Amp/Preamp Asylum

Is this the system with the Revel Salons? Hmmmm

180.200.136.167

This Post Has Been Edited by the Author

In Reply to: RE: Thinking about biamping posted by tmsorosk on May 17, 2012 at 19:52:27

These would appear to be perfect targets for active bi-amping as Jay Buridan has suggested. 4LR slopes at all points.

I'll assume that the double terminals access the woofers, and then the MR and tweeters combined. So long as the crossover between the woofers and MR is below 500hz, ideally down around 300Hz, then bi-amping should be a big step-up in quality.

But, are the claimed 4th order slopes the electrical slopes of each crossover point's OR are they the final acoustic slopes of the output from each driver?

That is, a combination of an electrical slope from the passive crossover and the acoustic behaviour of each driver in its own enclosure.

Viz. the high-pass slope of the MR driver, which in the Salons has its own smallish enclosure and may well have a useful 2nd-order sealed Vb high-pass slope to which a 2nd order electrical slope was added.

Even were you to remove the electrical passive crossover, adding a standard 4th-LR order active crossover would give you a 6th order high pass and likely a 4th order low-pass for the woofer/s. This would NOT give the same blend as Revel would have worked so hard for, including the matching drivers to 0.5db via the crossover in YOUR speakers that they also laboured to achieve. There is also possibly some trimming of the crossover components to match the initial slopes from the driver/crossover combination.

IF the electrical crossover for the woofer/s had impedance rise Eq built-in to the crossover and not across the woofer/s terminals then the tonal balance will shift down there as well.

In short, I am not persuaded that an active crossover - UNLESS it was built as a bespoke item for YOUR speakers and each driver in them, to match in the same ways covered above - would be a good idea, at all.

You could get someone to measure the transfer function of each of your Salon's Bass/MR crossover and then try to build an active crossover that matches that now in use in each speaker, they won't be the same.

If it were me I would ask Revel precisely these questions and ask them for what THEY think.

It is conventional wisdom that a bigger amp, by at least 6dbw, is a better option. And it will sound better.

IME adding a second amp matching amp ( or one with level controls) is itself a potential upgrade. It certainly won't sound worse. And the MR treble amp OUGHT to be loafing and that range ought to sound sweeter.

So now you have THREE options

1. A bigger power amp, less what you get for the existing power amp IF you sell it. Plus what you lose on it if it's at all recent.

2. Retain the existing voicing by bi-amping passively, and buy another matching power amp, likely the cheapest and still a very good probability of improvement. You retain the existing power losses, so you won't get as much headroom improvement as 1 or 3.

3. Retain the existing voicing by having a bespoke active crossover built and buy a midrange-treble amp (a matching one OR a dedicated Class-A, tubed, even SET sweety pie). Likely to be the most expensive option and a less certain outcome.

Note that a post in response is preferred.

Warmest

Timothy Bailey

The Skyptical Mensurer and Audio Scrounger

And gladly would he learn and gladly teach - Chaucer. ;-)!

'Still not saluting.'

Follow Ups: