Official Wyred 4 Sound Amp Thread - AVS Forum

AVS Forum > Audio > Receivers, Amps, and Processors > Official Wyred 4 Sound Amp Thread

Receivers, Amps, and Processors

phastlane's Avatar phastlane
11:26 AM Liked: 10
post #1 of 1634
03-10-2008 | Posts: 56
Joined: Jan 2007
OK, somebody had to start this!

My first question is who out there is using Wyred 4 Sound MC amps? What do you think of them? Please submit your W4S amp impressions here and let me know what else you have compared it too.

Secondly, does W4S have an upgrade path, in other words, if I purchase a 500x3 250x4 amp can I send it back to W4S to have it upgraded to a full 500x7 when I upgrade my rear speakers?
Rdrcr's Avatar Rdrcr
01:01 PM Liked: 10
post #2 of 1634
03-10-2008 | Posts: 389
Joined: Jan 2007
I'm using a Wyred4Sound MC500 amplifier.

The Wyred amplifier sounds awesome. My past experience involves three A/V receivers, two Harmon Kardon units, a Marantz SR8001, and an Adcom GFA 7605.

While shopping for an amplifier, I was considering amplifiers from Sunfire, D-Sonic, Parasound, and Wyred4sound. Before the purchase, I was only able to audition the Sunfire and Parasound amplifiers, which both sound fantastic. Even though the Sunfire was boasting 400watts, and the Parasound had 250watts, I wanted more, something like 500watts. I ultimately decided to take a chance and purchase the Wyred unit. This decision was based on company reputation, build quality, power modules, dual IEC's, upgradable to 7-channels when desired, enough power to drive whatever speakers I have now or in the future, emails, Wyred's customer service, and my best attempt at research without using my own ears. I made the right decision.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again, I truly believe I have purchased my last amplifier.

Yes, W4S has an upgrade path, which is one of the reasons I purchased their amplifier over Sunfire, Parasound, and to a lesser degree, D-Sonic. Talk to EJ, he can manufacture an amp to your specific desires.

Mike
mather's Avatar mather
03:51 PM Liked: 10
post #3 of 1634
03-10-2008 | Posts: 515
Joined: Apr 2006
Funny how the net makes one's pockets lighter, I ran across some threads on speakers, then it led to a potential upgrade of my receiver, which led to the interest of separates, all of a sudden I'm reading about Emotiva, Rotel, Sunfire, Adcom, Gemstone, Bryston, Anthem, and here I am looking at W4S and D-Sonics. I was just comparing speakers.

Would like to hear more W4S owner opinions too.
yngdiego's Avatar yngdiego
03:54 PM Liked: 10
post #4 of 1634
03-10-2008 | Posts: 1,470
Joined: May 2002
Quote:
Originally Posted by mather View Post

Funny how the net makes one's pockets lighter, I ran across some threads on speakers, then it led to a potential upgrade of my receiver, which led to the interest of separates, all of a sudden I'm reading about Emotiva, Rotel, Sunfire, Adcom, Gemstone, Bryston, Anthem, and here I am looking at W4S and D-Sonics. I was just comparing speakers.

Would like to hear more W4S owner opinions too.

Yes, last year I was jut wanting a new receiver with HDMI and HBR audio. I got a Onkyo 905, swapped that for a Denon 3808, and now looking at new speakers, amp, etc... it's a vicious cycle!

I do agree the W4S do look like quality amps, and I can see them lasting many, many years.
yngdiego's Avatar yngdiego
03:56 PM Liked: 10
post #5 of 1634
03-10-2008 | Posts: 1,470
Joined: May 2002
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rdrcr View Post

I've said it before, and I'll say it again, I truly believe I have purchased my last amplifier.

Mike

Can you describe any audio quality differences between the various amps? How is the W4S better..just more power? sweeter? smoother?
Rdrcr's Avatar Rdrcr
04:30 PM Liked: 10
post #6 of 1634
03-10-2008 | Posts: 389
Joined: Jan 2007
^^^^
I find it hard to put what I hear, into words, regarding the differences between amplifiers or components. However, I have been extremely happy with the sound of the W4S amplifier, it is much more musical than the Adcom, Marantz, and previous H/K's it replaced. It would be accurate to describe the W4S sound as dynamic, smooth, lively, and extremely detailed. It has been said, that my Silverline speakers really sound great with a tube amplifier because they can be a bit bright with a solid-state amplifier. I can tell you that my speakers do not sound bright at all, in fact they are incredibly smooth in their reproduction of music. I would definitely credit the W4S amplifier in that respect.

After hours of listening, even at high volume levels, I never feel fatigued. If I had the time, I could continue to listen to music throughout the night and into the next morning.

Mike
yngdiego's Avatar yngdiego
04:31 PM Liked: 10
post #7 of 1634
03-10-2008 | Posts: 1,470
Joined: May 2002
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rdrcr View Post

^^^^
I find it hard to put what I hear, into words, regarding the differences between amplifiers or components. However, I have been extremely happy with the sound of the W4S amplifier, it is much more musical than the Adcom, Marantz, and previous H/K's it replaced. It would be accurate to describe the W4S sound as dynamic, smooth, lively, and extremely detailed. It has been said, that my Silverline speakers really sound great with a tube amplifier because they can be a bit bright with a solid-state amplifier. I can tell you that my speakers do not sound bright at all, in fact they are incredibly smooth in their reproduction of music. I would definitely credit the W4S amplifier in that respect.

After hours of listening, even at high volume levels, I never feel fatigued. If I had the time, I could continue to listen to music throughout the night and into the next morning.

Mike

Have you heard any other class-D amps to compare?
rnrgagne's Avatar rnrgagne
06:00 PM Liked: 49
post #8 of 1634
03-10-2008 | Posts: 6,628
Joined: Jan 2003
I've got a PS Audio GCA MC amp that Wyred modified for me because he didn't have his chassis' in yet but had a blemished PS unit on hand. It has three 1000ASP's and four 250ASP's. I'm not sure what EJ did to it beyond either modifying the Gain Cells or removing them - I wasn't really concerned with that at the time. I was just happy to find a decent MC amp with ICEpower modules at a price I could afford. This was my second go around with ICE amps my first being some DIY monoblocks I bought from Denmark. I fell in love with ICE at that point.

I would catergorize these amps as the most "natural" sounding amps I've owned. Voices and instruments have that "organic" sound with the right amount of resonance and decay. There's never any electronic sheen unless it's in the material. The beauty is it does so while conveying a sense of effortless and unlimited power.

As a point of reference other amps I've owned; Anthem PVA5, PS Audio HCA-2's (three of them) and the NAD Master Series M25 and really they were all very good, plus the amps in HK AVR8000 and Yamaha RX-Z9 - the only two receivers with amps good enough to be mentioned in the same context.
yngdiego's Avatar yngdiego
06:35 PM Liked: 10
post #9 of 1634
03-10-2008 | Posts: 1,470
Joined: May 2002
Quote:
Originally Posted by rnrgagne View Post

As a point of reference other amps I've owned; Anthem PVA5, PS Audio HCA-2's (three of them) and the NAD Master Series M25 and really they were all very good, plus the amps in HK AVR8000 and Yamaha RX-Z9 - the only two receivers with amps good enough to be mentioned in the same context.

I was looking at the M25 as well, but was really leaning towards ICEpower. Pretty big difference between the M25 and your W4S?
WYRED 4 SOUND's Avatar WYRED 4 SOUND
06:45 PM Liked: 10
post #10 of 1634
03-10-2008 | Posts: 206
Joined: Oct 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by phastlane View Post

OK, somebody had to start this!

My first question is who out there is using Wyred 4 Sound MC amps? What do you think of them? Please submit your W4S amp impressions here and let me know what else you have compared it too.

Secondly, does W4S have an upgrade path, in other words, if I purchase a 500x3 250x4 amp can I send it back to W4S to have it upgraded to a full 500x7 when I upgrade my rear speakers?

First I would like to thank everyone for their input on this forum.

As for the upgrade path, we would definitely add modules at a later date for the same price they would be found for from the beginning. For example, if I bought a 500W x 5ch, and later decided to upgrade to 7 channels, I would pay $1,100 for the additional channels. This would be the difference in the retail cost of both units.

We will have to do a case by case charge on units which the customer would like to upgrade current channels because they were pre-existing. All of the components are there, and all we have to do is supply the new module, however, there will be the old module to take out. We would then offer a credit for the module that was taken out based on the age and condition of the unit. We would later use the removed modules to produce a refurbished unit to sell at a discount. The cost to change the channels to different power levels would be much less than installing new ones (when the channel wasn’t previously installed).

What are your thoughts, does that sound fair?

EJ Sarmento
Sales@wyred4sound.com
www.wyred4sound.com
rnrgagne's Avatar rnrgagne
08:10 PM Liked: 49
post #11 of 1634
03-10-2008 | Posts: 6,628
Joined: Jan 2003
Quote:
Originally Posted by WYRED 4 SOUND View Post

First I would like to thank everyone for their input on this forum.

As for the upgrade path, we would definitely add modules at a later date for the same price they would be found for from the beginning. For example, if I bought a 500W x 5ch, and later decided to upgrade to 7 channels, I would pay $1,100 for the additional channels. This would be the difference in the retail cost of both units.

We will have to do a case by case charge on units which the customer would like to upgrade current channels because they were pre-existing. All of the components are there, and all we have to do is supply the new module, however, there will be the old module to take out. We would then offer a credit for the module that was taken out based on the age and condition of the unit. We would later use the removed modules to produce a refurbished unit to sell at a discount. The cost to change the channels to different power levels would be much less than installing new ones (when the channel wasn't previously installed).

What are your thoughts, does that sound fair?

EJ Sarmento
Sales@wyred4sound.com
www.wyred4sound.com

Sounds very fair to me.
rnrgagne's Avatar rnrgagne
08:22 PM Liked: 49
post #12 of 1634
03-10-2008 | Posts: 6,628
Joined: Jan 2003
Quote:
Originally Posted by yngdiego View Post

I was looking at the M25 as well, but was really leaning towards ICEpower. Pretty big difference between the M25 and your W4S?

No not that much really, maybe a hair more bass control with the ICE, but I never did a true A/B test so I'm going by memory. The M25 had a fan in it that I didn't like, it got a bit loud - not enough that you could notice it during quiet passages but enough that you could hear it when nothing was playing when it engaged, still an exellent amp though.

To be fair though, I'm of the school that the differences between two well desgined amps with suitable power to do the job required should sound more alike than different if they are doing their job properly. If an amp colors the signal then it's either detracting or adding which IMO is not desired. This is the component that should have the least impact on the final result.
yngdiego's Avatar yngdiego
08:56 PM Liked: 10
post #13 of 1634
03-10-2008 | Posts: 1,470
Joined: May 2002
Quote:
Originally Posted by rnrgagne View Post

Sounds very fair to me.

+1
kmannth's Avatar kmannth
09:31 PM Liked: 12
post #14 of 1634
03-10-2008 | Posts: 864
Joined: Mar 2005
Cool amps. I was looking at the eclipse car amp that have the ice power for my honda insight (low current draw is a good thing).

These are great amps modules. I am glad to see real high efficiency amps for the home.
.
This is a cool line you can buy an extra 6+db of headroom

I was looking at the amps and they seem to have a pretty high idle draw. 4.1w a channel (I assume this is worse case)? Is there a remote turn on/off feature?

My math is a little fuzzy but what is worst case draw for the 500wx7?
With class a/b this would be something like 30-40 amps right? And with ice?

Could you get these things energy star rated
Rdrcr's Avatar Rdrcr
07:26 AM Liked: 10
post #15 of 1634
03-11-2008 | Posts: 389
Joined: Jan 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by yngdiego View Post

Have you heard any other class-D amps to compare?

No, they were all too expensive.

At least, all the other class-D amps that are sold in my local audio dealers. However, I would love to compare them to the W4S unit.

Mike
Rdrcr's Avatar Rdrcr
07:30 AM Liked: 10
post #16 of 1634
03-11-2008 | Posts: 389
Joined: Jan 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by WYRED 4 SOUND View Post

What are your thoughts, does that sound fair?

EJ Sarmento
Sales@wyred4sound.com
www.wyred4sound.com

Sounds very fair to me too! +3

In addition, all the talk about the D-Sonic vs. W4S has me a little confused with all the "upgrades" that have been discussed. I was hoping that you might outline the differences between my amplifier (MC500) and the comparable D-Sonic.

Mike
Rdrcr's Avatar Rdrcr
07:35 AM Liked: 10
post #17 of 1634
03-11-2008 | Posts: 389
Joined: Jan 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by rnrgagne View Post

I would catergorize these amps as the most "natural" sounding amps I've owned. Voices and instruments have that "organic" sound with the right amount of resonance and decay. There's never any electronic sheen unless it's in the material. The beauty is it does so while conveying a sense of effortless and unlimited power.

"Natual"....that was a word I was searching for! Very well said, I fully agree!

Mike
WYRED 4 SOUND's Avatar WYRED 4 SOUND
09:35 PM Liked: 10
post #18 of 1634
03-11-2008 | Posts: 206
Joined: Oct 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rdrcr View Post

Sounds very fair to me too! +3

In addition, all the talk about the D-Sonic vs. W4S has me a little confused with all the "upgrades" that have been discussed. I was hoping that you might outline the differences between my amplifier (MC500) and the comparable D-Sonic.

Mike

There are many sonic differences between our amplifier and the D-SONIC. The main reasons are held within our direct-coupled, balanced, dual FET input stage (input buffer). Not only does this raise the input impedance to 61.9K ohms which allows source equipment to easily and accurately drive the amplifier.

The standard ICE modules which are found in the D-SONIC amplifiers have 8K ohms on the positive input and 10K ohms on the negative input to the ICE amp. So if you’re using RCA’s for instance, your source would be driving an 8,000 ohm load which isn’t really bad, but much harder to drive than 61.9K ohms. The lower impedance your source has to drive, the more you will experience lower volume levels, and slightly higher distortion going into your amplifier. This normally changes the way a preamp can amplify the signal applied, thus giving you less than optimal sound.

Balanced amplifiers (differential, driven from + and – signals) have a much better performance when driven balanced, which ours does. All the parts you will find on our input buffer are of the best quality. We use Dale Rn55D copper leaded resistors, Wima, and MUSE audio grade capacitors, and a thick traced PCB to connect everything. Audio signal doesn’t sound as good through standard magnetic steel leaded resistors, and electrolytic capacitors.

Inside the FETs on all of our input buffers, there is a voltage to current conversion. This is where we get the sweeter sound. The way a FET works is the current that flows from the output (the drain to source current) is controlled by the voltage on the input (the gate). This has a softening effect that complements the slight brightness and edgy sound of the Class D amplifier. It tends to make everything softer, smoother, and accurate. Given that the function of the amplifier, our input stage (buffer) has unity gain (no gain produced), and is ultra transparent.

We also perform modifications to the modules in every amplifier to enhance its’ performance. We bypass critical input coupling caps to allow audio to freely flow through while still allowing for DC protection, and “beef-up” the servo (feedback) circuit for enhanced bottom-end extension. Every module is connected to the binding posts with 14AWG 99.9% OFC high strand pure copper paralleled with 14AWG high strand PURE silver wire.

One of my favorite benefits with this amplifier is the sound stage, and AWSOME imaging. If the imaging is correct, you should be able to listen to your speakers R/L, and not hear each one as being separate. Instead, they should blend together and sound like one, half way between the two. Sound stage depths are also much more prominent. You should be able to hear differences vertically, horizontally, and even depth (front to back). Your speakers would obviously have to be able to produce these as well, but nearly all hi-end loudspeakers should be able to produce such results.

Another option that our amplifier has over ALL the competition is the built in active crossovers. A good read for FYI knowledge would be http://sound.westhost.com/biamp-vs-passive.htm. This would mainly be used for the purpose of using our amplifier in a Bi-amp or Tri-amp set-up, which GREATLY improves sound quality. NO OTHER AMPLIFIER OFFERS THIS FEATURE, to my knowledge.

There many benefits on using our built-in active crossovers from passive crossovers, even on speakers that already have built-in crossovers. Unfortunately, I must post that in another post to keep this one from taking the complete page.

EJ Sarmento
sales@wyred4sound.com
www.wyred4sound.com
yngdiego's Avatar yngdiego
09:46 PM Liked: 10
post #19 of 1634
03-11-2008 | Posts: 1,470
Joined: May 2002
Quote:
Originally Posted by WYRED 4 SOUND View Post

Another option that our amplifier has over ALL the competition is the built in active crossovers. A good read for FYI knowledge would be http://sound.westhost.com/biamp-vs-passive.htm. This would mainly be used for the purpose of using our amplifier in a Bi-amp or Tri-amp set-up, which GREATLY improves sound quality. NO OTHER AMPLIFIER OFFERS THIS FEATURE, to my knowledge.

There many benefits on using our built-in active crossovers from passive crossovers, even on speakes that already have built-in crossovers. Unfortuantely, I must post that in another post to keep this one from taking the complete page.

EJ Sarmento
sales@wyred4sound.com
www.wyred4sound.com


EJ, thanks for the great information. People might laugh at me, but if I wanted to bi-amp the L/R channels in a 5.1 setup I'm assuming I'd need seven power modules? I've always thought of bi-amping as some geeky tweak that didn't really do much for sound. Given your description of the difference, I take it with good speakers it's noticeable? I'm looking at Paradigm S4/C3 combo for the front sound stage.

Any additional information you can give us on the innards of W4S would be appreciated..always good to know where the extra $$ are going so we can judge whether it's worth it.
Johnla's Avatar Johnla
10:03 PM Liked: 23
post #20 of 1634
03-11-2008 | Posts: 11,515
Joined: Jan 2003
Quote:
Originally Posted by yngdiego View Post

I've always thought of bi-amping as some geeky tweak that didn't really do much for sound. Given your description of the difference, I take it with good speakers it's noticeable?

You better hold on a second before you get all excited about what he says in regards to bi-amping speakers. He is talking about active bi-amping, and not the more common and easier to do as well as less effective passsive bi-amping that most people are familiar with. I hope you also realize that the active bi-amping example he links to, also would require you to either remove or to completely disconnect the existing crossover network from the speaker drivers that is inside the speakers to work in that manner. A simple removing just the jumper bars on the back of the speaker input terminals won't do it!
yngdiego's Avatar yngdiego
10:37 PM Liked: 10
post #21 of 1634
03-11-2008 | Posts: 1,470
Joined: May 2002
Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnla View Post

You better hold on a second before you get all excited about what he says in regards to bi-amping speakers. He is talking about active bi-amping, and not the more common and easier to do as well as less effective passsive bi-amping that most people are familiar with. I hope you also realize that the active bi-amping example he links to, also would require you to either remove or to completely disconnect the existing crossover network from the speaker drivers that is inside the speakers to work in that manner. A simple removing just the jumper bars on the back of the speaker input terminals won't do it!

Gotcha! Very good to know...thanks for the tip. I was wondering how the internal cross-overs would come into play with this setup. Who would really crack open their $$$ speakers and do the mod? I guess some hard core audiophiles, but I wouldn't risk it on commercial speakers.
Rdrcr's Avatar Rdrcr
07:35 AM Liked: 10
post #22 of 1634
03-12-2008 | Posts: 389
Joined: Jan 2007
EJ,

The comparable D-Sonic Magnum 2000-7/5 has 525 watts for the front three channels and 250 watts for surrounds. Is there any reason that the D-Sonic produces more watts than my MC500? Does the D-Sonic use different ice modules or do they perform some tweak that allows them to extract more power from the module?

Thanks for the information regarding the differences of the amplifier.

Mike
rnrgagne's Avatar rnrgagne
08:15 AM Liked: 49
post #23 of 1634
03-12-2008 | Posts: 6,628
Joined: Jan 2003
Quote:
Originally Posted by yngdiego View Post

EJ, thanks for the great information. People might laugh at me, but if I wanted to bi-amp the L/R channels in a 5.1 setup I'm assuming I'd need seven power modules? I've always thought of bi-amping as some geeky tweak that didn't really do much for sound. Given your description of the difference, I take it with good speakers it's noticeable? I'm looking at Paradigm S4/C3 combo for the front sound stage.

Any additional information you can give us on the innards of W4S would be appreciated..always good to know where the extra $$ are going so we can judge whether it's worth it.

I tried passive bi-amping of the S4's and there's really nothing to be gained from it that I could hear. The 1000ASP's will handle these with ease. Johnla makes sense, in that you'd have to disengage the x-over in the S4's to truly bi-amp them, and frankly I'd be very surprised if you could do better than the cross-overs Paradigm has engineered inside. The S4's are among the best "imaging" speakers there are, as is.
WYRED 4 SOUND's Avatar WYRED 4 SOUND
11:11 AM Liked: 10
post #24 of 1634
03-12-2008 | Posts: 206
Joined: Oct 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by yngdiego View Post

Gotcha! Very good to know...thanks for the tip. I was wondering how the internal cross-overs would come into play with this setup. Who would really crack open their $$$ speakers and do the mod? I guess some hard core audiophiles, but I wouldn't risk it on commercial speakers.

I do agree, taking the internal crossovers out of speakers is the last thing that the end-user should be worrying about, and performing.

When you have one amplifier powering multiple crossovers (passive), there is a level of interaction between the two causing the amplifier to struggle at certain frequencies. For instance, if you have a two-way crossover (mid-high and low), when the higher frequencies reach the capacitor across the woofer, the cap is starts to become an AC short which will roll off, eliminating higher frequencies reaching the driver. At the same time, the bottom-end of the crossover will essentially be a short across the capacitor, and all you have is an inductor in series. This makes it hard to power the top-end at the same time because of the strenuous load caused by the bottom end.

If you have multiple amplifiers running each portion, there wouldn't be any interaction, allowing each amplifier to drive its' load based on the needs without the side effects of the other portion. If you have internal crossovers built-in and are bi-aping, you would at least benefit from the interaction problems; this would be called Bi-wiring. The result would be much more headroom because the top end wouldn't be pulled down from the bottom end. Essentially, the higher the frequency, the more the bottom end is loading down the amplifier causing less headroom. It is true that removing the crossovers would be better, but requires much more effort.

Adding an active HP crossover on the amplifier which would be driving the upper frequencies in a Bi-wire situation would be beneficial. The crossover point should be significantly below the one in the speakers to actually benefit from something. The internal parts to the crossover (in the speaker) would be in circuit, but there wouldn't be any signal reaching them to be operating on because it was eliminated electronically before the amplifier. You also get inefficiencies with the passive type, but that would be not as important.

I would doubt that speaker companies would put the bi-wire, bi-amp or tri-amp option on the speakers if they thought it couldn't improve the sound.

I hope that made some sense.sorry for the length!

EJ Sarmento
sales@wyred4sound.com
www.wyred4sound.com
WYRED 4 SOUND's Avatar WYRED 4 SOUND
11:17 AM Liked: 10
post #25 of 1634
03-12-2008 | Posts: 206
Joined: Oct 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rdrcr View Post

EJ,

The comparable D-Sonic Magnum 2000-7/5 has 525 watts for the front three channels and 250 watts for surrounds. Is there any reason that the D-Sonic produces more watts than my MC500? Does the D-Sonic use different ice modules or do they perform some tweak that allows them to extract more power from the module?

Thanks for the information regarding the differences of the amplifier.

Mike

Hi Mike,

Both amplifiers use the same modules, it's all in how the amplifier is rated. We are a little more conservative than he is with the ratings. I just finished testing the same unit as you have, and they actually put out 580W with >0.1% THD+N. I could also say that the amplifier puts out 800W in 8 ohms but the distortion numbers wouldn't be to great. We try to rate our amplifiers at the power output levels right before it starts to clip, not into clipping.

EJ Sarmento
sales@wyred4sound.com
www.wyred4sound.com
rnrgagne's Avatar rnrgagne
12:12 PM Liked: 49
post #26 of 1634
03-12-2008 | Posts: 6,628
Joined: Jan 2003
Quote:
Originally Posted by WYRED 4 SOUND View Post

I do agree, taking the internal crossovers out of speakers is the last thing that the end-user should be worrying about, and performing.

When you have one amplifier powering multiple crossovers (passive), there is a level of interaction between the two causing the amplifier to struggle at certain frequencies. For instance, if you have a two-way crossover (mid-high and low), when the higher frequencies reach the capacitor across the woofer, the cap is starts to become an AC short which will roll off, eliminating higher frequencies reaching the driver. At the same time, the bottom-end of the crossover will essentially be a short across the capacitor, and all you have is an inductor in series. This makes it hard to power the top-end at the same time because of the strenuous load caused by the bottom end.

If you have multiple amplifiers running each portion, there wouldn't be any interaction, allowing each amplifier to drive its' load based on the needs without the side effects of the other portion. If you have internal crossovers built-in and are bi-aping, you would at least benefit from the interaction problems; this would be called Bi-wiring. The result would be much more headroom because the top end wouldn't be pulled down from the bottom end. Essentially, the higher the frequency, the more the bottom end is loading down the amplifier causing less headroom. It is true that removing the crossovers would be better, but requires much more effort.

Adding an active HP crossover on the amplifier which would be driving the upper frequencies in a Bi-wire situation would be beneficial. The crossover point should be significantly below the one in the speakers to actually benefit from something. The internal parts to the crossover (in the speaker) would be in circuit, but there wouldn't be any signal reaching them to be operating on because it was eliminated electronically before the amplifier. You also get inefficiencies with the passive type, but that would be not as important.

I would doubt that speaker companies would put the bi-wire, bi-amp or tri-amp option on the speakers if they thought it couldn't improve the sound.

I hope that made some sense.sorry for the length!

EJ Sarmento
sales@wyred4sound.com
www.wyred4sound.com

I think speaker companies would put wings on them if they though it could sell more.

Seriously though, bi-amping is more likely to be of benefit to full range speaker in two channel use than those used in an HT environment and likely already crossed over at 80hz to the subs. And even still the 1000ASP's don't have a problem handling full range at all.
WYRED 4 SOUND's Avatar WYRED 4 SOUND
12:46 PM Liked: 10
post #27 of 1634
03-12-2008 | Posts: 206
Joined: Oct 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by rnrgagne View Post

I think speaker companies would put wings on them if they though it could sell more.

Seriously though, bi-amping is more likely to be of benefit to full range speaker in two channel use than those used in an HT environment and likely already crossed over at 80hz to the subs. And even still the 1000ASP's don't have a problem handling full range at all.

Valid point indeed, but do they put the crossovers in to sell more?

I definitely see your point, and accept your opinion.

HT systems would obviously be less affected, however we have had many customers who use their 2ch set-up as part of the HT system. In this case, they've purchased a 7ch amp, which 4 of the channels were dedicated to the front right, and left speakers.

EJ Sarmento
sales@wyred4sound.com
www.wyred4sound.com
Rdrcr's Avatar Rdrcr
12:55 PM Liked: 10
post #28 of 1634
03-12-2008 | Posts: 389
Joined: Jan 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by WYRED 4 SOUND View Post

Hi Mike,

Both amplifiers use the same modules, it's all in how the amplifier is rated. We are a little more conservative than he is with the ratings. I just finished testing the same unit as you have, and they actually put out 580W with >0.1% THD+N. I could also say that the amplifier puts out 800W in 8 ohms but the distortion numbers wouldn't be to great. We try to rate our amplifiers at the power output levels right before it starts to clip, not into clipping.

EJ Sarmento
sales@wyred4sound.com
www.wyred4sound.com

Thank you! Your answers have definitely helped me get an understanding of the differences between the two excellent amplifiers. I would also agree with your earlier post regarding the excellent soundstage and awesome imaging that the W4S amplifiers help produce.

Mike
Dundas's Avatar Dundas
01:43 PM Liked: 11
post #29 of 1634
03-12-2008 | Posts: 242
Joined: Dec 2004
Do these amps have any issues with Audyssey set-up?. There are some reports of a different high-powered digital amp having issues.
rnrgagne's Avatar rnrgagne
01:53 PM Liked: 49
post #30 of 1634
03-12-2008 | Posts: 6,628
Joined: Jan 2003
Well I'm running the Audyssey with mine and no problems whatsover - I find it strange that any amp would cause problems with Audyssey, unless it was emmiting some serious crap into the signal in which case I wouldn't touch it with a 10' pole.
Tags: Cambridge Soundworks Newton Series Mc500 Main Center Speaker Each

Gear in this thread - Mc500 by PriceGrabber.com
Reply Receivers, Amps, and Processors

Subscribe to this Thread

Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.2.3