[Christof]

I'm sitting on two nice stock Khartago amplifiers and would like some input on biamping vs monos.  With no investment I could horizontally biamp my speakers which are in the design state at the moment by Rick Craig...wwmtm's consisting of Seas L26's, Seas Nextel w15 mids and Peerless HDS tweeter.  Would it be worth the $ and wait time to have the stereo Khartagos converted to mono's or would biamping get me the same results?

[rosconey]

mono extemes with 2 pair of outs maybe

[opnly bafld]

I would wait until the speakers are done and try various schemes like using only 1 channel of each amp or vertically biamping and then go from there based on the results.

Lin

[lazydays]

I'm sitting on two nice stock Khartago amplifiers and would like some input on biamping vs monos.  With no investment I could horizontally biamp my speakers which are in the design state at the moment by Rick Craig...wwmtm's consisting of Seas L26's, Seas Nextel w15 mids and Peerless HDS tweeter.  Would it be worth the $ and wait time to have the stereo Khartagos converted to mono's or would biamping get me the same results?

I don't think it will work without an external crossover between the speakers and the amps.
gary

[opnly bafld]

I'm sitting on two nice stock Khartago amplifiers and would like some input on biamping vs monos.  With no investment I could horizontally biamp my speakers which are in the design state at the moment by Rick Craig...wwmtm's consisting of Seas L26's, Seas Nextel w15 mids and Peerless HDS tweeter.  Would it be worth the $ and wait time to have the stereo Khartagos converted to mono's or would biamping get me the same results?

I don't think it will work without an external crossover between the speakers and the amps.
gary

You can biamp as long as you have separate inputs for bass and mids/highs.
Many would suggest not BUYING another identical amp to passively biamp, but since he already has the amps why not try it. If he likes the way it sounds he can save some money by not upgrading.

Lin

[Christof]

I guess I'm trying to see what the advantage of using monos would be over bi amping with stereo amps, regardless of if they are Khartagos or whatever manufacturer they happen to be.  I have no way to compair, since I do not own mono's, I only own two stereo amps.  It probably boils down to personal tastes and there is no concrete answer anyway?

[bpape]

In talking to Klaus, he stated previously that the mono configuration for both the Khartgo and the Stratos offers significantly better performance.

Bryan

[opnly bafld]

I guess I'm trying to see what the advantage of using monos would be over bi amping with stereo amps, regardless of if they are Khartagos or whatever manufacturer they happen to be.  I have no way to compair, since I do not own mono's, I only own two stereo amps.  It probably boils down to personal tastes and there is no concrete answer anyway?

If you use 1 channel only from each amp, 1 amp left speaker and 1 amp right speaker, you would have a mono amp setup.
You can also try 1 amp both channels on left speaker (if it has 2 sets of inputs) and the other amp the same on the right speaker, this will give a mono/biamp.
You have the amps to answer most of your questions without spending any money.

Ask Rick if he feels a higher current amp is needed.

Lin

[pacifico]

I've been thinking about this recently too. I am very interested in a nice tube integrated which could be bi-amped with a power amp of an identical design.

Overall, wouldn't this depend on your type of speaker? if you are running a three or 2.5 way would bi-amping with two identical amps be kinda good?

For example:

AMP1: Tweeter and MID

AMP2: Woofer

If they are identical amps, why would you need a crossover? I recently asked this question to another manufacturer and they said it isn't. This is of course their opinion. Monos would be better of course though and I know this but if this is what you got, then use it and see!!!

I am really tempted to try 55W up top and 55W of EL34 power on the bottom of my speakers. This may wory out for towers nicely.

[opnly bafld]

I've been thinking about this recently too. I am very interested in a nice tube integrated which could be bi-amped with a power amp of an identical design.

Overall, wouldn't this depend on your type of speaker? if you are running a three or 2.5 way would bi-amping with two identical amps be kinda good?

For example:

AMP1: Tweeter and MID

AMP2: Woofer

If they are identical amps, why would you need a crossover? I recently asked this question to another manufacturer and they said it isn't. This is of course their opinion. Monos would be better of course though and I know this but if this is what you got, then use it and see!!!

I am really tempted to try 55W up top and 55W of EL34 power on the bottom of my speakers. This may wory out for towers nicely.

You might want to move this into another circle.
Out of respect for Odyssey Audio.

[pacifico]

I thought this was relevant as this topic seems to focus more on amplifier topology than odyssey in general. maybe the whole toipc should be moved?

[opnly bafld]

I thought this was relevant as this topic seems to focus more on amplifier topology than odyssey in general. maybe the whole toipc should be moved?

The original poster has 2 Odyssey amps and is asking about the benefits, if any, of upgrading them to mono.

[pacifico]

yes and I broadened it b/c of a similar situation. Is this place really becoming that rigid?

[woodsyi]

yes and I broadened it b/c of a similar situation. Is this place really becoming that rigid?

I don't think so.  There seems to be a bit of tight rope walking after the Cataclysm of '07 but I don't see why Klaus would want to remove an honest discussion of amp use in his circle.  The more a manufacturer's circle is active, the more exposure he is getting.  I think a bit of meandering around a topic is fun and informative.    We are in this hobby for fun, right?

[bunky]

yes and I broadened it b/c of a similar situation. Is this place really becoming that rigid?

I don't think so.  There seems to be a bit of tight rope walking after the Cataclysm of '07 but I don't see why Klaus would want to remove an honest discussion of amp use in his circle.  The more a manufacturer's circle is active, the more exposure he is getting.  I think a bit of meandering around a topic is fun and informative.    We are in this hobby for fun, right?

klaus loves to talk about all things Audio and is very flexible when it comes to what he allows on the Odyssey circle. Mr Frank Van Alstine even posts here from time to time thanks....WCW III

[dangerbird]

I'm not sure if this helps,,but,,I received my mono extremes 10 days ago and when I compare them to the stratos with the cap upgrade,I can honestly say that I hear a difference,the mono's seem to throw a somewhat deeper and  wider soundstage,and drive my speakers with greater "ease".Needless to say that so far,I'm very pleased with their performance.

[Christof]

Dangerbird

Did you have your existing Stratos converted or start fresh with new mono's?

[dangerbird]

Nope,, I purchased a pair of new mono's,, if you have not done so,,call Klaus and see what he would recommend,,he has been extremely patient with me and is very "customer" oriented. Good luck---george

[jreinhart]

Definitely bi-amp if possible.  Passive crossovers waste a lot of energy and distribute power poorly while presenting a bad load back to the amplifier.  The damping factor is also lost and the passive components do not have near the tolerances of a good electronic crossover.  For more information, go to http://www.linkwitzlab.com/ , http://www.marchandelec.com/ , http://sound.westhost.com/biamp-vs-passive.htm .  The Stratos or Khartago amplifiers are outstanding and the elimination of the passive crossover compnents would allow the amplifiers to drive each speaker unit without loss of any energy.  In addition, the possibility of clipping is significantly reduced and the control of the amplifier to the driver creates a much greater degree of resolution. It would be interesting what the Loreli system would sound like when eliminating the passive x-over components.

[Christof]

jreinhart

I ran across this in another circle.  It is not meant to promote a product so I feel ok about posting it here.  I based my decision to have my speakers designed with passive XO's in large part because discussions I've had with Bob Smith (SP Tech) on the problems with active XO's vs. Passive.  For agrument sake I ask what you think:

In high-end, it’s all about audio purity (or it should be anyway).  That’s the rub.  In these days of Squeezeboxes and passive pre-amps, we all know that adding extra circuitry in the signal path seldom yields an improved purity of sound – less is more.  Well, active crossovers have quite a bit of circuitry.  Typically, those devices either use transistors, op-amps and/or DSP processing.  Transistors and op-amps are inherently non-linear devices and have to have negative feedback applied to get them to operate in a quasi-linear region.  If the feedback loop is subject to phase errors with respect to the input, then artifacts are created that don’t belong in the music.  Not only that, but slewing errors, saturation recovery and all sorts of complex little issues can degrade performance.

Even DSP based systems have either ADCs, DACs or both and these devices are composed essentially of a whole bunch of transistors, albeit on a monolithic level.  While the DSP itself may be transparent due to the fact that it operates strictly in the digital domain, the inputs and outputs it is integrated with must interface with the analog world.  That’s where the trouble is.

So no matter how you slice it, active crossovers have the potential to interject a fair number of “warts” on the signal and thereby reduce the theoretical advantage they seem to offer.  The whole problem has to do with the lack of linearity in the devices they use.  While one transistor on it’s own may not add much distortion, it’s a cumulative thing as there needs to be quite a few active device in the signal path in order to achieve the filtering functions.  Not only that, but there are usually quite a few capacitors thrown in for good measure.

A passive crossover on the other hand, is composed of simple capacitors, inductors and resistors.  Although they can have issues too (we all know the improvements offered by exotic capacitors and such), a passive device – even a cheap one – is orders of magnitude more linear than a transistor.  A passive crossover has only a handful of these components compared to an active crossover parts count.  As long as the capacitor quality is sufficient and the inductors don’t saturate (all it takes is using an air-core or a large core laminate one), the likelihood of an extremely pristine signal coming out of them and into the driver is very high – and far less costly to produce.

The upshot is that the likelihood a well-done passive will “get out of the way” is greater than finding an equivalent active alternative.  I’m not saying a killer active can’t be made, just that it’s harder to do and therefore less common to find.

  From Bob Smith's discussion about biamping.