But drilling down through enough with measurements will eventually reveal something which is responsible for the subjective observations. That's how designers, like myself, are able to create components with a desired 'voice'. Otherwise, the design process would be uncontrolled chaos with no ability to repeat, much less control, the outcome.
If we are talking high end gear, I really don't recommend it. The main issue for me is the input sensitivities of domestic power amplifiers. As you noted some amplifiers do have attenuators that can damp the input sensitivity, I personally have not come accross any with really fine adjustability like professional amplifiers do. Without identical input sensitivities it would be like having half a broken clock, in that it will likely tell the time correctly once and not even twice in a day. MAJOR coherence issues as amplitude varies.
I respect and appreciate these warnings and concerns. But I am not hearing any problems, and I am loving the result!
The different gain structures of different amplifiers (different input sensitivity, different internal gain, different input/output (balanced versus single-ended) topology) doesn't matter, because however it all comes out in the wash, I can attenuate whichever is the higher gain structure amplifier with an fairly purist Electronic Visionary Systems discrete resistor attenuator.
If the goal is frequency response tailoring one advantage is that no active crossover is necessary. (I have no problem with active crossovers. The CS Port ACN400 is a wonderful device.)
If the goal is frequency response tailoring one advantage is that no active crossover is necessary. (I have no problem with active crossovers. The CS Port ACN400 is a wonderful device.)
On the contrary, with active crossovers, there is far more potential for tonal shaping because at line level, you can voice any way you wish, to any extreme you wish. With the passive crossovers built into speakers, the limit is either the excess sensitivity of (usually) the high frequency driver, or how much overall sensitivity you wish to throw away. Either way, that is limited to only a few dB at most.
While changing power amps does change tonality, especially swapping a solid state amp for something like an SET, doing so pales in flexibility compared to going the fully active route, where using a low power SET to power the tweeters in a relatively insensitive speaker is feasible.
On the contrary, with active crossovers, there is far more potential for tonal shaping because at line level, you can voice any way you wish, to any extreme you wish.
Well, not necessary maybe to you. I'm not about to say that active is the only way to go, because that would be insane. However it can remove a lot of barriers to achieving the best sound quality. In the end, isn't that important on a forum called "What's Best"? I'm merely putting out there what is generally acknowledged as the best way possible. Some very high end speakers do just this.
It isn't generally more popular because it involves more effort and expense. But since when has the very high end been allergic to expense?
Audiophile reasoning not based on anything .
It doesnt pass the science test thats for sure.
At least i tried and actually measured and listened
I stopped reading audio magz .long long time ago .
I've been tri-amping my 6-channel stereo setup using a DSP crossover feeding three identical stereo amps for many years now. Two amps are vertically bi-amping the ESLs and the third amp driving a pair of RiPol subs.
The DSP/crossover (a DBX Driverack Venu 360 with mic) provides almost infinite tuning capability. In fact; it's spoiled me to the point where nothing else will do-- It's my dream system for life.
Aside from cost, there's really no downside for active bi-amping with a DSP crossover.
My system features a hybrid bi-amping approach that includes both vertical and horizontal configurations, plus both passive and active crossovers.
There are two identical modified Dynaco/VTA tube monoblocks on the mids/tweeter with passive crossovers, and a solid state amp with a low pass active crossover to the woofers at about 80z. Overall volume is controlled by a tube preamp that acts as a master volume.
Prior to that configuration the Dyna/VTA monoblocks were driving all three drivers with passive crossovers. Based on personal observation, and comments from others, including Ken Stevens, bass output from the woofers sounded a bit lean relative to the mid/tweeter output in my current room. Placement changes, nor the addition of subwoofers, did not satisfactorily compensate in the lower vocal range that seemed to be lacking weight.
The addition of the SS amp and active crossovers provided independent control of the woofer output relative to the mid/tweeters, and offered superior bass impact and control...all of which were anticipated as the desired result. The result that was not expected was the improvement in overall clarity from the tube amps driving an easy 8 ohm load vs 4 ohm.
The results of any bi-amping experimentation will be unique to the given setup and situation. In this case, it was easy and affordable to try, could be done using the existing woofers, and the results exceeded expectations.
