In Reply to: RE: fool's bi-amp ? posted by b.l.zeebub on February 28, 2012 at 02:26:12:
None of the advantages of active/multi-amping are being questioned though. What I am talking about is a couple assumptions that are being made when suggesting the active conversion is the way to go:
1. Guys like the OP are willing to do a passive to active conversion at all.
2. Guys like the OP have the skillset required. (i.e. +/- 2db).
Some people are fanatical about the voicing of their "brand name" speakers and they want the voicing that the original designed intended. Some guys claim they can hear +/- 0.1 db. Or +/- 0.5 db. (And some can't hear a reverse null... go figure).
The point is, I would not call a bi-amper a "fool" (fools bi-amping) if his intent was to use dedicated amps for low and highpass sections. In fact, I would call him ingenious if his high-pass amp was lower in gain (i.e. single-ended tube stuff) so he removed a simple L-pad out of the original circuit to compensate and not waste amp power on heating up resistors for a gain drop he no longer needs.
All that said, I think it's possible to do a passive to active conversion that is very close. With a DIY effort, BOTH final products are DIY, so there is no "carved in stone response". But with a "precious" high end design, the final response is a signature - once you muck with it, they're no longer "that speaker" but really just a speaker with all of the same physical parts, sans crossover.
SO! (gasp for air). Did you measure impulse response with your Tannoys?
I like the idea of concentrics very much, which is probably for many of the same reasons I became a MTM and WMTMW fan.
Cheers,
Presto
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- RE: fool's bi-amp ? - Presto 17:08:42 02/29/12 (0)