Quantcast

Bi-amping Aerius i

MartinLogan Owners (MLO)

Help Support MartinLogan Owners (MLO):

A

Andre

Guest
Hi, I would need advise if it would be beneficial to bi-amp my Aerius i? Any advantages? Horizontal or Vertical Bi-amp? What would be the requirements for Horizontal bi-amp and vertical bi-amp? First time venturing into bi-amping.
Cheers...
Andre
 

roberto

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 1, 2005
Messages
3,179
Reaction score
40
Location
San Jose, Costa Rica
Andre said:
Hi, I would need advise if it would be beneficial to bi-amp my Aerius i? Any advantages? Horizontal or Vertical Bi-amp? What would be the requirements for Horizontal bi-amp and vertical bi-amp? First time venturing into bi-amping.
Cheers...
Andre
Hola Andre. Welcome. If the two amplifiers that you are going to use are the same model, then vertical connection is the best. This is, one channel to drive the stat panel, and the other channel to drive the woofer. If the amplifiers are different, then horizontal connection is the best. Try to match their input sensitiviy. Input level is better at least in one amplifier, this is to match their sensitivy. Some memebers here, recommend the help with a not so expensive sound pressure level meter from Radio Shack, and with a pink generator (a FM hiss signal without tunned station might work too) and match the level of both amps. Also, your ears will tell, trust them, and of course your liking. Happy listening,
Pura vida,
Roberto.
 
A

Andre

Guest
Hola Roberto, you are right! However...
I am using a standard McCormack DNA.5 and had been offered another up-graded DNA.5 (Rev. A) for passive bi-amping. Eventhough their specs remain the same, however the character is different because of the 'improved' parts (caps, diodes, resistors, wiring, connectors etc). For a reason that was not mentioned, Steve McCormack strongly recommended vertical bi-amp, saying horizontal bi-amp is more fussy. Hence, with the 2 amps of different character (same specs), I am not able to do a passive vertical bi-amp. I was originally thinking of a passive horizontal bi-amp with the upgraded amp driving the (L+R) panels and standard amp on the (L+R) woofers.

Spike, thanks for the links! Woa, need active x-over and bypass ML's internal x-over for best results..... :eek: Anybody know how to do it? :confused:
 
Last edited:

Spike

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 20, 2005
Messages
753
Reaction score
16
Location
SF Bay Area
Andre said:
Spike, thanks for the links! Woa, need active x-over and bypass ML's internal x-over for best results..... :eek: Anybody know how to do it? :confused:
According to Jim Power at ML, the internal cross-over cannot be bypassed. I already asked that question when I was looking at bi-amping my ReQuests and the answer is NO. That's why I'm passively bi-amping my ReQuests today.

Spike
 

Peter Hogan

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 31, 2004
Messages
294
Reaction score
0
Location
Fitchburg, MA
Spike said:
According to Jim Power at ML, the internal cross-over cannot be bypassed. I already asked that question when I was looking at bi-amping my ReQuests and the answer is NO. That's why I'm passively bi-amping my ReQuests today.

Spike
Hi,
Many of ML's cross-over circuits combine equalization and crossover into one. If you get rid of the crossover, you also get rid of the equalization. This can still be beneficial, but you'd need to do some external equalization to replace the removed crossover/equalizer circuit.

Peter
 
A

Andre

Guest
Hi Spike,
According to the link that you listed (Elliot's), passive bi-amping yields only mild improvement, as opposed to the highly recommended active bi-amping. What is your experience on this? Would it be better to bi-amp or just get a more powerful single amplifier or a pair of mono-blocks?
 

Spike

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 20, 2005
Messages
753
Reaction score
16
Location
SF Bay Area
Active bi-amping is the ultimate goal that I was striving for, but unfortunately it's not possible with my ReQuests due to the fact that I cannot get rid of the internal crossover. In this case, the next best thing is to bi-amp passively with high-quality tubes on the panels and solid-state on the woofers. The rationale being that I'd like to have a minimalist tube amplifiers to try and preserve the purity of the signals on the panels. This means that I'm looking for an medium powered amplifier to keep the number of components in the signal chain down to the minimum. The SixPacs with 60 triode watts fit the bills nicely. I'm lucky that the ReQuests has only 1 crossover point at 200hz and this is below the all important midrange frequency that human ears are critical of. So, in this particular case where the absolute (theroretical) quality of the crossover may be compromised a bit, I can afford to bi-amp my ReQuests passively. To further clarify, I would not passively bi-amp if the frequency in question hovers around the midrange area. Sure, my SixPacs could benefit somewhat if there's an active crossover preceding them, but then I knew to look for a beefy amplifier with robust power-supply to serve in a passive bi-amping configuration.
The answer to your question is a resounding YES, I do notice a huge different going from a big powerful amplifier (bi-wiring) to passive bi-amping with tubes on the panels. This way, I get the beautiful tube midrange on the panels and powerful bass from the solid-state amplifier. I feel that going with a bigger amplifier, I would lose the finesse on the mids and highs just for the sake of being able to drive my ReQuests full-range. I guess I was lucky that I was able to put together all the pieces to fit my puzzle after considering all the factors.

Spike
 
A

Andre

Guest
Thanks for the explanation Spike! I have 1 more question: the MLs impedance drop to 2 ohms or below at high frequencies. Would the tube amp be able to drive this? I have experienced tube amps on the MLs which sound dull (lack of highs).
 

Spike

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 20, 2005
Messages
753
Reaction score
16
Location
SF Bay Area
Andre said:
Thanks for the explanation Spike! I have 1 more question: the MLs impedance drop to 2 ohms or below at high frequencies. Would the tube amp be able to drive this? I have experienced tube amps on the MLs which sound dull (lack of highs).
This topic has been discussed before... Please follow the link Tubes, Logans and Power Supplies and scroll down toward the bottom of the page. Also, I've touched on this subject on another thread: Tubes for ReQuests.

Good luck
Spike
 

liffy99

Member
Joined
Oct 2, 2006
Messages
17
Reaction score
0
Bypassing ML crossovers

Looks like it might not be straightforward.
But with my Lyngdorf amplification, I can play around with more than just frequency cutovers (also handles phase, time delay, polarity, crossover frequency and order etc).
Will ML make available the parameters of their crossover to see if it can be reproduced externally ?
 

sleepysurf

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 11, 2005
Messages
2,516
Reaction score
9
Location
Tampa, FL
Until acquiring the Summits, I was using a Sunfire Cinema Grand 200 5-channel amp to passively biamp my Aerius i's (as per this vintage Sunfire review... http://www.vxm.com/21R.116.html). This particular setup also allows you to compare the "voltage" vs. "current" outputs of the Sunfire to drive the stat panels taking advantage of Carver's solid-state "trickery" with a resistor to "mimic" the "tube sound". I had NO issues with the internal crossover when doing so. After doing this I experienced SIGNIFICANT improvement in the bass, imaging, and soundstage. There are also some folks successfully using tube amps to drive older ML's like the Aerius, but you need to be careful with amp selection. Used Sunfire Cinema Grands are readily available on A'gon if you want to try this. In *my* setup, I was very pleased.

Unfortunately, bi-amping is not recommended with the Summits (due to their ice-power woofer amps), so I'm planning on eventually replacing my Sunfire with a dedicated 2-channel amp (? SS vs. tubes).
 
Top