Someone w Experience Active/Passive Biamping


I'm considering either line level active crossover to biamp my Magnepan 1.6QR's, or speaker level passive crossover to do same.
I'm seeing on the MUG website that line level active xo is better, since the signals are "treated" prior to amp getting them. The Behringer 2496 has been suggested for me to use.

Anyone confirm, challenge this? I'm willing to bypass the Maggie caps, inductor etc. in order to do the Behringer thing, but I'd like to hear pro's/con's prior to executing the change.

Some may be fans of speaker level passive crossovers. I was planning on building my own, but those using the line level active crossovers are insisting it's inferior. Comments?
Thanks!
douglas_schroeder

Showing 1 response by eldartford

I am (1)..a strong advocate of biamping, and (2) owner of MG1.6 speakers. In spite of this I suggest that biamping the MG1.6, between the woofer and tweeter panels may not be the best thing to do. (Biamping between a subwoofer and the MG1.6, what I do, is fine).

My reasons are as follows:

1. The Magneplanar drivers are not like ordinary cone drivers, and their frequency response is "taylored" by tension and weights. The crossover uses different low rolloff and high pass frequencies, and slopes.

2. The passive crossover is very simple, and easily upgraded. The Solen capacitors don't need to be replaced. An air core inductor should replace the single iron core inductor of the stock crossover.

3. Hooking up a tweeter directly to a power amp (without a capacitor) makes me nervious. Power amps have a way of going "thump" or "buzzzz". Hopefully the fuse will save your ass. You didn't bypass the fuse, did you?

4. Cost and complexity.