Hi all
I recently read in one of our l;ocal mags a description of bi-wiring and bi-amping.
The description for the bi-wiring seemed ok enough but the description for bi-amping was a concern.
Absolutely no mention of an active crossover approach...
What was suggested was providing a dedicated amp (channel) for each driver (ok so far) but to split the passive crossover (assuming a parallel design) filter for each driver.
Ie: bass driver = amp via an inductor (for 6db/oct etc.)
tweet to be driven by amp filtered by cap etc.etc.
the crossover components for one driver would not be electrically linked other than through the power amp.
Is this sensible , real or whatever?.
As i see it each amp would still be processing the full frequency range as no filter is noted to be placed ahead of the amps (low level), all amps to receive full freq range.
Is this approach valid ? any comments
Regards from down under.
I recently read in one of our l;ocal mags a description of bi-wiring and bi-amping.
The description for the bi-wiring seemed ok enough but the description for bi-amping was a concern.
Absolutely no mention of an active crossover approach...
What was suggested was providing a dedicated amp (channel) for each driver (ok so far) but to split the passive crossover (assuming a parallel design) filter for each driver.
Ie: bass driver = amp via an inductor (for 6db/oct etc.)
tweet to be driven by amp filtered by cap etc.etc.
the crossover components for one driver would not be electrically linked other than through the power amp.
Is this sensible , real or whatever?.
As i see it each amp would still be processing the full frequency range as no filter is noted to be placed ahead of the amps (low level), all amps to receive full freq range.
Is this approach valid ? any comments
Regards from down under.
You could do it that way but you'd lose the advantages of getting rid of the passive crossovers and also you need far less power from the amplifiers if they all handle individual parts of the frequency range .... in short doing it the way they have described is only just marginally better than bi-wiring.
Thanks Dan
I thought as much,
didn't think it was a well researched article. Not the first time i've seen questionable info in local mags.
Makes you wonder
George
I thought as much,
didn't think it was a well researched article. Not the first time i've seen questionable info in local mags.
Makes you wonder
George
george a said:Thanks Dan
I thought as much,
didn't think it was a well researched article. Not the first time i've seen questionable info in local mags.
Makes you wonder
George
Perfectly sensible and normally yields a fair improvement IMHO. I would not call it the least bit questionable if talking stuff bought in shops for people quite unlike us.
You could go part of the way to real biamping if you put a suitable size capacitor at the input of your tweeter amp, to give an F3 point at least an octave down from the speaker's passive XO point. This way the tweeter amp wouldn't be producing the full range, and you could use a smaller amp. I'm not sure how much benefit you would get sonically, but you would certainly have more power available to the tweeter.
Mick
Mick
- Status
- Not open for further replies.