it's own
channel on the amp in this setup, i.e, Front Right Tweeter goes to front
right channel, Front Right Woofer goes to rear right channel.

Is that the correct way to wire the speakers to the amp?

[KU40]

yep, that's the way to run active. you'll use the crossover to
determine which frequencies to pass through to which speakers and pass
the signal to the corresponding set of channels on the amp.


--
KU40

[D.Kreft]

On Dec 13, 3:05 pm, Citizen-Y > wrote:

> My question is this, my buddy told me to run each speaker to it's own
> channel on the amp in this setup, i.e, Front Right Tweeter goes to front
> right channel, Front Right Woofer goes to rear right channel.
>
> Is that the correct way to wire the speakers to the amp?

Now I *know* I made a reply to your post, but Google Groups seems to
have swallowed it. Hrmm. Anyway, I'll respond again...but you may two
replies if the news server decides to vomit-up my previous post.

While there is nothing inherently wrong with the setup you propose, and
as a matter of fact, some people (like KU40) actually have this setup,
I'm not convinced it's a good use of your amplifier. Having a dedicated
pair of amp channels doing nothing but driving tweeters is kinda like
using your H1 (Hummer) to cart your Twinkies back and forth from 7-11
once a week--it's a waste. Sure it looks mighty impressive, but it's a
waste. It's also harder to get your system balanced this way and it's
easier to screw things up (remember--tweeters are very delicate...too
much power with a too-low XO point and you'll roast them).

I would think a much better use of your 4-channel amp would be to use
the passive crossovers that no doubt came with your mid-tweet set and
use one pair of channels for the front two speakers, and the other pair
of channels for the rear two speakers. This is a much more conventional
setup and is easier to tune (the mid-tweet set manufacturer usually
does a pretty good job of balancing levels between the tweet and
associated mid(s), so take advantage of their work). Of course, if your
3-way crossover cannot be used as a two-way, then all of this just
kinda flies out the window.

Personally, I'd exchange the 3-way for a really nice 2-way
crossover...3-ways are pretty much unnecessary and way overkill. The
most amazing sound systems I've ever heard only used two-way active
crossovers.

Okay, Google, please let this one through...I really mean it this
time...

-dan

[Captain_Howdy]

This all sounds like personal issues more then advice of someone that does not
get out much.


In article m>, "D.Kreft"
> wrote:
>On Dec 13, 3:05 pm, Citizen-Y > wrote:
>

>Now I *know* I made a reply to your post, but Google Groups seems to
>have swallowed it. Hrmm. Anyway, I'll respond again...but you may two
>replies if the news server decides to vomit-up my previous post.
>
>While there is nothing inherently wrong with the setup you propose, and
>as a matter of fact, some people (like KU40) actually have this setup,
>I'm not convinced it's a good use of your amplifier. Having a dedicated
>pair of amp channels doing nothing but driving tweeters is kinda like
>using your H1 (Hummer) to cart your Twinkies back and forth from 7-11
>once a week--it's a waste. Sure it looks mighty impressive, but it's a
>waste. It's also harder to get your system balanced this way and it's
>easier to screw things up (remember--tweeters are very delicate...too
>much power with a too-low XO point and you'll roast them).
>
>I would think a much better use of your 4-channel amp would be to use
>the passive crossovers that no doubt came with your mid-tweet set and
>use one pair of channels for the front two speakers, and the other pair
>of channels for the rear two speakers. This is a much more conventional
>setup and is easier to tune (the mid-tweet set manufacturer usually
>does a pretty good job of balancing levels between the tweet and
>associated mid(s), so take advantage of their work). Of course, if your
>3-way crossover cannot be used as a two-way, then all of this just
>kinda flies out the window.
>
>Personally, I'd exchange the 3-way for a really nice 2-way
>crossover...3-ways are pretty much unnecessary and way overkill. The
>most amazing sound systems I've ever heard only used two-way active
>crossovers.
>
>Okay, Google, please let this one through...I really mean it this
>time...
>
>-dan
>

[KU40]

While D. Kreft may have his opinion I've heard others who have a
differing one. I have unfortunately never had the opportunity to run
fully active (only partially in a 3-way setup I had once), but people
whose opinion I trust say they enjoyed their active setups more than
passive. You have more freedom to choose and play how you want, and
can adjust for different acoustic properties in your vehicle. And in
some cases a passive crossover employs only -6db capacitors, while most
active crossovers use at least 12. which can go either way, but I
generally like the higher slope.

Plus the error in the active crossovers is a bit less than in the
components in passive crossovers, which may have a +/- 10% range. I
had to send back an inductor to partsexpress because it was supposed to
cross my mids over at 80 hz, but when played with my other mid it was
clear that this inductor was out of spec and was crossing it over much
higher, maybe 120 hz (actually i didn't send it back, they just sent me
a new one and let me keep the defective one. Excellent people at PE).

but the problem is that it is helpful to know what you are doing with
an active setup, as the chance of damaging a speaker is a bit higher if
you don't fully understand what you are doing, as kreft pointed out. So
I think it's important to know your drivers and their limits before you
go into it.


--
KU40

[GregS]

In article >, KU40 > wrote:
>
>While D. Kreft may have his opinion I've heard others who have a
>differing one. I have unfortunately never had the opportunity to run
>fully active (only partially in a 3-way setup I had once), but people
>whose opinion I trust say they enjoyed their active setups more than
>passive. You have more freedom to choose and play how you want, and
>can adjust for different acoustic properties in your vehicle. And in
>some cases a passive crossover employs only -6db capacitors, while most
>active crossovers use at least 12. which can go either way, but I
>generally like the higher slope.
>
>Plus the error in the active crossovers is a bit less than in the
>components in passive crossovers, which may have a +/- 10% range. I
>had to send back an inductor to partsexpress because it was supposed to
>cross my mids over at 80 hz, but when played with my other mid it was
>clear that this inductor was out of spec and was crossing it over much
>higher, maybe 120 hz (actually i didn't send it back, they just sent me
>a new one and let me keep the defective one. Excellent people at PE).
>
>but the problem is that it is helpful to know what you are doing with
>an active setup, as the chance of damaging a speaker is a bit higher if
>you don't fully understand what you are doing, as kreft pointed out. So
>I think it's important to know your drivers and their limits before you
>go into it.

It always important to follow the last step regardless.

greg