Has anyone heard of Dan D'agostino Relentless Power Amplifier compared to Boulder 3050?

[andromedaaudio]

Is that so ?
And where do they "cut " the freq band .
Is there a filter after the preamp ?
Most high end pre s dont have a low freq sub output afaik

 

[Carlos269]

Is that so ?
And where do they "cut " the freq band .
Is there a filter after the preamp ?
Most high end pre s dont have a low freq sub output afaik

Integration of the passive sub towers require the use of an electronic crossover, after the preamp. On the previous WAMM systems Wilson cut the subwoofer towers in at 40 Hz.

 

[andromedaaudio]

Integration of passive subs require the use of an electronic crossover.

Depends on the passive woofer design type you use
If you have the coils / caps built in in your passive woofer tower, you can cut the high freq off right there .
The woofer tower can then take the full signal in this situation it dont matter.
With coil values /cap values you can determine the slope / cut of freq .

Coils and caps ( and resistors ) are passive elements .

An " Electronic filter "
it still is an analogue filter in this case

You can put it after the pre or you can built it in the woofer tower .
With some " adjustment knobs ".

 

[Carlos269]

Depends on the passive woofer design type you use
If i you have the coils / caps built in in your passive woofer tower, you can cut the high freq off right there .
The woofer tower can then take the full signal in this situation does nt matter
With coil values /cap values you can determine the slope / cut of freq .

Coils and caps ( and resistors ) are passive elements .

First of all that is not the case with the Wilson passive subwoofer towers, secondly, including a passive crossover network in the subwoofers would lead to power being wasted as heat in the passive components, and thirdly unless the passive network has potentiometers and/or variable capacitors incorporated it would have no flexibility for fine tuning level, slope, phase or crossover frequency. Come to think of it, I have not seen a passive crossover network implemented in a high-end passive subwoofer. And that is because an electronic crossover is the way to do it properly in terms of efficiency and flexibility.

 

[andromedaaudio]

And that is because an electronic crossover is the way to do it properly in terms of efficiency and flexibility.

Yes but the filtering components are basically the same .
You can either divide the signal digitally or analogue .
We are talking analogue here and in analogue there is no other way to filter then with coils and or caps .
In that external wilson filter there are also coils /caps as there is no other way to do it .
Open a " wilson electronic filter " you ll see coils and or caps inside as there is no other way to do it in the analogue signal path

 

[Lagonda]

Depends on the passive woofer design type you use
If you have the coils / caps built in in your passive woofer tower, you can cut the high freq off right there .
The woofer tower can then take the full signal in this situation it dont matter.
With coil values /cap values you can determine the slope / cut of freq .

Coils and caps ( and resistors ) are passive elements .

An " Electronic filter "
it still is an analogue filter in this case

You can put it after the pre or you can built it in the woofer tower .
With some " adjustment knobs ".

There are plenty of good active analog filters out there, especially if you only apply the crossover filter to the bass section of your system. Pass Labs makes a good analog crossover, so does Wilson. Marchant will make you one to your specifications.

 

[andromedaaudio]

active analog

To clear misunderstanding " active" in this case would also be using passive XOver components .
Coils,/caps.

 

[Carlos269]

Yes but the filtering components are basically the same .
You can either divide the signal digitally or analogue .
We are talking analogue here and in analogue there is no other way to filter then with coils and or caps .
In that external wilson filter there are also coils /caps as there is no other way to do it .
Open a " wilson electronic filter " you ll see coils caps inside as there is no other way to do it in the analogue signal path

You are missing the point, with the electronic crossover the frequency bands are divided prior to the amplification stage, in other words upstream of the amplifiers, while with passive crossover networks the frequency bands are divided after the amplifiers. An electronic crossover can be either analog or digital. Wilson offers an analog electronic crossover for integration of the Subsonic subwoofer towers.

It seems to me like you are trying to get out of a paper bag. There is no argument, mystery or intrigue here, it is all pretty straightforward.

 

[Lagonda]

To clear misunderstanding " active" in this case would also be using passive XOver components .
Coils,/caps.

That is the way Wilson subs are run, same as my Martin Logan Subwoofer towers. With active analog crossover and your own choice of amps. Gives you better flexibility compared to internal, often class D subwoofer amps.

 

[Carlos269]

To clear misunderstanding " active" in this case would also be using passive XOver components .
Coils,/caps.

Yes, “active” crossovers also use passive components such as resistors, capacitors and an inductors. The difference is that in active crossovers these components are used at “line” voltage levels, while in passive crossover networks these passive components are used at higher “speaker” voltage levels. The passive resistors, capacitors and inductors used are in different classes and precision when used at “line” level versus those used at higher “speaker” levels, they are different components. The line level passive components in general have tighter tolerances, greater precision, and are more refined, typically.

 

[andromedaaudio]

You are missing the point, with the electronic crossover the frequency bands are divided prior to the amplification stage, in other words upstream of the amplifiers, while with passive crossover networks the frequency bands are divided after the amplifiers. An electronic crossover can be either analog or digital. Wilson offers an analog electronic crossover for integration of the Subsonic subwoofer towers.

It seems to like you are trying to get out of a paper bag. There is no argument, mystery or intrigue here, it is all pretty straightforward.

Im just saying its the same signal you re dividing whether its the low gain signal you are dividing before the power anp or the high output one after the poweramp
Whats the difference you need a low pass filter in both cases .
What would make one better/ fundamentally different then the other .

 

[andromedaaudio]

Yes, “active” crossovers also use passive components such as resistors, capacitors and an inductors. The difference is that in active crossovers these components are used at “line” voltage levels, while in passive crossover networks these passive components are used at higher “speaker” voltage levels. The passive resistors, capacitors and inductors used are in different classes and precision when used at “line” level versus those used at higher “speaker” levels, they are different components. The line level passive components in general have tighter tolerances, greater precision, and a re more refined, typically.

Okay i see now what you mean.
I still would do it at the speakervoltage level though

 

[Carlos269]

Im just saying its the same signal you re dividing whether its the low gain signal you are dividing before the power anp or the high output one after the poweramp
Whats the difference you need a low pass filter in both cases .
What would make one better/ fundamentally different then the other .

In short, the difference of whether the full frequency range signal is divided into the frequency bands before or after the amplifier comes down to greater efficiency, in terms of amplifier power being wasted as heat in both the main towers and the subwoofer towers, and precision both in favor of doing it before the amplifier.

There is also a major flaw with the approach of only having the passive network at the subwoofer., this would cause the main towers to be driven full range since the main tower amplifiers would not be driven by the high frequency crossovered signal and this would mean both the main and the subwoofer towers would be reproducing the low frequencies simultaneously, which is typically not desirable from an integration or efficiency point of view.

I was under the understanding that you design speakers. What you have proposed or described here with driving both the main towers and subwoofer towers from the same amplifier output and having passive crossover networks in the subwoofer towers is frankly an atrocious design and I’m incredulous that a loudspeaker designer would propose, consider or even contemplate such an approach.

 

[andromedaaudio]

And I’m incredulous that a loudspeaker designer would propose, consider or even contemplate such an approach

Depends what speaker filters you use , if you use first order filters you have to work with natural roll off .
No other way around it , some drivers will indeed work audible in the same freq band .
Works fine if you work with membranes with no nasty break ups gradual slopes .

You really think the 40 hz wilson cut off point will be a vertical line lol.
Certainly not, its a slope both from the maintower down and the bass tower vice versa.
40 hz will just be the" X over point " just like any other passive filter.

By the way any full range speaker gets the full signal in the x over .
A speaker with bass dedicated woofers like the wilson XLF also.
It gets the full signal nothing wrong with that , the passive X over s job is simply to filter that out .

 

[Papageno]

you might want to consider the CH 10 series

Have you ever heard the sound of CH 10?

 

[Papageno]

I have been operating the original WAMM for over 10 years, and it was very difficult to control the bass tower.

If crossover is not used or frequency division is not properly performed, mid-high range signals flow into the bass tower and become cloudy due to the overlapping of the sound.

The slope / cut of frequency, gain... etc are theoretically important points, but the most important point was the quality of the crossover. Only after changing from the Wilson WAMM crossover(it is based on the JBL crossover) to the FM ACOUSTICS crossover, the bass tower started to sound properly and the WAMM began to sound perfectly.

 

[Elliot G.]

Have you ever heard the sound of CH 10?

No I have not yet however I own CH and I know what they have done and I have them on order. I just suggested that you check it out before you pull the trigger on some very serious electronics. We will have it in our showroom this summer along with the Wadax Reference DAC and Server and of course the Göbel speakers. I have spoken to two friends who I do respect very much and trust and they both gave me extremely positive words.
I am very much looking forward to getting them.

 

[chuck]

I have never heard of the 3050. This is what LL21 said about the 3060 and 3050. When I connected the Soulution 725 pre to the 3060, it sounded close to Soulution sound overall. But when I connected with the 3010, it sounded completely different. As you say, it's a different league. The 3010 affects the sound more than the power amplifier. Great preamplifier.

The 3010 is astonishing and not just in its sound. It has three independently controllable outputs and a powerful control system. You might be able to blend Master Subsonic towers perfectly with a 3010. My 1110 is a great preamp, with the 3060 sounds spectacular. And the 3010 crushes it, in a league all to itself.

 

[Lagonda]

I have been operating the original WAMM for over 10 years, and it was very difficult to control the bass tower.

If crossover is not used or frequency division is not properly performed, mid-high range signals flow into the bass tower and become cloudy due to the overlapping of the sound.

The slope / cut of frequency, gain... etc are theoretically important points, but the most important point was the quality of the crossover. Only after changing from the Wilson WAMM crossover(it is based on the JBL crossover) to the FM ACOUSTICS crossover, the bass tower started to sound properly and the WAMM began to sound perfectly.

I did not know they made crossovers. Do they have adjustable delay or continuous phase adjustment ? I could not find much on their home page.

 

[andromedaaudio]

However, the praise that many people send to Relentless made me curious about this amplifier.
I'm wondering whether to go safely to 3050 or to take an adventure to Relentless that I've never heard of.

To stay more on topic lol.
No i would certainly not go blind for a relentless.
I d get a pair of momentum monos or a stereo version and just plug them in for a month .
Flash a dealer a bit of cash and convInce him you re seriously interested .
A good dealer demo visit would help , some are very good at set up and have good rooms

Every brand has a house sound just see if you like what you hear .
The relentless is likely just giving you more of the same thing
Your wamm without the accompanying basstowers is not gonna be the ultimate bass monster .
The 3050 s or a relentless pair of amps with limitless power cant solve a problem that most likely lays in the maintowers .

Ps I can design also custom woofer towers .
I just need the exact efficiency from the speakers maintowers .
Preferably some 20 - 20 khz sweeps measured at the listening spot
And passive x overs will be built inside the basstower .
But its not free ...lol

Good luck but if i were you i d get the basstowers and change the room.