Passive VS Active crossover-What s the difference s

Another benefit to actively crossing over is that amplifier efficiency is DRASTICALLY increased. Since there are no passive parts to "suck up" and waste power between the amp and speaker, the system can play louder with less work on the amps' part. Sound quality ( when properly set up ) is also much better. In other words, active bi / tri / quad amping IS the way to go if you have the time, patience and know how. Sean
>

I'll make only one point: you can certainly have a passive dividing network coming BEFORE the power amps. You may need a buffer between it and the preamp, though. It's hard to get right, but not impossible, and the sonic benefits could be considerable.

Sean, I agree with you on your post regarding dynamic drivers bi, tri, and quad amped.....but we need to mention that the introduction of an active X-over into your ultra hi end setup, could well destroy the purity of the electronics you are using. I have tried the original Levinson LNC-2, the now defunct Symmetry (much better) and ARC. The hi pass sections of these were NOT up to the quality of my preferred electronics and hurt the sound everytime.
Electrostatics like the QUAD ESL-63 also are hurt by the disruption of the crossoverless signal purity. I tried everything to relieve the panels and increase dynamics, but everytime the sound was better without. My ultimate solution was to stack the ESL-63 full range, thus yielding maybe 3db more output, and more surface launch area; then overlap the subs with an electronic X-over Without using the hi pass section.
Stacking of dynamic loudspeakers, though, can mess up the accurate time response of a well designed loudspeaker.
We went through this when we stacked Rogers LS3/5A's to make them "bigger". "No, no, no" was the reaction on that issue. "something isn't quite right anymore"...........Frank