Any idea on which model would drive the top end of my HT3's?

Big Red Machine · « **on:** 5 Jun 2008, 05:26 pm »

Frank's got some units ready to ship including the Dynaco 70. I'm wondering if I'll have a balancing problem with running separate amps when it comes to volume level. What say you?

martyo · « **Reply #1 on:** 5 Jun 2008, 05:38 pm »

Do you mean using the internal passive x-over and hook up two amps to the two sets of existing connections on the HT3's? I can't answer your question for sure, but probably, but the '70 on the top sounds like it would be pretty sweet.

Wayner · « **Reply #2 on:** 5 Jun 2008, 05:44 pm »

The gain of the Ultimate 70 is differrent than Frank's other amps, I believe. This is maybe not a good idea, unless you have 2 identical amps. Then you could bi-amp vertically or horizontally which might be fun.

Wayner

Big Red Machine · « **Reply #3 on:** 5 Jun 2008, 05:47 pm »

I have the Pass Labs amp and thought it on the woofers with tubes up top would be fun to try. But, yeah, the gain differential would be hard to overcome usng SS and Tubes at one time I guess.

avahifi · « **Reply #4 on:** 5 Jun 2008, 06:05 pm »

The Ultimate 70 listed on the used page of my web site, www.avahifi.com is sold.

For your information, the 70 is lower gain than any of our other amplifiers. All except the 70 have a voltage gain of 25 and are directly replaceable and compatible without any gain differences. The 70, because of feedback design considerations, has a voltage gain of 15 and thus using it with a different amp in a bi or tri-amped situation will require careful level matching at the electronic crossover.

My suggestion for the best solution for Salk Sound HT3s is a single Fet Valve Ultra 550 amp run full range, or a pair of them bridged if you really need over a kilowatt of power per channel.

Best regards,

Frank Van Alstine

zybar · « **Reply #5 on:** 5 Jun 2008, 06:11 pm »

Quote from: Big Red Machine on 5 Jun 2008, 05:47 pm

I have the Pass Labs amp and thought it on the woofers with tubes up top would be fun to try. But, yeah, the gain differential would be hard to overcome usng SS and Tubes at one time I guess.

If they have very different sensitivities, you could always you a very high quality passive to lower the higher one.

George

Big Red Machine · « **Reply #6 on:** 5 Jun 2008, 06:16 pm »

Hey Frank, I assumed I would need much less power on the mid and tweeter circuit of the HT3. I am not familiar enough with your products; are the Fet Valves tube or SS amps? What about the OmegaStar? Wouldn't as little as 50 watts do the trick to introduce the "tube" sound?

martyo · « **Reply #7 on:** 5 Jun 2008, 06:20 pm »

Pete, you know I'm not Frank, but the Fet Valves are hybrids, tube linestage, mosfet outputs. The omegastar's are ss. And I believe the '70 is 35 per side.

martyo · « **Reply #8 on:** 5 Jun 2008, 06:22 pm »

BTW, you sure do like to play.

woodsyi · « **Reply #9 on:** 5 Jun 2008, 07:07 pm »

Pete,

I assume the top end means the ribbon and the midrange driver together with the passive filter in between? What is the sensitivity of the top end as a unit? Do you need 1, 5, 25, 50 or 100 Watts?

Big Red Machine · « **Reply #10 on:** 5 Jun 2008, 07:15 pm »

That's gonna require my speaker builder to pipe in.

zybar · « **Reply #11 on:** 5 Jun 2008, 07:16 pm »

It would have been cheaper and easier to just buy a BAT VK600SE and be done with it!!

Now that I am really thinking about it, I don't think it will be worth the extra costs.

When you add up the cost of another amp, power cord, ic's, and speaker cables, it just doesn't seem like a wise investment for a passive bi-amp setup.

George

woodsyi · « **Reply #12 on:** 5 Jun 2008, 07:36 pm »

There is a lot to be gained if you get the set up right. Pass amp is probably an over kill on the big woofers. I use Ice amps but UcD would be good there too and cheaper.

zybar · « **Reply #13 on:** 5 Jun 2008, 07:40 pm »

Quote from: woodsyi on 5 Jun 2008, 07:36 pm

There is a lot to be gained if you get the set up right. Pass amp is probably an over kill on the big woofers. I use Ice amps but UcD would be good there too and cheaper.

Woodsyi,

Did you see big gains from a passive bi-amp?

Did you ever spend the equivalent funds on a single better amp and compare?

George

Big Red Machine · « **Reply #14 on:** 5 Jun 2008, 07:41 pm »

Well the first step for me was to see if I would amicably reacquaint myself with the tube sound and then worry about the system pieces later if I did. I like the Pass and another path I could take is play with DACs instead. But I happend to have plenty of SC's and long IC runs so I can pull this off wothout much expense as an experiment to my ears.

woodsyi · « **Reply #15 on:** 5 Jun 2008, 08:02 pm »

Quote from: zybar on 5 Jun 2008, 07:40 pm

Quote from: woodsyi on 5 Jun 2008, 07:36 pm
There is a lot to be gained if you get the set up right. Pass amp is probably an over kill on the big woofers. I use Ice amps but UcD would be good there too and cheaper.

Woodsyi,

Did you see big gains from a passive bi-amp?

Did you ever spend the equivalent funds on a single better amp and compare?

George

George,

It's hard to say that what it would be like for me to run an "equivalent" single amp on my system. It would be a nice amp.

Recently, I was helping out seting up a new pair of RM30s. He was having a problem with bass. I brought over my Acoustic Reality eAR 1001s to drive the 10" woofers. It was noticeably tighter: acoustic bass on a Patricia Barber track was spot on. We had some hiccups trying to level match but it shows the potential. I just like what the tubes do on midrange and treble. Vocals are real with tubes. But even big tubes like my Hurricanes are not good with woofers and I happen to value bass as well. So I biamp. I think active is the way to do it but passive will give you a taste. Isn't there a HT3a with DEQX?

Wayner · « **Reply #16 on:** 5 Jun 2008, 08:49 pm »

In my early days, I bi-amped a pair of JBL-L100's with a Marantz 250 on the woofer and a Dynaco Stereo 70 on the top. I just wyed the two amps from my Marantz 3300 preamp. Sounded good to me then.

If I were to bi-amp again, it would be horizontally with one amp on each speaker.

http://www.avahifi.com/root/equipment/bridge/bridge_wiring_dual_mono.htm

Wayner

mark funk · « **Reply #17 on:** 5 Jun 2008, 09:48 pm »

I would say a 550 is just right for the HT-3s, The HT-3s are rated at 250 watts and the 550 is rated at 250 watts (That's what Frank sad) but I think it puts out a little more then 250. I don't think I would run a tube amp for the for the mids and highs, maybe just for the mids ( most tube amps don't play bass or highs vary well ). So now we are talking tri-amping. If I had the cash I would have two 550s bridged and that should be enough to turn most speaker coals in to a pool of copper.

zybar · « **Reply #18 on:** 5 Jun 2008, 09:55 pm »

Quote from: mark funk on 5 Jun 2008, 09:48 pm

I would say a 550 is just right for the HT-3s, The HT-3s are rated at 250 watts and the 550 is rated at 250 watts (That's what Frank sad) but I think it puts out a little more then 250. I don't think I would run a tube amp for the for the mids and highs, maybe just for the mids ( most tube amps don't play bass or highs vary well ). So now we are talking tri-amping. If I had the cash I would have two 550s bridged and that should be enough to turn most speaker coals in to a pool of copper.

Most tube amps don't play highs very well???

What tube amps are you listening to? I have a handful of tube amps at my place that would blow that statement out of the water.

The 550 is just right because it puts out 250 watts and the HT3's are rated at 250 watts?

George

Wayner · « **Reply #19 on:** 5 Jun 2008, 10:13 pm »

I'd just say that 100 watts RMS is frickin loud....on any speaker. The extra power is for dynamic headroom. Of course if you really like dynamic range, then bi-amping is certainly a venue you can persue. I really value my ears and enjoy listening to music and would never crank a system up to a level just to prove it can play like some of you I know do.

It's like having a car with a 450 HP engine. Just have to find out what the top end is...right?

I don't think the objective of bi-amping was for gaining a loudness level. It's that old squared thing again. If you had 1 watt, it would take 10 watts to make it twice as loud, 100 watts to make it twice as loud, 1000 watts to make it twice as loud...the end.

Bi-amping can deliver unbelievable dynamics at moderate levels and decay into total darkness. It is ear candy with no listening fatigue because there isn't a strain on any element of the amps.

Wayner