Should I bi-amp my MG 1.6QR's?

[Feanor]

First, will bi-amping improve the sound quality of my Magneplanar system? What improvement, if any, might I hope for with the MG 1.6's? (Note that I'm not looking for more power per se.)

Second, will my bi-amping approach work? The scenario follows:

My present configuration has my 1.6's driven full range by my Bel Canto integrated; my PSB Subsonic 6 sub is drive from the variable-gain outputs on the Bel.

I still have my old Phase Linear 400 lying around. It is working fine and has upgraded, 22,000 uF power capacitors. I would consider using this a the bass amp for the MG 1.6's -- the bass low-pass on the 1.6's is 600-700 Hz.

It would be ideal to insert an active cross-over between the Bel's pre-outs and it's main-ins-- unfortunately the Bel doesn't have main-ins! Hence the Bel has to driven full range. I might drive the Phase full-range directly from the Bel's variable-gain output except that Phase Linear has no volume control and I don't know its sensitivity relative to the Bel Canto's power section.

My "solution: would be to drive my old Apt Holman pre-amp from the Bel's out puts, and the Phase Linear and sub from the Apt's pair of outputs. Of course, the MG 1.6's cross-over would filter the full-range out put from the Bel and the Phase.

OK: would the above work safely? Would it be worthwhile to try?

[Geoffcin]

First, will bi-amping improve the sound quality of my Magneplanar system? What improvement, if any, might I hope for with the MG 1.6's? (Note that I'm not looking for more power per se.)

Second, will my bi-amping approach work? The scenario follows:

My present configuration has my 1.6's driven full range by my Bel Canto integrated; my PSB Subsonic 6 sub is drive from the variable-gain outputs on the Bel.

I still have my old Phase Linear 400 lying around. It is working fine and has upgraded, 22,000 uF power capacitors. I would consider using this a the bass amp for the MG 1.6's -- the bass low-pass on the 1.6's is 600-700 Hz.

It would be ideal to insert an active cross-over between the Bel's pre-outs and it's main-ins-- unfortunately the Bel doesn't have main-ins! Hence the Bel has to driven full range. I might drive the Phase full-range directly from the Bel's variable-gain output except that Phase Linear has no volume control and I don't know its sensitivity relative to the Bel Canto's power section.

My "solution: would be to drive my old Apt Holman pre-amp from the Bel's out puts, and the Phase Linear and sub from the Apt's pair of outputs. Of course, the MG 1.6's cross-over would filter the full-range out put from the Bel and the Phase.

OK: would the above work safely? Would it be worthwhile to try?

I had thought to bi-amp my Magnepans after I got my PS Audio amp. My pre-amp has dual outputs, and it would be easy to do, but the advice of a friend of mine stopped me.

He's running 3.6r's with a Classe CA-401 amp, and often switches out to his Plinius and Krell amps (which he also runs in a second system). He doesn't bi-amp for one good reason, and this is what he said to me about it;

You'll never absolutely know what is best when you go that way. Permutations of amp/pre-amp/cabling/ and crossover fiddling become exponential problems when you bi-amp or tri-amp. Better to find nirvana with good amplification and cabling then to double or triple your audiophile-mare with dual or triple amps.

After a little though it made sense to me too!

I don't think there's a safety issue with your proposed setup. The 1.6qr's are for all intensive purposes indestructible anyway. Would it be worthwhile? Pandora thought so when she opened the box.....

[Florian]

Go with a active crossover and 2 stereo amps or 4 monoblocks. By bypasing all the junk in the internal crossover they sound a heck of a lot better

The biggest problem the Maggie's have (all maggies) is the junk parts in the x-overs, the fuse and wiring. Try a active crossover and drive them actively.

-Flo

[Feanor]

Go with a active crossover and 2 stereo amps or 4 monoblocks. By bypasing all the junk in the internal crossover they sound a heck of a lot better

The biggest problem the Maggie's have (all maggies) is the junk parts in the x-overs, the fuse and wiring. Try a active crossover and drive them actively.

-Flo

Thanks, Florian,

No doubt this is the ideal approach. The drawbacks for me at this time are (i) the extra cost of an active crossover, and (ii) the need to open up the 1.6's crossover to by-pass it.

Do you have any equipment suggestions for a suitable crossover?

Upgrading the internal crossover would be an alternate project. From what I've read, the components are pretty ordinary and don't really do just us to the inherent potential of the design. But then I guess that's how Magnepan can sell these speakers for what is certainly a bargain price.

[Florian]

All the crossovers i know cost more than the entire speaker so thats not i good thing :-)
Go to the Magnepan Usergroup and select a x-over upgrade project. This will certainly elevate the performance more than using 2 amps and the same x-over. Maggies dont need that much juice and neither do Apogees they want a good amp. Stable ;-)

Go and upgrade the crossovers and bridge that fuse or bypass it alltogether.

My next upgrade is to rebuild the crossovers on the DIVA.

-Flo

[Feanor]

All the crossovers i know cost more than the entire speaker so thats not i good thing :-)
Go to the Magnepan Usergroup and select a x-over upgrade project. This will certainly elevate the performance more than using 2 amps and the same x-over. Maggies dont need that much juice and neither do Apogees they want a good amp. Stable ;-)

Go and upgrade the crossovers and bridge that fuse or bypass it alltogether.

My next upgrade is to rebuild the crossovers on the DIVA.

-Flo

In fact active crossovers aren't necessarily expensive. It seems some people have had very good experiences use "professional" models such as ...
http://www.partsexpress.com/pe/showd...number=248-664
or
http://www.partsexpress.com/pe/showd...number=245-862

On the othe hand I agree that a MG 1.6 crossover upgrade might be the more practical improvement.

[Florian]

Dont worry about the typical active crossovers too much. The Parts, the slopes and balanced and unbalanced etc...qualitis matter too much. Go the tuning of the passive route and save for a3.6

-Flo

[Feanor]

Dont worry about the typical active crossovers too much. The Parts, the slopes and balanced and unbalanced etc...qualitis matter too much. Go the tuning of the passive route and save for a3.6

-Flo

I think you're right.

Thanks again, Flo

[sam9]

No doubt this is the ideal approach. The drawbacks for me at this time are (i) the extra cost of an active crossover,

There is little if any benefit without the acrive XO, and it should be Linkwitz-Reily type.

Please look at http://www.rane.com/note107.html

and at http://sound.westhost.com -- click on articles then read the two about biamplification.

These two give two of the clearest explanation of what the issues are. To summarize: Nearly all the sonic benefits arise from the use of (an appropriate) active XO. The additional amplifer(s) is largely just a necessary evil and not really at the heart of the matter. If you can't afford the XO unit, there isn't much point in spending money on the rest.

Assuming you are not up to building one yourself, good active XOs are available from the pro audio market (Rane, Behringer, etc.) at relatively reasonable prices.

[Florian]

To go active works very well, thats true but he doesnt have the money for another amp so upgrading the passive components is the next step. My Magnepan dealer builds active crossovers matched for the Maggies and amps of your choice.

-TT

[Feanor]

There is little if any benefit without the acrive XO, and it should be Linkwitz-Reily type.

Please look at http://www.rane.com/note107.html

and at http://sound.westhost.com -- click on articles then read the two about biamplification.

These two give two of the clearest explanation of what the issues are. To summarize: Nearly all the sonic benefits arise from the use of (an appropriate) active XO. The additional amplifer(s) is largely just a necessary evil and not really at the heart of the matter. If you can't afford the XO unit, there isn't much point in spending money on the rest.

Assuming you are not up to building one yourself, good active XOs are available from the pro audio market (Rane, Behringer, etc.) at relatively reasonable prices.

Thanks a lot, Sam,

When it come to bi-amping, I will hold off 'til I'm prepared to get an active cross-over (and a new pre-amp).

I presume I ought to disconnect/by-pass the Maggies passive crossover? I note that the MG 1.6's crossover has no equalization circuits so this ought to be non-problematic(?).

Meanwhile my next project will be the passive crossover upgrade as recommended by Florian.

[sam9]

I presume I ought to disconnect/by-pass the Maggies passive crossover? I note that the MG 1.6's crossover has no equalization circuits so this ought to be non-problematic(?).

Yes, but leave as much in place as possible so you can easily reverse anything you do. Sometimes a passive XO uses the phase alignment or asymetitric roll-off to effect some EQ. I don't know if applies to 1.6's or not.

I have not used the Behringer axctive XO bit have heard from som that have used it that one of the nice aspects is it includes some EQ ability along with the programable XO points nd slope. I really think digital XO & EQ is the way to go because is moots issues of phase alignmrnt and is easily reconfigured if you don't "get it right" the first time.

[jaree]

In fact active crossovers aren't necessarily expensive. It seems some people have had very good experiences use "professional" models such as ...
http://www.partsexpress.com/pe/showd...number=248-664
or
http://www.partsexpress.com/pe/showd...number=245-862

On the othe hand I agree that a MG 1.6 crossover upgrade might be the more practical improvement.

I am in the early stages of building my system and your post linking to the active xovers is quite interesting. Any ideas if these would be suitable for home hi-fi use? The information on partsexpress seem to imply that these are for commercial / semi-commercial use. The specs of both of these seem to be quite good though.

[sam9]

Check out this one, too.

http://www.behringer.com/DCX2496/index.cfm?lang=ENG

US$249 from www.zzounds.com

I have been told by reliable sources that it is very good though rather complex. The sample rate and bit depth should keep the noise floor below all but the most expensive analog units.

If you ever think about room EQ, you can buy add on modules that would let you digitally chain a Behringer EQ and XO unit so you could eliminate decoding to analog and back to digital between the units.

[Feanor]

I am in the early stages of building my system and your post linking to the active xovers is quite interesting. Any ideas if these would be suitable for home hi-fi use? The information on partsexpress seem to imply that these are for commercial / semi-commercial use. The specs of both of these seem to be quite good though.

These units are certainly targeted for commercial use, but I have heard of audiophiles who have claimed great success using Behringer units in home systems.

Something to note is that Behringer units have only XLR balanced connectors, so it's nice if your source and/or amp have XLR connectors too. However there are conversion connectors and interconnect cables available that work well, I'm told.

[sam9]

Something to note is that Behringer units have only XLR balanced connectors, so it's nice if your source and/or amp have XLR connectors too. However there are conversion connectors and interconnect cables available that work well, I'm told.

This is not a big problem. This article (http://www.rane.com/note151.html) includes how to wire balanced-to-unbalanced and unbalanced-to-balanced intercoonects. All that is required is very rudimentory soldering skills. If even that is two much you can buy a set of gagets from Cardas that do the same thing at a true audiophile price.