|
|
Post by AudioHTIT on May 15, 2020 10:47:50 GMT -5
I just think it is a dangerous business planning to use a Surround Sound Processor as your speaker driver crossover in multi-amping. If a setting gets accidentally changed or if it resets on a firmware update or you accidentally engage a profile like Dirac where the crossover filters you've made are suddenly lost then you can blow your tweeters in an instant if they get the wrong and full range signal. If you do not know what you are doing, sure. And even if you do mistakes can be I(and have been) made. But some of us have been actively bi-amping speakers for decades (for me, since the mid-1970's) so might be able to handle it. And some surround processors do a good job of it, e.g. Trinnov. But that is not really what I was thinking. Providing a full-range signal to both outputs means you gain nothing in (voltage) headroom for the amplifiers. Even though bass power is nil in the treble amp, and treble power nil in the bass amp, the voltage applied to each is exactly the same. That is the thing that bugs me about so-called "passive" bi-amping in AVRs. (Until recently, passive bi-amping to me meant a passive RLC line-level crossover vs. an active line-level crossover using tubes or transistors.) Most of the power is usually in the bass, and if you believe equal-loudness curves, power can be 10x to 100x higher in the bass than in the midrange. To use a very simple hand-waving example, let's say the output is equal and we have a signal that has 1 V at 1 kHz and 1 V at 50 Hz. Assuming they are independent, the peak voltage from the RMC-1 (or anything) will be 2 V for the combined signals. Now let's say the voltage gain of the amps is 20 dB, a factor of ten in voltage. The bass and treble amplifiers must each deliver 20 V to the speaker; 20 V to the low section, and 20 V to the high section. The crossover inside the speaker will separe highs from lows and reject the out-of-band energy, so the woofer sees only 10 V and the tweeter only 10 V, but still both amplifiers had the same input and thus same output. And bear in mind the ratio may be much worse in real life, with the bass having much higher power than the treble. Now consider implementing a crossover in the AVP. Assume I have no idea what I'm doing, but I know from the speaker's manual that the woofer crosses over at 150 Hz, the treble section (probably mid-range and tweeter) handles everything above that. I'll let the passive crossover inside the speaker do its thing and set the AVP crossover to 300 Hz, an octave above, so it doesn't significantly affect the speaker's roll-off. (That depends on other things but this is just an example.) Now, only 1 V is sent to the bass amp, because there is no treble signal, and 1 V to the treble amp, because there is no bass signal. I've gained 6 dB in headroom, a factor of two in voltage and four in power, in each amplifier by not sending it out-of-band signals. Alternatively, I can use a bigger amp for bass and smaller for treble, now that I have "blocked" unused signals before the amps. Without that internal AVP crossover, each amp has to deliver the same voltage (though not the same power) to the speaker, so essentially you need to have the treble amp match the bass amp even though typically only a fraction of the power is needed from the treble amp. HTH - Don That’s interesting, so you’d advocate bi-amping with both active and passive crossovers in place? That would take the ‘danger’ out of the equation, but it would seem only a minimal advantage (headroom) over standard (new school) passive bi-amping. You however wouldn’t get the improved amp / speaker coupling of fully active bi-amping? Still, interesting idea I hadn’t heard of. |
|
LCSeminole
Global Moderator 
Res firma mitescere nescit.
Posts: 20,863
|
Post by LCSeminole on May 15, 2020 12:02:29 GMT -5
Re-try 1.10 and in the menu select HDMI CEC and make sure that it is set to on. This should fix things. Nope. Of course I done that. CEC was on before the update, and I re-checked if it still was after the update, and it was. So that's not the issue. BTW... on 1.10 it turned off along with the TV, also volume control worked via TV remote, just switching on scenario did not work. I've gotta ask, do you use a universal remote such as a Harmony or URC brand remote? |
|
m4rc
Seeker Of Truth
Posts: 7
|
Post by m4rc on May 15, 2020 12:06:44 GMT -5
Nope. Of course I done that. CEC was on before the update, and I re-checked if it still was after the update, and it was. So that's not the issue. BTW... on 1.10 it turned off along with the TV, also volume control worked via TV remote, just switching on scenario did not work. I've gotta ask, do you use a universal remote such as a Harmony or URC brand remote? No - I use the remote that came with the TV. No change in my setup or settings other than the firmware update from 1.9 to 1.10. |
|
KeithL
Administrator
Posts: 10,273
|
Post by KeithL on May 15, 2020 12:53:11 GMT -5
This is another one of those subjects that seems to be widely misunderstood....
"Passive bi-amping" does NOT reduce the maximum voltage requirement for either amplifier - but it does reduce the load seen by both - each over a certain range of frequencies. (Each amplifier sees the normal load over the range of frequencies it is powering... and a reduced load over the range of frequencies it is not powering.) (Although, arguably, because of the power division with typical music, you could get by with using a lower powered amplifier for the midrange and tweeter.)
This does in fact reduce the power being drawn from each amplifier. However, whether this is an actual benefit depends on many factors... (Most amplifiers are designed to power a 4 Ohm or 8 Ohm load and simply don't perform any better if you reduce the load they're being asked to power.)
If you have two low powered amplifiers, this does allow them to "share the load", at least to some degree. However, because in most situations the majority of the power is required to drive the woofer anyway,
and either amplifier can easily power both anyway, this benefit is often not very significant.
The other, and more significant, benefit is that, for purposes of clipping and overload, it isolates the two loads. So, if you turn everything up so loud that the amplifier driving the woofer clips, it won't make the midrange and tweeter sound nasty (and vice versa - although that is rarely the case)..
This is a huge benefit in a performance situation... where you want to be able to play everything as loudly as possible... and have "a graceful overload capability" as well...
And, in a stage speaker, the high frequency performance of the woofer is probably deliberately limited, to make such clipping even less audible when it does occur.
(This allows you to get a LOT more output volume, for a given amplifier power, if you're willing to tolerate some "soft clipping".)
However, in a home hi-fi situation, where you shouldn't be clipping your amps in the first place, the benefit is really limited.
Note that I have omitted the possibility that you might deliberately use two different amplifiers "because one sounds better for bass and one sounds better for treble".
(I am of the firm opinion that all amplifiers should sound neutral and so, if either amplifier has an obvious sonic signature, then there's something wrong with it.)
I just think it is a dangerous business planning to use a Surround Sound Processor as your speaker driver crossover in multi-amping. If a setting gets accidentally changed or if it resets on a firmware update or you accidentally engage a profile like Dirac where the crossover filters you've made are suddenly lost then you can blow your tweeters in an instant if they get the wrong and full range signal. Agreed, it is dangerous if you rip out the crossovers. However, I will still be passive bi-amping the Salon2’s. Limiting the range still will reduce the voltage amplification to my AHB2 amplifiers. These amps have extensive and accurate clipping indicators and when I push the the clip lights indicate voltage clipping and not current clipping. That said, I want to do this because it’s fun  - Rich |
|
|
|
Post by donh50 on May 15, 2020 13:04:18 GMT -5
If you do not know what you are doing, sure. And even if you do mistakes can be I(and have been) made. But some of us have been actively bi-amping speakers for decades (for me, since the mid-1970's) so might be able to handle it. And some surround processors do a good job of it, e.g. Trinnov. But that is not really what I was thinking. Providing a full-range signal to both outputs means you gain nothing in (voltage) headroom for the amplifiers. Even though bass power is nil in the treble amp, and treble power nil in the bass amp, the voltage applied to each is exactly the same. That is the thing that bugs me about so-called "passive" bi-amping in AVRs. (Until recently, passive bi-amping to me meant a passive RLC line-level crossover vs. an active line-level crossover using tubes or transistors.) Most of the power is usually in the bass, and if you believe equal-loudness curves, power can be 10x to 100x higher in the bass than in the midrange. To use a very simple hand-waving example, let's say the output is equal and we have a signal that has 1 V at 1 kHz and 1 V at 50 Hz. Assuming they are independent, the peak voltage from the RMC-1 (or anything) will be 2 V for the combined signals. Now let's say the voltage gain of the amps is 20 dB, a factor of ten in voltage. The bass and treble amplifiers must each deliver 20 V to the speaker; 20 V to the low section, and 20 V to the high section. The crossover inside the speaker will separe highs from lows and reject the out-of-band energy, so the woofer sees only 10 V and the tweeter only 10 V, but still both amplifiers had the same input and thus same output. And bear in mind the ratio may be much worse in real life, with the bass having much higher power than the treble. Now consider implementing a crossover in the AVP. Assume I have no idea what I'm doing, but I know from the speaker's manual that the woofer crosses over at 150 Hz, the treble section (probably mid-range and tweeter) handles everything above that. I'll let the passive crossover inside the speaker do its thing and set the AVP crossover to 300 Hz, an octave above, so it doesn't significantly affect the speaker's roll-off. (That depends on other things but this is just an example.) Now, only 1 V is sent to the bass amp, because there is no treble signal, and 1 V to the treble amp, because there is no bass signal. I've gained 6 dB in headroom, a factor of two in voltage and four in power, in each amplifier by not sending it out-of-band signals. Alternatively, I can use a bigger amp for bass and smaller for treble, now that I have "blocked" unused signals before the amps. Without that internal AVP crossover, each amp has to deliver the same voltage (though not the same power) to the speaker, so essentially you need to have the treble amp match the bass amp even though typically only a fraction of the power is needed from the treble amp. HTH - Don That’s interesting, so you’d advocate bi-amping with both active and passive crossovers in place? That would take the ‘danger’ out of the equation, but it would seem only a minimal advantage (headroom) over standard (new school) passive bi-amping. You however wouldn’t get the improved amp / speaker coupling of fully active bi-amping? Still, interesting idea I hadn’t heard of. "Advocate" is too strong... I would advocate for either getting a single amp big enough to do the job, or doing the work to actually bi-amp the speakers. The latter is more work, perhaps much more, and requires more expertise on the part of the user. The intermediate solution does potentially make things easier on the amps, and may offer some headroom benefit (depends on the crossover setting, speaker load, and of course source material), so to me seems worth pursuing in the "every little bit helps" category. One obvious advantage is the potential headroom benefit; typically, I'd expect the bass amp to clip, so if you can set a crossover in the AVP/AVR to limit the bass signal to the treble amp, then the latter is less likely to clip and spray harmonics through the audio band. The way it is now, most clipping will happen on both amps as voltage rails are exceeded even though the treble amp is delivering (far) less power. Just thinking out loud... - Don IMO! - Don |
|
|
|
Post by AudioHTIT on May 15, 2020 13:24:35 GMT -5
That’s interesting, so you’d advocate bi-amping with both active and passive crossovers in place? That would take the ‘danger’ out of the equation, but it would seem only a minimal advantage (headroom) over standard (new school) passive bi-amping. You however wouldn’t get the improved amp / speaker coupling of fully active bi-amping? Still, interesting idea I hadn’t heard of. "Advocate" is too strong... I would advocate for either getting a single amp big enough to do the job, or doing the work to actually bi-amp the speakers. The latter is more work, perhaps much more, and requires more expertise on the part of the user. The intermediate solution does potentially make things easier on the amps, and may offer some headroom benefit (depends on the crossover setting, speaker load, and of course source material), so to me seems worth pursuing in the "every little bit helps" category. One obvious advantage is the potential headroom benefit; typically, I'd expect the bass amp to clip, so if you can set a crossover in the AVP/AVR to limit the bass signal to the treble amp, then the latter is less likely to clip and spray harmonics through the audio band. The way it is now, most clipping will happen on both amps as voltage rails are exceeded even though the treble amp is delivering (far) less power. Just thinking out loud... - Don IMO! - Don Got it! I’ve wanted to see an active bi-amping option for the new processors, I imagine being able to turn one of the PEQ filters into a HP or LP filter, maybe filter #1 for HP and #11 for LP. Then go straight into the amps and speakers. But that brings with it the danger of damaging drivers with errant firmware updates (or poor attention to detail on the user end), still I’d like to have it. A bi-amp module for the RMC-1 would be an alternative. |
|
richb
Sensei
Oppo Beta Group - Audioholics Reviewer
Posts: 890
|
Post by richb on May 15, 2020 14:01:01 GMT -5
That’s interesting, so you’d advocate bi-amping with both active and passive crossovers in place? That would take the ‘danger’ out of the equation, but it would seem only a minimal advantage (headroom) over standard (new school) passive bi-amping. You however wouldn’t get the improved amp / speaker coupling of fully active bi-amping? Still, interesting idea I hadn’t heard of. "Advocate" is too strong... I would advocate for either getting a single amp big enough to do the job, or doing the work to actually bi-amp the speakers. The latter is more work, perhaps much more, and requires more expertise on the part of the user. The intermediate solution does potentially make things easier on the amps, and may offer some headroom benefit (depends on the crossover setting, speaker load, and of course source material), so to me seems worth pursuing in the "every little bit helps" category. One obvious advantage is the potential headroom benefit; typically, I'd expect the bass amp to clip, so if you can set a crossover in the AVP/AVR to limit the bass signal to the treble amp, then the latter is less likely to clip and spray harmonics through the audio band. The way it is now, most clipping will happen on both amps as voltage rails are exceeded even though the treble amp is delivering (far) less power. Just thinking out loud... - Don IMO! - Don I believe we have had this discussion a few times and "advocating" is a not the term I would have used  I have done SBT with a Salon2 quick-swapping two amps for a short 10 inch patch cable and bi-amped and have found a bit more clarity from bi-amped. My friend swapped being in the blind and could reliably differentiate between single and bi-amped. On his final test, he came upstairs for another round, he said bi-amped and we were done. Listening levels were in the mid 80 dB level so definitely less than 10 watts. So in this case, bi-amping is not about clipping and output. This is not scientific proof but enough for me to decide to bi-amp. The difference may be derived from electrically separating the passive crossover networks. My interest now, is to optimize what I am already doing. I encourage folks try this at home in a SBT with a single speaker, there is no level matching needed. It is just matter of making a short patch cable and moving around some wire, while being careful not the short them. This is what obsessive people think is fun I try to apply some level matched testing where possible to make buying and configuration decisions. I second guess these choices at least four times a year - Rich |
|
|
|
Post by donh50 on May 15, 2020 14:12:11 GMT -5
"Advocate" is too strong... I would advocate for either getting a single amp big enough to do the job, or doing the work to actually bi-amp the speakers. The latter is more work, perhaps much more, and requires more expertise on the part of the user. The intermediate solution does potentially make things easier on the amps, and may offer some headroom benefit (depends on the crossover setting, speaker load, and of course source material), so to me seems worth pursuing in the "every little bit helps" category. One obvious advantage is the potential headroom benefit; typically, I'd expect the bass amp to clip, so if you can set a crossover in the AVP/AVR to limit the bass signal to the treble amp, then the latter is less likely to clip and spray harmonics through the audio band. The way it is now, most clipping will happen on both amps as voltage rails are exceeded even though the treble amp is delivering (far) less power. Just thinking out loud... - Don IMO! - Don I believe we have had this discussion a few times and "advocating" is a not the term I would have used I have done SBT with a Salon2 quick-swapping two amps for a short 10 inch patch cable and bi-amped and have found a bit more clarity from bi-amped. My friend swapped being in the blind and could reliably differentiate between single and bi-amped. On his final test, he came upstairs for another round, he said bi-amped and we were done. Listening levels were in the mid 80 dB level so definitely less than 10 watts. So in this case, bi-amping is not about clipping and output. This is not scientific proof but enough for me to decide to bi-amp. The difference may be derived from electrically separating the passive crossover networks. My interest now, is to optimize what I am already doing. I encourage folks try this at home in a SBT with a single speaker, there is no level matching needed. It is just matter of making a short patch cable and moving around some wire, while being careful not the short them. This is what obsessive people think is fun I try to apply some level matched testing where possible to make buying and configuration decisions. I second guess these choices at least four times a year - Rich Most likely is a slight gain difference between amplifiers in my mind, but what is also true is that the load on the two amplifiers is different. A combination of load impedance and amplifier output impedance could lead to a difference. Audible? I'd guess not, but your experience belies that. And it is very true that many speakers have very different impedance excursions across frequency so it's plausible. None of that obviates nor changes my stance that using an active crossover could help. Gotta' get back to work - Don |
|
LCSeminole
Global Moderator
Res firma mitescere nescit.
Posts: 20,863
|
Post by LCSeminole on May 15, 2020 14:33:35 GMT -5
I've gotta ask, do you use a universal remote such as a Harmony or URC brand remote? No - I use the remote that came with the TV. No change in my setup or settings other than the firmware update from 1.9 to 1.10. I asked because CEC/ARC in my experience has most of the time been a pipe dream due to the fact that every manufacturer has their own rendition of what it should be. Because of this, many times the different flavors of CEC/ARC don't play nice and inevitably end up not working 100% in unison. While I'll always test CEC/ARC to see if they work, mainly for others having problems, I gave up using it in my own home theater years ago and in it's place currently a Harmony Elite with the Harmony Hub has flawlessly at 100% taken it's place |
|
|
|
Post by Thunderduck on May 15, 2020 15:52:15 GMT -5
Well it did not work. Video Remains On mode is working as it should. However, when I turned on the RMC to get the audio through my speakers (not the sound bar or tv's speakers) there was no audio. Once again I could get audio from watching a program on my ATV4K but not the Cable Box. I tried turning the Cable Box and TV off and then back on again but no luck. Once I changed the Standby mode in the RMC to Lowest Power and rebooted, the audio from the Cable Box would come through the RMC. It seems that the only way I can get audio from the Cable Box/TV is to reboot at Lowest Power. The RMC can be turned off for short periods of time and still work with the audio from the cable box. But overnight appears to be too long. My cable box is a Fios TV One and tv is a Sony 65Z9D. No settings have or were changed from when this function was working to when it stopped working. The only changes have been firmware updates. The incoming cable signal goes to the TV One cable box and from there to the RMC HDMI1 input. I also have the tv connected to a sound bar via an optical cable. With this setup, when things are working as they should, I get audio through the sound bar and the RMC at the same time. I therefore have to turn the sound bar volume down to listen to the RMC. Otherwise, there is a slight echo effect since the 2 outputs are not exactly in sync. This last bit provided just for full disclosure. Don't believe it has any effect on what is going on. So I don't take up a lot of space on the board, I am not going to post anymore unless I come up with some sort of info that could shed some light on what is going on. Once again I am going to go back to firmware 1.7/6 (which worked) and then each evening before turning off the tv for the night I am going to load a different firmware. I have 1.8, 1.9, 1.9/9 and of course 1.10. Will see if I can find where this stops working for me. Take care, Steve Thank you for the feedback. We are digging into this and will be testing. Lonnie I need to correct an error in regards to the signal path for my tv. The cable signal comes into the CABLE BOX and then from the CABLE BOX TO the RMC via HDMI cable to input 1. The CABLE BOX is also connected to the SOUNDBAR via an optical cable. The only input signal to the tv is the HDMI 2 out from the RMC. The cable box is not connected directly to the tv in any way. All source devices are connected to the RMC via HDMI or in the case of my reel to reel player through the balanced XLR input. All HDMI inputs are configured for HDMI 2.0. If there is any further info you need please let me know and I will try to provide it. I believe that is correct now. Regards, Steve |
|
richb
Sensei
Oppo Beta Group - Audioholics Reviewer
Posts: 890
|
Post by richb on May 15, 2020 17:28:21 GMT -5
I believe we have had this discussion a few times and "advocating" is a not the term I would have used I have done SBT with a Salon2 quick-swapping two amps for a short 10 inch patch cable and bi-amped and have found a bit more clarity from bi-amped. My friend swapped being in the blind and could reliably differentiate between single and bi-amped. On his final test, he came upstairs for another round, he said bi-amped and we were done. Listening levels were in the mid 80 dB level so definitely less than 10 watts. So in this case, bi-amping is not about clipping and output. This is not scientific proof but enough for me to decide to bi-amp. The difference may be derived from electrically separating the passive crossover networks. My interest now, is to optimize what I am already doing. I encourage folks try this at home in a SBT with a single speaker, there is no level matching needed. It is just matter of making a short patch cable and moving around some wire, while being careful not the short them. This is what obsessive people think is fun I try to apply some level matched testing where possible to make buying and configuration decisions. I second guess these choices at least four times a year - Rich Most likely is a slight gain difference between amplifiers in my mind, but what is also true is that the load on the two amplifiers is different. A combination of load impedance and amplifier output impedance could lead to a difference. Audible? I'd guess not, but your experience belies that. And it is very true that many speakers have very different impedance excursions across frequency so it's plausible. None of that obviates nor changes my stance that using an active crossover could help. I found this true in comparing two channels on the same amplifier. The following were tested: Parasound A21, ATI AT6002, Benchmark AHB2. There is no difference in gain but the impedance does change. Active crossovers are always going to be better if properly implemented but I am not skilled enough rip out and replace the passive crossovers on the Salon2's Gotta' get back to work - Don Those of us that can say this are the lucky ones. - Rich |
|
|
|
Post by SOWK on May 15, 2020 18:21:44 GMT -5
Thank you Emotiva for the latest firmware!
For my use it has been absolutely fantastic so far.
A few lock ups switching inputs and glitchyness with Importing/Exporting PEQ, but the unit locks on to a signal much better and faster. The Sub PEQ works like it should, you fixed the Crossover rolloff options on 12dB vs 24dB.
A few more firmwares like this and I will be a very happy camper.
|
|
|
|
Post by dimora on May 15, 2020 22:50:37 GMT -5
I don’t have time to parse this entire thread...but I do have a question: where’s DIRAC for the RMC-1.
It was supposed to be at the end of March (don’t know what year, LOL)
Last I read there was going to be a Raspberry pi box and a switch sent because the RMC-1 lacks the cojones to do it all. That’s fine; I don’t care how you make it work, but when does it ship and how do we sign up? Is Emo shipping automatically to all previous purchasers addresses? Do we sign up somewhere? Can an incense burning and ceremony where I sacrifice a Milli Vanilli LP with a sledge-hammer speed-up the process?
Thanks in advance for an update.
|
|
|
|
Post by dimora on May 15, 2020 22:58:14 GMT -5
If multiple sub bass management is done with a RMC-1L, it looks like only 4 immersion channels can be used. Will future FW allow 6 immersion channels with DBC? Perhaps by reassigning the Wide channels? Sorry No. The only unit that can do 6 or more height channels and multiple subs will be the RMC-1 with expansion modules. Lonnie What expansion modules? |
|
KeithL
Administrator
Posts: 10,273
|
Post by KeithL on May 15, 2020 23:33:36 GMT -5
We expect to start shipping them in a few weeks. If you bought it directly from us you should be notified... and it should be shipped automatically. However, sicne you seem to read the forums, you won't be able to miss it when it happens... because it will be big news.
I've always been rather fond of incense but, in this case, I doubt it would make much difference...
(Of course smashing a Milli Vanilli LP with a sledge hammer is probably a good idea - just on general principles - anyway.  )
I don’t have time to parse this entire thread...but I do have a question: where’s DIRAC for the RMC-1. It was supposed to be at the end of March (don’t know what year, LOL) Last I read there was going to be a Raspberry pi box and a switch sent because the RMC-1 lacks the cojones to do it all. That’s fine; I don’t care how you make it work, but when does it ship and how do we sign up? Is Emo shipping automatically to all previous purchasers addresses? Do we sign up somewhere? Can an incense burning and ceremony where I sacrifice a Milli Vanilli LP with a sledge-hammer speed-up the process? Thanks in advance for an update. |
|
KeithL
Administrator
Posts: 10,273
|
Post by KeithL on May 15, 2020 23:59:00 GMT -5
I'm going to start by suggesting that, if this discussion is to be taken further, it should be moved....perhaps to the DIY or Audio Technology sections on the forum.... (I'll also mention that, personally, I think that this is probably not worth the effort for a home loudspeaker or modification... although I am a big fan of bi-amped powered monitors.)
That said, I will conclude my contribution by suggesting that combining both active and passive crossovers is really opening up a BIG can of design worms. First off, if you do that, you are sacrificing almost all of the major advantages of a true bi-amping, and avoiding the use of a passive crossover.
You are not avoiding using large and expensive passive components, some of which may introduce distortion, and some of which reduce efficiency by using up power.
And you are not eliminating the reduction in damping and coupling caused by having those components between the amp and the individual drivers. Beyond that, there is a major difference between adding an active crossover to the passive crossover components already in a speaker, and designing a custom hybrid system. If you were to design such a system from scratch, you could calculate the active and passive sections to work together, and to produce slopes that sum properly. This has been done quite effectively by some manufacturers in the past... and also offers the advantage of being able to include EQ or DSP corrections in the active circuitry.
However, assuming that the passive sections already deliver a smooth transition between speaker sections, then any attempt to move the crossover point will result in a dip or gap. (All you could hope to do would be to sharpen the slopes on each half - separately - while avoiding causing them to move apart and so creating a serious dip.) And, if you're really considering the added protection against amplifier failure offered by the passive components, there is a better solution.
That solution is to include a relatively large value capacitor on the midrange and tweeter section of the speaker....
If you calculate the value of this capacitor for a crossover point one or two octaves below the acoustic crossover point.... then it will still block DC, or seriously excessive low frequency bass, while not significantly altering the actual crossover point of the speaker. (And, by doing it that way, you will allow the amplifier that powers the woofer, which is where damping is the most critical, to remain connected directly.)
That’s interesting, so you’d advocate bi-amping with both active and passive crossovers in place? That would take the ‘danger’ out of the equation, but it would seem only a minimal advantage (headroom) over standard (new school) passive bi-amping. You however wouldn’t get the improved amp / speaker coupling of fully active bi-amping? Still, interesting idea I hadn’t heard of. "Advocate" is too strong... I would advocate for either getting a single amp big enough to do the job, or doing the work to actually bi-amp the speakers. The latter is more work, perhaps much more, and requires more expertise on the part of the user. The intermediate solution does potentially make things easier on the amps, and may offer some headroom benefit (depends on the crossover setting, speaker load, and of course source material), so to me seems worth pursuing in the "every little bit helps" category. One obvious advantage is the potential headroom benefit; typically, I'd expect the bass amp to clip, so if you can set a crossover in the AVP/AVR to limit the bass signal to the treble amp, then the latter is less likely to clip and spray harmonics through the audio band. The way it is now, most clipping will happen on both amps as voltage rails are exceeded even though the treble amp is delivering (far) less power. Just thinking out loud... - Don IMO! - Don |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 16, 2020 1:40:59 GMT -5
Anyone else experiencing choppy audio from the analog inputs (either balanced or RCA)? I am seeing the same thing with the USB input with PCM audio. Audio via HDMI works fine. This has all started since upgrading to 1.10.
|
|
|
|
Post by hsamwel on May 16, 2020 5:29:58 GMT -5
HERE is a cable that I use and it works great. No need for finicky adapters that are prone to loosing contact...  They don't ship to Denmark :-( It's actually not easy to find this type of cable here in Denmark, I found it with the right connections but it was stereo. I will try searching a little more or else I know a guy that should be able to make me one :-) Thanks guys for all the help. 👍 It was a 2.5 to 3.5 mono you needed? They deliver to Sweden so I guess Denmark is OK as well. |
|
|
|
Post by bolle on May 16, 2020 7:08:20 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by PaulBe on May 16, 2020 8:08:19 GMT -5
I'm going to start by suggesting that, if this discussion is to be taken further, it should be moved....perhaps to the DIY or Audio Technology sections on the forum.... (I'll also mention that, personally, I think that this is probably not worth the effort for a home loudspeaker or modification... although I am a big fan of bi-amped powered monitors.)
That said, I will conclude my contribution by suggesting that combining both active and passive crossovers is really opening up a BIG can of design worms. First off, if you do that, you are sacrificing almost all of the major advantages of a true bi-amping, and avoiding the use of a passive crossover.
You are not avoiding using large and expensive passive components, some of which may introduce distortion, and some of which reduce efficiency by using up power.
And you are not eliminating the reduction in damping and coupling caused by having those components between the amp and the individual drivers. Beyond that, there is a major difference between adding an active crossover to the passive crossover components already in a speaker, and designing a custom hybrid system. If you were to design such a system from scratch, you could calculate the active and passive sections to work together, and to produce slopes that sum properly. This has been done quite effectively by some manufacturers in the past... and also offers the advantage of being able to include EQ or DSP corrections in the active circuitry.
However, assuming that the passive sections already deliver a smooth transition between speaker sections, then any attempt to move the crossover point will result in a dip or gap. (All you could hope to do would be to sharpen the slopes on each half - separately - while avoiding causing them to move apart and so creating a serious dip.) And, if you're really considering the added protection against amplifier failure offered by the passive components, there is a better solution.
That solution is to include a relatively large value capacitor on the midrange and tweeter section of the speaker....
If you calculate the value of this capacitor for a crossover point one or two octaves below the acoustic crossover point.... then it will still block DC, or seriously excessive low frequency bass, while not significantly altering the actual crossover point of the speaker. (And, by doing it that way, you will allow the amplifier that powers the woofer, which is where damping is the most critical, to remain connected directly.)
"Advocate" is too strong... I would advocate for either getting a single amp big enough to do the job, or doing the work to actually bi-amp the speakers. The latter is more work, perhaps much more, and requires more expertise on the part of the user. The intermediate solution does potentially make things easier on the amps, and may offer some headroom benefit (depends on the crossover setting, speaker load, and of course source material), so to me seems worth pursuing in the "every little bit helps" category. One obvious advantage is the potential headroom benefit; typically, I'd expect the bass amp to clip, so if you can set a crossover in the AVP/AVR to limit the bass signal to the treble amp, then the latter is less likely to clip and spray harmonics through the audio band. The way it is now, most clipping will happen on both amps as voltage rails are exceeded even though the treble amp is delivering (far) less power. Just thinking out loud... - Don IMO! - Don Yep. This discussion went off the rails. Like discussing how to make a watch while still learning how to tell time. Food for thought - We do combine both active and passive crossovers all the time; bi-amping with subs and satellites, opening up a BADDA BIG can of design worms, room worms, bass management worms, and potential solutions. 7.3.6 with an RMC-1L,,, please. What kind of crossovers are used for the 12 and 24dB/oct Sub crosovers in the RMC? Are they BW, LR, something else? Thanks. |
|
)
