• RE: Agreed - ahendler 09:30:22 09/14/12 (2)
  In Reply to: RE: Agreed posted by grantv on September 14, 2012 at 07:15:30

  Passive or active biamp. I have always found passive biamp to sound worse than a single good amp
  Alan
  

  ---

  • Active...! NT - grantv 09:44:01 09/14/12 (1)
    In Reply to: RE: Agreed posted by ahendler on September 14, 2012 at 09:30:22

    
    
    
    

    ---

    • RE: Active...! NT - pictureguy 10:01:32 09/14/12 (0)
      In Reply to: RE: Active...! NT posted by grantv on September 14, 2012 at 09:44:01

      Biamp is an interesting, if somewhat expensive proposition.
      Ratio of amp power for hi/lo depends to a large extent on crossover frequency while other amp characteristics like what I call 'latency' can effect phase / delay which materially effects image and coherence of soundfield. I define latency as the time it takes an input signal to propogate thru the amp to the speaker outputs.
      For my .05$ I'd try to use either idential amps or amps from the same 'family' to avoid issues which you can have with, for example, SS on bottom and tube on top.
      
      A couple pair of Pass monos would be my starting point...soon after winning the lotto. For my 1.6s? I'd consider the 100watt 'a' amps from Pass.
      
      And yes, Active would be the goal for me, too. But that said, the starting point would be to mimic the STOCK crossover as closely as possible.
      You might also need some measuring instruments....a scope, signal generator and 2 or more DVMs, the right software and a couple cal'd microphones.....to start.
      Too much is never enough
      
      

      ---

Post a Followup:

This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:

Schiit Audio

---

[ Top of Page ] [ Contact Us ] [ Support/Wish List ] [ Copyright © 2025, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]

---

[ General ] [ Speakers ] [ Tubes ] [ Vinyl ] [ Digital ] [ Hi-Rez ] [ Video Asylum ] [ Cables ] [ Tweaks/DIY ] [ Music ] [ Films ]

---