Home » Sponsored » Pi Speakers » 4Pi's Biamped? (Has anyone tried this)
4Pi's Biamped? [message #75478] Sat, 09 February 2013 09:34 Go to next message
ice963 is currently offline  ice963
Messages: 10
Registered: January 2013
Location: Buffalo, NY
Chancellor
Thinking of using an electronic crossover and a couple of pairs of tube mono blocks to biamp my 4Pi's when their done. Anyone tried this or is it just overkill?
Re: 4Pi's Biamped? [message #75479 is a reply to message #75478] Sat, 09 February 2013 10:18 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Bill Epstein is currently offline  Bill Epstein
Messages: 1088
Registered: May 2009
Location: Smoky Mts. USA
Illuminati (2nd Degree)
I tried an inexpensive ART 311 4 years ago with a Classe 75 SS on the bottom and 45 tube amp on top.

The benefits of biamping in tailoring the attenuation and crossover points (although 1600 Hz was best) as well as splitting amplifier loads was evident but The ART muddied the sound overall and I abandoned the effort.

Some say the Behringer is better but still not too good. The real solution is with the Marchand tube crossovers which will cost you about $1000 bucks. Ron the Speakerman, on the Lansing Heritage site has used Marchands far less expensive fixed, solid state devices recently. Check over there.
Re: 4Pi's Biamped? [message #75481 is a reply to message #75479] Sat, 09 February 2013 10:43 Go to previous message
Wayne Parham is currently offline  Wayne Parham
Messages: 18676
Registered: January 2001
Illuminati (33rd Degree)

When I develop crossovers, I use a processor that serves as an active crossover configured with a Spice model. It allows me to change "components" using a configuration file. Once I have it fully optimized using Spice models, I build a physical crossover using passive components and verify that with measurements. But this is a development system, not one designed to be used at runtime.

The biggest problem you'll have using off-the-shelf active crossovers is you have to develop the filters. Some don't have the flexibility to do much more than make a basic "textbook" filter, e.g. Butterworth, Linkwitz-Riley, etc. But the filters in my speakers don't fit into any of those molds, so crossovers like that give unsatisfactory results. Others can be programmed, but then the user has to provide the algorithm to obtain the proper transfer function, and that's not trivial. So most people resort to basic filters, even with the programmable crossovers, and like I said above, that approach doesn't work well.

So the bottom line is, you need to be able to match the transfer function of the passive crossover. If you cannot do this, then the passive crossover will be better than the active crossover. You will negate the benefits of going active by having filters that don't work right for the loudspeaker, and the on-axis and off-axis response will suffer.

Still, I don't mean to discourage you. If you want to pursue it, here is a link that will show you what you need to do:

Previous Topic: Pi midhorn: how thick to be effective?
Next Topic: Final decided to take the dive into building 4Pi's
Goto Forum:
  


Current Time: Fri Apr 19 18:39:07 CDT 2024

Sponsoring Organizations

DIY Audio Projects
DIY Audio Projects
OddWatt Audio
OddWatt Audio
Pi Speakers
Pi Speakers
Prosound Shootout
Prosound Shootout
Smith & Larson Audio
Smith & Larson Audio
Tubes For Amps
TubesForAmps.com

Lone Star Audiofest