...and I don't really want to go beyond this hypothetical scenario...

2 axiom amps
- Amp 1, to run a left and right M80 and 4 QS8 surrounds (bi-wiring the M80's)
- Amp 2, to wire 2 center channels

Which would be the best scenario:

amp 1 - have a y splitter out of the pre-amp into the amp for the M80's (in effect creating 2 channels for one), or wire in series/parallel out of one channel (ie, have a y splitter for the left and right and use the individual channels to bi-wire, or use one channel and wire in series or parallel)

amp 2 - have 2 center channels and y split out of the pre amp and use the individual channels for each center.

Is y splitting out of a pre-amp into an amp, creating two powered channels even possible? Signal degradation?

If money were no object, would this be the best solution, or would wiring in parallel/series be the best option? Is a second amp really even neccessary? Can all this wiring be done with 1 amp?

Just curious....I bought a lottery ticket and i'm feeling lucky

y-splitting is just fine, but I don't think a second amp is necessary at all. As I understand it passive bi-amping (which this would be) would merely give you more headroom. Do you really need more headroom when you've got 1400 watts/channel to work with?

I should have prefaced the post with the fact that I have no Idea what I'm talking about.

I was just curious what would be the best solution with the requirements ie:

Bi-wiring the M80's and running 2 center channels (possibly 2 M22's and 1 VP150)

Er... you don't get 1400W/channel. It's 1400W total that can spike high as per their spec sheet with 2/4 Ohms, but is essentially there to drive multiple channels.

Our friend Peakjunkie in Manhattan Beach, CA is running 10 speakers from his A1400-8. I can't imagine that biwiring or even biamping a pair of M80's would be more of a load than four M22's.



Umm, that sounds like "three" Overkill, IMO. I think Ian and Amie have 2 VP150's (one above and one below). That seems about right to me.

right, but I think his point is that you CAN get 1400 to any given channel if needed (as long as no other channels need any power).

Read the specs...
Power (1 channel driven)
8 ohms - 350 watts
4 ohms - 700 watts
2 ohms - 1,200 watts

the 2 M22's would be wired in parallel/series and the VP150 by itself, so in effect 2 channels

0 ohms = 1400

just kidding

That's still 3 center channels, as far as speakers go. Sounds like a good way to obviate the left and right channels.

In any case, 350 watts/channel on average should be quite sufficient headroom wise, as it is extraordinarily unlikely that all 8 channels would need to peak at the same time. At least, I wouldn't want to be in the room when that happened.

how would it obviate the left/right channels? There was a post recently where it was determined that 2 M22's would be a good thing (at least to the ears of the testers) and that adding a VP150 would round out the center effect.

It just seems like you're using so many speakers for the center, you'll just end up with mono sound. Not to mention placement problems--push those 2 M22s out too far, you've got the same problem with mono. They'll be right next to the r/l channels!

I think Ken's on the right track. It really depends A LOT on the room. I think it would be important to keep separation between the center and the mains, and also to have a fairly focused, coherent image for the center. Remember that a previous generation VP150 was a different array (MTMTM), which was abandoned in favor of the current configuration (TMMMT). That was a relatively subtle change compared to what you're considering, but was obviously quite important in Axiom's analysis. More drivers splattered all over the place is not necessarily "better".

odd that non of this was brought up in the other thread. and is it really that subtle compared to a TWWWWT configuration?

By the way Mr Tuttle, I like your sig (being a brewer myself).