Re: For biamping M60s, crossover need to be removed?
|
Joined: Feb 2009
Posts: 3,466
connoisseur
|
connoisseur
Joined: Feb 2009
Posts: 3,466 |
Yes. Also, they're called active, because they require power of their own.
There are also digital crossovers which are done along with the signal processing. That's what I'm studying right now.
Pioneer PDP-5020FD, Marantz SR6011 Axiom M5HP, VP160HP, QS8 Sony PS4, surround backs -Chris
|
|
|
Re: For biamping M60s, crossover need to be removed?
|
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 10,654
shareholder in the making
|
shareholder in the making
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 10,654 |
Erik, yes, true bi-amping(which has some modest benefits)is complex and is almost never done for home setups. Basically, it requires separate amplifiers(receivers have only one amplifier with several output channels)and an external crossover(usually electronic)before the amplifiers so that each amplifier gets only the desired frequency range to amplify. So yes, the internal speaker crossover has to be removed or at least by-passed to get rid of its inefficiencies.
The pseudo-bi-amping that some receiver manufacturers promote as a feature is meaningless, and no more "juice" is sent to the speaker by simply connecting the same single power supply section in the receiver to the speaker through two sets of output transistors(which have no power of their own and simply act as valves)rather than one.
-----------------------------------
Enjoy the music, not the equipment.
|
|
|
Re: For biamping M60s, crossover need to be removed?
|
Joined: Jun 2010
Posts: 92
old hand
|
OP
old hand
Joined: Jun 2010
Posts: 92 |
Thats unbelievable John, I feel like almost the whole audio market is full of gimmicks and scams. Why do they even offer these options, in all honesty, is it for products to look more enticing? And why do our speakers and most others have 2 pairs of binding posts then if the majority never truly biamp? I enjoy my sound now, but I figured I would try it as not to waste a potentially helpful feature. I also like asking these questions on here because you guys are full of knowledge, and even if I never do any of these tweeks it helps satisfy my idle curiosity (electronics is very intersting stuff). In the end it all comes down to the quote in JohnK's signiture, how true!
M60, VP150, QS8, HSU VTF2-MK 3, Marantz SR8002, Oppo BDP-83SE, 50" Panasonic Plasma
|
|
|
Re: For biamping M60s, crossover need to be removed?
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 18,044
shareholder in the making
|
shareholder in the making
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 18,044 |
Dealers. Dealers require a lot of these things so they can sell the speakers and more gizmos.
Also, people will buy it.
I am the Doctor, and THIS... is my SPOON!
|
|
|
Re: For biamping M60s, crossover need to be removed?
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 6,833
axiomite
|
axiomite
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 6,833 |
There are a lot of folks who buy into stuff like this. I have a brother in law that has an inexpensive set of Polk towers that is powered by an Onkyo and he uses the bi-amp feature and swears he hears a difference. Try and tell him there's no difference in sound; he'll argue that fact there is a difference.
Rick
"A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity." Sigmund Freud
|
|
|
Re: For biamping M60s, crossover need to be removed?
|
Joined: Feb 2009
Posts: 3,466
connoisseur
|
connoisseur
Joined: Feb 2009
Posts: 3,466 |
I wonder if Axiom would build an M80/VP180 with three pairs of binding posts, and easily bypassed crossovers (well at least able to be bypassed by removing a speaker and moving spades from the crossover output directly to the inside binding posts).
Then they could be advertised as tri-ampable, and actually be used that way by someone who knows that they are doing.
Pioneer PDP-5020FD, Marantz SR6011 Axiom M5HP, VP160HP, QS8 Sony PS4, surround backs -Chris
|
|
|
Re: For biamping M60s, crossover need to be removed?
|
Joined: Jun 2010
Posts: 92
old hand
|
OP
old hand
Joined: Jun 2010
Posts: 92 |
The power of the placebo effect. Thats a cool and seemingly simple idea Neon
M60, VP150, QS8, HSU VTF2-MK 3, Marantz SR8002, Oppo BDP-83SE, 50" Panasonic Plasma
|
|
|
Re: For biamping M60s, crossover need to be removed?
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 3,270
connoisseur
|
connoisseur
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 3,270 |
Hi Club Neon and all,
I think that is extremely unlikely, seeing as how both Ian, the founder and owner of Axiom, and myself believe that there is no advantage to bi-/tri-amping in domestic setups.
Moreover, it then puts the spectral balance (tonal balance) of the speaker into the hands of the consumer, and we do not want that to occur. We spend a lot of time and research doing double-blind tests to get the tonal balance excactly right--you all love the new VP180, right? It's taken years for us to get a big center that I'm satisfied with, in fact, thrilled with.
Likewise, the new M60 v3 is a big improvement over the v2, especially if you're a really critical listener to male and female vocals and dislike slightly edgy brasses, etc.
Why would Ian and I want to put the subtle nuances of tonal balance and crossover adjustment into the hands of consumers?
No way.
Regards, Alan
Alan Lofft, Axiom Resident Expert (Retired)
|
|
|
Re: For biamping M60s, crossover need to be removed?
|
Joined: Feb 2009
Posts: 3,466
connoisseur
|
connoisseur
Joined: Feb 2009
Posts: 3,466 |
Very good point. Thanks for your response.
Pioneer PDP-5020FD, Marantz SR6011 Axiom M5HP, VP160HP, QS8 Sony PS4, surround backs -Chris
|
|
|
Re: For biamping M60s, crossover need to be removed?
|
htnut
Unregistered
|
htnut
Unregistered
|
|
|
|
Forums16
Topics24,945
Posts442,484
Members15,617
|
Most Online2,082 Jan 22nd, 2020
|
|
0 members (),
1,228
guests, and
6
robots. |
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
|