Rerurn to Romy the Cat's Site
In the Forum: Audio For Dummies ™
In the Thread: A DSET is better then an expensive SET
Post Subject: I might have been more specificPosted by Paul S on: 9/27/2007
Romy, that passing remark about 4 ML2s and DSET was not my complete thought on the matter. In this case the LF slaves would be topologically just that, meaning changed to suit the role of dedicated LF-only amps. If that still does not fit your definition of DSET, I'm OK with that, but that's what I'm talking about, in any case. I am aware that this is +/- how you already did it, and I would at least begin by +/- copying your proven formula. I want to hear my set-up with bass slaves before I consider dedicted HF, although I am very interested in your experiments on that front.
I might as an alternative do 2-channel "Milqs" with a 3rd channel option, but I am still not clear about how the ML2s could be improved upon overall, realistically as opposed to abstractly, even though I am now, naturally, more familiar with their limitations. More to the point, I am not at all sure what it would take in terms of electrical junk to make an overall improvement to the ML2s; it's not like they are sitting ducks. Remember that I am still using ~97 dB speakers, and this will not change on some flight of fancy but will have to wait until I hear something that convinces me I could do better, overall. So far the best else I've heard has been the big Wilsons, but I would not even consider trying to deal with the problems I peceive with those. Meanwhile, I am unsure about the Milqs with lower efficiency speakers, since I think you said not to try it.
Like Adrian, I have not yet gleaned from your aggregate posts exactly what it was that you sought to change about the ML2s, let alone the succession of Milqs, although I think i understand your contrasting amplification versus sound qualities.
Best regards,
PaulRerurn to Romy the Cat's Site