klipschboy Posted January 14, 2005 Share Posted January 14, 2005 Hello everyone Would it be better in sound if using an external amplifier to drive the subwoofers? Has anyone here tried to run the KSP400 this way? I have an extra Harman Kardon Citation 7.1 with 450watts per channel x 2 and I am thinking to use it for experiment. Does anyone here know the technical specs of the built-in amps in KSP400? Thanks, Tony Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T2K Posted January 14, 2005 Share Posted January 14, 2005 "Pofessional grade subwoofer with Kapton voice coil provides high excursion and high power handling." "200 watts continuous; discreet, high-current output devices; 400 watts dynamic power" Keith Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dragonfyr Posted January 14, 2005 Share Posted January 14, 2005 In a word, absolutely! One of the greatest tragedies in the advent of the home theater and x.x processing is the advent of the mid-fi revolution coupled with a subwoofer. Just look at the folks falling over themselves to build MP# libraries! This is like trying to reproduce my library of quality (Polydor, etc.) LPs and quality digital recordings with cassettes! Whoopee! The new receivers generally feature a common power supply (can we say 'current limited'!) and little if any capacitive reserve. And for a subwoofer, neither of these conditions is good! While the receiver approach is convenient for the average listener, and the thought of buying 6-7 channels of quality convential amps would severely dampen the mass acceptance of home theater!!! (I can just see my mom saying - "sure, I can easily see the value of buying 3-7 high quality amps to listen to "Finding Nemo"! - I mean, just try to find a high quality multi-channel pre-amp for less than several thousand dollars so that you can just add an amp or 4 to adapt a quality home stereo! The advantages of bi-(or tri-) amping are significant! Especially biamping to accomodate a subwoofer! And the benefits can be further realized by the use of a quality crossover (i.e.: Marchand Electronics). Bottom Line: The offloading of the LF reproductive load from the receiver's amp/PS to the separate amp will benefit both LF and MH frequency reproduction significantly!! Perhaps more than any other single change to the electronics of the system. I can't recommend it too highly! The next complimentary aspect would be if the receiver has a real quality crossover to remove the LF component from the unit's amplifier so that the LF signal is not sent to the satellites. Many do not! {An editorial aside!:This is especially the case as people are being instructed to place their subs wherever the 'crawl' test placement method dictates rather then to accurately align the various components in the time domain and to control the reflected signal environment - in other words - the time domain!!! The phase error that is incorporated by this method can be absolutely enormous - as they place it according to the polar and comb filtering standing wave anomalies in the room!!!! Well, its a godsend for a quality acoustician - if the people would stop worrying about which exotic high priced interconnect is going to solve this problem - or the new built-in 'room analysis' systems that are all the buzz that simply measure and RTA of the room, invert it and feed it back thus creating a supposedly flat frequency response! (And if this sounds good to you, you need to learn about the time domain and why this EQ snake oil is a GREAT marketing gimmick worthy of Bose! ...and absolutely sh____ physics! ;-) )} Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dragonfyr Posted January 14, 2005 Share Posted January 14, 2005 In a word, absolutely! One of the greatest tragedies in the advent of the home theater and x.x processing is the advent of the mid-fi revolution coupled with a subwoofer. Just look at the folks falling over themselves to build MP# libraries! This is like trying to reproduce my library of quality (Polydor, etc.) LPs and quality digital recordings with cassettes! Whoopee! The new receivers generally feature a common power supply (can we say 'current limited'!) and little if any capacitive reserve. And for a subwoofer, neither of these conditions is good! While the receiver approach is convenient for the average listener, and the thought of buying 6-7 channels of quality convential amps would severely dampen the mass acceptance of home theater!!! (I can just see my mom saying - "sure, I can easily see the value of buying 3-7 high quality amps to listen to "Finding Nemo"! - I mean, just try to find a high quality multi-channel pre-amp for less than several thousand dollars so that you can just add an amp or 4 to adapt a quality home stereo! The advantages of bi-(or tri-) amping are significant! Especially biamping to accomodate a subwoofer! And the benefits can be further realized by the use of a quality crossover (i.e.: Marchand Electronics). Bottom Line: The offloading of the LF reproductive load from the receiver's amp/PS to the separate amp will benefit both LF and MH frequency reproduction significantly!! Perhaps more than any other single change to the electronics of the system. I can't recommend it too highly! The next complimentary aspect would be if the receiver has a real quality crossover to remove the LF component from the unit's amplifier so that the LF signal is not sent to the satellites. Many do not! {An editorial aside!:This is especially the case as people are being instructed to place their subs wherever the 'crawl' test placement method dictates rather then to accurately align the various components in the time domain and to control the reflected signal environment - in other words - the time domain!!! The phase error that is incorporated by this method can be absolutely enormous - as they place it according to the polar and comb filtering standing wave anomalies in the room!!!! Well, its a godsend for a quality acoustician - if the people would stop worrying about which exotic high priced interconnect is going to solve this problem - or the new built-in 'room analysis' systems that are all the buzz that simply measure and RTA of the room, invert it and feed it back thus creating a supposedly flat frequency response! (And if this sounds good to you, you need to learn about the time domain and why this EQ snake oil is a GREAT marketing gimmick worthy of Bose! ...and absolutely sh____ physics! ;-) )} Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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.