|
|
Post by sounder on Mar 22, 2012 16:54:15 GMT -5
Okay really biamp. And I know what this will start. But I talked to Vince today and he gave me this idea.
I have B&W 805speakers with a upa2. I decided to go with upa1 monos instead. He suggested i use upa1 for each speaker's bass and the upa2 for the highs. So effectively each speaker is biamped. They have the same gain, and the strong suit of the upa2 is mids and highs, not so much bass. But the upa1s should wake up the mids and lows plus increase sound stage and separation.
2-upa1 plus 1-upa2 equals triamp. Haha. So what do you think of this? I plan to give it a shot. If it works as I think it will, I'll still be selling a upa2 in a few weeks. But maybe not. I will report what I hear if anything.
|
|
|
|
Post by roadrunner on Mar 22, 2012 17:18:08 GMT -5
Sounder
I have to agree with Vince's advice. That is what I would do if I were in your shoes. The UPA-2 doesn't have quite as high a gain factor as the UPA-1, but that will not be a factor. The UPA-2 has lower distortion in the treble frequencies. Sounds like a good match of power amp to the driver being used.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 25, 2012 21:55:40 GMT -5
if the internal crossover is intact, you are completely wasting your time.
|
|
|
|
Post by wizardofoz on Mar 25, 2012 22:16:42 GMT -5
I would add in a miniDSP to split the signal to low and hi, and maybe play with some timing on the highs...
I have the same amps and can do a similar setup - just need to find some bi-amiable speakers to do it justice...maybe my erm-1's might do at a pinch. Even have a miniDSP to play with too.
I do agree that you may not gain much if you don't do active crossovers, but you will gain a bit as the upa-2 won't be dealing the lower end loads.
Always fun to try these things....I was going to try with xpa-1's for the bottom and upa-1's for the top ends, but this could be a fun option too.
Now where did I put my bi-wire cables....
|
|
|
|
Post by sounder on Mar 26, 2012 18:49:25 GMT -5
if the internal crossover is intact, you are completely wasting your time. This isn't true. In most B&Ws, there is a crossover network for each component. There is a HP network for the tweeter and a LP network for the mid bass. It's essentially two crossovers, not one. Removing the jumper eliminates the connection between the two. If that weren't the case, it would be a complete waste of money to put two sets of plugs on the back. Not only that, but the crossover would probably blow up from running two amps into the same system. |
|
|
|
Post by sounder on Mar 26, 2012 18:50:58 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by briank on Mar 26, 2012 19:59:15 GMT -5
Okay really biamp. And I know what this will start. But I talked to Vince today and he gave me this idea. I have B&W 805speakers with a upa2. I decided to go with upa1 monos instead. He suggested i use upa1 for each speaker's bass and the upa2 for the highs. So effectively each speaker is biamped. They have the same gain, and the strong suit of the upa2 is mids and highs, not so much bass. But the upa1s should wake up the mids and lows plus increase sound stage and separation. 2-upa1 plus 1-upa2 equals triamp. Haha. So what do you think of this? I plan to give it a shot. If it works as I think it will, I'll still be selling a upa2 in a few weeks. But maybe not. I will report what I hear if anything. You "could" do that, but having owned both the UPA-2 and UPA-1's, I would recommend buying the UPA-1's, selling the UPA-2 and use the proceeds to buy a pair of Audioquest Columbia interconnects. The USP-1 and UPA-2 combo is awesome already and connected with the Columbia cables it will sound freakin' sweet with those 805's. You can buy the Columbia's used on ebay or Audiogon for about $240-$275 a pair. Expensive but worth it.  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 26, 2012 23:44:44 GMT -5
if the internal crossover is intact, you are completely wasting your time. This isn't true. In most B&Ws, there is a crossover network for each component. There is a HP network for the tweeter and a LP network for the mid bass. It's essentially two crossovers, not one. Removing the jumper eliminates the connection between the two. If that weren't the case, it would be a complete waste of money to put two sets of plugs on the back. Not only that, but the crossover would probably blow up from running two amps into the same system. So if you are running 1 set of wires, do the wires have jumpers going to both terminals? |
|
|
|
Post by sounder on Mar 27, 2012 7:57:34 GMT -5
This isn't true. In most B&Ws, there is a crossover network for each component. There is a HP network for the tweeter and a LP network for the mid bass. It's essentially two crossovers, not one. Removing the jumper eliminates the connection between the two. If that weren't the case, it would be a complete waste of money to put two sets of plugs on the back. Not only that, but the crossover would probably blow up from running two amps into the same system. So if you are running 1 set of wires, do the wires have jumpers going to both terminals? Yes that's correct. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 27, 2012 18:12:41 GMT -5
So if you are running 1 set of wires, do the wires have jumpers going to both terminals? Yes that's correct. You see where I'm going with this right? |
|
|
|
Post by sounder on Mar 28, 2012 16:24:26 GMT -5
Sorry no not really. I removed the jumpers and ran two sets of wires... One from each amp. Thus bi-amp. What am I missing ? The jumpers would tie the crossovers together if you use one amp instead of two.
|
|
|
|
Post by sounder on Mar 28, 2012 17:14:19 GMT -5
If you are watching this thread you probably wonder the outcome. I got both upa1s now and did some listening last night. I set it up so that I could easily switch from biamp to single amp configuration. Going from upa2 to two upa1s made an immediate improvement. The soundstage is much better, it's more lively I'd say... More engaging. The bass of these speakers really woke up. With the upa1s I don't think I really need a subwoofer, while before I did. It really is about the power reserve. The amps do sound very similar in "voice", but the power reserve helps a lot.
Next I put in the upa2 for the highs and separate upa1s for the lows. To those who think its still connected inside the crossover, it's not. Unplug the amp to the highs and they stop making sound. Clearly two separate paths in the crossover network. Removing the highs from the upa1s didnt change the bass sound. Adding the upa2 into the mix did make a difference. What happened is that the soundstage collapsed a bit. The "voice" still is the same, and they blend well together. Volume didn't really change. But that sense of musical engagement went away to a degree. It seems to me that it's about the monoblock separation more than anything else but I can't be sure.
So with all three, the sound is still good and it all fit together fine. But there was no advantage to using all three amps. In fact I thought the reduced stage took something away. And in general I'd characterize the upa1s as more musical than the upa2 in my room and my system. I can tell you without a doubt that the different amps did sound different from each other. I could be happy with any of the options including just the upa2 on its own.
In the end I've decided to keep the monoblock amps and take the upa2 out of the mix. The system sounds great with these monos, and seems the perfect solution without getting crazy. I believe there may be some incremental improvement with the xpa1 pair, but at triple the cost. I don't envision triple the quality or value. If you are on the fence, go for the monoblocks. They really sound great and have plenty of power in reserve. The bass is tight, controlled, and definitely extends beyond the upa2. And I'm not taking away from the upa2. With my less demanding speakers it sounded great too.
Now, anyone want to buy a nice upa2 for their own system or experiment?
|
|
|
|
Post by briank on Mar 28, 2012 17:44:14 GMT -5
If you are watching this thread you probably wonder the outcome. I got both upa1s now and did some listening last night. I set it up so that I could easily switch from biamp to single amp configuration. Going from upa2 to two upa1s made an immediate improvement. The soundstage is much better, it's more lively I'd say... More engaging. The bass of these speakers really woke up. With the upa1s I don't think I really need a subwoofer, while before I did. It really is about the power reserve. The amps do sound very similar in "voice", but the power reserve helps a lot. Next I put in the upa2 for the highs and separate upa1s for the lows. To those who think its still connected inside the crossover, it's not. Unplug the amp to the highs and they stop making sound. Clearly two separate paths in the crossover network. Removing the highs from the upa1s didnt change the bass sound. Adding the upa2 into the mix did make a difference. What happened is that the soundstage collapsed a bit. The "voice" still is the same, and they blend well together. Volume didn't really change. But that sense of musical engagement went away to a degree. It seems to me that it's about the monoblock separation more than anything else but I can't be sure. So with all three, the sound is still good and it all fit together fine. But there was no advantage to using all three amps. In fact I thought the reduced stage took something away. And in general I'd characterize the upa1s as more musical than the upa2 in my room and my system. I can tell you without a doubt that the different amps did sound different from each other. I could be happy with any of the options including just the upa2 on its own. In the end I've decided to keep the monoblock amps and take the upa2 out of the mix. The system sounds great with these monos, and seems the perfect solution without getting crazy. I believe there may be some incremental improvement with the xpa1 pair, but at triple the cost. I don't envision triple the quality or value. If you are on the fence, go for the monoblocks. They really sound great and have plenty of power in reserve. The bass is tight, controlled, and definitely extends beyond the upa2. And I'm not taking away from the upa2. With my less demanding speakers it sounded great too. Now, anyone want to buy a nice upa2 for their own system or experiment? That's the result I expected. ;D The UPA-1's are awesome amps.  Now add the AQ Columbia's and you'll be in audio nirvana land. And I apologize in advance if you lose your job when you can't leave the couch because the tunes are so awesome you can't move. ;D |
|
|
|
Post by sounder on Mar 28, 2012 20:09:04 GMT -5
Lol. Could happen!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 28, 2012 21:51:06 GMT -5
Good to see you found what you like. As far as the bi-amping goes, here is a good read www.chuckhawks.com/bi-wire_bi-amp.htmWhat you are experiencing is just a passive bi-amp. Your speakers crossovers are still intact I'm afraid. But from what you experienced, you can now see first hand why so many people don't like the idea of passive bi-amping, it just sounds the same |
|
|
|
Post by jackfish on Mar 29, 2012 8:37:42 GMT -5
Since when is Chuck Hawks an authority on anything?
The B&W 805 crossover design does not involve just simple frequency filters. To use active biamping one would first have to bypass the speakers internal crossover network, and then understand that network and employ electronics which can support what that circuit does. Active biamping is not as simple as just throwing an electronic crossover at the system. If all of the functions of the internal crossover circuit, which are part of the loudspeaker's original design, are not taken into consideration, the loudspeakers will not sound as the designer intended. So, without substantial knowledge and effort, active biamping is not a panacea.
Conversely, it is not true to say there are no benefits to passive biamping. In some cases, there is noticable audible improvement. Had the OP used UPA-1s for both the high and low frequency sections of his loudspeakers perhaps his assessment may have been different.
|
|
|
|
Post by mpower on Mar 29, 2012 10:51:20 GMT -5
My situation was helped through passive bi-amping. When using 1 XPA-2 to run my Carver AL-III +, I could easily clip the amp and invoke the protection circuit. The speakers are power hogs. I added a 2nd XPA-2 and dedicated 1 amp to each speaker - I have not yet clipped the amps in over 6 months of use. Another indicator is the light meters. 1 amp = too many blue lights then clipping and turning to red. With 2 amps, very few blue indicator lights even at high spl.
Granted - another option would have been to use 2 XPA-1s but I already owned the first XPA-2.
Does it sound good? Heck yes-but SQ is really the same using 1 amp or 2 - at lower volumes. In my scenario - a dedicated power supply feeding each speaker was helpful.
|
|
|
|
Post by sounder on Mar 29, 2012 12:38:24 GMT -5
I believe jackfish is dead on about passive biamp with two upa1s on each speaker. It just wasn't a good match with the upa2 in the mix.
|
|
prohobo
Sensei
Only pure grain alcohol and rain water!
Posts: 141
|
Post by prohobo on Mar 29, 2012 14:44:15 GMT -5
Okay really biamp. And I know what this will start. But I talked to Vince today and he gave me this idea. I have B&W 805speakers with a upa2. I decided to go with upa1 monos instead. He suggested i use upa1 for each speaker's bass and the upa2 for the highs. So effectively each speaker is biamped. They have the same gain, and the strong suit of the upa2 is mids and highs, not so much bass. But the upa1s should wake up the mids and lows plus increase sound stage and separation. 2-upa1 plus 1-upa2 equals triamp. Haha. So what do you think of this? I plan to give it a shot. If it works as I think it will, I'll still be selling a upa2 in a few weeks. But maybe not. I will report what I hear if anything. Unless you are running a cross-over (active) before the amp, then I don't believe you are truly bi-amping the speakers. I would call it passive bi-amping, since you are really doubling up or tripling up the power to the passive cross-over in the speaker. If that is the case the amps are NOT driving individual speakers. I suggest reading this thread: emotivalounge.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=amps&thread=22872&page=2#384403 |
|
|
|
Post by sounder on Mar 29, 2012 16:45:55 GMT -5
Yes you are. See notes above in this thread. At least on b&w speakers two Inputs equals two crossover networks.
If this weren't true, when you unplug the top terminal you would still hear the tweeter.
|
|
