|
|
Post by garbulky on Jan 13, 2015 13:46:18 GMT -5
Gar, Are you asking about between AMP and speaker OR between preamp and amp? I'll address between amp and preamp. Yes pre-amp and amp. Basically if I split the 600 ohm output impedance of the XSP-1 at its output, then I will get 1200 ohms at each amp channel's input right? |
|
|
|
Post by Gary Cook on Jan 13, 2015 13:52:23 GMT -5
A possible Emotiva product, a stand alone active line level cross over. Or possibly build the active cross over into a pre amp, an RSP-1 perhaps.
Cheers
Gary
|
|
|
|
Post by leonski on Jan 13, 2015 14:07:39 GMT -5
The OUTPUT impedance remains untouched. You need to know the INPUT impedance of the amplifier, which WILL appear to be 1/2 the 'spec' value. That is IF you are using a 2-way splitter from preamp TO main amp. So, your 600ohm OUTPUT (is that balanced or single ended?) will STAY that way. The INPUT impedance if it WAS say…….33k Ohms, will now be 1/2 that value…….AGAIN, if you are using a 2-way splitter.
Balanced is a 'special case' because you are usually given a TOTAL impedance, but you need to know the PER LEG value….which is 1/2 of the TOTAL. Output from the pre is treated the same. You will be given a 'total' of which 1/2 is the 'per leg' value. But the rules of parallel stay the same.
Take a time-out now, and READ thru the article I linked. That'll explain more/better than I can and you'll see (nice drawings) why biamp works BEST with line level crossovers.
Emo would be KILLING people with an active crossover. I can't see ANYONE, myself included, being able to wade thru the gigantic number of adjustment options and NOT ruin the sound of their speakers. My GOAL is to DUPLICATE as closely as possible the crossover NOW in my speakers. Now, if I were designing and building a nice set of DIY speakers? I'd LOVE the crossover option and enjoy driving myself NUTS trying to figure it all out!
Pass Labs DOES make a crossover. It is VERY detailed and complicated. It is also fairly expensive $$$$ and can be configured to duplicate almost ANY crossover you come across.
|
|
|
|
Post by stlaudiofan1 on Jan 13, 2015 14:31:56 GMT -5
I haven't had a chance to try them in class A mode. That should be interesting to try both with class A and then class A on the high frequency only. Who knows what that will be like. I get the active crossover thing. However, it's not quite the same as the crossover on the sub, where you have the potential for two speakers trying to produce the same frequencies. The passive crossover in ithe speakers prevent that. Also many folks are in the camp that you need to eliminate the passive crossovers in the speakers to gain true benefits. That scares the heck out me, because you would need to do surgery on the speakers, and if you are not careful, you could do damage to the drivers. As far as an active crossover goes, I'm weighing the added separation vs. bringing another component into the mix. I have to say the Emo 1X2BAL is much more industrial than it appears on the picture. They are quite sturdy and have some weight to them. One thing's for sure...there are blue lights everywhere now  |
|
|
|
Post by Boomzilla on Jan 13, 2015 15:40:21 GMT -5
...PLEASE read the above linked article. It also explains WHY boom's assertion that 'ONLY the frequencies in the bandwidth of the speakers' crossovers will be seen by the amplifier channel driving them' is INCORRECT. Without crossover BEFORE the amp, it is still burdened with a full-range signal and you won't get Full Benefit of 2x amplifiers. This is where I now find myself. In process of getting a 2-way crossover together at Line Level. It has Very Low capactitance values and I'm putting it in an Altoids case. One per channel! And while I'm using Radio Shack boards, other parts are more 'premium', especially the Caps and RCA connectors. I agree with the article that an upstream crossover is preferable. However, many disagree with Mr. Elliot about his claim that only via an active electronic crossover does one get the benefits of biamplification. In fact, the diagram I used is called "vertical biamplification" and it uses the speakers' passive crossovers (which must be disabled for the arrangement that Mr. Elliot refers to). Furthermore, if one wishes to use upstream electronic crossovers, then the entire speaker must be "re-engineered" in terms of crossover points, slopes, phase, etc. so that those parameters can be duplicated in the upstream crossovers. Few have the expertise to do this (in the consumer arena). Therefore, the vertical bi-amping that I propose has numerous advantages: 1. The speaker need not be disassembled to gut the existing passive crossovers 2. The electronic crossover need not be used 3. The rising impedance of the speakers' internal crossovers reduce power loss outside of bandwidth So, if you're a DIY electronics fan, and want to make upstream crossovers (AND gut your expensive speakers), then feel free to do so. Otherwise, vertical bi-amplification gives (IMHO) the majority of the benefits with little of the pain. |
|
|
|
Post by stlaudiofan1 on Jan 13, 2015 16:04:27 GMT -5
...PLEASE read the above linked article. It also explains WHY boom's assertion that 'ONLY the frequencies in the bandwidth of the speakers' crossovers will be seen by the amplifier channel driving them' is INCORRECT. Without crossover BEFORE the amp, it is still burdened with a full-range signal and you won't get Full Benefit of 2x amplifiers. This is where I now find myself. In process of getting a 2-way crossover together at Line Level. It has Very Low capactitance values and I'm putting it in an Altoids case. One per channel! And while I'm using Radio Shack boards, other parts are more 'premium', especially the Caps and RCA connectors. I agree with the article that an upstream crossover is preferable. However, many disagree with Mr. Elliot about his claim that only via an active electronic crossover does one get the benefits of biamplification. In fact, the diagram I used is called "vertical biamplification" and it uses the speakers' passive crossovers (which must be disabled for the arrangement that Mr. Elliot refers to). Furthermore, if one wishes to use upstream electronic crossovers, then the entire speaker must be "re-engineered" in terms of crossover points, slopes, phase, etc. so that those parameters can be duplicated in the upstream crossovers. Few have the expertise to do this (in the consumer arena). Therefore, the vertical bi-amping that I propose has numerous advantages: 1. The speaker need not be disassembled to gut the existing passive crossovers 2. The electronic crossover need not be used 3. The rising impedance of the speakers' internal crossovers reduce power loss outside of bandwidth So, if you're a DIY electronics fan, and want to make upstream crossovers (AND gut your expensive speakers), then feel free to do so. Otherwise, vertical bi-amplification gives (IMHO) the majority of the benefits with little of the pain. |
|
|
|
Post by stlaudiofan1 on Jan 13, 2015 16:18:52 GMT -5
...PLEASE read the above linked article. It also explains WHY boom's assertion that 'ONLY the frequencies in the bandwidth of the speakers' crossovers will be seen by the amplifier channel driving them' is INCORRECT. Without crossover BEFORE the amp, it is still burdened with a full-range signal and you won't get Full Benefit of 2x amplifiers. This is where I now find myself. In process of getting a 2-way crossover together at Line Level. It has Very Low capactitance values and I'm putting it in an Altoids case. One per channel! And while I'm using Radio Shack boards, other parts are more 'premium', especially the Caps and RCA connectors. I agree with the article that an upstream crossover is preferable. However, many disagree with Mr. Elliot about his claim that only via an active electronic crossover does one get the benefits of biamplification. In fact, the diagram I used is called "vertical biamplification" and it uses the speakers' passive crossovers (which must be disabled for the arrangement that Mr. Elliot refers to). Furthermore, if one wishes to use upstream electronic crossovers, then the entire speaker must be "re-engineered" in terms of crossover points, slopes, phase, etc. so that those parameters can be duplicated in the upstream crossovers. Few have the expertise to do this (in the consumer arena). Therefore, the vertical bi-amping that I propose has numerous advantages: 1. The speaker need not be disassembled to gut the existing passive crossovers 2. The electronic crossover need not be used 3. The rising impedance of the speakers' internal crossovers reduce power loss outside of bandwidth So, if you're a DIY electronics fan, and want to make upstream crossovers (AND gut your expensive speakers), then feel free to do so. Otherwise, vertical bi-amplification gives (IMHO) the majority of the benefits with little of the pain. I totally agree. The speaker designer works enclosure, drivers, crossover, etc as a whole, and I like to think there is more art to voicing these speakers these articles suggest. Biamping with the 4 amps and splitting the balanced interconnect stereo pair is really just cleaning up the upstream signal to the speakers. I can say that, in my case, it is now as pristine as I can imagine, yet the same aspects of the speaker are still there. |
|
|
|
Post by Gary Cook on Jan 13, 2015 17:19:57 GMT -5
I haven't had a chance to try them in class A mode. That should be interesting to try both with class A and then class A on the high frequency only. Who knows what that will be like. 
For a long time, years, I had a low power (15 WPC) Class A stereo amp driving the mid range and tweeter and a higher power (100 WPC) Class AB stereo amp driving the woofer. I was originally using the Class A amp for everything, but it didn't have enough grunt. So I bought the Class AB amp to replace it, but I didn't like the mid/highs as much. So an electronics engineer I was working with at the time suggested I try both. I did a quick and dirty passive cross over implementation, just took the cross over out of the speakers, dropped them to the speaker designer and asked him to modify them for use between the pre amp and the power amps. He actually made up new ones for the 2 way split and also sent me a small post power amp cross over for the mid range and tweeter. Worked like a charm, sounded fantastic, the Class A sound for mid/highs was crystal and the grunt from the Class AB amp made the woofer really come alive. It played "party" loud plenty of times, until the Class A amp finally died.
I then went to a better quality Class AB stereo amp with 125 WPC, put back the passive 3 way cross overs and it didn't sound any different, well not that I could pick anyway.
I've had it in mind to try it again with say a pair of XPA-1L's in Class A for mids and high and a pair of XPA-100's (or XPA-1's) in Class AB for the woofers. It's a lot of time, money and effort for what may well turn out to be no real benefit. But it would still be fun to try.
Cheers Gary
|
|
|
|
Post by leonski on Jan 13, 2015 17:43:07 GMT -5
Boom, I am in the same boat. I'm a 'vertical' guy, too. The potential problem is that IF the speaker crossover frequency is far away from the 50:50 point, than one 'side' of the amp COULD run out of steam first. This is a problem for the nosebleed types who like it loud….no! LOUDER. My panels at 600hz with the Very Lows being shunted to a sub puts me in a good place.
The Advantage of a line level crossover is mainly the gain of up to 3db in REAL amplifier power. Your #3 point about out of band is NOT quite right. The amp is FED that signal and reproduces it. PLEASE, read the article I linked.
And Yes, There IS some 'black art' in crossover design. However, if you don't try to reinvent the wheel, you should be able to DUPLICATE the crossover you have with an active OR passive Line Level unit. The replacement for my Maggies crossover, the MG1.6 model, is quite simple with a half dozen very small value caps, a small circuit board (got a spare altoids tin?) a couple RCA connectors (buy good ones, but don't go nuts) a few 1/4 watt film resistors and the assembly materials like a good solder station with the usual hand tools. I'm waiting on some help with the impedance calculation, but once I do that, I'll know HOW and could show YOU. I won't spend 40$ TOTAL for both crossovers. My MAIN new expense with be a GOOD Hakko Soldering Station (120$, or so) to replace my Unger Imperial iron which is probably Older than YOU are! (40+ years!)
For those who have very one-sided crossover frequencies or want the 'benefit' of a tube amp on the highs or THAT sort of trouble, HORIZONTAL biamping works. You need 2x the speaker cable you currently have, need to worry about gain matching and linearity along with yet MORE outlets, power conditioners and INPUT cables! That'd drive me nuttier than I already AM. A friend of mine uses EMO monoblocs on the LOWS and some 100watt TUBE amp on the highs along with a Marchand electronic crossover for his MG20s. This is 2 generations of top Magnepan ago. BUT, this thing sounds beyond amazing. His 'backup' speakers include Apogee and magnepan MMG, modded by Peter Gunn.
Don't forget that Speaker Level capacitors and inductors are $$$$ and if you were to upgrade 'em you'd be into it for a BUNDLE. By the time you've spent 30$x4 for inductors and half a dozen BIG caps for an AVERAGE of 35$ each, (X8 for 2 speakers) you are really in for it. And the Maggie guy won't have room IN the speaker like you probably do. Another time consuming EXTERNAL crossover enclosure. The commercial Skiing Ninja Crossover for my MG1.6 went for like 600$ the PAIR when available. They were 'just' a premium parts version of what the speaker shipped with.
'Gutting' sounds so……final….and fatal. This is a REVERSIBLE mod. All you need to do is SAVE your old crossovers and thorougly document how you took it APART. Do what I do! Take a bunch of GOOD pictures.
|
|
|
|
Post by leonski on Jan 13, 2015 17:56:38 GMT -5
For those afraid of 'breaking something' if doing a mod? My neighbor just brought me a computer board and a new power connectors. The board is surface mount but the connector is thru-hole and about 8 or 9 pins, at that.
I PATIENTLY got out the solder wicke, magnifier (my EYES are SHOT!) and my ancient Unger Imperial iron. I TOOL MY TIME. I had my neighbor help HOLD STUFF and it worked. I desoldered all the connections, wiggled the part and saw another still attached. More solder wicke and a few more minutes. OUT! We put the new part IN and soldered up. And it WORKED. I was pleased and saved the poor guy WHATEVER a real tech would have charged. I hadn't done a board-level fix in 20 years.
So, if you can TAKE YOUR TIME and be patient, you can DO THIS>
Gary, congrats on the crossover mods.
And for those who would like to read more, you can see a SAMPLE schematic at Elliot Sound Products. in the Projects section, you'll find HIS electronic crossover. It doesn't do me ANY good, since it is 24db/ octave.
|
|
|
|
Post by stlaudiofan1 on Jan 13, 2015 18:27:13 GMT -5
I haven't had a chance to try them in class A mode. That should be interesting to try both with class A and then class A on the high frequency only. Who knows what that will be like.
For a long time, years, I had a low power (15 WPC) Class A stereo amp driving the mid range and tweeter and a higher power (100 WPC) Class AB stereo amp driving the woofer. I was originally using the Class A amp for everything, but it didn't have enough grunt. So I bought the Class AB amp to replace it, but I didn't like the mid/highs as much. So an electronics engineer I was working with at the time suggested I try both. I did a quick and dirty passive cross over implementation, just took the cross over out of the speakers, dropped them to the speaker designer and asked him to modify them for use between the pre amp and the power amps. He actually made up new ones for the 2 way split and also sent me a small post power amp cross over for the mid range and tweeter. Worked like a charm, sounded fantastic, the Class A sound for mid/highs was crystal and the grunt from the Class AB amp made the woofer really come alive. It played "party" loud plenty of times, until the Class A amp finally died.
I then went to a better quality Class AB stereo amp with 125 WPC, put back the passive 3 way cross overs and it didn't sound any different, well not that I could pick anyway.
I've had it in mind to try it again with say a pair of XPA-1L's in Class A for mids and high and a pair of XPA-100's (or XPA-1's) in Class AB for the woofers. It's a lot of time, money and effort for what may well turn out to be no real benefit. But it would still be fun to try.
Cheers Gary
I had a chance to listen to all 4 in class A as well as just the highs in class A. I greatly prefer all 4 in class A mode. Just the highs in class A mode gave me about 25% of the benefit compare to both in class A. I can also say I notice a sizable difference in class A vs AB. When I was running a single pair I would say the benefit wasn't enough to warrant class A, when compare to AB mode. I need to listen to other albums. All of this is, of course based on my system and preference, but the 4 through class A have better focus and seem to be more fluid and effortless. |
|
|
|
Post by leonski on Jan 13, 2015 18:42:38 GMT -5
When doing comparisons of this type, it is important to LEVEL MATCH. In tests, people generally prefer the LOUDER.
If you DO try the other amps, keep in mind gain, sensitivity and DO try to keep levels the same. An inexpensive SPL meter, like from RAdio Shack will come in REAL handy.
I came THAT CLOSE (finger tips 1/4" apart) to buying a QUAD of the 1Ls. Logistics and setup made the choice for a PAIR of stereo amps.
Many of the DIY guys use 'spice' for crossover simulation. The better and more accurate the information you give it, the better the result.
|
|
|
|
Post by Gary Cook on Jan 14, 2015 0:11:56 GMT -5
I had a chance to listen to all 4 in class A as well as just the highs in class A. I greatly prefer all 4 in class A mode. Just the highs in class A mode gave me about 25% of the benefit compare to both in class A. I can also say I notice a sizable difference in class A vs AB. When I was running a single pair I would say the benefit wasn't enough to warrant class A, when compare to AB mode. I need to listen to other albums. All of this is, of course based on my system and preference, but the 4 through class A have better focus and seem to be more fluid and effortless. The problem I would have with 35 watts of Class A (from say an XPA-1L) for the woofer would be volume, slam, impact, punch etc. The 35 watts is plenty for the mids/highs but I need at least 200 watts for the lows. Not to be confused with the sub woofer, that's at least 400 watts needed there. I even doubt 60 watts of Class A (from say an XPA-1 Gen 2) would be enough either. That level of power requirement is what pulled me away from Class A all those years back. Cheers Gary |
|
|
|
Post by garbulky on Jan 14, 2015 0:58:28 GMT -5
This is one interesting thread! If I am correct in understanding your reply Boomzilla, the impedance splits into the input of the amps (biamped in stereo left right config) but the output impedance stays the same that each amp recieves I woud never have thought of that. My orginal assumption was that the pre-amp output (assumed at say 600 ohms) was going to be halved. Hope I am understanding this right. |
|
|
|
Post by leonski on Jan 14, 2015 2:29:53 GMT -5
Gar? 2 same (input) impedances paralleled is 1/2 the original value. NOTHING happens to the output impedance of the preamp TO the amp. So if the output impedance is 600ohms and the INPUT impedance is 22k PER CHANNEL, when you apply a splitter, the OUTput impedance of the PRE is STILL 600 ohms and the INPUT impedance drops to 11k. (for identical amps)
The LEFT and RIGHT channel of the preamp are INDEPENDENT and Do Not interact.
In General, you want the INPUT impedance to be At Least 10x the OUTPUT impedance. More is better, since these numbers are SELDOM flat across the frequency band. That 600ohm output impedance MIGHT be as high as 1.5k at the frequency extremes, which would violate the 10:1 'rule of thumb'. The Single Ended output of my Parasound P5 was measured by stereophile as 41.5ohms at 20hz. Lower everywhere else. NO interaction with any reasonable amp is expected. Balanced ouput impedance was <900 ohms, which is 450ohms per leg. Again, a reasonable value.
Gary: How sensitive ARE your speakers, anyway? How did you arrive at 'needing' 200 watts? You know that music has at least a 10db 'crest factor' where the loud passages need 10x the power of the average? My low-sensitivty panels (maybe 84 db 1watt/1meter) when cruising at a nominal 40 watts per side with 10x peaks are LOUD enough to offend the neighbors. At that point, the sub is putting out enough bass that you can see it in reflections in the window glass.
|
|
|
|
Post by djoel on Jan 14, 2015 8:38:27 GMT -5
I had a chance to listen to all 4 in class A as well as just the highs in class A. I greatly prefer all 4 in class A mode. Just the highs in class A mode gave me about 25% of the benefit compare to both in class A. I can also say I notice a sizable difference in class A vs AB. When I was running a single pair I would say the benefit wasn't enough to warrant class A, when compare to AB mode. I need to listen to other albums. All of this is, of course based on my system and preference, but the 4 through class A have better focus and seem to be more fluid and effortless. The problem I would have with 35 watts of Class A (from say an XPA-1L) for the woofer would be volume, slam, impact, punch etc. The 35 watts is plenty for the mids/highs but I need at least 200 watts for the lows. Not to be confused with the sub woofer, that's at least 400 watts needed there. I even doubt 60 watts of Class A (from say an XPA-1 Gen 2) would be enough either. That level of power requirement is what pulled me away from Class A all those years back. Cheers Gary We're still talking about a pair of mono blocks per speakers here right? The first 35 of Class A is going to your Tweet,& mids, and the second mb is doing the bass section that sounds like a nice feed system if ask me. A few years a go I was sweating over some Class A Pass amps that did 30 something watts, I would never had been able to bi-amp any speaker with a pair of those with out having to work 3 jobs  Here I'm thing this can be doable in the next 6 or so months, if I choose this route. Dan |
|
|
|
Post by Boomzilla on Jan 14, 2015 8:55:34 GMT -5
garbulky - If two identical amps are driven by the same preamp output: The output impedance of the preamp remains the same BUT The input impedance of the power amps (as seen by the preamp) is half what it would have been if only one amp was driven. This puts additional current demand on the preamp outputs. So if I have two power amps, each with a 10K-ohm input impedance, but I drive both amps in parallel from a single preamp, then the preamp sees a 5K-ohm load - not a 10K-ohm one. leonski - You had the assistance of an electrical engineer AND you know how to solder AND you are a DIY kind of guy. The vast (VAST) majority of consumers lack even one of these three attributes. I've already agreed with you that active bi-amplification is superior to vertical-passive, but you wish to belabor the issue. You want to say how simple this process is, but I point out (again) that just because it seems simple to YOU doesn't mean that it's equally simple to others. I'd also question how many would want to disassemble and modify their multi-thousand dollar speakers just to experiment with true bi-amplification. I have read your linked article, and I don't dispute that the full-range signal IS being sent to both amplifiers without an active crossover. Nevertheless, the "passive vertical bi-amplification" that I describe has many, many advantages to the average consumer. You don't want to recognize those advantages because you believe (correctly) that using an active electronic crossover (and omitting the speaker's passive crossover) is a "purer" idea. You're right - but that doesn't make your idea any more practical for the average audio fan. But I repeat myself... Please do as you see fit. Cordially - Boomzilla
|
|
|
|
Post by stlaudiofan1 on Jan 14, 2015 9:31:26 GMT -5
We're still talking about a pair of mono blocks per speakers here right? The first 35 of Class A is going to your Tweet,& mids, and the second mb is doing the bass section that sounds like a nice feed system if ask me. A few years a go I was sweating over some Class A Pass amps that did 30 something watts, I would never had been able to bi-amp any speaker with a pair of those with out having to work 3 jobs Here I'm thing this can be doable in the next 6 or so months, if I choose this route. Dan Dan, that is correct. 35 watts x 2, per channel, or 70 watts. Also, I might add that I'm running a sub using base management of the XSP-1 gen II. The 2 mono blocks driving the low/mid frequencies for each channel are relieved of driving anything under 50hz. Also, when you flip the switch to class A on the front panel of the 1Ls, it is biased to run up to 35 watts class A. It will still switch to A/B if there is more demand than the 35 watts. |
|
|
|
Post by linvincible on Jan 14, 2015 10:28:17 GMT -5
I had a chance to listen to all 4 in class A as well as just the highs in class A. I greatly prefer all 4 in class A mode. Just the highs in class A mode gave me about 25% of the benefit compare to both in class A. I can also say I notice a sizable difference in class A vs AB. When I was running a single pair I would say the benefit wasn't enough to warrant class A, when compare to AB mode. I need to listen to other albums. All of this is, of course based on my system and preference, but the 4 through class A have better focus and seem to be more fluid and effortless. The problem I would have with 35 watts of Class A (from say an XPA-1L) for the woofer would be volume, slam, impact, punch etc. The 35 watts is plenty for the mids/highs but I need at least 200 watts for the lows. Not to be confused with the sub woofer, that's at least 400 watts needed there. I even doubt 60 watts of Class A (from say an XPA-1 Gen 2) would be enough either. That level of power requirement is what pulled me away from Class A all those years back. Cheers Gary In my first HC biamp setup where sub output of HC pre was connected to sub input of XSP-1 HT passthrough, Audissez equalizer said the volume of subwoofer was to high and I had to adjust it! I am biamping with 4 XPA-1s to my speakers and Audissey could not attenuate enough.... I now use a splitter from the normal L&R outputs and don't connect the sub input/outputs at all. But that 2*600 W was enough bass ;o) The other small problem is that my HC pre was cutting the bass at 200Hz max, whereas the crossover on my speakers were set at 400Hz. So I was missing everything from 200Hz to 400Hz... |
|
|
|
Post by leonski on Jan 14, 2015 11:34:18 GMT -5
Boom.
Don't forget, I STILL run speaker level crossover. While I have a GOAL of ridding myself of that stuff and going Line Level, I'm perfectly content with my current setup.
And I'm available for the limited help I can provide to any person seeking biamp advice. Not that I've done it all. Not by any means. But I DO have 'friends in high places' and
DO take advantage of another board who has people who RE-ENGINEER stuff which is a place I do NOT want to go. These guys also spew out response graphs and SPICE simulation
outputs on a semi-regular basis.
I think ONE of the advantages of the biamp system both you and I do is that you can use LOWER powered amp(s) which I among others feel generally sound better. Some amp designs are
'scaled' which means you take ONE design and just keep adding output devices in parallel as you add capacity to your power supply. Also, I'm NOT made of $$$ so could NOT afford a quad
of some wacky monobloc OR a PAIR of say…….Parasound A21 @ about 2500$ EACH. Not to mention the ELECTRICIAN to come out and Drop Another Circuit!
Have fun, indeed. I think it's TIME for a dedicated BiAmp thread, how about you? You have good input. I think this is a subject of great curiousity and if it were opened up, more people would
want to give it a try.
|
|
