vnzbd

I typically use a trick my father taught me. Depending on the size of the hole a golf tee will work. Drill the hole out a little bigger to match the outside diameter of the golf tee, cut the top off of the tee, wood glue it into the hole and redrill when dry. It should be like drilling into new wood. If the existing hole is larger than a golf tee then you can use a larger dowel rod. As far as metal?????

Thanks for the additional good reading Don. I do find it interesting that in the bi-amp example of the 3 way speaker the mid/high x-over is still used. I can obviously see the need for it but then it does appear to go against the "pureist" bi-amp examples and would then double filter the highs and mids. To the best of my limited knowledge this is frowned upon when using a sub with a internal non bypassable x-over and an avr. I do feel that we are well beyond that but is it the same principle? Also to restate my inital reason for "fool's" bi-amping of my system was not to gain more power or clarity, but to attempt to rebalance the output of the speaker at my typical(90% or the time) listening levels. I did place a 3db attenuator in front of the amp for the high section so not to mess with the internal x-over and cut the mid/highs across their freq range vs. using the tone controls and having it cut at their center freqs and having it bleed off octave by octave. Again I will try not to speak beyond my knowledge but I did measure the reistance of the lowpass circuit at 4.2 ohms after the seperation of the x-over and by the apparent fourmula for power, the low cuiruit of the amp should now be in the 300 vs 200 wpc rating. Maybe yes. maybe no but the result was exactly what I was trying to achieve, mission accomplised!

Don, interesting stuff. My foggy memory of electronics class, I somewhat remember the ac power being figured a couple of different ways, maybe ins[]tant and average power. Somewhere in there was phase angles and maybe polar rectangular conversions. Anyway, it has been years! As far as electroshock therapy........ In the car audio enviorment I have used electronic x-overs before the amps, x-overs built into the amps, and back in the day x-overs after the amps. I can say that for simplicity sake I prefer the second method. The first and second method do preserve power that otherwise would be lost in the passive. What the passive did allow you to do was take an amp like an old Rockford Fosgate 45(22.5 wpc into 4 ohms) and run it at a much lower load where it could output 3-4 times the power. Many of sound offs where won with those configurations in a 50 watt or less class. Not just volume but SQ was good also. I have seen such a system with 2-15s and a decent set of components that would hang with most systems today. Well I do think the term "fools bi-amping" sounds a little degrading but If thats what I have done I still like it. Hopefully my ears have not deceived me!

speakerfritz, The amp that I use is the Emotiva XPA-5. It has a single power supply with 5 "amplifier cards". 200WPC @ 8ohms, 20-20k, all channels driven. Emotiva has stated that in 2 channel use its specs are closer to 300WPC but being a 5 channel amp they do not advertise that spec as it is not its intended use. Based on the shared power supply would you then say verticle bi-amping? Thanks for the education! djk, Fools bi-amping? Please explain that in great detail.

speakerfritz, It has been quite a while(25+ years) since electronics school! We did not really dive into speaker x-overs per say but I do recall hi pass, low pass and band pass circuits being discussed. The concept of blocking the freqs does sound familar! I am looking at the two versions of bi-amping and Believe that I am somewhere in the middle. Since I use a 5 channel amp(1 channel for the center), I do not have a specific L/R amp or a High/Low amp. I come straight out of the pre-amp with y cable on both the L&R out into the 5 ch amp. I do use and -3db attenuator at this stage on the highs. Ch1-L lows, Ch2-L highs, Ch3- center, Ch4-R highs, Ch5-R lows. Based on that what type of bi-amp set up would tyou say that I have? Thanks!

As I stated earlier, there are many here on the forum that are smarter than I! It is in my humble opinion that the bass is where the majority of power is needed. If you seperate the lows and highs of different amplifier channels, even without an F-mod, Then you have two distinct amplifiers driving two distinct sections. While I passive bi-amp, using the internal speaker x-over and therefore send the entire range of frequencies to both sections, the high pass portion of the x-over dumps the lower freqs, the mid and tweeter do not try to produce the bass freqs, therefore the high pass amp does not feel the current surge that the lowpass amp feels. I do use a 5 channel amp and so I am sure that the current drain does hit the shared power supply but based on the amps ratings it should have less effect than running it all on the same amp channel. Both channels of the amp to each speakers are rated at 200wpc and I know that the speaker is now not seeing 400 watts, it is still seeing 200 per section. That is about as much detail as I can provide based on my knowledge and experience. Is it fools bi-amping, maybe. But I will trust my ears and the difference I have made in my system, again using a 3db f-mod attenuator on the highs.

I agree with what you have said Don, a watt is a watt when talking about power. What I mean is a watt is not always a what is when the spec is in to 6 ohms vs 8 ohms, when the spec is a 1khz vs 20-20khz, and so on. I know that AC is much more complex than DC but how is the watt delivered. For simplicity sake, look at a DC watts, as you have referenced. Power = Voltage x Current, or P=IE. 50 volts x 2 amps = 100 watts, 10 volts x 10 amps = 100 watts. Power equal yes, but two different ways to get there. I feel that all watt or power does not always sound the same. Tube vs solid state? Older HK vs Sony? Does the FTC regulate avr's now when one states 125 watts x 7. There are plenty that advertise it but how many deliever? As you have also stated there are other factors involved. These follow much more of the AC theory and impeadance vs resitance. Most avr's will not have the headroom of a dedicated amp. Both can have the same FTC rating but deliver quite different under a demanding load. So I do agree a watt is a watt everywhere you go all of the time for electronic test gear, but the ears, maybe not so much!

It is typically the bass that requires/uses the lions share of an amplifier. The highs and mids do not have to move the mass assocaited with the woofer, meaning it is easier on the amplifier on the high/mids. As you have stated in your system the highs and lows are run on different wattage amplifiers and going just by the numbers it appears that the lows require more power to keep up with the upper end. As some people smarter than I will say a watt does not always equal a watt, and it varies from manufacturer to manufacturer how their specs are arrived at. With my Chorus IIs it takes considerably more clean/high current watts to have the bass balanced with the highs at the volumes I currently listen at(medium). When I passive bi-amped my setup(also with 3db cut on the highs) not only did the bass come alive(or appeared to with the attenuation of the highs), the highs also seemed to improve. By running the highs on a seperate amp channel than the bass, they do not see the large current draw placed on the amp of the bass channel. Where they do not require the current that is sucked up by the low end, they do not have to deal with the current draw of the bass, thinning the power delivered to them. Clean in, clean out.

I would like the idea of keeping both Paradigms if they give you the quality/quanity of bass you are looking for. You can use one and keep the other for parts in the future. You could also donate one to a south FL charity! I have not personally heard those subs but If I remember right there were some terrific write ups. Either way a win-win. Enjoy!

They are in the garage collecting some quality dust. Some of the plastic corner braces have detached but I believe I have them all in a bin.

I think the experts here would all agree that active bi-amping would be the way to go with an external electronic x-over. I have been doing that with car stereo for years and can attest to the superior sound in that market. I will say that passive by-amping could also have its merits. There are some on this forum that will use tube amps for the highs and solid state on the lows. I do passive bi-amping and attenuate the highs to "rebalance" the speaker. If your speaker is going to suck up the juice on the bass heavy notes, passive bi-amping can clean up the mids and highs during the bass peaks.

I currently have a set of Chorus IIs that I removed the basses. I do not care for the stock look and they were minorly damaged in comparison to the excellent cabinets. I have rubber feet installed(.25" H x 1.25 W) They provide good footing but am looking for a possible change. I am considering new constructing new basses of some sort but not have come up with a suitable design. The speakers site on travertine marble floors so spikes of any kind are out, even with the "spike discs". I want something more substantle weight wise than the stock. I have considered granite but have read that it transfers resonsance. I am considering using 3/4 mdf and just layering it up until I reach the 3.5 - 5" desired height and using "blu tac" to secure the speakers to the stands. Does anybody have and experience or ideas with these types of projects. All ideas are appreciated!

BOOM BOOM BOOM - Looking good Bill!

It sounds very strange not to have any imaging going on, especially with everything that you have tried. Would you say that the sound is more like mono from 2 speakers? After all that you have checked maybe start at the source and work towards the speakers?

OK, another question that is not exactly where I am at but could end up there. I stated that I am looking at the Oppo 93, but I haven't totally ruled out the 95. All the reviews I have read state that it is almost imposible to distinguish between them audiably but..... So someone does buy the Oppo 95 that is said to have amazing DACs for all channels including for 2 channel anolog and also another set of 7.1 anolog out for the advanced audio formats. Of course it also has HDMI out. The new happy owner of this unit is installing this into their home theater system and they have a lower/mid quality avr that has HDMI in but also has lower/mid quality DACs vs the Oppo's 7.1 out. What is the general concensious on the best way to install the unit at that point? Thanks again!

I have the XPA-5 and very recently did just what you are talking about. I will call it passive bi-amping as I retained the usage of the internal x-overs. My Chorus IIs are not factory bi-amp/bi-wireable so I made a minor modifcation removing the bass circuit from the original binding posts and installing a second set dedicated purely for the low-pass portion of the x-over. My objective was not just to use extra channels of the XPA-5 nor did I think I would be doubling the wattage to each speaker. What I did was add a 3db attenuator to the mid/high portion to rebalance the sound of the CIIs. It certainly worked. It brought out the bass at the lower volumes that I typically listen to. I do not listen at elevator music levels but also do not typically shake the foundation. As far as the impeadance goes, good question. Impeadance is not as simple as straight resistance. I did not measure my speakers resistance before is disected the x-over but did measure the bass circuit after the mod and it measured 4.2 ohms. I would like to think that based on that my XPA specs, it is now delivering 300 watts into a 4 ohm load vs 200 into an 8 ohm load but it comes back to impeadance not being the same as resitance. Truth be told, it just sounds better. I do feel that since the mid/highs are not on the same amp channels as the lows that there are benifits to them as well as they do not get starved for power when the bass is eating it up. Again, it just sounds better. I would recommend experimenting and see what your results are. I did try the bi-wire to a set of KLF-10s(modded also) off of a avr and for me....snake oil!

Cask, Thanks for the reply. In checking you system in your profile it is very impressive, something for all of us to aspire to! Were I might not be able to take the HDMI reciever plunge right now I will certainly keep it in mind for the future.

Cask, I was under the impression that the 7.1 anolog our would carry the same formats(SACD, etc) that the HDMI would carry, only in a non digital stream. What are the differences as you see them?

Gentlemen, Thanks for you input. dtel, my setup will be similar to yours as my TV has the HDMI in but not my reciever. I too am looking for the wireless aspect and would like to do Netflix/Blockbuster streaming. The Oppo 93 offers the typical digital outs as well as HDMI and 7.1 anolog which I will feed the receiver for movies. There is a setting that you need to change on the 93 to turn the anologs strickly into a 2 channel. The upgraded 95 has both the 7.1 and dedicated 2 channel, but at $500 more and based on the review comparisons between the quality of audio from both units, I cannot warrent the xtra money for the 95. I suspect I will use the digital out for 2 channel. I use that now with my marantz DVD and it is very good. I have heard that the Samsung players are some of the slowest on the market as far as load times. The price on your Samsung is very good. Do you feel it is up to speed and did it come with all of the neccesary wireless equipment in the box? Bill, Thanks for the advice, I do look forward to playing with a new toy! Thanks for the call. After a move and other reorganization in my life I have misplaced my phone book. Please shoot me an email with your # and I will give you a shout. Talk soon.

I have not yet taken the blu-ray plunge yet but am now looking at the Oppo 93. I am curious on what the consences is for two channel music delivery. My avr, currently being used as a pre-amp is an older but top of the line Marantz when it came out. It does not have any HDMI ports and I would not like to upgrade at this time. I currently feed it from a like aged Marantz DVD player for music and movies through the digital coax. With the purchase of the Oppo I could maintain the same type of feed or change to the 5.1 anolog in. I realize that the 5.1 will carry the lossless formats of which I currently have no media for. I am 90% music/10% movies. I would suspect that the DAC's in either unit would be of similar quality. Is one of these delivery formats considered superior to the other for 2 channel and why? As always, thanks for the input!

I can say that it was just by chance that I found a value that works well. I have only tried the 3db thus far and really like it. After a week or so I will put in the 6db just to see but I suspect it will be too much. I purchased the Harrison Labs versions from Parts Express. They carry 3,6 and 12 versions. It would be neat to find a quality adjustable attenuator to dial it in for each persons exact taste. I have been listening to Clapton, Simply Red, SRV, Michael McDonald, and Sade the last two evenings and feel like I am listening to a brand new system. One thing that may or may not factor into the equation is the amplifier. It is rated 200wpc @8 ohms, what the Chorus II is rated at according the input cup. When I mesured the woofer circuit after it had been seperated from the rest of the x-over it measured at 4.2 ohms. The XPA-5 is rated to 300wpc @ 4 ohms. I know that there is an impeadence curve and the amp will see different resitance at different frequencies so maybe yes, maybe no. I do believe pulling the high/mids off of the woofer circuit also played a big part in the new sound. As far as the KLF's go, I have had several sets of the 10's and a set of the 20's. The 10's seemed to carry better bass( punchier,deeper) than the 20's and I found the 20's mids harsh after a half hour of listening at moderate levels. The 20's were bone stock and did not feel that I wanted to start to tweak a speaker that I enjoyed less than the 10's. I would expect that to be an unpopular opinion here but once I heard the CIIs I could not believe the difference in the mids, even with a 20 year old x-over. All I can say is I love what I have. Blessed indeed!

This post has been also placed in "Techincal questions" under "Opinions on Chorus IIs".

Well I have been in search of improving the sound of my Chorus IIs for some time now. When I orignally purchased them I ran them with a Marantz 8500 avr. The mids and highs were so much better than what I was used to with my KLFs, but the bass was lacking a real punch. After taking some advise from this forum I upgraded the power to the Emotiva XPA-5 while now using the Marantz as a pre-amp. A big improvement. Several months ago I refreshed the x-overs and tweetes with Bob Cs products. Anoher noticable improvement but still with the bass lacking. Further advice from the forum had me turn the treble down(-2db) and I up the bass(+2db) and it made a hugh difference in the precieved bass output. This weekends project was to make the CIIs bi-ampable feeding the lows and mid-highs with seperate channels out of the XPA-5. I also purchased 3 and 6 db attenuators from Parts Express and put the 3dbs in line to the input of the amp on the mid/high channels. I was hoping for a big change because the attenuation/boost would not be taking place at the freq of the tone controls of the Marantz and then bleeding off db wise at the surrounding octaves. All I can say is WOW. Not only has the bass appeared to come alive like never before but also the mid/highs are much more open. The CIIs now seem more balanced form top to bottom. I sampled some of my regular cds and it was like hearing brand new music. Simply stunning. This was a very easy and inexpensive tweak and would recomend it to anyone that was in the boat that I was in. The attenuators, RCA splitters and new terminal cups were well under $50. Money well spent! This was origanally posted under updates and mods but I have moved it here as it seems like a more appropriate thread.

Well I have been in search of improving the sound of my Chorus IIs for some time now. When I orignally purchased them I ran them with a Marantz 8500 avr. The mids and highs were so much better than what I was used to with my KLFs, but the bass was lacking a real punch. After taking some advise from this forum I upgraded the power to the Emotiva XPA-5 while now using the Marantz as a pre-amp. A big improvement. Several months ago I refreshed the x-overs and tweetes with Bob Cs products. Anoher noticable improvement but still with the bass lacking. Further advice from the forum had me turn the treble down(-2db) and I up the bass(+2db) and it made a hugh difference in the precieved bass output. This weekends project was to make the CIIs bi-ampable feeding the lows and mid-highs with seperate channels out of the XPA-5. I also purchased 3 and 6 db attenuators from Parts Express and put the 3dbs in line to the input of the amp on the mid/high channels. I was hoping for a big change because the attenuation/boost would not be taking place at the freq of the tone controls of the Marantz and then bleeding off db wise at the surrounding octaves. All I can say is WOW. Not only has the bass appeared to come alive like never before but also the mid/highs are much more open. The CIIs now seem more balanced form top to bottom. I sampled some of my regular cds and it was like hearing brand new music. Simply stunning. This was a very easy and inexpensive tweak and would recomend it to anyone that was in the boat that I was in. The attenuators, RCA splitters and new terminal cups were well under $50. Money well spent!

I had purchased a KLF 10 on ebay that had the motor board come apart. I rebuilt it as you are talking of doing with the horn oriented horizontally and more towards the top of the enclosure. I did not have to worry about the port. I could reuse the grill but had to dremel of one of the pegs. On the KLF series the grills are actually tappered from top to bottom so I prefered the look sans grill. I used it between two other KLF 10s and also experimented with it using 20s. As for preformance, it was awesome. I blew my KLF C7 out of the water with clarity and output. I know many would frown on using the center set to large but no issues handling the bass and keeping the dialog clear. I migrated away from the KLF series to Chorus IIs and an Academy. Even though I have refreshed the Academy's x-over and rebuilt its motor board to the horizontal tweeter orientation, it can't touch the 10 center. I sould the 10 center for $100. Yes, I would buy it back.