Eliminating the passive crossovers is as simple as wiring the drivers directly to their respective input terminals. Leaving them(X-overs) in place, wired, and actively biamping(if both were designed/adjusted for 350Hz & 24db/oct) would result in both the active and passive crossovers filtering the same frequencies(even though already attenuated in the signals, when they reach the passive networks). Your resulting slopes would be 48db/oct, and would leave a serious dip in your frequency response(beside probable phase aberrations).
Passive and active biamp together
Hi guys, I have a question for those of you with experience in both passive and active biamp.
Preamble 1: I was using passive biamp with 4 identical monoblocks, but, especially after a fine tuning in room acoustics, found out I got no significant advantage, so I reverted to single amp, putting the extra pair of monos for sale.
Preamble 2: my loudspeakers have double inputs (binding posts) for lows and mid-highs (xover freq 350hz@24db/oct), but the xover network, for what I can read in the manufacurer user manual, is pretty complex, making its removal unfeasible for going active.
Question: somebody told me that putting an active xover between pre and power amps, would be of great advantage anyway, even though the passive xover is not removed, because the amps would only take care their part, and especially because there would be much less energy dissipated in the passive xover, of course provided the active one is set at the same freq and slope, and its quality matches the rest of the system.
Haven't sold the monos yet, do you guys think there could be a point in this, worth getting a, say, Marchand XM126 tube xover to try?
Thanks to all,
Marco
Preamble 1: I was using passive biamp with 4 identical monoblocks, but, especially after a fine tuning in room acoustics, found out I got no significant advantage, so I reverted to single amp, putting the extra pair of monos for sale.
Preamble 2: my loudspeakers have double inputs (binding posts) for lows and mid-highs (xover freq 350hz@24db/oct), but the xover network, for what I can read in the manufacurer user manual, is pretty complex, making its removal unfeasible for going active.
Question: somebody told me that putting an active xover between pre and power amps, would be of great advantage anyway, even though the passive xover is not removed, because the amps would only take care their part, and especially because there would be much less energy dissipated in the passive xover, of course provided the active one is set at the same freq and slope, and its quality matches the rest of the system.
Haven't sold the monos yet, do you guys think there could be a point in this, worth getting a, say, Marchand XM126 tube xover to try?
Thanks to all,
Marco