Jump to content

Is It Worth It to Bi-Amp Heritage speakers?


luddite

Recommended Posts

I have read your thoughtful responses and done some research.  Now my brain is spinning with thoughts beyond my initial question.  In order of responses.

babadono-My 2012 Khorns have connections on the bass bin for bi amping.  I am not sure how I would tri amp and keep things stock?

 

Claude J1-The write up that you included from Chris A was only about "room correction" EQ when bi amping, yes?  When in 7.2, I have my Marantz AV 7005 setup using Audyssey.  This also controls 2.2 listening.  When 2.0 listening with Mac C50 and Mac MC302 there is no room correction being applied.  Would the mini DSP be used for 7.2 and 2.0?  Right now I connect the TT directly to the C50.  All other sources connect to the Marantz AV7005.  My brain is thinking  Audyssey would force the DSP to be used only between any source and the C50.

 

Claude J1-2nd post-Xilica as a PEQ device.  I have an old SAE Parametric EQ.  If I pic a mic and software, 

Will I be able to achieve similar results for my 2 channel system?

 

Chris A-I would love to improve the overall sound from the 7.2 setup.  Would this be a 2 setting arrangement?  One for 7.2 and one for 2.0?  I am fuzzy on how this might work.

 

Conclusion-It helps my brain if I can visualize where hardware is in the connection chain.  Now, cost benefit analysis.  Dollars will not be an issue, I think.  How much time would be involved for a novice like me?  Would I have resources to contact when I had questions?  This sounds like a fun and rewarding project.  Through all of the comments, none of this will actually get me to time alignment as I understand things.  Is it even possible to get time alignment changes with a passive setup?  I will be retiring this fall and will have more time for projects like this.  Also, any thoughts on a tube amp for the bi amping?

 

Thank You for your time responding to my situation.  Do I need to include more specifics about my system?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, D Jenson said:

... Would the mini DSP be used for 7.2 and 2.0?

Yes.

 

2 hours ago, D Jenson said:

... My brain is thinking Audyssey would force the DSP to be used only between any source and the C50...

The DSP crossover is inserted between the preamp and the power amplifiers.  Audyssey runs only on the AVP or AVR.

 

2 hours ago, D Jenson said:

...Xilica as a PEQ device: I have an old SAE Parametric EQ.  If I pic a mic and software,  will I be able to achieve similar results for my 2 channel system?...

The problem with the SAE EQ box is that it is an analog EQ unit, and as such introduces noise and phase distortion that's audible.  DSP crossovers actually correct the phase response and introduce no audible noise (within the digital domain).

 

2 hours ago, D Jenson said:

I would love to improve the overall sound from the 7.2 setup.  Would this be a 2 setting arrangement?  One for 7.2 and one for 2.0?  I am fuzzy on how this might work.

One setup, not two.   Each loudspeaker channel is corrected separately using a calibrated microphone and REW.  "Room correction software" EQ, such as Audyssey EQ, is not needed if the DSP crossovers control all loudspeakers/drivers. 

 

2 hours ago, D Jenson said:

Conclusion-It helps my brain if I can visualize where hardware is in the connection chain.

The DSP crossover inserts between the output of the preamplifier and the input of the power amplifiers (horizontal bi-amping shown below):

 

Bi-amp, active horizontal.GIF

 

2 hours ago, D Jenson said:

I would love to improve the overall sound from the 7.2 setup.  Would this be a 2 setting arrangement?  One for 7.2 and one for 2.0?  I am fuzzy on how this might work.

You can think of the DSP crossover as something that fits into the front end of your power amplifiers to correct the SPL and phase response of individual drivers/horns on the output of the power amplifiers.  As such, there is only one setup if using the same power amplifiers.

 

Chris

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Outstanding response Chris!  I feel much more comfortable about the situation.  It may be a false sense of security but it is there anyway. I was compelled to revisit the Corner-Horn imaging FAQ write up and proceeded to cover my LaScala II and SW115x2 subs between the Khorns with towels.  I also put pillows on top of the Khorn top hats, extending 2-3" from the front edge.  This experiment made very significant positive improvements.

I plan on purchasing Auralex SonoFlat absorbing panels for the front and side walls as well as for the 6'11" ceiling above the Khorns.  It seems this would be the best 1st step before hardware purchases and measurement taking.  

Next would be purchase of calibration mic and related software.  A Xilica unit seems to be next on the to do list.  Is there a preferred unit for a 7.2 system vs 2.0 system?

Does this sequence sound right?

 

Thanks for the help!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/12/2020 at 6:43 AM, D Jenson said:

babadono-My 2012 Khorns have connections on the bass bin for bi amping.  I am not sure how I would tri amp and keep things stock?

Yes they would not be stock anymore. You would be taking the passive crossover out of the circuit completely.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, D Jenson said:

Does this sequence sound right?

Yes.

 

1 hour ago, D Jenson said:

Is there a preferred unit for a 7.2 system vs 2.0 system?

That's entirely up to you.  I find that dialed-in loudspeakers using DSP crossovers make the job of amplifiers much, much less important, so you can get away with much less pricey amplification.  I've never been able to hear a significant difference between DACs--only the analog circuitry that is downstream of the DAC.  The jitter and SINAD specifications for almost any DAC nowadays is much better than I can hear in-room (<-100 dB SINAD, <1ns jitter), and is far below the audibility thresholds of mere mortals.  Apparently, what is different about these different preamps and DACs is their analog circuitry--that's apparently what most people are listening to.  Their digital specifications are well below the threshold of audibility.

 

I use an AVP all the time (a new/old stock XMC-1), and it serves in a two-channel or 5.2 channel mode.  I chose the unit I use now because of the measured performance of the DACs in it, but note that I probably couldn't hear the difference between it and virtually anything else on the market above $500 unit price. 

 

I tried Dirac (full version) using the XMC-1 and found that Dirac significantly degraded the EQ performance of the loudspeakers (all of them) in my 5.1 no matter how I used the software (versus measuring and correcting their response using a microphone 1 m from each loudspeaker in the array with REW), so I turned Dirac off and now use the Xilica for EQing each driver and setting delays for each driver channel within the loudspeaker.  The XMC-1still is used for setting channel gains and delays from measurements that Dirac provided, but these settings are manually loaded into the XMC-1 (i.e., Dirac is now turned off). 

 

I don't what to tell you about "room correction software", but my experiences with both Audyssey and Dirac have both been not good, i.e., both packages audibly worsened the sound of the setup (the version of Audyssey in my old AVP much more so), even after using many different microphone positions, etc.  The delay (distance), polarity, and channel gain settings they produce are okay, but not spectacular, I've found.  So the usefulness of these firmware and software packages is apparently only for those folks that don't/can't use something like REW and a calibrated microphone, and dialed-in DSP crossover settings for every acoustic driver in the setup.  Once conversion to DSP crossovers is done, there are no "room correction software" packages (the ones that take multiple measurements from the listening positions) that can touch the "anechoic" settings of REW+microphone into a DSP crossover with hand measured settings.  I assume this is because these software/firmware packages all suffer from the fact that they are trying to weed through the non-minimum-phase room modes, etc. and they don't do very well at that approach. 

 

37 minutes ago, babadono said:

Yes they would not be stock anymore. You would be taking the passive crossover out of the circuit completely.

Just leave the passive crossovers where they are and disconnect the leads from each driver (tagging the ends of the leads that you disconnect so you can reconnect them properly--at a much later date), then direct connect the loudspeaker drivers to their separate amplifier channels.  If you decide to sell the Khorns and, say, buy some Jubilees and/or K-402-MEHs, it only takes a few minutes to reverse the tri-amping connections.

 

Chris

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Chris A said:
6 hours ago, babadono said:

Yes they would not be stock anymore. You would be taking the passive crossover out of the circuit completely.

Just leave the passive crossovers where they are and disconnect the leads from each driver (tagging the ends of the leads that you disconnect so you can reconnect them properly--at a much later date), then direct connect the loudspeaker drivers to their separate amplifier channels.  If you decide to sell the Khorns and, say, buy some Jubilees and/or K-402-MEHs, it only takes a few minutes to reverse the tri-amping connections.

 

Chris

Of course. I certainly did not mean disconnect the passives and DISCARD:). You always want to be able at a later date to return them to stock configuration for a number of reasons.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My order has been placed for Auralex Panels.  They should arrive in a week.  This latest round of changes to my system began after I listened to the new Corwall IVs.  The mids and highs were so impressive I felt a need to improve them in my home system.  

I have been to the Xilca website.  I have also read other posts about using Xilica in the Klipsch forums.  

If I bi amp I would using 2 Xilica inputs and 4 outputs.  3 inputs and 6 outputs for tri amping.  I run a separate amp for the center channel. It looks like I could run another in and output for this center channel.  I am thinking this would be used for surround audio and video, not a summed center between the main speakers.  Correct?  It appears to me, I would not be able to use the Xilica for the remainder of the surround speakers as I would not have enough outputs.

I am also starting my search for tube amps.  Has anyone had outstanding results with any particular tube amps for bi/tri amping?  I have several irons in the fire here.  Due to the Covid-19 situation, I have been able to spend significant time on my audio/video passion lately.  

I would like to thank you all again for your help.  You are pulling (helping) me along.  So far the WAF has been good.  We will see how that goes when I bring up the subject of more hardware! 😇

 

Dean

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/15/2020 at 6:45 AM, D Jenson said:

If I bi amp I would using 2 Xilica inputs and 4 outputs.  3 inputs and 6 outputs for tri-amping.  I run a separate amp for the center channel. It looks like I could run another in and output for this center channel.  I am thinking this would be used for surround audio and video, not a summed center between the main speakers.  Correct?  It appears to me, I would not be able to use the Xilica for the remainder of the surround speakers as I would not have enough outputs.

Using the Xilica as a center channel summing source is quite easy.  User Delicious2 has done this in the past.  Also having extra input and output channel capability from the DSP crossover is an advantage.  This gives you flexibility to make changes and additions later: the marginal increase in cost of the XP-4080 over the XP-2040 is worth it in my estimation.

 

Adding surround channels can be as easy as adding a miniDSP 2x4 HD to bi-amp the surrounds as I do in my setup (i.e., ESS AMT-1s on top of Belle bass bins).  I've also run mono-amped Cornwalls as surrounds without time alignment.  Since the surround channels are usually echo channels for most surround music and movies, this actually works very well.  Only a couple of my multichannel music collection uses all 5 surround channels as independent music channels (notably Gordon Goodwin's Big Phat Band albums in 5.1). 

 

On 4/15/2020 at 6:45 AM, D Jenson said:

I am also starting my search for tube amps.  Has anyone had outstanding results with any particular tube amps for bi/tri amping?

I'm not your source on these kind of amplifiers. 

 

Chris

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...