Some speakers have dual binding posts on the back with a jumper for single amplifier use. Remove the jumper, and you can use two amps.
As far as modifying an existing speaker without dual binding posts, and that uses a parallel xover, I see no reason not to do that.
Different sensitivity drivers, different gain amps? That is what pads on the output of the amp, at the driver or at the input of the amp are for.
Or - may be used for.
Active crossovers before an amp may or may not have better fidelity. Implementation is critical. Cheaper and more sure is passive.
A simple HP (cap) at the input of a SS amp that is used for HF in a biamp situation is not a bad idea as long as the F3 point is somewhat below the F3 point of the exisiting xover. ie. get rid of the LF stuff, don't effect the existing xover point/slope.
Regardless, it is difficult to "gild" an average speaker by biamping. But it may well be possible to get a better subjective result with a higher or lower DF amp on the bottom end (depending on what is needed) and a "smoother" sounding amp on the top end. Something like a SE triode amp often does sound much "kinder" heard on the tweeters of typical speakers, but won't do the job full range.
The F5, in my experience, is capable when implemented cleverly of being a fantastic amp for the high frequencies. But the F5 does seem to vary all over the map depending on parts and implementation details. Not the least of which is the very real possibility of having fake JFets for the input to alter the results.
My 2 cents... doesn't even get you a bubble gum any longer.
As far as modifying an existing speaker without dual binding posts, and that uses a parallel xover, I see no reason not to do that.
Different sensitivity drivers, different gain amps? That is what pads on the output of the amp, at the driver or at the input of the amp are for.
Or - may be used for.
Active crossovers before an amp may or may not have better fidelity. Implementation is critical. Cheaper and more sure is passive.
A simple HP (cap) at the input of a SS amp that is used for HF in a biamp situation is not a bad idea as long as the F3 point is somewhat below the F3 point of the exisiting xover. ie. get rid of the LF stuff, don't effect the existing xover point/slope.
Regardless, it is difficult to "gild" an average speaker by biamping. But it may well be possible to get a better subjective result with a higher or lower DF amp on the bottom end (depending on what is needed) and a "smoother" sounding amp on the top end. Something like a SE triode amp often does sound much "kinder" heard on the tweeters of typical speakers, but won't do the job full range.
The F5, in my experience, is capable when implemented cleverly of being a fantastic amp for the high frequencies. But the F5 does seem to vary all over the map depending on parts and implementation details. Not the least of which is the very real possibility of having fake JFets for the input to alter the results.
My 2 cents... doesn't even get you a bubble gum any longer.
I made my filters passive...coils and capacitors...I used headers so I could switch in and out capacitors of different values. The coils were easy to wind and inductance can be made to vary with a movable core.
I tuned the filters by getting the slopes approximately correct in a simulator...then I sweep the real thing with a signal generator and adjust the slopes to where they need to be. Works great...is cheap and I think better than op amp based active filters. B1 buffers can be used to good effect. BOSOZ makes a good front end for an analog filter because you can vary the output level of a BOSOZ with out changing the out put impedance and upsetting the filter.
I tuned the filters by getting the slopes approximately correct in a simulator...then I sweep the real thing with a signal generator and adjust the slopes to where they need to be. Works great...is cheap and I think better than op amp based active filters. B1 buffers can be used to good effect. BOSOZ makes a good front end for an analog filter because you can vary the output level of a BOSOZ with out changing the out put impedance and upsetting the filter.
The problem I have with either way of biamping the speaker is when the crossover sits a bit higher, say, 200-500hz cross point. This is a critical region that if one does not have extremely identical amplifiers, will easily hear a difference between the one running the top section and the one running the lower section. This said, if one is able to integrate two amplifiers properly via either bi-amping w/active crossover or just using the biamp capable speaker terminals, there is a ton to be gained.
What is the crossover point in the speakers that people are biamping with and do you not hear a difference that does not sound "off" by using two different sounding amplifiers? I know it is very possible to make work, but when you have such an outstanding amplifier that does it all so well, it begs to ask what exactly are you willing to give up just to gain a bit more headroom/bandwidth/dynamic control/etc.
What is the crossover point in the speakers that people are biamping with and do you not hear a difference that does not sound "off" by using two different sounding amplifiers? I know it is very possible to make work, but when you have such an outstanding amplifier that does it all so well, it begs to ask what exactly are you willing to give up just to gain a bit more headroom/bandwidth/dynamic control/etc.
Bi-amping
Hi,
I am building in a two-stage approach.
Stage 1: Use my Pass Aleph 5 for mid and high and a Crown K2 for bass
Stage 2: When the F5 project is finished , replace the Aleph 5 with F5
I am modifying the crossover cards in my JBL crossover unit to be compatible with my 4343s.. that is still to be done .. Stage 0 I guess.
Stage 3: Under discussion. Sell the Aleph 5 and its pre-amp and start all over again.. not making the mistakes that I have made / expect to make
George
Hi,
I am building in a two-stage approach.
Stage 1: Use my Pass Aleph 5 for mid and high and a Crown K2 for bass
Stage 2: When the F5 project is finished , replace the Aleph 5 with F5
I am modifying the crossover cards in my JBL crossover unit to be compatible with my 4343s.. that is still to be done .. Stage 0 I guess.
Stage 3: Under discussion. Sell the Aleph 5 and its pre-amp and start all over again.. not making the mistakes that I have made / expect to make
George
Hi
I am using the F5 purely as a midrange/top amp; the K2 which can deliver over 500 watts should handle the bass side of things.
I have tested the K2 as a full range amp and it really is pretty poor above the bass region but it can certainly deal with anything I throw at below 300 Hz
George
As soon as my Tubelab Simple P-P is completed I will be using my F4 to drive the woofers and the P-P EL84 to drive the tweeters.
The F4 will just slave off of the speaker outputs to it's input, Nelson described this application in the F4 Manual.
I will be using the existing passive crossovers, that way I have the benefit of matching gain between amps with a single volume control.
At some point I will build some Passive LL Crossovers and use my tube preamp to drive my F4, Then I will have to rig up a common volume control.
The F4 will just slave off of the speaker outputs to it's input, Nelson described this application in the F4 Manual.
I will be using the existing passive crossovers, that way I have the benefit of matching gain between amps with a single volume control.
At some point I will build some Passive LL Crossovers and use my tube preamp to drive my F4, Then I will have to rig up a common volume control.
Can you describe what slaving off the speaker outputs means? Is it sorta similar to speaker level vs. line level?
I would be very cautious of doing that, the tube amp will be unloaded below the crossover frequency, thats not good for the output.
Build an active crossover (with gain for the F4), and connect the drivers directly to the amps.
Yes.
Use a passive filter at the input of the tube amp to band-limit it, to suit what the output loading will be.
Einric,
I think you have missed the point of the previous two posts, which leads me to believe that you are not familiar with their use, and how not to blow valve (tube) amps up.
I think you have missed the point of the previous two posts, which leads me to believe that you are not familiar with their use, and how not to blow valve (tube) amps up.
Hi,
I started the active crossovers back when old colony sound and audio amature was king!
They offered a kit for a active 3way crossover,Well I found you could drive any speaker to do all most any way you wanted it to respond with active crossovers and a little EQ would bring in the rest,I never went back to a caps and resistor,coil type crossover,You build them after you design them and see if it hit the mark,or crossover as designed,With active just tweak a slider or a knob, your home.
It to me also sounds so much better,Clearer and bass got plenty of punch because one amp has only got to cover one speaker and a narrow amount of frequency,
I have built a 4 way active Welings DSP to DEQ2496 to DCX 2496 toB1's into F5 for tweeters F5t for mids,ba3,for upper bass,and and 2 class D's pushing 2 of Xoc1's 18" subs,Most people say that's the clearest sound they have ever heard,Their words not mine,This is the second time around for this ,I used chip amps first,kinda digital sounding,but great for techno,ok for Rock,
Just my 2 cents, so try it with 4 amps ,a full range speaker and a woofer and a 2 way per channel active crossover before the amps,make your assessment ! also the PS supply caps need to be fastest for the upper freq, and Lots of uf for the bottom end amp,makes a difference.
Ticktock read nelson's article on sweet spot,it gave me insight for rail V and bias settings,
Cheers,
NS
I started the active crossovers back when old colony sound and audio amature was king!
They offered a kit for a active 3way crossover,Well I found you could drive any speaker to do all most any way you wanted it to respond with active crossovers and a little EQ would bring in the rest,I never went back to a caps and resistor,coil type crossover,You build them after you design them and see if it hit the mark,or crossover as designed,With active just tweak a slider or a knob, your home.
It to me also sounds so much better,Clearer and bass got plenty of punch because one amp has only got to cover one speaker and a narrow amount of frequency,
I have built a 4 way active Welings DSP to DEQ2496 to DCX 2496 toB1's into F5 for tweeters F5t for mids,ba3,for upper bass,and and 2 class D's pushing 2 of Xoc1's 18" subs,Most people say that's the clearest sound they have ever heard,Their words not mine,This is the second time around for this ,I used chip amps first,kinda digital sounding,but great for techno,ok for Rock,
Just my 2 cents, so try it with 4 amps ,a full range speaker and a woofer and a 2 way per channel active crossover before the amps,make your assessment ! also the PS supply caps need to be fastest for the upper freq, and Lots of uf for the bottom end amp,makes a difference.
Ticktock read nelson's article on sweet spot,it gave me insight for rail V and bias settings,
Cheers,
NS
Problem with active systems is the use of a less than transparent device. Even a simple two way active crossover can cost a ton for one that does not disrupt the signal. Of course an active system has benefits if one is capable enough to tailor it all without giving up the signal clarity. I tried both a regular and heavily modded DCX2496, as well as a DEQX. I never cared for the sound that they impart on the music. Of course I love the benefits for diy type setups, but that's where the fun ends...just my .02. Besides, one can use a little eq via PC without any ill effects...I have the largest issue with crossovers and losing the synergy as was designed by the designer...of course, a too many speakers have such terrible issues one may as well re-design the entire crossover going active or even doing a new passive...but that's not why I purchase a speaker
.
.- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.