Volkswagen Passat Forum banner

1 - 9 of 9 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
151 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
How much of a difference does it make to bi-amp a set of componets (or even braxials or chameleons) rather than use a good crossove on a singal channel?

It seems like a lot of work to biamp a signal when you can just use existing wire from the headunit out to the speakers, and unless im looking to compete would I be missing anythuing much sticking with a quality passive system?

thanks :beer:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
151 Posts
Discussion Starter #3
yes but most good amps have active crossovers built in or you put one in line before the amp, but to use it properly you need an amplified chanel per component (tweeter and midbass) so using an active crossover implicityly biamps a system as i take it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
151 Posts
Discussion Starter #4
Yes :roll: But most good amps have active crossovers built in or you put one in line before the amp, but to use it properly you need an amplified chanel per component (tweeter and midbass) so using an active crossover implicityly biamps a system as i take it. :thumbup:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
23,182 Posts
souplogic said:
Yes :roll: But most good amps have active crossovers built in or you put one in line before the amp, but to use it properly you need an amplified chanel per component (tweeter and midbass) so using an active crossover implicityly biamps a system as i take it. :thumbup:

Not necessarily. You can use an active crossover for the sub/mid transition and passives for the mid/tweet transition. I think he wants to know if it's better to get rid of the mid/tweet passive crossover and use an active crossover with 2 more channels for the mids or tweets.

Here's my opinion, it can be better, but it would have to be the crossover that's the weak point in the system. I went from passives to bi-amping my wife's Kicker RS6s and the first thing I noticed was, other that the tweeters being out of phase (the passive reverses the polarity at the outputs because of the phase shift induced by the crossover) it sounded almost exactly the same. I do however love the fact that I can vary the level of the mids now and the level on all channels are variable, not just switchable.

I'd say go for it. Even if there isn't an immediate sonic benefit I'm sure with the extra tuning capability you'll be able to hit the sweet spot.


Paul :thumbup:
 

·
Carlos Spicyweiner
Joined
·
7,048 Posts
quality_sound said:
souplogic said:
Yes :roll: But most good amps have active crossovers built in or you put one in line before the amp, but to use it properly you need an amplified chanel per component (tweeter and midbass) so using an active crossover implicityly biamps a system as i take it. :thumbup:

Not necessarily. You can use an active crossover for the sub/mid transition and passives for the mid/tweet transition. I think he wants to know if it's better to get rid of the mid/tweet passive crossover and use an active crossover with 2 more channels for the mids or tweets.

Here's my opinion, it can be better, but it would have to be the crossover that's the weak point in the system. I went from passives to bi-amping my wife's Kicker RS6s and the first thing I noticed was, other that the tweeters being out of phase (the passive reverses the polarity at the outputs because of the phase shift induced by the crossover) it sounded almost exactly the same. I do however love the fact that I can vary the level of the mids now and the level on all channels are variable, not just switchable.

I'd say go for it. Even if there isn't an immediate sonic benefit I'm sure with the extra tuning capability you'll be able to hit the sweet spot.


Paul :thumbup:
You would also be doubling your power to the comps. 2x50 feeding four speakers compared to 4x50 feeding four speakers.

Each amp channel would also be handling less frequencies so you have more headroom for clipping. Unless I am missing something. This alone should help the SQ. (?)

I should be doing this within a few weeks.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
23,182 Posts
Postman said:
quality_sound said:
souplogic said:
Yes :roll: But most good amps have active crossovers built in or you put one in line before the amp, but to use it properly you need an amplified chanel per component (tweeter and midbass) so using an active crossover implicityly biamps a system as i take it. :thumbup:

Not necessarily. You can use an active crossover for the sub/mid transition and passives for the mid/tweet transition. I think he wants to know if it's better to get rid of the mid/tweet passive crossover and use an active crossover with 2 more channels for the mids or tweets.

Here's my opinion, it can be better, but it would have to be the crossover that's the weak point in the system. I went from passives to bi-amping my wife's Kicker RS6s and the first thing I noticed was, other that the tweeters being out of phase (the passive reverses the polarity at the outputs because of the phase shift induced by the crossover) it sounded almost exactly the same. I do however love the fact that I can vary the level of the mids now and the level on all channels are variable, not just switchable.

I'd say go for it. Even if there isn't an immediate sonic benefit I'm sure with the extra tuning capability you'll be able to hit the sweet spot.


Paul :thumbup:
You would also be doubling your power to the comps. 2x50 feeding four speakers compared to 4x50 feeding four speakers.

Each amp channel would also be handling less frequencies so you have more headroom for clipping. Unless I am missing something. This alone should help the SQ. (?)

I should be doing this within a few weeks.


It doesn't actually make a big difference in the available power. If the mid and tweet from each channel were playing full range then they'd split what available, but since even with the passive crossover each speaker is bandwidth limited there is still that same amount of power availbel to the mid and tweet as there would be bi-amped. You are correct about it helping SQ though. The main reason for this is the fact the the mids will clip a lot more often and this will cause artifacts in the sound that show up as distorted high end.


Paul :thumbup:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
151 Posts
Discussion Starter #8
if carefully crafted passive crossovers can approach sq of an active and biamped system, i'll stick with the easy way. Besides A manufacturer knows there speakers well and I trust if i pick up a set of chameleons or ID horns the crossover will be top notch, plus because its 360/0 degrees the phase shif shouldnt be a problem right?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
23,182 Posts
Correct, soup. They may look simple but ID crossovers are very well designed. BTW, the only ID horns that come with passives are the CS1Es. All the others require active filtering or a custom passive.


Paul :thumbup:
 
1 - 9 of 9 Posts
Top