or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Audio › Audio theory, Setup and Chat › Bi-amping B&W CM10
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Bi-amping B&W CM10 - Page 3

post #61 of 592
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm View Post


They are pretty inaccurate. Problem is that speaker sensitivity which is the key parameter for the calculator is a marketing number with no standards for measurements. It could be the sensitivity at 500 hz, 1000 Hz, the average of 250 to 1000 Hz, etc. In addition in rooms like yours with open floor plan, there is less room loading and hence the losses will likely double. Keep in mind that when someone says the calculator is a few db off, at 3 db you compute the power requirement wrong by a factor of 2! So 30 watts may be 60 watts.

As to the long thread, it got long because folks there, who are also posting here, assume idealized amplifiers, and not how they are designed and work in real life. Passive bi-amping can reduce distortion level. You would need to determine if in your case it does that or not. Using your current system without bi-amping keep turning up the volume while listening to a dynamic music. Do you hear the sound fidelity change at some point on the volume control? Perhaps becoming more shrill or thin? If so, your amp is running out of juice no matter what the formula or a thousand posts here say. Try passive bi-amping and run the same experiment again. See if that point of fidelity change has moved up, hopefully beyond the point that you want to listen.

 

Thanks for replying! Interesting. I was thinking to myself that the SPL calculator may have given misleading information as 10 watts to hit 98 dB at a 3 meter distance just seemed wrong. My room is quite large. So the calculator can't take that into account. I have no idea how much power is actually being drawn from the amp then, but you suggest I should just double the calculated power to be on the safe side.

 

So that would mean 20 watts 8 ohms, or 40 watts into 4 ohms or 60 watts into 3 ohms etc assuming 98 dB SPL. But it also doesn't tell me at what frequency I'm hitting. So again, the results could be totally off. If I needed 98 dB peaks and there was high energy 40 Hz signal there, I'm guessing here that I would need a hell of a lot more power than 20 watts.

 

So if the calculator can't take these important variables into account then what good are these calculators? Because it would seem they are just giving misleading information based on insufficient data.

post #62 of 592
Quote:
Originally Posted by JHAz View Post

THe complexity comes from the fact that the tweeter's amp is still swinging every single volt of the bass content into the high pass, just with milliamps of current (power being, still as in my days when I rode a dinosaur to High school, volts times current). So if the woofer amp can't swing the voltage, neither can the tweeter amp, even though the power demands to the tweeter are low.
As I said here and the other thread, these are idealized assumptions about amplifiers, not how they work in practice. To show that in the other thread, I post measurements like this:

i-FR7FvFX-XL.png

The green is the "tweeter" amp and the yellow, "woofer." Clearly both amps have not clipped at the same time. Driven by identical signal, the woofer amp clipped before tweeter. Reason is that the amplifier voltage is unregulated and hence varies with load. Since the woofer puts a larger load on that amp, its voltage sags whereas the tweeter amp is lightly loaded and hence, maintains its higher voltage. For that reason, the woofer amp clips earlier as the measurement above clearly shows. In the other thread I showed the same thing happening in three different AVRs. In the above scenario, the tweeter would be playing a much cleaner signal than if the single woofer amp is used.
post #63 of 592
Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mekail View Post

How accurate are those SPL calculators?
They are pretty inaccurate. Problem is that speaker sensitivity which is the key parameter for the calculator is a marketing number with no standards for measurements.

Then strictly speaking, the problem is not with the calculator itself. The problem is with the data we feed it. I agree that while there are standards for measuring speaker efficiency, not all manufacturers follow the same tandard or any standard. The calculators have similar problems in other areas such as acoustic gains and losses.
Quote:
It could be the sensitivity at 500 hz, 1000 Hz, the average of 250 to 1000 Hz, etc. In addition in rooms like yours with open floor plan, there is less room loading and hence the losses will likely double. Keep in mind that when someone says the calculator is a few db off, at 3 db you compute the power requirement wrong by a factor of 2! So 30 watts may be 60 watts.

Speak of the devil! You say room loading and I say acoustic gains and losses and its all the same thing.

However for what they do, there aren't a lot of other alternatives that are accessible and useful for the average audiophile.
Quote:
Keep in mind that when someone says the calculator is a few db off, at 3 db you compute the power requirement wrong by a factor of 2! So 30 watts may be 60 watts.

Based on my experiences at AVS and other forums, 3 dB is a minor error compared to the ideas in many audiophiles heads.
Quote:
As to the long thread, it got long because folks there, who are also posting here, assume idealized amplifiers, and not how they are designed and work in real life.

And there are folks who know modern real world amplifiers better than others. When I get back to Detroit and finish up one more gift PC (intentionally delayed so as not to interfere with parent's plans) I will finally bring in some real world tests.
Quote:
Passive bi-amping can reduce distortion level.

People have been arguing over how much, been given forced vacations from AVS, and etc for way too long.
Quote:
You would need to determine if in your case it does that or not.

Logic indicates that there is a qualifyng question - is the existing system adequate? There is a good chance that it is adequate, in which case improving that system is futile.
Quote:
Using your current system without bi-amping keep turning up the volume while listening to a dynamic music. Do you hear the sound fidelity change at some point on the volume control?

That happens to everybody because of how hearing works. Next!

That happens in many systems because of how the speakers themselves work. Next!
Quote:
Perhaps becoming more shrill or thin?

Please see above. There's a reason why pro amps and some high end amps have clipping indicators, and that is because as a practical matter the ears aren't a reliable enough indicator of clipping.
Quote:
If so, your amp is running out of juice no matter what the formula or a thousand posts here say.

Somehow I know that if I sold amps, I would in some sense love people to follow the above instructions because of those other factors I mentioned, ears and speakers, are such strong influences.
Quote:
Try passive bi-amping and run the same experiment again. See if that point of fidelity change has moved up, hopefully beyond the point that you want to listen.

So Amir, you're going to repair or replace the amps and speakers that get fried due to the probable human errors associated with this experiment? ;-)
post #64 of 592
Quote:
Originally Posted by JHAz View Post

as I understand it, what controls it the content. Real music and movies just don't have much power in the tweeter range. It's not that the crossover turns down the tweeter (or at least not primarily - probably not uncommon for tweeters to be padded down a bit because they're more efficient than the woofer elements - otherwise manufacturers couldn't use the same tweeter in their 5 inch plus a tweeter speaker as they do in a more robust system) . . . but of course in effect the high pass to the tweeter tweeter presents such a high impedance at, say 40 Hz, that power is negligible and the tweeter dome does not fly across the room as it might if presented with say 100 watts at 40 Hz . . .

as for the distortion issue, (not directed to sivadselim) it's somewhat complicated, but to me the critical fact is most tweeters cross over at 2 KHz or so, which means distortion artifacts at the frequency at which human hearing is most acute - 1 Khz-ish - are presented at full power through the woofer. THe complexity comes from the fact that the tweeter's amp is still swinging every single volt of the bass content into the high pass, just with milliamps of current (power being, still as in my days when I rode a dinosaur to High school, volts times current). So if the woofer amp can't swing the voltage, neither can the tweeter amp, even though the power demands to the tweeter are low.

And if a single amp can't push the needed current, voltage will sag (onaccounta the amp is sbject to ohm's law, too, and can't put out more voltage into a particular impedance than the it can support with current) so you get distortion, not frequency response anomalies. Amp-caused frequency response anomalies generally relate to output impedance, not voltage or current capabilities.

Truth is that long, long before you are putting enough distortion-related power into the tweeter to kill it, you've got audible distortion.

And of course if you have no audible distortion with the power available without biamping, the little potential added power you might get from biamping makes precisely zero difference, by leaving total harmonic distortion below audible levels. Inaudible being, by definition, inaudible . . . .

I am not so sure that "long, long before you are putting enough distortion-related power into the tweeter to kill it, you've got audible distortion". Practically speaking, I don't really think is the case. Many a tweeter (and woofer, for that matter) have been blown by inaudible (maybe unaudible is a better word) distortion. In fact, most people who blow a driver will say that they did NOT hear anything that would have provided a warning that something bad was happening.
post #65 of 592
Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by JHAz View Post

THe complexity comes from the fact that the tweeter's amp is still swinging every single volt of the bass content into the high pass, just with milliamps of current (power being, still as in my days when I rode a dinosaur to High school, volts times current). So if the woofer amp can't swing the voltage, neither can the tweeter amp, even though the power demands to the tweeter are low.
As I said here and the other thread, these are idealized assumptions about amplifiers, not how they work in practice. To show that in the other thread, I post measurements like this:

i-FR7FvFX-XL.png

The green is the "tweeter" amp and the yellow, "woofer." Clearly both amps have not clipped at the same time. Driven by identical signal, the woofer amp clipped before tweeter. Reason is that the amplifier voltage is unregulated and hence varies with load. Since the woofer puts a larger load on that amp, its voltage sags whereas the tweeter amp is lightly loaded and hence, maintains its higher voltage. For that reason, the woofer amp clips earlier as the measurement above clearly shows. In the other thread I showed the same thing happening in three different AVRs. In the above scenario, the tweeter would be playing a much cleaner signal than if the single woofer amp is used.

The error in logic here is that just because a larger load makes the amps clip at different point doesn't prove that both amps won't clip if overdriven. In fact if they are overdriven the amps are guaranteed to clip, with of course the more heavily loaded amp clipping first. Showing that more heavily loaded amps clip at lower voltages is just demonstrating a truism, not a proper refutation off what is actually a global truth. If you overdrive, the pure wave will not survive!

If this is the same experiment we discussed a few weeks back, it evolved that no real world tweeters or woofers or even good simulations of them were involved.
.
I see no measurements of the actual in peak or RMS voltages for both amplifiers, but it looks to me like the difference ain't much - maybe a dB or two.

Two words: mystery meat
Edited by arnyk - 12/27/13 at 11:55am
post #66 of 592
Quote:
Originally Posted by sivadselim View Post


I am not so sure that "long, long before you are putting enough distortion-related power into the tweeter to kill it, you've got audible distortion"

The idea that "long, long before you are putting enough distortion-related power into the tweeter to kill it, you've got audible distortion has to be true at least part of the time because often the distortion does not add any power all by itself. Instead what happens is that the average power that is provided by the amp keeps increasing despite the distortion.
Quote:
Many a tweeter (and woofer, for that matter) have been blown by inaudible (maybe unaudible is a better word) distortion.

Often its inaudible ultrasonic ringing caused by an marginally unstable power amp that is the cause of the above. Amp instability is rare these days in well-designed, well-maintained amplifiers but of course we can't guarantee good design, construction and maintenance in every case, even today.

If memory serves Amir even brought in some scope traces showing ultrasonic instability of one or more AVRs. However, that's hard to diagnose from thousands of miles away, and one cause is an operator training situation. Been there, done that, many flavors including my own stupidity, and not.
Quote:
In fact, most people who blow a driver will say that they did NOT hear anything that would have provided a warning that something bad was happening.

Now you are playing into my claim that ears are not always adequately reliable indicators of amplifier clipping. ;-)

Of course the marginally stable amp can fit into those shoes, as well..
post #67 of 592
Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk View Post

Two words: mystery meat
sometime's it's good biggrin.gif
post #68 of 592
Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk View Post

Now you are playing into my claim that ears are not always adequately reliable indicators of amplifier clipping. ;-)

Hardly your claim, though. Ears are "not always adequately reliable indicators" of many, many things. Personally, I do not trust mine. wink.gif
post #69 of 592
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mekail View Post

So if the calculator can't take these important variables into account then what good are these calculators? Because it would seem they are just giving misleading information based on insufficient data.
As best as I can tell, their only use seems to be in such arguments with folks trying to justify any amount of power to be good enough smile.gif. Again, idealized assumptions vs reality is the problem.
post #70 of 592
Quote:
Originally Posted by sivadselim View Post

Just curious. Simple experiment. Connect two identical amps to a 2-way speaker in a passive biamp configuration, in as temperature controlled an environment as possible. Drive the speaker and amps for a half hour or so with some demanding material at a pretty demanding volume. What happens to the temperatures of the two amplifiers being used in the passive biamp?

anyone?
post #71 of 592
Thread Starter 
Quote:Arnyk

Then strictly speaking, the problem is not with the calculator itself. The problem is with the data we feed it. I agree that while there are standards for measuring speaker efficiency, not all manufacturers follow the same tandard or any standard. The calculators have similar problems in other areas such as acoustic gains and losses.

 

 

This is the problem that I have. People often tout the fact that you need very little power in order to experience high SPL in a room, but even those suggestions are misleading if the information you are basing those suggestions on are incomplete.

 

My speakers have a good extended frequency response down to below 30 Hz. I confirmed it with a test tone CD - I can clearly identify signal output below 30 Hz. So what if I'm listening to music at 98dB, as per your earlier reply, and there was a baseline with 40 Hz signal in it. Will I still need only 10 watts, or could it be 70 watts? Or 100 watts?

 

Then that amplifier power that I thought was redundant actually does become important. People tend to suggest that you need a fraction of the power, but I'm finding those claims to be a little misleading all in themselves. It could be that I'm running at the edge of what my existing hardware can deliver.

 

Then again, there is no way for me to draw any reliable conclusions, except unless my amps were clipping. That sounds easy enough, but I don't want to test that theory! I guess I could then say with some objectivity that my existing amps weren't cutting the mustard!

post #72 of 592
Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk View Post

If this is the same experiment we discussed a few weeks back, it evolved that no real world tweeters or woofers or even good simulations of them were involved.
The discussion of merits of passive bi-amp is presented as being independent of speakers. You all make categorical statements of it not doing any good because both amps clip at the same time regardless of what speaker is connected to them. It is that assumption which I tested and provided concrete proof to be incorrect. Lack of understanding of how real amplifiers are powered vs paper ones was the cause of that confusion. Let's hope from here on we don't keep repeating layman views of amplifiers as opposed to real circuits and designs. The fact that you can't even tell after all those arguments what the test was about with that comment, shows that the concept is still not understood.
.
Quote:
I see no measurements of the actual in peak or RMS voltages for both amplifiers, but it looks to me like the difference ain't much - maybe a dB or two.
You don't see them because you don't know how to read the scope output. But let's go with your 2 db number. If one has a 50 watt amp and gains 2 dB as a result of bi-amping, they now have the equiv. of an 80 watt amplifier without spending a cent assuming they have the spare amps! Talk about something for nothing smile.gif.
Quote:
Two words: mystery meat
It is a mystery if you are not a butcher Arny smile.gif. Until one gains sufficient knowledge of amplifier design, these things will look like mysteries to be sure. Fortunately they are easy to demonstrate such as the measurement above which was said to be impossible in the other thread repeatedly.
post #73 of 592
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm View Post


As best as I can tell, their only use seems to be in such arguments with folks trying to justify any amount of power to be good enough smile.gif. Again, idealized assumptions vs reality is the problem.


This is exactly my point! But it doesn't help my situation. It means that I have no idea how much power is being used at any given moment. Unless my amps were clipping which I don't think they are, it means so far I'm fine as far as power goes. But I'm almost certain I don't listen at 98 dB either. I need an SPL meter to confirm.

post #74 of 592
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mekail View Post

Unless my amps were clipping which I don't think they are, it means so far I'm fine as far as power goes.

most likely
post #75 of 592
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mekail View Post

Quote:
Then strictly speaking, the problem is not with the calculator itself. The problem is with the data we feed it. I agree that while there are standards for measuring speaker efficiency, not all manufacturers follow the same tandard or any standard. The calculators have similar problems in other areas such as acoustic gains and losses.

This is the problem that I have. People often tout the fact that you need very little power in order to experience high SPL in a room, but even those suggestions are misleading if the information you are basing those suggestions on are incomplete.

Approximate does not necessarily mean misleading. Before we applied our approximate data we really had very little. We now know whether the power is between a breadbox and a shoebox or between a breadbox and a freezer. The SPL meter methodology provides further refinement, but it is not exact,
Quote:
My speakers have a good extended frequency response down to below 30 Hz. I confirmed it with a test tone CD - I can clearly identify signal output below 30 Hz. So what if I'm listening to music at 98dB, as per your earlier reply, and there was a baseline with 40 Hz signal in it. Will I still need only 10 watts, or could it be 70 watts? Or 100 watts at 98 dB?

10 to 100 watts is a 10 dB range. We may know the right answer within 3 dB.
Quote:
Then that amplifier power that I thought was redundant actually does become important.

Really?
Quote:
Everyone tends to suggest that you need a fraction of the power, but I'm finding those claims to be a little misleading all in themselves.

To make that sort of a judgement you would need to know the right answer with more accuracy than a 3 dB range. If you have that knowledge, I'm all ears.

There have been reliable studies of how much power people were actually using and it seems like people tend to have more amplifier power than they need. I've been trying to find it but so far no dice.
post #76 of 592
Quote:
Originally Posted by sivadselim View Post

anyone?

What is the point you're expecting this to demonstrate?
post #77 of 592
Quote:
Originally Posted by whoaru99 View Post

What is the point you're expecting this to demonstrate?

I'm curious as to whether both amps would heat-up identically as well as whether they would reach the same temperature.

And if not, "why?".
post #78 of 592
I would expect not, at least in theory, as both swing the same/similar output voltage but are not doing the same amount of work. I'd expect the amp doing more work to get hotter, typ. the LF amp.

However, in practical sense not sure how much difference there might be. Depends, likely, on a several factors...crossover point, distribution of frequencies in the music played, impedances, dissipation capability of the amp(s), etc.

.
post #79 of 592
Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk View Post

If this is the same experiment we discussed a few weeks back, it evolved that no real world tweeters or woofers or even good simulations of them were involved.
The discussion of merits of passive bi-amp is presented as being independent of speakers. You all make categorical statements of it not doing any good because both amps clip at the same time regardless of what speaker is connected to them.

Actually Amir I never said " That the amps would clip at t the identical same time" "regardless of what speaker regardless of what speaker". I said that the amps would clip at about the same time if reasonable speakers are connected to them.

So Amir please tell us about the experiment you did that involved reasonable speakers or close simulations of them.
post #80 of 592
Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm View Post

As I said here and the other thread, these are idealized assumptions about amplifiers, not how they work in practice. To show that in the other thread, I post measurements like this:

i-FR7FvFX-XL.png

Are the same make/model amps being used for the woofer and tweeter in this data?

What is the difference in voltage between when one clips vs the other?
post #81 of 592
Quote:
Originally Posted by whoaru99 View Post

I would expect not, at least in theory, as both swing the same/similar output voltage but are not doing the same amount of work. I'd expect the amp doing more work to get hotter, typ. the LF amp.

However, in practical sense not sure how much difference there might be. Depends, likely, on a several factors...crossover point, distribution of frequencies in the music played, impedances, dissipation capability of the amp(s), etc.

If we are talking an AVR or multichannel power amp, the amps are identical.
post #82 of 592
Quote:
Originally Posted by whoaru99 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm View Post

As I said here and the other thread, these are idealized assumptions about amplifiers, not how they work in practice. To show that in the other thread, I post measurements like this:

i-FR7FvFX-XL.png

Are the same make/model amps being used for the woofer and tweeter in this data?

I think so.

If I remember the experiment right, Amir modeled the woofer as a 4 ohm resistor which is lower than would be realistic, and the tweeter as a high value resistor, which is far higher than realistic. Also, there was no crossover.
post #83 of 592
Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk View Post

If we are talking an AVR or multichannel power amp, the amps are identical.

Yeah, maybe, depending if talking about temps in a unit with a common heatsink, etc. for all/many channels, or some other arrangement where the channels being used may be physically more separate..
Edited by whoaru99 - 12/27/13 at 6:59pm
post #84 of 592
Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mekail View Post

So if the calculator can't take these important variables into account then what good are these calculators? Because it would seem they are just giving misleading information based on insufficient data.
As best as I can tell, their only use seems to be in such arguments with folks trying to justify any amount of power to be good enough smile.gif. Again, idealized assumptions vs reality is the problem.

as far as i can tell, to those that make money off of selling hi-fi amps, nothing is ever good enough.
post #85 of 592
Thread Starter 

Just another question regarding amp power. Wouldn't adding more power from a larger amplifier provide better control over the speakers? If yes, what allows the power to control the speaker better. If not, why not?

 

I'm asking because I'm pretty sure I've heard this before elsewhere on other discussion boards.

post #86 of 592
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mekail View Post
 

Just another question regarding amp power. Wouldn't adding more power from a larger amplifier provide better control over the speakers? If yes, what allows the power to control the speaker better. If not, why not?

 

I'm asking because I'm pretty sure I've heard this before elsewhere on other discussion boards.

 

The extra headroom and stability of the bigger amplifiers assists in offering more control. Think of it more as torque available rather then rpm or top speed. The ease a big car has doing the simple stuff.

post #87 of 592
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaun B View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mekail View Post

 
Just another question regarding amp power. Wouldn't adding more power from a larger amplifier provide better control over the speakers? If yes, what allows the power to control the speaker better. If not, why not?

I'm asking because I'm pretty sure I've heard this before elsewhere on other discussion boards.

The extra headroom and stability of the bigger amplifiers assists in offering more control. Think of it more as torque available rather then rpm or top speed. The ease a big car has doing the simple stuff.

There is a technical measure of control over speakers. It is called damping factor or source impedance, depending who you talk to or how he's talking. One is closely mathematically related to the other. It does seem intuitively clear that a large amp might have better damping factor, but that is not how the electrons fall into place.

I agree that low source impedance or high damping factor are roughly analogous to torque. Power is of course analogous to horsepower. 750 watts is roughly 1 horsepower.

Large amplifiers have no known advantage in the department of damping factor. One can easily build large amps with poor damping factor and small amps with a wonderful damping factor, or vice versa. Whether the amp is large or small, the technical feature that helps improve damping factor is inverse feedback.

In fact mainstream SS amplifiers whether large or small tend to have good damping factor. The reason why tubed amps have historically had much poorer damping factor is that their power tubes and output transformers tend to have more phase shift at the frequency extremes and that limits the amount of inverse feedback that can be easily applied.

Damping factor is also irrelevant to excess power or as some call it, headroom. A 3 watt amp can have a damping factor up in the 100's, and a 300 watt amp can only have a damping factor of 8.

Large amplifiers are also not categorically more stable. If anything, the inverse is true but one can build wonderfully stable amps either large or small.

Getting back to the analogs of damping factor to torque and horsepower to power, the amount of energy required to damp a speaker depends on how hard it is driven. Therefore small amplifiers can't drive the speaker very hard, and their energy capacity is well-matched to providing the damping that is actually needed to damp a lightly-driven speaker.

I hope this dispels the audiophile myth that only large amps can control speakers or that they have some kind of inherent advantage. Yet another idea that seems intuitively clear but doesn't hang together in the real world. Negative or inverse feedback is usually introduced in junior/300 level engineering courses but it is a complex area and I did PhD level work in that area. One of the more interesting problems in feedback-based automatic control systems is controlling a very large rocket. Think of it as a flexible water hose that you are trying to balance in the palm of your hand. Just for fun all of your position sensors are vibrating like the dickens due to the blast of the rocket engine and there is a stiff side wind. Audio power amps aren't rocket science!
Edited by arnyk - 12/28/13 at 3:02am
post #88 of 592

I disagree. Some speakers benefit with more power. My power amps offer improved control over the AVRs I had. The distortion is so much lower with the power amps compared to the AVR. Having so much headroom is a good thing. Distortion is kept down! Rather than operating the receiver outside its comfort zone.

post #89 of 592
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaun B View Post

I disagree. Some speakers benefit with more power.

But not all spekaers? How does one determine which ones?

Quote:
My power amps offer improved control over the AVRs I had. The distortion is so much lower with the power amps compared to the AVR. Having so much headroom is a good thing. Distortion is kept down! Rather than operating the receiver outside its comfort zone.

What was the distortion before and what was it after? How do you explain how unused amplifier power reduces speaker distortion? Did you do a bias controlled listening test to determine this phenomenon?
post #90 of 592
Quote:
Originally Posted by FMW View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaun B View Post

I disagree. Some speakers benefit with more power.

But not all spekaers? How does one determine which ones?

Quote:
My power amps offer improved control over the AVRs I had. The distortion is so much lower with the power amps compared to the AVR. Having so much headroom is a good thing. Distortion is kept down! Rather than operating the receiver outside its comfort zone.

What was the distortion before and what was it after? How do you explain how unused amplifier power reduces speaker distortion? Did you do a bias controlled listening test to determine this phenomenon?

that would be absolutely amazing if true . wink.gif
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Audio theory, Setup and Chat
AVS › AVS Forum › Audio › Audio theory, Setup and Chat › Bi-amping B&W CM10