Rerurn to Romy the Cat's Site

drdna wrote:

And the explorations that led you from the original Melquiades to this current set-up are well-documented over a period on months.  Still, it might be instructive (to me at least) to hear concisely stated your dissatisfactions with the original set-up that led you to make the changes.

It might be true but the dissatisfactions did not derive from dissatisfactions about a single SET vs. DSET. If I have 2 channel DSET (LF + HF) then it would be fine with me. I think my desire to make chinches were more driven by me desire to optimize the channels of loudspeakers then the dissatisfactions of amplification.

drdna wrote:

This is true, but it reflects also quite accurately my own situation.  I have the EdgarHorn Titans and no intention of building new horns anytime soon.  However, I am buying up the parts to make the Melqiades amplifier.  My own personal question is whether I should proceed as planned or instead build up DSET versions to drive the four channels of the Titans separately.  I am not keen on building original Melquiades "just as an experiment to compare to DSET I will build afterwards" either because it will end up being a lot of money and time, and I am kind of in the situation where DSET might be appropriate.  However, I ask the advice of someone who has already done this whether it is worthwhile in my situation (this is the argument of course for DSET in general as well).

Well, I would say EdgarHorn Titans do not need DSET and the lowest EdgarHorn channel go down to 100 Hz and a regular full range SET will do juts fine. If you decide to drive the EdgarHorn’s subwoofer then you can consider DSET, still, considering the idiosyncrasies of the bass-horn topology it might be advisable to stay with a regular SET. However, if you feel like to drive each speaker channel with individual amplification channel then it is a totally different game. I presume that it would be better result but it also a considerably higher amount of efforts, both in building and in support.

drdna wrote:

Most people planning to bi-amp, they are told to use the identical amps to do so, so this will build resisitance to the idea of using different amps.  Also, it is easier and cheaper to buy one more amp (or pair of monoblocks) identical to the one you already have than to buy four new monoblocks.

The identical amps but with different power capacity, different damps power supplies, different output stage loading and different amount of inductance in output transformer. It would not violate anything in the speaker or it’s crossover but would enable a cheap and small SET in DSET configuration to drive loudspeaker better.

drdna wrote:

So really the target market demographic is audiophiles who are already bi-amping but who can be convinced that they should be bi-amping with DSETs instead of the paradigm of using the same amps, and whose speaker crossover points fit with the design parameters of the DSETs, AND whose ears and systems can appreciate the relatively subtle changes of going from biamp SET to DSET.  I am going to be honest, I think this is going to be a really small number of people.

It is very seldom that people who bi-amp use the same amps. Most frequently peopel who bi-amp (unfortunalsy) use with different amps. The DSET idea might enable then to use basically the same amps.

Rerurn to Romy the Cat's Site