Hi Rod?I asked some time ago for the suspension setup instructions to be place under FAQ. nil response.
http://www.theanalogdept.com/susp_tim_bailey.htm
In the spirit of ideas I have seen being discussed to ensure that good advice is available here, I have posted on MC cartridge shibboleths recently.
I also have some issues with the biamping article in FAQ which does not spell out clearly how or if passive biamping can work. The article states without elaborating that a single better / bigger amp might be better. Yes, but two matching amps can give very good results without the 'trade-in' loss.
IME passive can work and John C Aussie thinks I should write it up.
see below.
Warmest
Timbo
+++++++++++++++++++
Hi Tim
I tried unsuccessfully to contact Dan (Audio Fan) re your sugge4stions but failed.
I suggest you post up an article on speakers or general and ask for comments so you can prepare an article for FAQ on passive biamplification. You obviously have more expertise in this area than me so it would be better coming from you anyway.
Thanks for the courtesy of contacting me about it,
John
----- Original Message -----
From:
To:
Sent: Tuesday, August 13, 2002 6:18 PM
Subject: Bi-amping
> Audio Asylum Email from Timbo in Oz:
>
> John,
>
> I have read the joint article about this at AA's FAQ, and would gently suggest that the existing sections on passive biamping focus more on the ideal arrangement of active and do not address when it can work. Passive biamping - I mean.
>
> Making a case for active is an entirely laudible aim, but it would be
better if the case for passive, along with its real constraints, were
spelled out.
>
> Some changes could add to the article and yet not diminish the arguments for the (accepted, smile!) ideal of active - they also might introduce some reality about what is actually required for your ordinary audiophile to succesfully retrofit active to an existing spkr system. Even if it did have the extra terminals.
>
> EG. Spendors, like SP1's ( only the later models can be biwired) or Yamaha NS1000's, or IMF model IV's, etc etc. eh?
>
> I know that for many audiophiles passive biamping - with voltage gain
matched amps of course - can be very satisfying, and that it is cheaper than active. The 'search costs' are lower too.
>
> Many do not want to put any more active processing in the line, and are very happy with the sound from their speakers, what's more.
>
> A second matching power amp, and/or a matching power amp to their existing integrated can work wonders here. IME this can radically reduce the level of hashiness and increase transparency, if earthing is attended to.
>
> I am surprised that ARCAM, for one, haven't complained. Smile.
>> An active crossover, in these kinds of contexts, is 1) going to be more expensive and, 2) not necessarily an improvement either.
>
> How many commercially available 'off the shelf' active crossovers, are there - apart from the usual level matching, that can
>
> 1. compensate for the baffle dip step of all (any?) sensibly sized spkrs?
>
> 2. provide asymmetrical slopes (and overlapping points),
> for the mid/bass transition or for the mid(bass?)/tweeter and
>
> 3. allow you to do say 'first order high pass only' - on a supertweeter, and
4. switch the low pass filter off for these higher frequencies.
>
5. provide traps for FS filtering, or
>
6. mild subtle shelving, or
>
7. EQ.
>
> Hmmmm, not many I would suggest!
>
> Passive crossovers mostly do do all this. True?
>
> Bryston did several 3 way crossovers for Waveform's iterations of 'the beasts', right up to the egg thingy - with heaps of eq / trapping etc / and 6th order assisted stuff in the bass. That is a 'bespoke' Xover.
>
> I know that one company in the UK offered this service, for 'commercial' spkrs, you just give them the model and serial number. But I for one have little faith in techies here in Oz being able to preserve what I have.
>
> As an illustration, my spkrs don't have a LP at all, so no baffle dip
comp'n anyway, (but very good control by the amp!).
>
> One 'jerk', who didn't listen, wanted to put in a 4th order LR on both sides at 3.5k which would have given me a 7th order acoustic slope on the mid/woofer - which I didn't, and still don't, think I need/ed.
>
> In the same vein, do Epos spkrs, esp. the 11's and 12's 'need' an active Xover?
>
> If like these spkrs you only have a single HP, first order to the tweeter with a cap, biamping should be unnecesary shouldn't it? (My spkrs are half way to this!)
>
> Yet I know that these and other Epos' benefit from two matching tubed power amps, the treble one in triode mode, but still gain matched.
>
> And, we couldn't convince ourselves that RC passive filtering - on the input to the tweeter amp instead, was an improvement, nor was LP on the mid-bass amp (above the main driver's pass band). Both were 'less' than the OEM design.
>
> Given these points I feel it behoves you and the other guy to make some adjustments that address these issues and improve the breadth of the article.
> Warmest,
>
> Timbo
