|
Planar Speaker Asylum Welcome! Need support, you got it. Or share your ideas and experiences. |
|
|
|
Planar Speaker Asylum Welcome! Need support, you got it. Or share your ideas and experiences. |
|
In Reply to: Bi-amping 1.6s posted by Sebrof on October 31, 2006 at 13:37:58:
In this thread, folks have alluded that there may be no, or little, benefit to bi-amping when using the stock passive xover. Well, after about a year of running four CJ Premier 12 monoblocks, one into each of the four individual panels of my 1.6s, I feel that this doesn't sound better than using just two amplifiers. In fact, it may not sound as good. To me, the net is all downside - no sonic improvement, burning more tubes, burning more electricity, pumping out more heat, requiring more expensive amplifiers that take up more space, and requiring more cabling.
And 140w into each panel is just overkill, I think. Talk about first watt. With a RatShack analog SPL meter, from my listening position I typically listen at average levels of about 85dB, with peaks into the low 90dB range. The amps have it pretty easy.Now, I was just plugging amplifiers into the stock 1.6s. No mods, no active xovers. And, as it turns out, I'm using my pair of old, updated CJ MV-75s in a similar fashion to the way I was using the four Prem 12s. Each of these set ups provides four channels of amplification. With the MV-75s, I have four channels of 75w each, rather than the four channels of 140w I had with the Prem 12s. I can also run the MV-75s as 150w'ish monos. Either way I run them, the MV-75s are more than enough power for the 1.6s. The MV-75s sound different than the Prem 12s, but both provide more than enough power.
- SJ
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- Re: Bi-amping 1.6s - tvr2500m 10:31:54 11/16/06 (0)
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
