[Tyson]

Hello again,
After doing some reading up on the new "Ultra" upgrades for the 550 (I have the EXR), I was looking for some advice.

Currently I'm running VMPS RM40's bi-amped with the 550EXR on the mids/tweeters, and the Omegastar 440 on the bass/woofers.  I like this combo quite a bit, as the 440 has much better bass control and power in this setup than the 550EXR does, and the 550EXR is just beautiful sounding with the mids/highs. 

My question - from a sound quality perspective, would I be better off keeping the configuration the way it is now, or sell the 440 to finance upgrading the 550 to "Ultra" status?

[martyo]

I've never listened to the OmegaStar but I have had the 550exr6 in my set for an extended period of time. It was why I bought an Ultra. There is more of a difference than I had anticipated between the Ultra and the "exr". The Ultra is more extended at both frequency extremes. Deeper, more defined, and more powerful bass, and more open (air) in the highs. The Ultra is quicker and more dynamic and overall, just "more", than the "exr". I don't hear the Ultra having any bass control problems, in fact, I hear just the opposite. As for bi-amping with 2 very good amps vs. the Ultra, if power is not an issue, "from a sound quality perspective", the Ultra would be an upgrade. That's my 2 cents.

[BrianM]

I dunno, using an amp as powerful as the 550 for only the mids and highs seems like a bit of overkill to me.  Either amp by itself (the EXR or the Omega 440) should have more than enough headroom for those speakers. My 350 can power some pretty big speakers without appearing to break a sweat for that matter. You're biamping because you like the improved clarity of the 550EXR in the range where clarity matters most.  If Marty's assessment of the difference the upgrade makes is accurate, by getting the Ultra you a) probably are not going to notice any sudden power deficit compared with the biamp setup and b) probably are going to notice improved clarity/realism across the whole FR.  After that if you're wanting still more you go bridged imo.

[Tyson]

I can (and have) run my speakers full range with the 550 only, and also run them full range with the 440 only hooked up.  W/the 440, the bass is better, but the mids/highs are not as good.  With the 550 the mids/highs are better, but the bass is not as detailed or tightly controlled.  This is a direct A-B comparison w/nothing else being changed.  Bi-Amping gives me the best of both, so that's clearly the best setup given my current equipment.  I guess my main question is for anyone that's had the 440 and the 550 Ultra in the same system - how is the bass control on the 550 Ultra compared to the 440?  I ask because in my system the 440 is clearly better than the 550EXR in this area.

[Ryan45872]

Tyson
 Frank has just announced an upgrade for his solid state equipment also. If you like the 440 ,I would see what it costs to upgrade your 440. If your happy with your system then I wouldn't change nothing.
Ryan

[tonyptony]

Tyson, martyo is right on the button with his description of the upgrade. I had my EXR5 upgraded to the Ultra and can confirm all of his observations. But, perhaps more importantly, the choice of tubes will effect the amp's abilities including the extreme high and low ends. Even with the significant improvements in the Ultra, you can get varying bass reproduction with your choice of tubes. I saw your other thread so I suspect you already know this.

IME, I found the Mullards to be too soft in the low end (NOS 12AT7s). The JJs Frank supplies are pretty good, but not as good in the low end as TFK ECC801s or Siemens 2 or 3 mica ECC81/801 tubes. I hear the Sylvania 12AT7WA is pretty good. You have already done some experimentation; getting the Ultra will bring you big improvements. You may find the low end works to your satisfaction with the JJs. I would say, regardless, the upgrade is a good thing!