Anyone else bi-amping?

Anyone else bi-amping?

I updated my setup to bi-amp last year. I was wondering if any others
in the group is doing this now and what your set up and experiences
were?

I'm using a dbx 223 crossover usually at 700hz. I play around with it
a bit but keep it between 500 and 1k. The lower end I'm running to an
adcom 555 connected to 4 ten inch moderately priced woofers in closed
cabinets, two woofers to a side wired in parallel. The high side I
have going to an adcom 535 with a pair of 5 1/4 midwoofers and one
ribbon tweeter on each side also in closed cabinets. The passive
crossover on the high side is just a simple 6db centered at 5k. Of
course it is subjective, but I feel like moving the bass out of the
rest of the signal improved overall clarity. The two adcoms, when I
experimented with them independently also seemed better suited to the
separate tasks. Besides the obvious power difference the 535 seemed
to have a better sound at mid and highs than the 555 when listening to
them with a full signal range at about the same sound levels. Of
course the 555 is obviously the choice for the low end anyway due to
the power difference.

For a signal source I'm using a technics sh-ac500d as a preamp and
either xm radio or itunes acc ripped at 256k via a squeezebox. The
setup doubles as part of my surround sound as well hence the ac500d.
I mostly listen to old and new rock but occasionally anything else as
well, except country. I'd like to take some measurements as well.
I've got a signal generator and a scope but don't have a good high
quality mic.

As I suspect most of us are, I'm trying to decide what to change next
as well :-)

Re: Anyone else bi-amping?

jamesgangnc wrote:
> I updated my setup to bi-amp last year. I was wondering if any others
> in the group is doing this now and what your set up and experiences
> were?
>
> I'm using a dbx 223 crossover usually at 700hz. I play around with it
> a bit but keep it between 500 and 1k. The lower end I'm running to an
> adcom 555 connected to 4 ten inch moderately priced woofers in closed
> cabinets, two woofers to a side wired in parallel. The high side I
> have going to an adcom 535 with a pair of 5 1/4 midwoofers and one
> ribbon tweeter on each side also in closed cabinets. The passive
> crossover on the high side is just a simple 6db centered at 5k. Of
> course it is subjective, but I feel like moving the bass out of the
> rest of the signal improved overall clarity. The two adcoms, when I
> experimented with them independently also seemed better suited to the
> separate tasks. Besides the obvious power difference the 535 seemed
> to have a better sound at mid and highs than the 555 when listening to
> them with a full signal range at about the same sound levels. Of
> course the 555 is obviously the choice for the low end anyway due to
> the power difference.
>
> For a signal source I'm using a technics sh-ac500d as a preamp and
> either xm radio or itunes acc ripped at 256k via a squeezebox. The
> setup doubles as part of my surround sound as well hence the ac500d.
> I mostly listen to old and new rock but occasionally anything else as
> well, except country. I'd like to take some measurements as well.
> I've got a signal generator and a scope but don't have a good high
> quality mic.
>
> As I suspect most of us are, I'm trying to decide what to change next
> as well :-)

I'd get a higher order filter on your ribbons first.

The distortion increases in typical ribbons when the excursion below the
useful rolloff does not decrease substantially. A first order filter in
practical terms tends to make the excursion *remain the same* below the
inflection point of the "rolloff". That means that you've got excess
deflection/excursion. I'd consider a 24db/oct filter there... most ribbons
can not handle a first order filter.

Then use one of the various freeware FFT programs and a halfway decent
mic to measure the freq response of the mid/HF combo. Take note of the
off axis response and the waterfall as well. Look at the impulse
response of the two drivers together.

You may need to adjust the xovers and do other things to arrive at a
best compromise response for the mid/tweeter combo.

Then you can look at the relationship between the woofs and the upper range.

After that I'd say that with the "average" sort of ripped music, it
probably won't make much difference what else you do. BUT, once you get
the speakers optimized you may start to hear larger differences in terms
of source material - then it may make sense to think about upgrading other
parts of your system.

Btw, the difference you are now hearing is likely due to two things:
- different amplifier & load to the amp
- different crossover slope & Q

Until then, enjoy the experimenting! : )

- -bear

Re: Anyone else bi-amping?

"bear" <bearlabs@netzero . net > wrote in message
news:fqc0ig01jv6@news4.newsguy . com ...
> jamesgangnc wrote:
>> I updated my setup to bi-amp last year. I was wondering if any others
>> in the group is doing this now and what your set up and experiences
>> were?
>>
>> I'm using a dbx 223 crossover usually at 700hz. I play around with it
>> a bit but keep it between 500 and 1k. The lower end I'm running to an
>> adcom 555 connected to 4 ten inch moderately priced woofers in closed
>> cabinets, two woofers to a side wired in parallel. The high side I
>> have going to an adcom 535 with a pair of 5 1/4 midwoofers and one
>> ribbon tweeter on each side also in closed cabinets. The passive
>> crossover on the high side is just a simple 6db centered at 5k. Of
>> course it is subjective, but I feel like moving the bass out of the
>> rest of the signal improved overall clarity. The two adcoms, when I
>> experimented with them independently also seemed better suited to the
>> separate tasks. Besides the obvious power difference the 535 seemed
>> to have a better sound at mid and highs than the 555 when listening to
>> them with a full signal range at about the same sound levels. Of
>> course the 555 is obviously the choice for the low end anyway due to
>> the power difference.
>>
>> For a signal source I'm using a technics sh-ac500d as a preamp and
>> either xm radio or itunes acc ripped at 256k via a squeezebox. The
>> setup doubles as part of my surround sound as well hence the ac500d.
>> I mostly listen to old and new rock but occasionally anything else as
>> well, except country. I'd like to take some measurements as well.
>> I've got a signal generator and a scope but don't have a good high
>> quality mic.
>>
>> As I suspect most of us are, I'm trying to decide what to change next
>> as well :-)
>
> I'd get a higher order filter on your ribbons first.
>
> The distortion increases in typical ribbons when the excursion below the
> useful rolloff does not decrease substantially. A first order filter in
> practical terms tends to make the excursion *remain the same* below the
> inflection point of the "rolloff". That means that you've got excess
> deflection/excursion. I'd consider a 24db/oct filter there... most ribbons
> can not handle a first order filter.
>
> Then use one of the various freeware FFT programs and a halfway decent
> mic to measure the freq response of the mid/HF combo. Take note of the
> off axis response and the waterfall as well. Look at the impulse
> response of the two drivers together.
>
> You may need to adjust the xovers and do other things to arrive at a
> best compromise response for the mid/tweeter combo.
>
> Then you can look at the relationship between the woofs and the upper
> range.
>
> After that I'd say that with the "average" sort of ripped music, it
> probably won't make much difference what else you do. BUT, once you get
> the speakers optimized you may start to hear larger differences in terms
> of source material - then it may make sense to think about upgrading other
> parts of your system.
>
> Btw, the difference you are now hearing is likely due to two things:
> - different amplifier & load to the amp
> - different crossover slope & Q
>
> Until then, enjoy the experimenting! :_)
>
> _-_-bear

Thanks. Interesting. The low end on the ribbons is around 2k so I was
thinking that I would get way with the 6db crossover because I was so far
above it. Given that would you still recomend the 24db crossover or maybe a
12? Some of what I have read on the topic suggested keeping the mid/high
crossover simpler. In all honesty I'd probably think a little bit about
switching to a three way active to get a 24db crossover rather than using
passive.

I'm clueless in the mic world. But I would like to be able to really test
rather than rely on subjective listening. Can I hook the mic directly to my
scope or should I have a preamp on it? I realize I will have to power the
mic if I do not have a pre-amp involved. What mic brands tend to be decent
and what kind of dollar level should I be shopping at? tia

Re: Anyone else bi-amping?

On Sat, 1 Mar 2008 13:56:58 -0800, jamesgangnc wrote
(in article <fqcjfa02enj@news4.newsguy . com >):

> "bear" <bearlabs@netzero . net > wrote in message
> news:fqc0ig01jv6@news4.newsguy . com ...
>> jamesgangnc wrote:
>>> I updated my setup to bi-amp last year. I was wondering if any others
>>> in the group is doing this now and what your set up and experiences
>>> were?
>>>
>>> I'm using a dbx 223 crossover usually at 700hz. I play around with it
>>> a bit but keep it between 500 and 1k. The lower end I'm running to an
>>> adcom 555 connected to 4 ten inch moderately priced woofers in closed
>>> cabinets, two woofers to a side wired in parallel. The high side I
>>> have going to an adcom 535 with a pair of 5 1/4 midwoofers and one
>>> ribbon tweeter on each side also in closed cabinets. The passive
>>> crossover on the high side is just a simple 6db centered at 5k. Of
>>> course it is subjective, but I feel like moving the bass out of the
>>> rest of the signal improved overall clarity. The two adcoms, when I
>>> experimented with them independently also seemed better suited to the
>>> separate tasks. Besides the obvious power difference the 535 seemed
>>> to have a better sound at mid and highs than the 555 when listening to
>>> them with a full signal range at about the same sound levels. Of
>>> course the 555 is obviously the choice for the low end anyway due to
>>> the power difference.
>>>
>>> For a signal source I'm using a technics sh-ac500d as a preamp and
>>> either xm radio or itunes acc ripped at 256k via a squeezebox. The
>>> setup doubles as part of my surround sound as well hence the ac500d.
>>> I mostly listen to old and new rock but occasionally anything else as
>>> well, except country. I'd like to take some measurements as well.
>>> I've got a signal generator and a scope but don't have a good high
>>> quality mic.
>>>
>>> As I suspect most of us are, I'm trying to decide what to change next
>>> as well :-)
>>
>> I'd get a higher order filter on your ribbons first.
>>
>> The distortion increases in typical ribbons when the excursion below the
>> useful rolloff does not decrease substantially. A first order filter in
>> practical terms tends to make the excursion *remain the same* below the
>> inflection point of the "rolloff". That means that you've got excess
>> deflection/excursion. I'd consider a 24db/oct filter there... most ribbons
>> can not handle a first order filter.
>>
>> Then use one of the various freeware FFT programs and a halfway decent
>> mic to measure the freq response of the mid/HF combo. Take note of the
>> off axis response and the waterfall as well. Look at the impulse
>> response of the two drivers together.
>>
>> You may need to adjust the xovers and do other things to arrive at a
>> best compromise response for the mid/tweeter combo.
>>
>> Then you can look at the relationship between the woofs and the upper
>> range.
>>
>> After that I'd say that with the "average" sort of ripped music, it
>> probably won't make much difference what else you do. BUT, once you get
>> the speakers optimized you may start to hear larger differences in terms
>> of source material - then it may make sense to think about upgrading other
>> parts of your system.
>>
>> Btw, the difference you are now hearing is likely due to two things:
>> - different amplifier & load to the amp
>> - different crossover slope & Q
>>
>> Until then, enjoy the experimenting! :_)
>>
>> _-_-bear
>
> Thanks. Interesting. The low end on the ribbons is around 2k so I was
> thinking that I would get way with the 6db crossover because I was so far
> above it. Given that would you still recomend the 24db crossover or maybe a
> 12? Some of what I have read on the topic suggested keeping the mid/high
> crossover simpler. In all honesty I'd probably think a little bit about
> switching to a three way active to get a 24db crossover rather than using
> passive.
>
> I'm clueless in the mic world. But I would like to be able to really test
> rather than rely on subjective listening. Can I hook the mic directly to my
> scope or should I have a preamp on it? I realize I will have to power the
> mic if I do not have a pre-amp involved. What mic brands tend to be decent
> and what kind of dollar level should I be shopping at? tia

You can get a very nice condenser mike with a big 1-inch capsule and very
flat frequency response that outputs directly to USB for less than $100. The
Samson C01U, for instance, is $89 from Zsounds and has 20-18KHz +/- 3db
frequency response. All you need with it is a USB cable, your computer and
the freeware sound capture and editing program "Audacity" (available for
Windows, MacOSX, Linux). Connect the Microphone to your computer via USB,
start Audacity, set the preferences to the USB input, and start capturing
audio, select a section and then then go into the "Analyze" menu and select
"Plot Spectrum" It will even give you a cursor to look at any point on the
plot.

Re: Anyone else bi-amping?

"Sonnova" <sonnova@audiosanatorium . com > wrote in message
news:fqegm601de9@news1.newsguy . com ...
> On Sat, 1 Mar 2008 13:56:58 -0800, jamesgangnc wrote
> (in article <fqcjfa02enj@news4.newsguy . com >):
>
>> "bear" <bearlabs@netzero . net > wrote in message
>> news:fqc0ig01jv6@news4.newsguy . com ...
>>> jamesgangnc wrote:
>>>> I updated my setup to bi-amp last year. I was wondering if any others
>>>> in the group is doing this now and what your set up and experiences
>>>> were?
>>>>
>>>> I'm using a dbx 223 crossover usually at 700hz. I play around with it
>>>> a bit but keep it between 500 and 1k. The lower end I'm running to an
>>>> adcom 555 connected to 4 ten inch moderately priced woofers in closed
>>>> cabinets, two woofers to a side wired in parallel. The high side I
>>>> have going to an adcom 535 with a pair of 5 1/4 midwoofers and one
>>>> ribbon tweeter on each side also in closed cabinets. The passive
>>>> crossover on the high side is just a simple 6db centered at 5k. Of
>>>> course it is subjective, but I feel like moving the bass out of the
>>>> rest of the signal improved overall clarity. The two adcoms, when I
>>>> experimented with them independently also seemed better suited to the
>>>> separate tasks. Besides the obvious power difference the 535 seemed
>>>> to have a better sound at mid and highs than the 555 when listening to
>>>> them with a full signal range at about the same sound levels. Of
>>>> course the 555 is obviously the choice for the low end anyway due to
>>>> the power difference.
>>>>
>>>> For a signal source I'm using a technics sh-ac500d as a preamp and
>>>> either xm radio or itunes acc ripped at 256k via a squeezebox. The
>>>> setup doubles as part of my surround sound as well hence the ac500d.
>>>> I mostly listen to old and new rock but occasionally anything else as
>>>> well, except country. I'd like to take some measurements as well.
>>>> I've got a signal generator and a scope but don't have a good high
>>>> quality mic.
>>>>
>>>> As I suspect most of us are, I'm trying to decide what to change next
>>>> as well :-)
>>>
>>> I'd get a higher order filter on your ribbons first.
>>>
>>> The distortion increases in typical ribbons when the excursion below the
>>> useful rolloff does not decrease substantially. A first order filter in
>>> practical terms tends to make the excursion *remain the same* below the
>>> inflection point of the "rolloff". That means that you've got excess
>>> deflection/excursion. I'd consider a 24db/oct filter there... most
>>> ribbons
>>> can not handle a first order filter.
>>>
>>> Then use one of the various freeware FFT programs and a halfway decent
>>> mic to measure the freq response of the mid/HF combo. Take note of the
>>> off axis response and the waterfall as well. Look at the impulse
>>> response of the two drivers together.
>>>
>>> You may need to adjust the xovers and do other things to arrive at a
>>> best compromise response for the mid/tweeter combo.
>>>
>>> Then you can look at the relationship between the woofs and the upper
>>> range.
>>>
>>> After that I'd say that with the "average" sort of ripped music, it
>>> probably won't make much difference what else you do. BUT, once you get
>>> the speakers optimized you may start to hear larger differences in terms
>>> of source material - then it may make sense to think about upgrading
>>> other
>>> parts of your system.
>>>
>>> Btw, the difference you are now hearing is likely due to two things:
>>> - different amplifier & load to the amp
>>> - different crossover slope & Q
>>>
>>> Until then, enjoy the experimenting! :_)
>>>
>>> _-_-bear
>>
>> Thanks. Interesting. The low end on the ribbons is around 2k so I was
>> thinking that I would get way with the 6db crossover because I was so far
>> above it. Given that would you still recomend the 24db crossover or
>> maybe a
>> 12? Some of what I have read on the topic suggested keeping the mid/high
>> crossover simpler. In all honesty I'd probably think a little bit about
>> switching to a three way active to get a 24db crossover rather than using
>> passive.
>>
>> I'm clueless in the mic world. But I would like to be able to really
>> test
>> rather than rely on subjective listening. Can I hook the mic directly to
>> my
>> scope or should I have a preamp on it? I realize I will have to power
>> the
>> mic if I do not have a pre-amp involved. What mic brands tend to be
>> decent
>> and what kind of dollar level should I be shopping at? tia
>
> You can get a very nice condenser mike with a big 1-inch capsule and very
> flat frequency response that outputs directly to USB for less than $100.
> The
> Samson C01U, for instance, is $89 from Zsounds and has 20-18KHz +/- 3db
> frequency response. All you need with it is a USB cable, your computer and
> the freeware sound capture and editing program "Audacity" (available for
> Windows, MacOSX, Linux). Connect the Microphone to your computer via USB,
> start Audacity, set the preferences to the USB input, and start capturing
> audio, select a section and then then go into the "Analyze" menu and
> select
> "Plot Spectrum" It will even give you a cursor to look at any point on the
> plot.

Does have a lot of sound editing capability. But what about measuring level
and frequency? How sensitive can it measure level? I see it does have
multiple channels.

It is different from what I was thinking, which was to hook one scope
channel and the function generator to an rca input and the other scope
channel plus an rms meter to the mic on a stand in front of one of the
speakers and take readings voltage at points between 20 and 20k while
observing the signals for distortion or phase shift on the scope. Not that
I'm against your suggestion, just didn't consider this path.

Re: Anyone else bi-amping?

On Mon, 3 Mar 2008 15:21:55 -0800, jamesgangnc wrote
(in article <fqi16j0aie@news3.newsguy . com >):

> "Sonnova" <sonnova@audiosanatorium . com > wrote in message
> news:fqegm601de9@news1.newsguy . com ...
>> On Sat, 1 Mar 2008 13:56:58 -0800, jamesgangnc wrote
>> (in article <fqcjfa02enj@news4.newsguy . com >):
>>
>>> "bear" <bearlabs@netzero . net > wrote in message
>>> news:fqc0ig01jv6@news4.newsguy . com ...
>>>> jamesgangnc wrote:
>>>>> I updated my setup to bi-amp last year. I was wondering if any others
>>>>> in the group is doing this now and what your set up and experiences
>>>>> were?
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm using a dbx 223 crossover usually at 700hz. I play around with it
>>>>> a bit but keep it between 500 and 1k. The lower end I'm running to an
>>>>> adcom 555 connected to 4 ten inch moderately priced woofers in closed
>>>>> cabinets, two woofers to a side wired in parallel. The high side I
>>>>> have going to an adcom 535 with a pair of 5 1/4 midwoofers and one
>>>>> ribbon tweeter on each side also in closed cabinets. The passive
>>>>> crossover on the high side is just a simple 6db centered at 5k. Of
>>>>> course it is subjective, but I feel like moving the bass out of the
>>>>> rest of the signal improved overall clarity. The two adcoms, when I
>>>>> experimented with them independently also seemed better suited to the
>>>>> separate tasks. Besides the obvious power difference the 535 seemed
>>>>> to have a better sound at mid and highs than the 555 when listening to
>>>>> them with a full signal range at about the same sound levels. Of
>>>>> course the 555 is obviously the choice for the low end anyway due to
>>>>> the power difference.
>>>>>
>>>>> For a signal source I'm using a technics sh-ac500d as a preamp and
>>>>> either xm radio or itunes acc ripped at 256k via a squeezebox. The
>>>>> setup doubles as part of my surround sound as well hence the ac500d.
>>>>> I mostly listen to old and new rock but occasionally anything else as
>>>>> well, except country. I'd like to take some measurements as well.
>>>>> I've got a signal generator and a scope but don't have a good high
>>>>> quality mic.
>>>>>
>>>>> As I suspect most of us are, I'm trying to decide what to change next
>>>>> as well :-)
>>>>
>>>> I'd get a higher order filter on your ribbons first.
>>>>
>>>> The distortion increases in typical ribbons when the excursion below the
>>>> useful rolloff does not decrease substantially. A first order filter in
>>>> practical terms tends to make the excursion *remain the same* below the
>>>> inflection point of the "rolloff". That means that you've got excess
>>>> deflection/excursion. I'd consider a 24db/oct filter there... most
>>>> ribbons
>>>> can not handle a first order filter.
>>>>
>>>> Then use one of the various freeware FFT programs and a halfway decent
>>>> mic to measure the freq response of the mid/HF combo. Take note of the
>>>> off axis response and the waterfall as well. Look at the impulse
>>>> response of the two drivers together.
>>>>
>>>> You may need to adjust the xovers and do other things to arrive at a
>>>> best compromise response for the mid/tweeter combo.
>>>>
>>>> Then you can look at the relationship between the woofs and the upper
>>>> range.
>>>>
>>>> After that I'd say that with the "average" sort of ripped music, it
>>>> probably won't make much difference what else you do. BUT, once you get
>>>> the speakers optimized you may start to hear larger differences in terms
>>>> of source material - then it may make sense to think about upgrading
>>>> other
>>>> parts of your system.
>>>>
>>>> Btw, the difference you are now hearing is likely due to two things:
>>>> - different amplifier & load to the amp
>>>> - different crossover slope & Q
>>>>
>>>> Until then, enjoy the experimenting! :_)
>>>>
>>>> _-_-bear
>>>
>>> Thanks. Interesting. The low end on the ribbons is around 2k so I was
>>> thinking that I would get way with the 6db crossover because I was so far
>>> above it. Given that would you still recomend the 24db crossover or
>>> maybe a
>>> 12? Some of what I have read on the topic suggested keeping the mid/high
>>> crossover simpler. In all honesty I'd probably think a little bit about
>>> switching to a three way active to get a 24db crossover rather than using
>>> passive.
>>>
>>> I'm clueless in the mic world. But I would like to be able to really
>>> test
>>> rather than rely on subjective listening. Can I hook the mic directly to
>>> my
>>> scope or should I have a preamp on it? I realize I will have to power
>>> the
>>> mic if I do not have a pre-amp involved. What mic brands tend to be
>>> decent
>>> and what kind of dollar level should I be shopping at? tia
>>
>> You can get a very nice condenser mike with a big 1-inch capsule and very
>> flat frequency response that outputs directly to USB for less than $100.
>> The
>> Samson C01U, for instance, is $89 from Zsounds and has 20-18KHz +/- 3db
>> frequency response. All you need with it is a USB cable, your computer and
>> the freeware sound capture and editing program "Audacity" (available for
>> Windows, MacOSX, Linux). Connect the Microphone to your computer via USB,
>> start Audacity, set the preferences to the USB input, and start capturing
>> audio, select a section and then then go into the "Analyze" menu and
>> select
>> "Plot Spectrum" It will even give you a cursor to look at any point on the
>> plot.
>
> Does have a lot of sound editing capability. But what about measuring level
> and frequency? How sensitive can it measure level? I see it does have
> multiple channels.
>
> It is different from what I was thinking, which was to hook one scope
> channel and the function generator to an rca input and the other scope
> channel plus an rms meter to the mic on a stand in front of one of the
> speakers and take readings voltage at points between 20 and 20k while
> observing the signals for distortion or phase shift on the scope. Not that
> I'm against your suggestion, just didn't consider this path.
>

There are also real-time spectrum analysis tools available for most computer
platforms, I merely used Audacity as an example of a free program. One can
also get oscilloscope programs and fast -fourier analysis programs. They all
should work with a USB microphone, thank you.

Re: Anyone else bi-amping?

"Sonnova" <sonnova@audiosanatorium . com > wrote in message
news:fqkrvc0v05@news4.newsguy . com ...
> On Mon, 3 Mar 2008 15:21:55 -0800, jamesgangnc wrote
> (in article <fqi16j0aie@news3.newsguy . com >):
>
>> "Sonnova" <sonnova@audiosanatorium . com > wrote in message
>> news:fqegm601de9@news1.newsguy . com ...
>>> On Sat, 1 Mar 2008 13:56:58 -0800, jamesgangnc wrote
>>> (in article <fqcjfa02enj@news4.newsguy . com >):
>>>
>>>> "bear" <bearlabs@netzero . net > wrote in message
>>>> news:fqc0ig01jv6@news4.newsguy . com ...
>>>>> jamesgangnc wrote:
>>>>>> I updated my setup to bi-amp last year. I was wondering if any
>>>>>> others
>>>>>> in the group is doing this now and what your set up and experiences
>>>>>> were?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm using a dbx 223 crossover usually at 700hz. I play around with
>>>>>> it
>>>>>> a bit but keep it between 500 and 1k. The lower end I'm running to
>>>>>> an
>>>>>> adcom 555 connected to 4 ten inch moderately priced woofers in closed
>>>>>> cabinets, two woofers to a side wired in parallel. The high side I
>>>>>> have going to an adcom 535 with a pair of 5 1/4 midwoofers and one
>>>>>> ribbon tweeter on each side also in closed cabinets. The passive
>>>>>> crossover on the high side is just a simple 6db centered at 5k. Of
>>>>>> course it is subjective, but I feel like moving the bass out of the
>>>>>> rest of the signal improved overall clarity. The two adcoms, when I
>>>>>> experimented with them independently also seemed better suited to the
>>>>>> separate tasks. Besides the obvious power difference the 535 seemed
>>>>>> to have a better sound at mid and highs than the 555 when listening
>>>>>> to
>>>>>> them with a full signal range at about the same sound levels. Of
>>>>>> course the 555 is obviously the choice for the low end anyway due to
>>>>>> the power difference.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> For a signal source I'm using a technics sh-ac500d as a preamp and
>>>>>> either xm radio or itunes acc ripped at 256k via a squeezebox. The
>>>>>> setup doubles as part of my surround sound as well hence the ac500d.
>>>>>> I mostly listen to old and new rock but occasionally anything else as
>>>>>> well, except country. I'd like to take some measurements as well.
>>>>>> I've got a signal generator and a scope but don't have a good high
>>>>>> quality mic.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As I suspect most of us are, I'm trying to decide what to change next
>>>>>> as well :-)
>>>>>
>>>>> I'd get a higher order filter on your ribbons first.
>>>>>
>>>>> The distortion increases in typical ribbons when the excursion below
>>>>> the
>>>>> useful rolloff does not decrease substantially. A first order filter
>>>>> in
>>>>> practical terms tends to make the excursion *remain the same* below
>>>>> the
>>>>> inflection point of the "rolloff". That means that you've got excess
>>>>> deflection/excursion. I'd consider a 24db/oct filter there... most
>>>>> ribbons
>>>>> can not handle a first order filter.
>>>>>
>>>>> Then use one of the various freeware FFT programs and a halfway decent
>>>>> mic to measure the freq response of the mid/HF combo. Take note of the
>>>>> off axis response and the waterfall as well. Look at the impulse
>>>>> response of the two drivers together.
>>>>>
>>>>> You may need to adjust the xovers and do other things to arrive at a
>>>>> best compromise response for the mid/tweeter combo.
>>>>>
>>>>> Then you can look at the relationship between the woofs and the upper
>>>>> range.
>>>>>
>>>>> After that I'd say that with the "average" sort of ripped music, it
>>>>> probably won't make much difference what else you do. BUT, once you
>>>>> get
>>>>> the speakers optimized you may start to hear larger differences in
>>>>> terms
>>>>> of source material - then it may make sense to think about upgrading
>>>>> other
>>>>> parts of your system.
>>>>>
>>>>> Btw, the difference you are now hearing is likely due to two things:
>>>>> - different amplifier & load to the amp
>>>>> - different crossover slope & Q
>>>>>
>>>>> Until then, enjoy the experimenting! :_)
>>>>>
>>>>> _-_-bear
>>>>
>>>> Thanks. Interesting. The low end on the ribbons is around 2k so I was
>>>> thinking that I would get way with the 6db crossover because I was so
>>>> far
>>>> above it. Given that would you still recomend the 24db crossover or
>>>> maybe a
>>>> 12? Some of what I have read on the topic suggested keeping the
>>>> mid/high
>>>> crossover simpler. In all honesty I'd probably think a little bit
>>>> about
>>>> switching to a three way active to get a 24db crossover rather than
>>>> using
>>>> passive.
>>>>
>>>> I'm clueless in the mic world. But I would like to be able to really
>>>> test
>>>> rather than rely on subjective listening. Can I hook the mic directly
>>>> to
>>>> my
>>>> scope or should I have a preamp on it? I realize I will have to power
>>>> the
>>>> mic if I do not have a pre-amp involved. What mic brands tend to be
>>>> decent
>>>> and what kind of dollar level should I be shopping at? tia
>>>
>>> You can get a very nice condenser mike with a big 1-inch capsule and
>>> very
>>> flat frequency response that outputs directly to USB for less than $100.
>>> The
>>> Samson C01U, for instance, is $89 from Zsounds and has 20-18KHz +/- 3db
>>> frequency response. All you need with it is a USB cable, your computer
>>> and
>>> the freeware sound capture and editing program "Audacity" (available for
>>> Windows, MacOSX, Linux). Connect the Microphone to your computer via
>>> USB,
>>> start Audacity, set the preferences to the USB input, and start
>>> capturing
>>> audio, select a section and then then go into the "Analyze" menu and
>>> select
>>> "Plot Spectrum" It will even give you a cursor to look at any point on
>>> the
>>> plot.
>>
>> Does have a lot of sound editing capability. But what about measuring
>> level
>> and frequency? How sensitive can it measure level? I see it does have
>> multiple channels.
>>
>> It is different from what I was thinking, which was to hook one scope
>> channel and the function generator to an rca input and the other scope
>> channel plus an rms meter to the mic on a stand in front of one of the
>> speakers and take readings voltage at points between 20 and 20k while
>> observing the signals for distortion or phase shift on the scope. Not
>> that
>> I'm against your suggestion, just didn't consider this path.
>>
>
> There are also real-time spectrum analysis tools available for most
> computer
> platforms, I merely used Audacity as an example of a free program. One can
> also get oscilloscope programs and fast -fourier analysis programs. They
> all
> should work with a USB microphone, thank you.

Yes I know about the use of pcs as scopes. All the more serious stuff also
has a hardware component as well. But I already own a dual trace tektronix
scope with a built in rms meter. Admittedly older but it suits my other
purposes fine. I don't do this for a living. So I'm looking for the route
that requires me to get the least amount of new things. Particularly new
things that cost money. They used to do this with scopes and rms meters.
Is doing it with a pc really going to give me appreciably better results? I
don't care about faster because my time is not a factor in my hobbies.

Re: Anyone else bi-amping?

jamesgangnc wrote:
> "bear" <bearlabs@netzero . net > wrote in message
> news:fqc0ig01jv6@news4.newsguy . com ...
>> jamesgangnc wrote:
>>> I updated my setup to bi-amp last year. I was wondering if any others
>>> in the group is doing this now and what your set up and experiences
>>> were?
>>>
>>> I'm using a dbx 223 crossover usually at 700hz. I play around with it
>>> a bit but keep it between 500 and 1k. The lower end I'm running to an
>>> adcom 555 connected to 4 ten inch moderately priced woofers in closed
>>> cabinets, two woofers to a side wired in parallel. The high side I
>>> have going to an adcom 535 with a pair of 5 1/4 midwoofers and one
>>> ribbon tweeter on each side also in closed cabinets. The passive
>>> crossover on the high side is just a simple 6db centered at 5k. Of
>>> course it is subjective, but I feel like moving the bass out of the
>>> rest of the signal improved overall clarity. The two adcoms, when I
>>> experimented with them independently also seemed better suited to the
>>> separate tasks. Besides the obvious power difference the 535 seemed
>>> to have a better sound at mid and highs than the 555 when listening to
>>> them with a full signal range at about the same sound levels. Of
>>> course the 555 is obviously the choice for the low end anyway due to
>>> the power difference.
>>>
>>> For a signal source I'm using a technics sh-ac500d as a preamp and
>>> either xm radio or itunes acc ripped at 256k via a squeezebox. The
>>> setup doubles as part of my surround sound as well hence the ac500d.
>>> I mostly listen to old and new rock but occasionally anything else as
>>> well, except country. I'd like to take some measurements as well.
>>> I've got a signal generator and a scope but don't have a good high
>>> quality mic.
>>>
>>> As I suspect most of us are, I'm trying to decide what to change next
>>> as well :-)
>> I'd get a higher order filter on your ribbons first.
>>
>> The distortion increases in typical ribbons when the excursion below the
>> useful rolloff does not decrease substantially. A first order filter in
>> practical terms tends to make the excursion *remain the same* below the
>> inflection point of the "rolloff". That means that you've got excess
>> deflection/excursion. I'd consider a 24db/oct filter there... most ribbons
>> can not handle a first order filter.
>>
>> Then use one of the various freeware FFT programs and a halfway decent
>> mic to measure the freq response of the mid/HF combo. Take note of the
>> off axis response and the waterfall as well. Look at the impulse
>> response of the two drivers together.
>>
>> You may need to adjust the xovers and do other things to arrive at a
>> best compromise response for the mid/tweeter combo.
>>
>> Then you can look at the relationship between the woofs and the upper
>> range.
>>
>> After that I'd say that with the "average" sort of ripped music, it
>> probably won't make much difference what else you do. BUT, once you get
>> the speakers optimized you may start to hear larger differences in terms
>> of source material - then it may make sense to think about upgrading other
>> parts of your system.
>>
>> Btw, the difference you are now hearing is likely due to two things:
>> - different amplifier & load to the amp
>> - different crossover slope & Q
>>
>> Until then, enjoy the experimenting! : )
>>
>> - -bear
>
> Thanks. Interesting. The low end on the ribbons is around 2k so I was
> thinking that I would get way with the 6db crossover because I was so far
> above it. Given that would you still recomend the 24db crossover or maybe a
> 12? Some of what I have read on the topic suggested keeping the mid/high
> crossover simpler. In all honesty I'd probably think a little bit about
> switching to a three way active to get a 24db crossover rather than using
> passive.
>
> I'm clueless in the mic world. But I would like to be able to really test
> rather than rely on subjective listening. Can I hook the mic directly to my
> scope or should I have a preamp on it? I realize I will have to power the
> mic if I do not have a pre-amp involved. What mic brands tend to be decent
> and what kind of dollar level should I be shopping at? tia

What Sonnova said...

But you can get the Behringer "test" mic for $35 from most internet and retail
places that sell it. Almost any mic will get you some good information,
even if it is "relative" and not absolute.

Any soundcard and any freeware - no scope - will tell you enough information
to make good decisions.

As far as the xover? I'd try to make an xover that gets things below 2k out of
the way a bit faster... You're only about an octave down at 2.5k, assuming you
are really at the -3dB point at 5khz. 6dB down isn't all that much. So the
issue still remains.

I doubt that you would get better fidelity, or put another way, reach the full
potential of a good ribbon tweeter using an electronic xover. Just my opinion.

Also getting a mid up to 5khz. creates some problems in terms of response and
polar response...

This is a good example of why speaker design is a complex problem with many
variables, and many compromises...

- -bear

Re: Anyone else bi-amping?

"bear" <bearlabs@netzero . net > wrote in message
news:fqi18a0aiv@news3.newsguy . com ...
> jamesgangnc wrote:
>> "bear" <bearlabs@netzero . net > wrote in message
>> news:fqc0ig01jv6@news4.newsguy . com ...
>>> jamesgangnc wrote:
>>>> I updated my setup to bi-amp last year. I was wondering if any others
>>>> in the group is doing this now and what your set up and experiences
>>>> were?
>>>>
>>>> I'm using a dbx 223 crossover usually at 700hz. I play around with it
>>>> a bit but keep it between 500 and 1k. The lower end I'm running to an
>>>> adcom 555 connected to 4 ten inch moderately priced woofers in closed
>>>> cabinets, two woofers to a side wired in parallel. The high side I
>>>> have going to an adcom 535 with a pair of 5 1/4 midwoofers and one
>>>> ribbon tweeter on each side also in closed cabinets. The passive
>>>> crossover on the high side is just a simple 6db centered at 5k. Of
>>>> course it is subjective, but I feel like moving the bass out of the
>>>> rest of the signal improved overall clarity. The two adcoms, when I
>>>> experimented with them independently also seemed better suited to the
>>>> separate tasks. Besides the obvious power difference the 535 seemed
>>>> to have a better sound at mid and highs than the 555 when listening to
>>>> them with a full signal range at about the same sound levels. Of
>>>> course the 555 is obviously the choice for the low end anyway due to
>>>> the power difference.
>>>>
>>>> For a signal source I'm using a technics sh-ac500d as a preamp and
>>>> either xm radio or itunes acc ripped at 256k via a squeezebox. The
>>>> setup doubles as part of my surround sound as well hence the ac500d.
>>>> I mostly listen to old and new rock but occasionally anything else as
>>>> well, except country. I'd like to take some measurements as well.
>>>> I've got a signal generator and a scope but don't have a good high
>>>> quality mic.
>>>>
>>>> As I suspect most of us are, I'm trying to decide what to change next
>>>> as well :-)
>>> I'd get a higher order filter on your ribbons first.
>>>
>>> The distortion increases in typical ribbons when the excursion below the
>>> useful rolloff does not decrease substantially. A first order filter in
>>> practical terms tends to make the excursion *remain the same* below the
>>> inflection point of the "rolloff". That means that you've got excess
>>> deflection/excursion. I'd consider a 24db/oct filter there... most
>>> ribbons
>>> can not handle a first order filter.
>>>
>>> Then use one of the various freeware FFT programs and a halfway decent
>>> mic to measure the freq response of the mid/HF combo. Take note of the
>>> off axis response and the waterfall as well. Look at the impulse
>>> response of the two drivers together.
>>>
>>> You may need to adjust the xovers and do other things to arrive at a
>>> best compromise response for the mid/tweeter combo.
>>>
>>> Then you can look at the relationship between the woofs and the upper
>>> range.
>>>
>>> After that I'd say that with the "average" sort of ripped music, it
>>> probably won't make much difference what else you do. BUT, once you get
>>> the speakers optimized you may start to hear larger differences in terms
>>> of source material - then it may make sense to think about upgrading
>>> other
>>> parts of your system.
>>>
>>> Btw, the difference you are now hearing is likely due to two things:
>>> - different amplifier & load to the amp
>>> - different crossover slope & Q
>>>
>>> Until then, enjoy the experimenting! :_)
>>>
>>> _-_-bear
>>
>> Thanks. Interesting. The low end on the ribbons is around 2k so I was
>> thinking that I would get way with the 6db crossover because I was so far
>> above it. Given that would you still recomend the 24db crossover or
>> maybe a 12? Some of what I have read on the topic suggested keeping the
>> mid/high crossover simpler. In all honesty I'd probably think a little
>> bit about switching to a three way active to get a 24db crossover rather
>> than using passive.
>>
>> I'm clueless in the mic world. But I would like to be able to really
>> test rather than rely on subjective listening. Can I hook the mic
>> directly to my scope or should I have a preamp on it? I realize I will
>> have to power the mic if I do not have a pre-amp involved. What mic
>> brands tend to be decent and what kind of dollar level should I be
>> shopping at? tia
>
> What Sonnova said...
>
> But you can get the Behringer "test" mic for $35 from most internet and
> retail
> places that sell it. Almost any mic will get you some good information,
> even if it is "relative" and not absolute.
>
> Any soundcard and any freeware - no scope - will tell you enough
> information
> to make good decisions.
>
> As far as the xover? I'd try to make an xover that gets things below 2k
> out of
> the way a bit faster... You're only about an octave down at 2.5k, assuming
> you
> are really at the -3dB point at 5khz. 6dB down isn't all that much. So the
> issue still remains.
>
> I doubt that you would get better fidelity, or put another way, reach the
> full
> potential of a good ribbon tweeter using an electronic xover. Just my
> opinion.
>
> Also getting a mid up to 5khz. creates some problems in terms of response
> and
> polar response...
>
> This is a good example of why speaker design is a complex problem with
> many
> variables, and many compromises...
>
> _-_-bear

I think you make another good point about the midbass. It's response curve
goes to 6 but it not as flat between 5 and 6 and rolls off sharply at 6. I
had choosen 5k because of the ribbon. Originally I was trying to make it a
bit high to keep the vocals in the mids but your comments make me realize
that with a 6db crossover that's not happening anyway.

With a more effective crossover would you also recomend lowering the
crossover point as well?

Re: Anyone else bi-amping?

jamesgangnc wrote:
> "bear" <bearlabs@netzero . net > wrote in message
> news:fqi18a0aiv@news3.newsguy . com ...
>> jamesgangnc wrote:
>>> "bear" <bearlabs@netzero . net > wrote in message
>>> news:fqc0ig01jv6@news4.newsguy . com ...
>>>> jamesgangnc wrote:
>>>>> I updated my setup to bi-amp last year. I was wondering if any others
>>>>> in the group is doing this now and what your set up and experiences
>>>>> were?
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm using a dbx 223 crossover usually at 700hz. I play around with it
>>>>> a bit but keep it between 500 and 1k. The lower end I'm running to an
>>>>> adcom 555 connected to 4 ten inch moderately priced woofers in closed
>>>>> cabinets, two woofers to a side wired in parallel. The high side I
>>>>> have going to an adcom 535 with a pair of 5 1/4 midwoofers and one
>>>>> ribbon tweeter on each side also in closed cabinets. The passive
>>>>> crossover on the high side is just a simple 6db centered at 5k. Of
>>>>> course it is subjective, but I feel like moving the bass out of the
>>>>> rest of the signal improved overall clarity. The two adcoms, when I
>>>>> experimented with them independently also seemed better suited to the
>>>>> separate tasks. Besides the obvious power difference the 535 seemed
>>>>> to have a better sound at mid and highs than the 555 when listening to
>>>>> them with a full signal range at about the same sound levels. Of
>>>>> course the 555 is obviously the choice for the low end anyway due to
>>>>> the power difference.
>>>>>
>>>>> For a signal source I'm using a technics sh-ac500d as a preamp and
>>>>> either xm radio or itunes acc ripped at 256k via a squeezebox. The
>>>>> setup doubles as part of my surround sound as well hence the ac500d.
>>>>> I mostly listen to old and new rock but occasionally anything else as
>>>>> well, except country. I'd like to take some measurements as well.
>>>>> I've got a signal generator and a scope but don't have a good high
>>>>> quality mic.
>>>>>
>>>>> As I suspect most of us are, I'm trying to decide what to change next
>>>>> as well :-)
>>>> I'd get a higher order filter on your ribbons first.
>>>>
>>>> The distortion increases in typical ribbons when the excursion below the
>>>> useful rolloff does not decrease substantially. A first order filter in
>>>> practical terms tends to make the excursion *remain the same* below the
>>>> inflection point of the "rolloff". That means that you've got excess
>>>> deflection/excursion. I'd consider a 24db/oct filter there... most
>>>> ribbons
>>>> can not handle a first order filter.
>>>>
>>>> Then use one of the various freeware FFT programs and a halfway decent
>>>> mic to measure the freq response of the mid/HF combo. Take note of the
>>>> off axis response and the waterfall as well. Look at the impulse
>>>> response of the two drivers together.
>>>>
>>>> You may need to adjust the xovers and do other things to arrive at a
>>>> best compromise response for the mid/tweeter combo.
>>>>
>>>> Then you can look at the relationship between the woofs and the upper
>>>> range.
>>>>
>>>> After that I'd say that with the "average" sort of ripped music, it
>>>> probably won't make much difference what else you do. BUT, once you get
>>>> the speakers optimized you may start to hear larger differences in terms
>>>> of source material - then it may make sense to think about upgrading
>>>> other
>>>> parts of your system.
>>>>
>>>> Btw, the difference you are now hearing is likely due to two things:
>>>> - different amplifier & load to the amp
>>>> - different crossover slope & Q
>>>>
>>>> Until then, enjoy the experimenting! : )
>>>>
>>>> - -bear
>>> Thanks. Interesting. The low end on the ribbons is around 2k so I was
>>> thinking that I would get way with the 6db crossover because I was so far
>>> above it. Given that would you still recomend the 24db crossover or
>>> maybe a 12? Some of what I have read on the topic suggested keeping the
>>> mid/high crossover simpler. In all honesty I'd probably think a little
>>> bit about switching to a three way active to get a 24db crossover rather
>>> than using passive.
>>>
>>> I'm clueless in the mic world. But I would like to be able to really
>>> test rather than rely on subjective listening. Can I hook the mic
>>> directly to my scope or should I have a preamp on it? I realize I will
>>> have to power the mic if I do not have a pre-amp involved. What mic
>>> brands tend to be decent and what kind of dollar level should I be
>>> shopping at? tia
>> What Sonnova said...
>>
>> But you can get the Behringer "test" mic for $35 from most internet and
>> retail
>> places that sell it. Almost any mic will get you some good information,
>> even if it is "relative" and not absolute.
>>
>> Any soundcard and any freeware - no scope - will tell you enough
>> information
>> to make good decisions.
>>
>> As far as the xover? I'd try to make an xover that gets things below 2k
>> out of
>> the way a bit faster... You're only about an octave down at 2.5k, assuming
>> you
>> are really at the -3dB point at 5khz. 6dB down isn't all that much. So the
>> issue still remains.
>>
>> I doubt that you would get better fidelity, or put another way, reach the
>> full
>> potential of a good ribbon tweeter using an electronic xover. Just my
>> opinion.
>>
>> Also getting a mid up to 5khz. creates some problems in terms of response
>> and
>> polar response...
>>
>> This is a good example of why speaker design is a complex problem with
>> many
>> variables, and many compromises...
>>
>> - -bear

Thanks to DP for clarifying an important point in his post...
>
> I think you make another good point about the midbass. It's response curve
> goes to 6 but it not as flat between 5 and 6 and rolls off sharply at 6. I
> had choosen 5k because of the ribbon. Originally I was trying to make it a
> bit high to keep the vocals in the mids but your comments make me realize
> that with a 6db crossover that's not happening anyway.

I'd be most concerned about keeping the 'vocals' in the mids between <300Hz and
~3kHz. That's the nominal 'telephone response' frequency range where most of the
energy that we perceive as 'vocal' is taking place.

As you are probably noticing, there is a real balancing act going on in a real
world speaker system. What *sounds best* ends up being *best*. You probably
can't get everything you want, no one does! There is going to be some sort of
compromise, give and take.

You may well get a better sounding result with a higher order filter along with
a lower rolloff frequency for the ribbon tweeter... you certainly can run the
ribbon tweeter much closer to the resonant frequency/manufacturer's recommended
rolloff frequency.

You might ask this same question on * w w w .diyaudio . com - there is a speaker
design section in that forum, where there may be some others with specific
experience with the same tweeter or similar designs... the ratio of actually
useful and valid suggestions to not so good ones is pretty high.

- -bear

* w w w .bearlabs . com

>
> With a more effective crossover would you also recomend lowering the
> crossover point as well?
>

Re: Anyone else bi-amping?

On Mar 1, 4:56 pm, "jamesgangnc" <jamesgan...@gmail . com > wrote:
> "bear" <bearl...@netzero . net > wrote in message

> > I'd get a higher order filter on your ribbons first.

Probably good advice in and of itself, but...

>> The distortion increases in typical ribbons when the
>> excursion below the useful rolloff does not decrease
>> substantially. A first order filter in practical terms tends
>> to make the excursion *remain the same* below the
>> inflection point of the "rolloff".

The implication here seems to be that excursion in and of
itself increases as decreasing frequency below "rolloff."
Without a more precise definition of "rolloff", one can say
the following with certainty regarding direct-radiating
loudspeaker drivers:

1. Excursion, for a constant input, goes as the inverse
square of frequency ABOVE the mechanical
resonance, that resonance usually sets the "rolloff"
point for most drivers. In other words, it increases
with decreasing frequency in the operating range of
the driver.

2. Excursion, for a constant input, is CONSTANT below
the mechanical resonance: it does NOT increase with
decreasing frequency.

3. To maintain a flat frequency response in its passband
or operating range, a driver's excursion MUST decrease
as the square of frequency, assuming it's radiating area
is constant over that range.

Now, that doesn't negate the fact that for many ribbon
speakers, great attention must be paid to dealing
with below-cutoff signals to reduce distortion and
(ultimately) damage, and that often the material below
the cutoff of many mid- or high-frequency ribbon drivers
constitutes the bulk of the total energy. Both of these
facts support your first assertion.

However, for clarity purposes, it's important to point out
what the actual behavior vs frequency profiles of direct-
radiator loudspeakers actually behave like.

Re: Anyone else bi-amping?

jamesgangnc <jamesgangnc@earthlink . net > wrote:
> I updated my setup to bi-amp last year. I was wondering if any others
> in the group is doing this now and what your set up and experiences
> were?

Anyone who uses a powered subwoofer is bi-amping.

___
-S
"Hey pip squeak, who's L Ron, some new rapper?" -- Nic

Re: Anyone else bi-amping?

"Steven Sullivan" <ssully@panix . com > wrote in message
news:fqc0mr01ka7@news4.newsguy . com ...
> jamesgangnc <jamesgangnc@earthlink . net > wrote:
>> I updated my setup to bi-amp last year. I was wondering if any others
>> in the group is doing this now and what your set up and experiences
>> were?
>
> Anyone who uses a powered subwoofer is bi-amping.
>
> ___
> -S
> "Hey pip squeak, who's L Ron, some new rapper?" -- Nic

If one wants to be pedantic (and I usually am), what the OP is describing is
active operation, not bi-amping. Active has many benefits, bi-amping i.e.
using two power amps but retaining the passive crossover, has none.

S.

--
* audiopages.googlepages . com

Re: Anyone else bi-amping?

"Serge Auckland" <sergeauckland@btinternet . com > wrote in message
news:fqc5u702keg@news5.newsguy . com ...
> "Steven Sullivan" <ssully@panix . com > wrote in message
> news:fqc0mr01ka7@news4.newsguy . com ...
>> jamesgangnc <jamesgangnc@earthlink . net > wrote:
>>> I updated my setup to bi-amp last year. I was wondering if any others
>>> in the group is doing this now and what your set up and experiences
>>> were?
>>
>> Anyone who uses a powered subwoofer is bi-amping.
>>
>> ___
>> -S
>> "Hey pip squeak, who's L Ron, some new rapper?" -- Nic
>
> If one wants to be pedantic (and I usually am), what the OP is describing
> is
> active operation, not bi-amping. Active has many benefits, bi-amping i.e.
> using two power amps but retaining the passive crossover, has none.
>
> S.
>
> --
> * audiopages.googlepages . com

Sorry, most of the early material I read called it bi-amping. I did see
that a number of vendors started called products bi-amping that didn't
really fit the earlier material I had been reading. Active operation does
better describe it given that.

I do have a 15" subwoofer with a 250watt plate amp but I only use it for
surround sound at present.