BI-AMPING


BI-AMPING IS THE TRUE WAY TO REALLY GOOD SOUND THE X-OVERS IN PRETTY MUCH ALL SPEAKERS OVERLOAD DISTORTING THE SIGNAL. ACTUALLY, ALL SPEAKER REVIEWS AND RATINGS ARE WORTHLESS UNLESS THEY ARE BI-AMPING,THEY ARE MERELY REPORTING THE COLORATIONS AND DISTORTIONS IN THE PASSIVE X-OVERS. CONSIDER THIS, BI-AMPING AND TRI-AMPING ARE THE INDUSTRY STANDARD IN RECORDED AND LIVE SOUND. SO, WOULDN'T IT MAKE SENSE FOR YOU TO DO THE SAME IN YOUR LISTENING ROOM/STUDIO? AS FAR AS UNITS THAT I WOULD RECOMMEND, FOR A DECENT PRICE THE BRYSTON 10B, IF YOU WANT TO AND CAN AFFORD IT, THE FM ACOUSTICS 236. SOME OF YOU MIGHT SAY THAT THE X-OVER (EVEN THE BEST UNITS SUCH AS THESE) COLORS THE SOUND, BUT REALLY, THE ADVANTAGES OUTWEIGH THE DISADVANTAGES. EACH DRIVER IS DRIVEN BY IT'S OWN AMP-DIRECT SIGNAL, YOU CAN'T BEAT THAT. I FEEL THAT THIS IS AN OVERLOOKED ISSUE THAT IS HORRENDOUSLY IGNORED BY THE PRESS AND THE PUBLIC ALIKE. YOU'RE A LOT BETTER OFF PAYING FOR ANOTHER STEREO AMP AND AN ACTIVE X-OVER THAN TRICK CABLES, SHUN MOOK CRAP, ROOM TUNES, CONES, DOMES, MARKERS, POWER LINE CONDITIONERS, AND ALL THAT OTHER very expensive GARBAGE THAT IS A BIG WASTE OF YOUR MONEY AND IS NOT EFFECTIVE. IF YOU DON'T BELEIVE ME ASK TOP DESIGNERS LIKE CHRIS RUSSELL OF BRYSTON, AT HEAR WHAT THEY TELL YOU.
busted_eardrum

Showing 1 response by trelja

I agree with Onhwy61 and Tml2. Since the mid 90s, a new(actually old) breed of speaker has emerged. Coming from companies like Coincident, Meadowlark, Silverline, Soliquy, etc. These speakers, while appearing status quo on the outside, are actually MUCH different. But, the differences are internal, where no one notices. They CANNOT be lumped into the design of loudspeaker which has ruled supreme since the early 70s. Higher(3rd and 4th) order crossovers have been eschewed for much simpler designs. Most of these units are first order. In fact, my Coincident speakers have exactly TWO crossover components. These components do not pollute the audio signal anywhere near the extent of the more complicated designs. Perhaps with these designs, the need for an active crossover, extra pair of (expensive)interconnects, and another stereo amplifier has been mollified to a greater degree than you realize. The impetus for these simpler designs has been the return of many of us to tube amplification. The more complicated the crossover design, the greater current required. These current hungry loudspeakers demand high powered solid state amplification. That was how high end audio evoled from the early 70s - mid 90s. It turns out that not only do first order crossovers present a much more benign load to the amplifier, to me, they sound much more immediate, lifelike, and natural. This may be the reason that many audiophiles preferred these simple designs in the 80s. Arguing(using their ears as the measuring device, instead of ocsilloscopes and spl meters) against the so called "experts" who argued all of the physics(replete with their charts and measurements). These pooh poohed audiophiles simply said that speaker(with the first order crossover) sounds better to me than that speaker(with the trick fourth order crossover). Many of us heard simple setups, using tube(even integrated or SET) amplifiers, and a benign speaker provide us the best sound we have ever had in our systems. The experts deemed us idiots. But who has the last laugh now?