Quad 606 with a Quad 405
"Bob Latham" wrote in message
In article ,
Arny Krueger wrote:
"Bob Latham" wrote in message
You are both correct from a simple electrical point of
view it is quite pointless. However, I might point out
that rightly or wrongly, probably a substantial majority
of people with an interest in Hi-Fi would say that
Bi-amped systems sound better
But this isn't really bi-amping. There are still passive
crossovers, and both amplifiers have to amplify the full
signal.
Its not "active" certainly but it is what most would mean
by bi-amped.
Who is this "most"?
Most audio fanatics?
Bi-amped has traditionally meant, and means in most audio circles to this
day, active crossover, two power amps, two-way speaker system.
That a few naive audiophiles have been snookered into buying two amps to a
job that one amp can do as well, is an aberration.
and indeed to be
"pointless" the amplifiers would have to suffer zero
load issues.
Note that the impedance curve of this speaker shows that
the tweeter provides only a small fraction of the load
on the power amplifier.
Oh agreed completely. I suspect the pro bi-amp argument
would say that the heavy current load of the bass driver
is detrimental to the performance of the
amplifier/cable/tweeter performance.
That may sell on the salon sales floor, targeted at naive audiophiles that
have money burning a hole in their pockets.
Look a the vast majority of commercial products, not the world of sleezy
deals involving audio imbeciles. It is very hard to find commercial
bi-amped speakers that don't also have an active crossover.
|