weak bass in RTi10

bmor · January 2011

Interesting comments by all, thanks to all for taking the time. Here's another opinion on the subject, just to flail on the demised equine some more.
See post #62 & 63.

http://www.hometheaterforum.com/forum/thread/130932/passive-biamping-how-much-improvement/60

As well, I think I'm beginning to understand the nature of power ratings on these AVR's. The Pio 1325 has continous average output of 110W for 7 channels but the power consumption spec reads 400W. Based on info I've found on-line, I can expect maybe 50-70% of that 400W as available (continuous?) power, so I'm looking at somewhere between 200-280W. So driving just two channels in stereo listening I should expect close to the 2 x 110W rated output. Multi-channel will of course be much less.

GrandeBoma · January 2011

so for you bi-amp experts, let's say I want to power the 3 fronts

what is the difference between:

using a 6x100w amp with 3 channels for HF and 3 channels for LF (without active crossover)
using a 6x100w amp with 3 channels for HF and 3 channels for LF with active crossovers
using a 3x200w amp with one channel powering both HF and LF (jumpers are on the binding posts)

tonyb · January 2011

We still beating this dead horse ?
You talking amps or receivers ?
What kind of amps....what kind of receivers ?
What receiver pumps out 200w in all channels ?
Are you talking Bridged mode on the last amp?
Are all amps the same ?
Driving what speakers ?

You left out some detail here my man.

GrandeBoma · January 2011

i am not beating a dead horse i am just trying to understand if I have got how it works

i am talking about audio theory, what are the differences in the three hypothetical scenarios but if you prefer more details, let's say for example

driving rti12 and csi5 (or rtia9 and csia6)
generic rotel/marantz/onkyo 6x100w or 3x200w solid state class a/b or class d stuff (different amps, not bridged)
what changes in the system if i use the first (6x100w) with and without xover, and what is the difference with the second more powerful amp (3x200w) in non-biamp mode

in theory the speakers should always get 200w per channel but in practice...(answer needed)?

Ron Temple · January 2011

GrandeBoma wrote: »

in theory the speakers should always get 200w per channel but in practice...(answer needed)?

Your speakers will almost never see 200w. The amp is capable of 200w with 1.5 to 3db headroom rms (depending on the amp) with probably a tad more for dynamic peaks. Your speakers see what your source requires at whatever volume you are playing back. The current converted to watts required will vary depending on your speaker sensitivity, impedence and the dynamics of the material.

Example: SDA 1Cs, Carver TFM35, playing an average 90dbs at 12' LP. The Carver is rated at 250w @ 8 ohms. The 1Cs are 6ohm nominal. I was playing Alan Parsons Eye in the Sky...a dynamic track. The needles were hovering around 30w output, but along came some dynamic kick drum/high hat hits probably 10dbs or so above the average. They happened so fast the SPL meter couldn't move fast enough, but the needles were pegging on the Carver at 500w output. Sounded great and it was unclipped. If I didn't have enough headroom in the amp to handle these peaks, I would have soft clipped. If I'd been using a 100w AVR you'd never know. It just wouldn't have sounded as dynamic. It happens all the time. SDAs are demanding, as are RTi12s (though not as much). So, in a similar situation, playing similar content, a 200w amp is going to handle it much better than your 100w AVR.

GrandeBoma · January 2011

still doesn't answer my question

let's say I buy a 3x200w amp and I hook it to my fronts and center's binding posts who have the jumper on (HF + LF)

then I change amp, and put a 6x100w but this time I remove the jumper, and feed 3x 100w in the HF and 3x in the LF. From pre-out I feed each signal (FR, FL and center) in a pair of amp in with a Y cable. What changes, from electromagnetism's standpoint? I have now 2 amps pumping 100w each so the sum should be 200w

then I insert an active crossover in all 3 channels and I separate HF from LF. I feed the separated frequencies to 6x100w individual channels, each connected to the binding posts (3 HF and 3 LF)

what has changed with respect to the second scenario?

Cmiller · January 2011

Just bought a Pioneer Elite SC-25 and my Rti10 came to life!.."did not Bi-amp"

mdaudioguy · January 2011

GrandeBoma wrote: »

still doesn't answer my question

let's say I buy a 3x200w amp and I hook it to my fronts and center's binding posts who have the jumper on (HF + LF)

then I change amp, and put a 6x100w but this time I remove the jumper, and feed 3x 100w in the HF and 3x in the LF. From pre-out I feed each signal (FR, FL and center) in a pair of amp in with a Y cable. What changes, from electromagnetism's standpoint? I have now 2 amps pumping 100w each so the sum should be 200w

then I insert an active crossover in all 3 channels and I separate HF from LF. I feed the separated frequencies to 6x100w individual channels, each connected to the binding posts (3 HF and 3 LF)

what has changed with respect to the second scenario?

Start a new thread, maybe?

mdaudioguy · January 2011

Cmiller wrote: »

Just bought a Pioneer Elite SC-25 and my Rti10 came to life!.."did not Bi-amp"

Good for you! That's supposed to be a very nice receiver. Wouldn't mind getting my hands on one someday. Enjoy!

tonyb · January 2011

GrandeBoma wrote: »

still doesn't answer my question

let's say I buy a 3x200w amp and I hook it to my fronts and center's binding posts who have the jumper on (HF + LF)

then I change amp, and put a 6x100w but this time I remove the jumper, and feed 3x 100w in the HF and 3x in the LF. From pre-out I feed each signal (FR, FL and center) in a pair of amp in with a Y cable. What changes, from electromagnetism's standpoint? I have now 2 amps pumping 100w each so the sum should be 200w

then I insert an active crossover in all 3 channels and I separate HF from LF. I feed the separated frequencies to 6x100w individual channels, each connected to the binding posts (3 HF and 3 LF)

what has changed with respect to the second scenario?

Again,just too many variables in your scenario. No matter how many times you split a signal, the amp is still only delivering x amount per channel. An active crossover means you removed the crossover in the speaker and I assume you would use an active one of better quality. Also, one amp delivering 6 channels of power is still sharing the same power supply and won't have the current of a good quality 2 channel amp. It's about the power supply,current, not watts. No 6 channel receiver has the current running in 6 channels as an amp in 2 channels. You could slice up the pie all you want from a watts stand point, but your missing the boat if you think it's about watts.

Cmiller · January 2011

Just bought a SC-25 ,ive been reading about it,and look what i ran into about Bi-amping this AVR,i guess i need to try it out..Run 7 channels compared to 5

Ultimate AV Magazine

With five channels driven continuously into 8-ohm loads (blue curve), the amp reaches 0.1% distortion at 119.7 watts and 1% distortion at 153.9 watts. With seven channels driven continuously into 8-ohm loads (green curve), the amp reaches 0.1% distortion at 137.8 watts and 1% distortion at 149.0 watts. It's odd that the power output at 0.1% distortion with five channels driven is less than with seven channels driven, but that is indeed the case with this AVR. The test was performed several times to verify this result.

The manufacturer's stated distortion of 0.09 % was reached at 135.3 watts with seven channels driven into 8-ohm loads. This corresponds almost exactly with the specified power output.
http://www.ultimateavmag.com/avrecei...er/index7.html

forum link..http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1170880&page=6

Tour2ma · January 2011

ComfyC,
Sorry for taking so long and I'm still not done with my full post, so here's a sneak preview...

comfortablycurt wrote: »

So what happens to the 80% of the power that never reaches the tweeter? It goes to the woofer. What happens to the 20% of the power that never reaches the woofer? It goes to the tweeter.

You really need to think this through... think about the path available to the unused power in the "bi-amp" case. It is no longer directly available to the "other" driver as it is in the single-wire (w/ jumper) and bi-wire cases...

comfortablycurt wrote:

Take it or leave it. I'm not gonna keep arguing this point, since you seem pretty stuck on your opinion of it. Just one question...have you ever actually tried bi-amping with an AVR? Just a question.

AVR? No. Multi-ch Amp? Yes... Am I still discussion worthy? And to me it's a discussion, not an argument.

As for being stuck... nah... I've been testing my own opinion right along with everyone else. So far I've only become more certain that I'm right, but that could still change...

I understand your frustration, but I hope you hang just a bit longer... think just a bit more. Either way I've at least one more long post to make here...

gp4jesus · January 2011

Cmiller wrote: »

All (5) channels driven 8-ohm loads, 0.1% distortion @ 119.7W; 1% distortion at 153.9W. All (7) channels driven 0.1% distortion @137.8W 1% distortion @ 149.0 watts. ...odd that the power output... ...w/5 channels driven is less than w/7channels driven.

Links seem broken. Impressive 8 ohm specs. BTW did you see any 4 ohm specs? The gross exception of 8 ohm speaker's impedence plots stay @ 8 ohms.

my $.02

tony

Cmiller · January 2011

Taken from this..middle of the page..http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1170880&page=6

gp4jesus · January 2011

Cmiller wrote: »

Taken from this..middle of the page..http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1170880&page=6

Hmmm... Took a few clicks to find it. Might be good for 25% more into 4ohms measured all the same as 8 ohm readings. I'd be reluctant to crank it w/most channels connected to 4 ohm speakers.

I wonder what we'd see RMS/peak "20hz-20Khz" @ 8 & 4 ohms.

another $.02 worth

tony

tonyb · January 2011

If you notice, ice amps like those in the Pioneer SC series or their newer elite series don't tend to drop off a cliff running between 5 and 7 channels like regular AVR'S.

Cmiller · January 2011

tonyb wrote: »

If you notice, ice amps like those in the Pioneer SC series or their newer elite series don't tend to drop off a cliff running between 5 and 7 channels like regular AVR'S.

Yep,thats why i bought it..:)

GrandeBoma · January 2011

thanks for the explanation in private gp4jesus it is like I expected

gp4jesus · January 2011

tonyb wrote: »

...ice amps like those in the Pioneer SC series or their newer elite series don't tend to drop off a cliff

ice amps??? Is this an abreviation? For what

GrandeBoma · January 2011

gp4jesus wrote: »

ice amps??? Is this an abreviation? For what

ICE power is an acronymous for something I can't remember. it's a particular type of class D that has very high efficiency rates, something like 80%. For example, the european pioneer receiver lx-52 does not feature ice amplification, while the next model up, the lx-72 does. The former will use more electricity to output less watts than the latter

mdaudioguy · January 2011

GrandeBoma wrote: »

ICE power is an acronymous for something I can't remember.

acronymous?

See here: http://www.icepower.bang-olufsen.com/

photocrazy · January 2011

Coming to back to bass problem in Rti10s, it looks like my room is too big to get that punchy bass..lol

bmor · January 2011

Photo, I've been playing with the equalizer a lot on the 1325 and seem to be able to get all the bass I want, and more, at least to my ears. I ran Auto MCACC but didn't like the results so had to manually adjust. This is all for two channel with no sub. Also connected a 2 x 150 wpc amp with no noticeable difference.

photocrazy · January 2011

bmor wrote: »

Photo, I've been playing with the equalizer a lot on the 1325 and seem to be able to get all the bass I want, and more, at least to my ears. I ran Auto MCACC but didn't like the results so had to manually adjust. This is all for two channel with no sub. Also connected a 2 x 150 wpc amp with no noticeable difference.

what adjustments u made in EQ

bmor · January 2011

Set 63hz at +5 then sloped it down in more or less equal steps to -3 at 2Khz then back up to +2.5 at 16Khz. I'm still fine tuning it but found this gave decent lows and suppressed some of the tinny sound. I've been using Peter Gabriel's Us cd ripped lossless on a memory stick plugged into the receiver and listening in direct mode.

Tour2ma · January 2011

photocrazy wrote: »

Coming to back to bass problem in Rti10s, it looks like my room is too big to get that punchy bass..lol

Hey, I remember you... you're the guy that started this mess,,, :biggrin:

bmor,
Just bare in mind that your LF boosting has probably doubled the baseline power demands you've placed upon your amp...

Enjoy...

photocrazy · January 2011

bmor wrote: »

Set 63hz at +5 then sloped it down in more or less equal steps to -3 at 2Khz then back up to +2.5 at 16Khz. I'm still fine tuning it but found this gave decent lows and suppressed some of the tinny sound. I've been using Peter Gabriel's Us cd ripped lossless on a memory stick plugged into the receiver and listening in direct mode.

This is more like a 'V' curve EQ for bass/treble heavy music. But do you see any muddiness in the bass ?

photocrazy · January 2011

Tour2ma wrote: »

Hey, I remember you... you're the guy that started this mess,,, :biggrin:

bmor,
Just bare in mind that your LF boosting has probably doubled the baseline power demands you've placed upon your amp...

Enjoy...

Lol...yea...it was me..!! I found I could hear tight bass in the adjacent room, even though my speakers are in the living room. Am I doing anything wrong in the placement ?

bmor · January 2011

No, I don't find it muddy, the bass is well defined. My primary objective was to control the tinny sound which I couldn't stand, so lowered the 1 and 2K. Then fattened the sound a bit with the 63 - 250K. I find the way the mid's are emphasized on these speakers is overbearing for music, but I believe the 1325 is flexible enough to overcome it. I'm still fine tuning it, I want to play with the 63-250k some more. I'm not thinking about typical EQ curves, just trying stuff to make this equipment combination sound good to my ears.

Not sure about your placement, mine are 8" from the back wall and 20" from the sides with almost no toe in. Seating position is 12'.

tonyb · January 2011

bmor,
Maybe I missed it, but did you ever consider the poor sound could be the source ? What cables are you using ? Did you try another cable ? Just askin' is all.

weak bass in RTi10

Comments