bi-amping.

Allante93 posted:

 

Bad in Passive Mode, but can't wait to take that XO out of the Equation! 

 

 

REPEAT, TEMPORARY UNTIL I PURCHASE A SNAXO 362 AND SC WITH THE BURNDY GOING FROM THE SC TO THE SNAXO, THEN THE SNAXO WILL DELIVER THE  SIGNALS TO THE REAR OF THE BRIKS THREE WAY SPEAKER. 

HENCE, ELIMINATING THAT CROSSOVER SHOWN ABOVE! 

 

Allante93! 

Allante, have you thought of trying active tri-amping with a cheaper non-Naim active crossover to see if better than the passive tri-amping, to then go full hog with SNaxo when funds allow?

As I mentioned in my last post, Behringer DCX2496 is said to be very good, and it is surprisingly cheap, this side of the Atlantic at least. There are plenty of others as well, though some have better reputations than others.

By the way if you do,  it is generally considered wise to protect the tweeter at least, and possibly the mid, with a capacitor providing roll-off starting an octave or two lower than the crossover frequency used, in order to protect against switch-on thump if the amp doesn't have time delay relays, and common power amp faults such as low level DC on the output, that could easily destroy the sensitive high frequency drivers. That said, I've no idea if that is necessary or commonly done with Naim amps (it is nothing to do with what active XO is used).

Ardbeg10y posted:

You need some Ardbeg or similar. Much more tasteful than the glenlivet. It's like going active. The different layers will be more clear - unless you have a wooly taste.

Just Remembered, that Some timers!

With some help from my library.

36 inch Picture tube, catercorner left of the fireplace,  Kans on the far end of fireplace,  2 Grand Waltz Vienna Acoustics rear channel, and the 500 Watt, Linn Sizmick doing. Its thing!

Two LK 280's took care of the Speakers, that Acurus Act 3, was AMAZING, after 20 years of so, it finally played out, $150 toward my Naim Gear!

Janet Jackson, Funny How Time Flies!

Enjoy your Music!

No HDTV, Eyeballing that 65 inch OLED.

I have to go down to the Rec Room, to look at that 36 inch Tube!

Oh Well, I will fix Breakfast, and Fire up the Briks!

Good Morning Forum!

Allante93!

PS. I think it was by Mondial! The last time I checked, Its an Act 4 now, Also expensive!

 

I bi-mp in one system that is naim based. I tried a lot of amps to drive Sonus Faber Extrema's and ended up with 4 x nap 135's. I preferred one pair of 135's to two 250's bi amping, one 250 and one pair of 135's was clearly wrong. Generally speaking the dynamics and scale can improve quite dramatically. I get superb control, bass weight and projection with 4 naim 135's. I did try Krell and an Usher, NAD but the Extremas love 135's and lots of them

GraemeH posted:

My exxperience of bi-amping in my early audiofool days was not a happy experience. The music became 'dismantled' somehow.

Much better with a good single, mono or active amplification.

G

""Another place to pose your question is on the Pink Fish BB, where a lot of Linn and Naim folk hang out.
http://63.99.108.232/forum/index.php

Most inmates there are in the UK and very knowledgeable.

The complex crossovers in Linn speakers generally do benefit from bi-amping. I used to own Sara's and when I experimented with a bi-amp setup the results were very positive.""

 

Innocent Bystander posted:
Allante93 posted:

 

Bad in Passive Mode, but can't wait to take that XO out of the Equation! 

 

 

REPEAT, TEMPORARY UNTIL I PURCHASE A SNAXO 362 AND SC WITH THE BURNDY GOING FROM THE SC TO THE SNAXO, THEN THE SNAXO WILL DELIVER THE  SIGNALS TO THE REAR OF THE BRIKS THREE WAY SPEAKER. 

HENCE, ELIMINATING THAT CROSSOVER SHOWN ABOVE! 

 

Allante93! 

Allante, have you thought of trying active tri-amping with a cheaper non-Naim active crossover to see if better than the passive tri-amping, to then go full hog with SNaxo when funds allow?

As I mentioned in my last post, Behringer DCX2496 is said to be very good, and it is surprisingly cheap, this side of the Atlantic at least. There are plenty of others as well, though some have better reputations than others.

By the way if you do,  it is generally considered wise to protect the tweeter at least, and possibly the mid, with a capacitor providing roll-off starting an octave or two lower than the crossover frequency used, in order to protect against switch-on thump if the amp doesn't have time delay relays, and common power amp faults such as low level DC on the output, that could easily destroy the sensitive high frequency drivers. That said, I've no idea if that is necessary or commonly done with Naim amps (it is nothing to do with what active XO is used).

Well, I'm having a bit of a play with tri-amping myself - but of the active variety. My initial steps are complicated by other variables, in fact those being the prime subject of study at this point  (posted separately thread http://forums.naimaudio.com/to...c-mod-and-tri-amping), but as I noted in that post it will lead to a trial of straight triamping of my PMCs in the not too far distant future.

My active XO at this point is the ATC EC23, and amps are all Musical Fidelity of the same family (P270 & 2x P170), so not a direct answer to the OP question, however the question of active triamping vs passive mono-amping perhaps does have relevance. Perhaps I should compare passive tri-amp as well, but play time is not unlimited! I also have a Behringer DCX2496, which could make for another comparison, relatively budget digital XO  vs expensive analogue. Maybe these are projects for when I retire, ears permitting!) One noticeable thing is that the heat output of a bank of 3 amps is considerable! (though perhaps because these have quite a strong bias into class A.) 

Innocent Bystander posted:

One noticeable thing is that the heat output of a bank of 3 amps is considerable! (though perhaps because these have quite a strong bias into class A.) 

IB, Consider some Naim Amps :-) my Nap 200's stay cool ... and they are in a closed cupboard.

Ardbeg10y posted:
Innocent Bystander posted:

One noticeable thing is that the heat output of a bank of 3 amps is considerable! (though perhaps because these have quite a strong bias into class A.) 

IB, Consider some Naim Amps :-) my Nap 200's stay cool ... and they are in a closed cupboard.

One day I hope to hear a suitable NAP, but likely will have to wait a while as no dealers anywhere near me and my yearning is not enough to mount the necessary expedition. Mono-amping with my PMCs I think I'm likely to need at least a 300 (Bryston with rated 500W into the PMC's 4Ω can reach momentary clipping on peaks if I get over-enthusuastic), so goodness knows what if I do decide to stick with tri-amping with its triple count - but the first step would be to find out if I like the sound of Naim amps. I do like what I understand of Naim's approach to the output stage, and I hear (!) the enthusiasm for them here.

My MFs are from my path before getting a Bryston, the second P170 having been snapped up when I saw a bargain for sale, intended at the time just as a spare, but means I have three well matched amps to hook up for the experiment. 

Personal experiences suggests this caveat is important:

"Obviously, if the speaker crossover has been deliberately designed to sound better when bi- or tri-wired, then it quite possibly will;"

Well that is talking about bi-wiring but I think the same is true of bi-amping.

I have linn majik isobariks which suit me and my room. These are designed to be used in a range of active and passive modes but a basic option is to biamp to drive the punch isobarik bass units separately. When I bought a SU it freed up a 180 and  my dealer and I played around with various options 1. SU vs 2. SU:bass/180ther drivers vs 3. 180:bass/SUther drivers and concluded 3 > 2 > 1 but biamping was definitely worthwhile WITH THAT SPEAKER.

 

Innocent Bystander posted:

I am unclear as to the advantage/cost benefit of passive biamping (two amps in parallel connected to the two pairs of connections on the back of the speaker with the links removed, so utilising the speakers' own internal crossover: probably some benefit, possibly depending on how susceptible the amp is to intermodulation distortion! But not the full benefit of active triamping e crossover in the speakers.

 

biggest benefit for the dealer is the sale of an amp and more speaker cable... cynical, moi?

JedT posted:

Personal experiences suggests this caveat is important:

"Obviously, if the speaker crossover has been deliberately designed to sound better when bi- or tri-wired, then it quite possibly will;"

That may well be the case, but at least as importantly, especially with Naim amps, the power amp and speaker cables(s) should work together too. In this respect, there's every chance that biwire cables will be sub-optimal in a Naim system.

JedT posted:

Personal experiences suggests this caveat is important:

"Obviously, if the speaker crossover has been deliberately designed to sound better when bi- or tri-wired, then it quite possibly will;"

Well that is talking about bi-wiring but I think the same is true of bi-amping.

I have linn majik isobariks which suit me and my room. These are designed to be used in a range of active and passive modes but a basic option is to biamp to drive the punch isobarik bass units separately. When I bought a SU it freed up a 180 and  my dealer and I played around with various options 1. SU vs 2. SU:bass/180ther drivers vs 3. 180:bass/SUther drivers and concluded 3 > 2 > 1 but biamping was definitely worthwhile WITH THAT SPEAKER.

 

Sounds about right, to me!

But when it's all said, and done!

Activate those Speakers, and take the crossover, out of the equation!

Lawrence Dickie, Founder of Vivid Speakers:

Laurence Dickie: "I have always been a keen advocate of the active approach to loudspeaker design, believing that the direct connection between amplifier and voice coil offers the purest route and that the precision and linearity of active electronics give a clear advantage over passive alternatives. However for pragmatic reasons we felt it unwise to go to market with only active speakers. An important part of the design phase of the first Vivid Audio products was a re-evaluation of passive crossover design. It has to be said that the use of computer-aided circuit analysis has really changed the game. The accuracy possible to meet target responses while presenting a safe load is quite remarkable. This coupled with drivers which present constant impedances across a wide range of drive levels, non-polar film dielectric capacitors and air-cored inductors has permitted us to create passive designs which really challenge the active alternatives.”

 

Allante93!

 

JedT posted:

I have thought about it but suspect that would send me down the 100pc Linn route and so far I've found all Linn Systems a bit too polite for my taste. Plus it would be a load of money and boxes....

I agree, the only reason I'm pursuing the active path, my Linn Aktiv XO, with Bingo card, expired.

Hence, on the path towards, Naim's Active Technologies!

Cdx2>282>HCDR>3x250.2>Briks! FraimLite!

Eyeballing an SCDR, this very moment!

Allante93!

TOBYJUG posted:

I have read that bi amping - then shotgunned speaker cables into a single set terminal on the speakers can give great results. 

The more powerful the amps are, the more spectacular the results! GFHandels Music for the Royal Fireworks is obviously for amateurs!

Ardbeg10y posted:
TOBYJUG posted:

I have read that bi amping - then shotgunned speaker cables into a single set terminal on the speakers can give great results. 

The more powerful the amps are, the more spectacular the results! GFHandels Music for the Royal Fireworks is obviously for amateurs!

Yes, good point - could even go as far as the 1812!

I think this is a valid opportunity for ... 

Likes (0)
×
×
×
×