Want to add another amp...caver tfm35 with 35x

stevew14 · January 2003

I have a Carver tfm35x powering a pair of rti150s. They are bi-wired. I have been kicking around adding a second amp and using one for each side. I think I would bridge them for (I think) 700 watts each. I was just wondering if anyone had opinions on using a tfm 35 instead of a 35x for one side. Sunfire service said other than the level controls and looks, there is very little difference in the two models. I know one is txh certified, but she said there would probably be no noticeable difference in the sound.

I could use one for the l/r lows and one for the l/r mid/highs as well, but I thought that having left and right on seperate amps might have more benefits for soundstage etc.

What do any of you think?

scottvamp · January 2003

Sounds like something better answered in the 2channel thread.
*****Notice how I have never been on the 2ch forum. I have been only interested in HomeTheater rigs lately. I know that better people could answer 2 ch questions and such.
Ya --- RESPECT. I got it.. Did I just make a point. I think sooooo!!!!;) Can ya hear me knocking!!!:D

madmax · January 2003

Originally posted by scottvamp

*****Notice how I have never been on the 2ch forum. I have been only interested in HomeTheater rigs lately.:D

Well come on around sometime! Get out your snake oil and bring some AC power cables with you!

madmax

George Grand · January 2003

Run the one with the level controls wide open, and I doubt you'll hear any difference. Personally, aside from getting a magic wand waved over it, and some cash changing hands, the x is probably the exact same as the plain vanilla 35. I have a 35 but I don't have an x, so I can't pop the covers and be convincing.

You can bridge for mono, and drive each speaker with one at 700 watts.

You can horizontally bi-amp by leaving them in stereo mode and driving the woofs with one, and mids and tweets with the other.

You can vertically bi-amp also. Take the left preamp or receiver output and put a y-connector at the end of the interconnect coming out the pre/rcvr. Stick both ends of the y-connector into the left and right input of the same amp. Leave the amp in stereo mode, and drive the woofs and tweets in each speaker with 250 watts. Do the same thing on the right preamp output. Comprende?

I like bridged mono (that's what I do with my Carver's, a TFM-42 and an M4.0t bridged for 1,000 watts, they are the exact same amp). None of the 4 amps we are talking about here are dual mono, so during intense sonic passages, one channel can rob from the other if the demand in one channel is there, and not in the other. Running bridged mono, that can't happen. It can't happen when vertically bi-amping either.

The Sunfire guys MAY have been covering their 6:00 positions from the THX guys with their comment. Not a dumb move in our litigous society.

George Grand (of the Jersey Grand's)

RuSsMaN · January 2003

Considering the driver layout on the 150, you may also want to look at 'staggering' your power ratings a bit.

Perhaps a horizontal bi-amp with the 35 on the three woofs / one midbass, and maybe bag a 15 for the tweeters.

Just a thought.

-Russ

stevew14 · February 2003

Thanks for the replies (at least the last two). I like the idea of vertically bi-amping. I spoke with Ken S. yesterday and learned that the tweeter and the mid/bass on the 150s are together as I thought. I was previously told the mid bass was with the woofers, but after checking again, he told me it was midbass and tweeter as you said, George. So I think that for me, vertical would be the best bet. I have a Parasound pld 1100 preamp with two sets of outputs, so hooking up the amps should be a snap!

I don't think that a smaller amp horizontally cofigured would be as good. Since the tweeter and midbass are on the same run, I think 250 watts would be better. I also got some information about the thx vs non thx and it is the same as what you said Gearge.

Again thaks for the feedback guys, it's always good to hear from others.

Have a great weekend and I'll keep you posted on the progress and results if I decide to go through with the purchase.

Oh no!! I just got the new the space shuttle blew up over Dallas!!! Just what we need, more bad news.

RuSsMaN · February 2003

Steve, I wasn't sure on the 150's network config, it does make MUCH more sense now.

Cheers,
Russ

Tour2ma · February 2003

Originally posted by mantis
I never tried this myself,thats why I ask WHY???

Because we can (I only promised not to mess with you in your wire discussions.

)

Steve,
I read both the above and your more recent, 2-Ch thread in which Russ provided the link to this one. (Damn, you post in Electronics and the HT guys, read "Scott", fuss at you. Then you post in 2 ch just cant win) Personally I agree with you, its an Electronics question, so Im moving it back over here.

Anyway, I am a little confused (nothing new there). At the start of your 2-Ch post you say:

Originally posted by stevew14
I just picked up another carver tfm 35x and will be using one for each of my two rti150s. I am leaning toward vertical bi-amping, but have also thought about bridging each one instead. Bi-amping would be simpler for me from a cabling standpoint but I am interested in your thoughts on the difference. Thanks

Why do you say cabling to vertically bi-amp your rig will be easier than bridging?

I'm a little in the dark here because my M1.5t's manual does not have a bridging schematic (thought it did), but what I think I know is:
- to bi-amp, vertical or horizontal, you need: two pre-out ICs, 2 Y-splitters, 4 speaker wire runs; but
- to bridge you need: two pre-out ICs, 2 external wire jumpers for the amp output and 2 speaker runs.
I saw where you said your Parasound has double Pre-outs (I assume its not dual zone) so you dont need the Y-splitters, but still thats 4 ICs vs. 2.

Not trying to get on you here, just hopefully prompting a little discussion to straighten me out, if Ive got one or more of the schemes wrong. My interest is I've owned a M1.5t since '86 and I just won another on e-bay. I'm planning on playing with bridging my twins for a little 1500 wpc (peak) fun before moving on. Personally I plan to bi-wire for this, so Im still looking at 4 speaker wire runs. Russ, assuming I get it all straight, Ill be able to report back my test results.

One last thing, Steve, a lot of us like the 2 Ch area because we can talk about Scottvamp all we want over there, and hes none the wiser.

stevew14 · February 2003

Tour,

Thanks for the reply. I know what you mean about the where to post rules. Sometimes issues can overlap, and some folks get their panties ruffled so easily. Oh well, better things to talk about!

To answer your questions, bi-amp cabling would be simpler for me because the amp ends of the bi-wire cables I made consist of a stackable dual pin banana plug with two individual bananas plugged into it for the upper posts on the speakers. These individual pins could easily be unplugged from the duals. The dual could plug into right channel for woofers and the individuals into the left channel for the mid/tweeter. Repeat this on the other amp for the other speaker and it's vertical bi-amped.

In order to bridge, because you have to use only the positive terminals on each amp, the dual pin would not fit anymore, Not that big a deal to work around, I guess. I would still bi-wire them as I do have two runs of Kimber for each speaker already, just a connector modification.

As for the interconnects, I have a pair of straightwire encores for each amp, and they each have their own output at the preamp. I have a Monster 950 to use from the source to the pre so I am covered there as well.

I was only wondering what others would do for the best sound quality, bridge this type/quality amp or use the two channels for biamping. I have heard some say that some amps don't sound all that well bridged. Even Ken S. suggested that. I guess I could try it both ways, but I thought that seperating the woofers from the mid/highs might be superior to throwing a 700 wpc signal, bi-wired to each 150.

As for Carver and "why not seek a better 2 channel amp", as someone asked, I already had one and I got another because I happen to like Carver. I also like my rti speakers. No need to explain. I decided that having a seperate amp for each channel would probably sound awesome. Better channel seperation, no shared output transformers etc. I still would like to hear some more thoughts from others about the merits of bridging versus vertical bi-amping.

Thanks George for your comments earlier. I know whatever I decide to do, I'll be smiling bigger soon.

A great weekend to all!!

Tour2ma · February 2003

Steve,
In case you hadn't noticed, the conversation didn't exactly move over here. Troy D has taken up the b-amp cause in the 2 ch area.

I'm going to hit Carver up for the bi-amp schematic for the M1.5t.

stevew14 · February 2003

Tour,
If the 1.5 is the same as the tfm (probably is) bi-amp should be simply using one channel for the low end and the other channel for the highs. If you're talking bridging, that's different. My tfm manual states,"Connect the Red LEFT SPEAKER Binding Post to the positive speaker connection. Connect the Red RIGHT SPEAKER Binding Post to the negative speaker connection. You only use the positive terminals for bridging. To bi-wire bridged, I guess you would just piggy back the two wire runs as usual, but connect them as stated above. The tfm has a stereo/mono switch as well for bridging. Mine cautions not to use less than 8 ohm speakers when bridging.

I guess yours could be different, so a call to Carver would probably be worthwhile.

Hey, thanks again for your input and good luck on your project. Mine will be here Wednesday hopefully and I can give it a good listen. Keep me posted.

By the way, where in Texas are you? I live in Houston.

Later,
SW

Flash! · January 2009

I will be buying this amp soon, and was wondering if it is possible to bi-wire to this amp. Any ideas? I currently have the lsi9's bi-wired throung my yamaha rxv1800 receiver and they sound great, but i want to drive the 9's with a seperate amp. I hear it sounds better with a seperate amp because they are 4 ohms.

treitz3 · January 2009

George Grand wrote: »

Personally, aside from getting a magic wand waved over it, and some cash changing hands, the x is probably the exact same as the plain vanilla 35. I have a 35 but I don't have an x, so I can't pop the covers and be convincing.

Yes, they are basically the same exact amp. The 35x lost the "tube like sound" which were just two resistors right at the speaker output according to the schematic. Carver apparently did this to be THX certified.

TNRabbit · January 2009

Flash! wrote: »

I will be buying this amp soon, and was wondering if it is possible to bi-wire to this amp. Any ideas? I currently have the lsi9's bi-wired throung my yamaha rxv1800 receiver and they sound great, but i want to drive the 9's with a seperate amp. I hear it sounds better with a seperate amp because they are 4 ohms.

WOW~ you just revived a 6 year old thread....

Want to add another amp...caver tfm35 with 35x

Comments