[Lost81]

Since the gain for the AKSA 55 and the AKSA 100 are similar, and that it takes more power to drive bass than treble, I was wondering, is there any sonic advantage in using the AKSA 55 Nirvana to drive the treble as opposed to the AKSA 100W Nirvana?

For my applications, my speakers are the Mission 753 Freedoms.

They are capable of being bi-amped.

The treble sub-cabinet comprises of a 1" ferro-fluid cooled silk-dome tweeter, and two 6" Aero-Gel drivers.

The bass sub-cabinet comprises of two 6" Aero-Gel drivers.

Right now, all 4 monoblocks are 100W Nirvanas and identical.

At some point, I will modify 2 monoblocks as dedicated treble amps.

To be specific, I am asking is the 55W AKSA Nirvana a better candidate for treble duty, with the consideration that the 100W AKSA Nirvana is driving the bass.

Pre-amplifier is the AKSA TLP Nirvana.

Will appreciate all comments / opinions.

Thanks.


-Lost81

[Malcolm Fear]

Hi
Some say the 55 is sweeter than the 100, but the 100 has more slam.
Therefore a 100 on the bottom and a 55 on the top sounds like the ideal way to go.

And the 55 is cheaper!

[DSK]

Hi Lost81,
Bi-amping, with the speakers' internal passive xovers still in use, may or may not provide a significant sonic improvement. That's a whole other discussion.

If you were starting from scratch, I would suggest a 55 Nirvana Plus (setup for 40w/channel) for the top end and a 100 Nirvana for the bottom end.

However, to complicate things Hugh has just completed the 100 Nirvana Plus and I haven't heard this yet. *If* Hugh believes that it sounds as good in the mids and highs as the 55 Nirvana Plus does, then your easiest and cheapest option is to simply upgrade one of your 100 Nirvanas with the Nirvana Plus kit (preferably both if $ allows) for the mids/highs. If not, then a 55N+ for mids/highs is the best option and downrating its power (to say 40w/ch) improves the sound even further.

My understanding is that the gain on the 55 & 100 are the same and thus they will bi-amp nicely together. I am considering something similar and eagerly await Hugh's thoughts on how the mids/highs of the 100N+ compare to those of the 55N+ and the 55N+ setup for 40w/ch.

Interesting times indeed  

[gonefishin]

Hi guys

  I've recently ordered a 25Watt version of the AKSA55 N+.  This amp is going to power the midrange/tweet (106db) in my bi-amped system.  If I like how the amp performs, my hopes are to get an AKSA100n+ to (eventually) power the woofers.  Having a similar voice and the same gain will come in handy when matching the two systems.

    I'll certainly be looking forward to hearing more about the thoughts of the 55 getting along with the 100.

  thanks,
   dan

[Lost81]

Hi Lost81,
Bi-amping, with the speakers' internal passive xovers still in use, may or may not provide a significant sonic improvement. That's a whole other discussion.

Ah, the Mission 753 Freedoms use jumpers (2 brass rods) to connect the 2 pairs of speaker inputs for regular amps.

Removing the jumpers electrically isolates the tweeter / midrange from the bass woofers, thus, disabling that one set of the passive crossovers.

Of course, the tweeter / midrange passive crossover still exists.

Getting at the remaining passive crossover will require an external active crossover like the Marchand. At which point, I could tri-amp, but I do not know if it will be worth the $ and time for the Mission 753 Freedoms.

The only Marchand Active Crossover I am considering is the 24dB/slope, tubed crossovers.

In such an application, I would probably use the AKSA 25 / 50 / 100 for the tweeter, midrange, woofers.

Here's the irony:
My computer / back-up soundsystem is tri-amped:
Video Logic Sirocco Pro.
2 amplifier circuits for the 2 tweeters.
2 amplifier circuits for the 2 midrange drivers.
2 bridged amplifier circuits for the single 10" Aerogel woofer.


-Lost81