bi-amping through passive crossovers

ultrachrome · 30th March 2005, 09:06 PM

I'm sure this has been covered but I couldn't find anything. I want to play around with powering a two way with two different amps.

Without modifying the crossover or the amp, what is the best method for matching levels?

I considered building up some ESP L-R boards with different HP/LP frequencies that are beyond the passive crossover frequency but this seemed kind of overkill.

I would really only need to attenuate the amp with the higher gain, correct?

AndrewJ · 30th March 2005, 09:30 PM

You do not need, and should not use, extra filters. Just separate the inputs to the high and low pass network, and drive each with it's own amp.
Then attenuate the amp with the higher gain to match the lower one by using a resistor network at it's input.

Have fun

Andrew

ultrachrome · 30th March 2005, 09:35 PM

Well, I guess that's where I need more detail. What would the resistor network look like? How would I detmerine the correct values?

BlackUnikorn · 31st March 2005, 01:10 AM

http://www.proav.de/index.html?http&&&www.proav.de/data/passive-att.html

There's a schematic there for simple attenuator. If your line is unbalanced, that is if it only has 2 wires per channel: ground and signal, then omit the lower "r1". I guess you could use a potentiometer too.

ultrachrome · 31st March 2005, 01:14 AM

That's more clear. Thanks.

30th March 2005, 09:06 PM	#1
ultrachrome diyAudio Member Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Puget Sound	bi-amping through passive crossovers I'm sure this has been covered but I couldn't find anything. I want to play around with powering a two way with two different amps. Without modifying the crossover or the amp, what is the best method for matching levels? I considered building up some ESP L-R boards with different HP/LP frequencies that are beyond the passive crossover frequency but this seemed kind of overkill. I would really only need to attenuate the amp with the higher gain, correct?

31st March 2005, 01:10 AM	#4
BlackUnikorn diyAudio Member Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: NJ	http://www.proav.de/index.html?http&&&www.proav.de/data/passive-att.html There's a schematic there for simple attenuator. If your line is unbalanced, that is if it only has 2 wires per channel: ground and signal, then omit the lower "r1". I guess you could use a potentiometer too. __________________ My tube stuff webpage: http://www.vacuumtubecentral.com

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
A couple of questions re: bi/tri amping, electronic crossovers	EmergencyDpt	Multi-Way	17	21st December 2008 09:18 PM
Passive bi-amping with gainclone??	steveline	Chip Amps	21	22nd August 2008 09:09 PM
amping Passive Sub	mikeh1960	Subwoofers	2	20th December 2006 11:17 AM
dB loss by using passive crossovers? Active vs Passive and 1st vs 4th order	Hybrid fourdoor	Multi-Way	3	11th July 2004 09:16 PM
passive bi-amping parts	eduard	Tubes / Valves	25	24th July 2003 11:19 PM

New To Site?	Need Help?
Register to Participate Search Privacy Statement Contact Us	Frequently Asked Questions Did you forget your password? Mark Forums Read


	Please consider donating to help us continue to serve you. Ads on/off / Custom Title / More PMs / More album space / Advanced printing & mass image saving

30th March 2005, 09:30 PM	#2
AndrewJ diyAudio Member Join Date: Sep 2001	You do not need, and should not use, extra filters. Just separate the inputs to the high and low pass network, and drive each with it's own amp. Then attenuate the amp with the higher gain to match the lower one by using a resistor network at it's input. Have fun Andrew

30th March 2005, 09:35 PM	#3
ultrachrome diyAudio Member Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Puget Sound	Well, I guess that's where I need more detail. What would the resistor network look like? How would I detmerine the correct values?

31st March 2005, 01:14 AM	#5
ultrachrome diyAudio Member Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Puget Sound	That's more clear. Thanks.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)