|
Post by soundmanjim on Apr 8, 2007 20:56:07 GMT 1
Could someone explain to me what the advantages are using Bi-ampable monitors over standard moinitor cabs?
Im assuming its something to do with sound level capability?
|
|
|
Post by muppet on Apr 8, 2007 21:58:13 GMT 1
Passive cabs are fine for small scale reinforcement however it is not very efficient in terms of power. Passive vs Active crossover networks aren’t necessarily just about splitting frequencies. A passive crossover is made of quite large coils which are absorbing a lot of the power from your amp as it is. Aswell as that the amp is also supplying power in one big lump to multiple drivers within the cab, each with varying power consumptions and also, more importantly, operate at different impedances, a woofer uses more power than a tweeter for example. Any power that isn’t used is then burnt up by resistors within the crossover, which of course is a huge waste of power. By splitting the frequencies at line level you are also reducing the stress of the amp as it is now seeing and putting out a much more limited frequency range. The box will sound much tighter with an amp that deals exclusively with the frequencies that the particular driver deals with just as much as it does having the separate driver in the first place! But of course most of all it makes the cab far more configurable and controllable, you could for example reduce the level of the comp if it sounds to painful, you could delay the comp to your woofer or even play with its phasing if you wish to go that far. The easiest way to explain this is to ask why you biamp your FOH and think of the benefits it gives you, would your bottom end sound as tight if the sub wasn’t crossed over to the mids or even more to the point running on the same amp channel?
sorry if this makes no sense, it did as i was typing it
|
|
|
Post by soundmanjim on Apr 8, 2007 22:41:01 GMT 1
no that makes perfect sense. i was thnking on those lines, just needed to have it spelled out!!
i used to run my foh 3 way split, highs, mids and lows, that was a pretty good sound considering i was only using little cheap amps at the time!!
makes you wonder why we use two way systems for foh when we could get a nicer sound from a 3 way. i suppose the drawback is all the amps in the rack - i would need 3 seperate amps for the foh and four for the monitors!! *arf* Imagine that. Anyway i was just wondering about that. No need to go bi-amping my monitor rig as its quite sweet as it is, only a little stage.
thank you very much for the info!
|
|
|
Post by muppet on Apr 10, 2007 19:39:42 GMT 1
You are quite right, the amount of kit and cost is a major factor in this equation. In terms of wedges you don’t really see anything more than 2way active. The larger FOH systems often split more ways than just 3 ways though. The Nexo Alpha system for example has a mid/top, bass and infra-bass, that’s 4 ways with 2 just for the bass!
|
|
|
Post by gingerbiscuit69 on Apr 21, 2007 14:43:48 GMT 1
yeah, mines 4 way, results in loads of patching from controller, large piles of heavy amps but a kickass result!
|
|
|
Post by muppet on Apr 21, 2007 21:40:52 GMT 1
yeah, there is nothing like that feeling of your internal organs rupturing from the sub bass!
|
|