Happy owner of CLSIIZ anc CLX ART

[Iansr]

Has anyone tried bi-amping their CLX by using an active crossover to filter the bass frequencies (low pass of 360hz) and bypassing the bass section of the crossover ? I anticipate this would deliver significant improvements in sound quality.

 

[Brad225]

Hi Shawn, I'm going to post some info about your question on my system page #174. I don't want to mess up the OP's thread any more than I have.

 

[Big Dog RJ]

Has anyone tried bi-amping their CLX by using an active crossover to filter the bass frequencies (low pass of 360hz) and bypassing the bass section of the crossover ? I anticipate this would deliver significant improvements in sound quality.

Yes good question.

This used to be quite the norm in the past... with every type of highend speakers, there were always two sets of speaker terminals. This was largely due to that "stage effect" that everyone was trying to create. Or should I say, recreate a stage effect in the home. I refer to it as a stage effect, simply because it's much louder, has more force, impact and dynamics but no musicality. Lacks intimacy, immersiveness, and is musically dis-engaging. At least for me it is.

Now, if you look at the majority of highend speaker systems, the real top stuff, they in fact only have just one pair of inputs. The designers also experienced the associated problems with added distortion and phase issues when it comes to adding cross-overs... on top of crossovers that are already built in. They looked at keeping things pure and simple, shortest signal paths, least amount of connection points, executed with the highest quality parts yields far better results! They discovered the sound and purity of source signals to be superior, and uncoloured.

Bi-amping, bi-wiring adds more things into the mix and makes things more complicated. For better channel separation, minimal cross-talk and superior dynamic drive, monoblocks are the answer. However, a very well designed high powered Class A designed stereo power amplifier, is just as good. Monoblocks aren't required.

Speakers have also become far more efficient with easier loads to drive, compared to those days... and this has been the trend, so I wouldn't even think of bi-amping. I've done so in the past with several versions of Maggie's and Apogee Diva's that I previously owned but none were of success. Either single stereo amps or monoblocks were far superior. It was a much cleaner sound overall. There was more of the music flowing from good recordings.

Just my 50cts worth...
Cheers, RJ

 

[DDzCLX]

Has anyone tried bi-amping their CLX by using an active crossover to filter the bass frequencies (low pass of 360hz) and bypassing the bass section of the crossover ? I anticipate this would deliver significant improvements in sound quality.

I've seen this discussed many times but have yet to see anyone who has implemented an active cross over on the CLX. Personally I am using mono blocks most of the time (ARC Classic 150).

 

[Iansr]

Well each to his own, but I think most speaker designers would agree that an active crossover / multiple amp set up is inherently superior in principle to a passive set up. The implementation is of course crucial and there are a lot of crappy active crossovers out there, both analogue and DSP (I include MiniDSP in the latter). In my view poor implementation is the only logical explanation for any report of dissatisfaction with an active set up. Passive speakers dominate the market for simple reason that it caters to the existing hi fi market, although it is noticeable that there is an increasing number of active speakers now available. What I was suggesting is a hybrid semi-active arrangement and as such I consider it a step towards a full active set up and therefore a step in the right direction. If i was using an analogue active crossover I’d use the First Watt B4 which does not use cheap and nasty op amps. Ultimately I‘d go full on DSP and use AudioLense, which is in the Premier League of DSP.

 

[Big Dog RJ]

Well each to his own, but I think most speaker designers would agree that an active crossover / multiple amp set up is inherently superior in principle to a passive set up. The implementation is of course crucial and there are a lot of crappy active crossovers out there, both analogue and DSP (I include MiniDSP in the latter). In my view poor implementation is the only logical explanation for any report of dissatisfaction with an active set up. Passive speakers dominate the market for simple reason that it caters to the existing hi fi market, although it is noticeable that there is an increasing number of active speakers now available. What I was suggesting is a hybrid semi-active arrangement and as such I consider it a step towards a full active set up and therefore a step in the right direction. If i was using an analogue active crossover I’d use the First Watt B4 which does not use cheap and nasty op amps. Ultimately I‘d go full on DSP and use AudioLense, which is in the Premier League of DSP.

Ah! now I understand your perspective, and yes that makes sense. Although I have a few mates here that don't really believe in much DSP correction, especially with ML hybrids, they claim that there's still some dis-continuity... this camp prefers the more simpler approach. Obviously, as you mentioned, every one of us has different tastes in music and listening preferences. It's quite a funny thing since we are pretty much human and all have actual "ears" but hear differently! I also do wonder sometimes when designers are fine-tuning their systems, and voicing speakers, perhaps they hear things completely different to ours.

I do think DSP does help, along with ML's ARC room correction software but also this alone is not enough. Proper room setup, gear setup, and speaker placement need to be optimal in order to get the basics right and then achieve that system threshold. Every room is different, there's nothing out there identical to the designers' or reviewers', although they claim to have the best rooms! I do believe over a certain period of time (can take several months to a year), fine tuning and adjusting placement options, and listening distances will evolve into the right mix. Once that optimal point is discovered in your particular room, leave it!

Just sit back and enjoy those fine tunes!
Woof! RJ

 

[Iansr]

I think it was Toole who said, above the Schroeder frequency the speaker is in control but below it the room is in control.
If you don’t know about AudioLense it is worth reading up on it. It is an incredibly powerful DSP solution that makes DEQX look Mickey Mouse. It applies cross over filters, room correction and total time / phase correction based on the listening position. I’ve decided that it is something I have to try.

 

[Big Dog RJ]

I think it was Toole who said, above the Schroeder frequency the speaker is in control but below it the room is in control.
If you don’t know about AudioLense it is worth reading up on it. It is an incredibly powerful DSP solution that makes DEQX look Mickey Mouse. It applies cross over filters, room correction and total time / phase correction based on the listening position. I’ve decided that it is something I have to try.

Good stuff mate, sounds promising! Keep us posted on your findings. Till then, enjoy those fine tunes.
Cheers, RJ

 

[Leporello]

Yes good question.

This used to be quite the norm in the past... with every type of highend speakers, there were always two sets of speaker terminals. This was largely due to that "stage effect" that everyone was trying to create. Or should I say, recreate a stage effect in the home. I refer to it as a stage effect, simply because it's much louder, has more force, impact and dynamics but no musicality. Lacks intimacy, immersiveness, and is musically dis-engaging. At least for me it is.

Now, if you look at the majority of highend speaker systems, the real top stuff, they in fact only have just one pair of inputs. The designers also experienced the associated problems with added distortion and phase issues when it comes to adding cross-overs... on top of crossovers that are already built in. They looked at keeping things pure and simple, shortest signal paths, least amount of connection points, executed with the highest quality parts yields far better results! They discovered the sound and purity of source signals to be superior, and uncoloured.

Bi-amping, bi-wiring adds more things into the mix and makes things more complicated. For better channel separation, minimal cross-talk and superior dynamic drive, monoblocks are the answer. However, a very well designed high powered Class A designed stereo power amplifier, is just as good. Monoblocks aren't required.

Speakers have also become far more efficient with easier loads to drive, compared to those days... and this has been the trend, so I wouldn't even think of bi-amping. I've done so in the past with several versions of Maggie's and Apogee Diva's that I previously owned but none were of success. Either single stereo amps or monoblocks were far superior. It was a much cleaner sound overall. There was more of the music flowing from good recordings.

Just my 50cts worth...
Cheers, RJ

The two sets of terminal--My Ascent has them, with straps connecting them which you can remove--are for biamping or bi-wiring (something whose value I question). But you're still going through the built-in hi-pass and low-pass crossovers. To get the full benefit of an electronic crossover, you'd have to bypass these internally.

Generally, passive crossovers at loudspeaker impedances need iron core inductors and bipolar electrolytic capacitors, both weak components sonically. With either analog active or DSP crossovers you don't need inductors at all (for analog, there are trick circuits such as "gyrators" that simulate them). You have much greater flexibility in crossover points and slopes. Also, with separate bass and treble amps you theoretically get a reduction in intermodulation distortion, not that it's a problem with most modern amps. So it doesn't surprise me when people report an improvement in sound when using active crossovers.