Suneet

The NINe.5 . A pretty sweet 5 channel amp, and they're selling it for about $450. I need to upgrade BOTh the amps in my system, and I'm thinking of just getting this one baby to power my entire car:

Model Name : NINe.5 Amplifier
Large 5 Channel Car Audio Amplifier
RMS Power @ 12.5v : Front Channels
4 x 100 @ 4Ohm @ 0.05%THD
4 x 175 @ 2Ohm @ 0.05%THD
2 x 350 @ 4Ohm @ 0.05%THD

RMS Power (Subwoofer Channel) @ 12.5v :
1 x 250w @ 4Ohm @ 0.09%THD
1 x 450w @ 2Ohm @ 0.09%THD
1 x 600w @ 1Ohm @ 0.09%THD

Estimated Shipping Date : June 1, 2007


Its also got all the nice little features like:


Easy wiring connections that accept 0/1 gauge cable straight up. That is a nice convenience.
Great x-over system, and dedicated x-over for the sub channel.

I think I'm gonna get one of these, run it with an 11Ov.2 in a 1-ohm setup, and I'll have 1000W rms coming out of this bad boy. And its got a S/n > 100 db. And the power ratings are taken at 12.5 v, not 14.1...

Drool..
http://www.edesignaudio.com/edv2/pro...roducts_id=550

Just thought I'd mention it to you guys.. the price goes up by $100 when it comes out!

88supramki

that's a pretty badass amplifier, i'm interested to see if it's all it claims to be

MJHSC400

The other models they've made have created quite a following for them, so I seriously doubt they'll let anyone down with the new one--

I really would love to get my hands on one myself--

That 100x4 could really come in handy for biamping a serious high end comp set with the built in xovers doing all the crossover work instead of using passive--

That would make for one hell of a front stage--

vin 78

That's a powerful amp, you'll love it.

I was thing about getting that too, but I ended saving my cash and i'm planing on using one of my old school amps instead.

GL with the install

Suneet

This thing is even better than i thought. You can bridge channels 3/4 and use it as a 4 channel amp. Doesn't state this on the site, but I e-mailed the eD techs. If you could bridge 1/2 also, you have a 3/4/5 channel amp... ultimate versatility and plenty of power.

Suneet

So I have some questions about bi-amping. Let's use the specific numbers from this amp for reference, which puts out 100x4.

1) When I use a component set with the x-overs and run power to the x-overs, am I running 100 watts to both the tweeter and both midrange, or is the power split?

2) If I bi-amp, run one channel to the tweet, one channel to the midrange, I should be getting much more output, correct? I mean now I'm running 200W to the same speaker set that I was originally running 100W to.

3) Does this imply that if I'm bi-amping I need to get a comp set that will handle twice the power? E.g. I now need comps that will handle 200W rms as opposed to 100W rms originally. That would make sense.

4) Is the main motivation for bi-amping more power, or more flexibility? If I bi-amp, I get a lot more flexibility with my x-overs... choosing what frequency ranges they split. I can use mid-tweeters and mid-ranges that hit more low-end frequencies, etc.


5) How do the x-overs on amplifiers compare to external x-overs? The topic of active vs passive x-overs is always mentioned but I never really see an analysis or further detail of the motivations for active, besides flexibility. It would make sense to me that external, passive x-overs are probably higher quality: more space to lay out larger components, less noise, there are probably higher order circuits that you can create with more components etc, that you probably just can't fit into an amplifier.

MJHSC400

That's a very good question-

I'm leaning toward the fact that your tweet will get the same power as the mid, but just the rest of the freq. bandwidth-- I've been told that even though the frequencies are split, the power is not-

Not sure but I'm thinking bi-amping will gain advantage with active crossovers, and I'm not sure how the xovers on the 9.5 are setup, but hopefully they're capable of a wide adjustment range-- like up to 4khz--

If not you can always run an active xover like an Audiocontrol 2xs --- 18db per octave is good enough, and the higher the tweeter is set, the more power it can handle, but around 2khz is a good point-- but tweets usually roll off somewhere around there, or maybe a little higher -- you have to look at the actual response sheet to see and even field test the tweet and mid to see where they start straining with the power--

Truly 100w rms x 2 is more than eoough in a car for front stage, and any more than that starts to get painful--

Suneet

Something here doesn't add up though. Let's say you're running a component sent normally 100 w X 2 coming out of your amp. You're running 200W rms total to your front stage.

Now if you bi-amp, you're running 200W rms to each side of the car.. so you've got 400WRMS coming out of your amp.

It's got to be a lot louder. And now both of your tweeters are get 100W rms each, and both of your mids are getting 100W rms each. So it doesn't make sense that without bi-amping they both get 100W rms.. because your amp is putting out less power than before.

See what I'm saying?

Chin

iTrader: (34)

1) When I use a component set with the x-overs and run power to the x-overs, am I running 100 watts to both the tweeter and both midrange, or is the power split?

The power is always shared. There is no way to magically get an extra 100 watts. Assuming the impedance of the speakers are the same.

2) If I bi-amp, run one channel to the tweet, one channel to the midrange, I should be getting much more output, correct? I mean now I'm running 200W to the same speaker set that I was originally running 100W to.

Just because you double the power, does not mean your output (audibly) will be twice as loud. You should have a noticeable increase in output, but definitely not double. Don't get caught up in wattage too much, there is no real reason you would need 100w RMS going to a component set that is a few feet from your ears. Unless you are already partially deaf...

3) Does this imply that if I'm bi-amping I need to get a comp set that will handle twice the power? E.g. I now need comps that will handle 200W rms as opposed to 100W rms originally. That would make sense.

If you truly bi-amp, you would need more channels somehow... each channel would be dedicated for an individual speaker. So a 2 way component set would need 4 channels. Each speaker would get the full output of that channels amplifier. So if you have a 100 x 4 amp, each speaker would get 100w.

4) Is the main motivation for bi-amping more power, or more flexibility? If I bi-amp, I get a lot more flexibility with my x-overs... choosing what frequency ranges they split. I can use mid-tweeters and mid-ranges that hit more low-end frequencies, etc.

All of the above, bottom line is more control...


5) How do the x-overs on amplifiers compare to external x-overs? The topic of active vs passive x-overs is always mentioned but I never really see an analysis or further detail of the motivations for active, besides flexibility. It would make sense to me that external, passive x-overs are probably higher quality: more space to lay out larger components, less noise, there are probably higher order circuits that you can create with more components etc, that you probably just can't fit into an amplifier.

I think you answered your own question. Internal active crossovers on typical amplifiers are usually rudimentary at best. There just isn't enough physical space to make a truly high quality crossover network inside an amplifier. The other benefit of using passive crossovers that came with the component set is that the crossover network is matched for that exact set of speakers. If you are running high quality components, I would much rather use the passives that came with the setup than use the on-board crossover in the amplifier...

MJHSC400

According to my understanding, since you run an xover and split the frequencies up, the tweeter sees 100w and the mid sees 100w, assuming the amp is 100w rms per channel--

I wish Robert J would tell us the real story, but that's the way I was told--

It would make sense that bi-amping would make more power, but according to that explanation it does not--

I'd really like to know myself--

It does make sense that since the frequencies are separated the tweeter and mid individually see the 100w fully -- at least it makes sense to me--

vin 78

There's no way you will get more power from your front comps unless you lower the impedance (2 ch mode).

If you use a 100w/ch amp to your front comps, both will see 100w or 50w each if you want to look at it that way.

its kinda like wiring multiple subs together...take 2 subs and a 1k watts for example - both subs will 1k watts or 500 w each

When bi-amping, you should use 4 channels (1 for each front speaker), if that's the case, then yes your speakers will see 100w each.
if you are running all 4 speakers off 2 channels (speaker wires splitting into two going to x-over), then there is a marginal difference if any.

I tried both methods for my ADS PX components and there are no audible difference that I can tell of.



Since that amp has a bandpass crossover, I would recommend running the front fully active, meaning bypassing the crossover all together and using the the HP for the tweeters and BP for the mids. Be careful about the tweeter setting though, you can easily fry them if they are set too low

I hope this helps

Suneet

Haha, I am stupid. I don't know why I just didn't think about this in terms of circuits.

Power = Current*Voltage

P=IV

Your amp is putting out 100 watts of power. The current hits the crossover, and then has two speakers to go to. The current divides between the two speakers, and so does your power. The total current coming out of the amp is still, RMS, giving you 100W of power.

The frequencies divide, but so does your current. Each speaker is seeing different amounts of power, not necessarily 50W, becuase its an AC circuit, and the instantaneous resistances are always different. At any given instant either speaker may be using more instantaneous power, but RMS, they are using a total of 100W.

If you run 4 channels to 2 front components (i,e., 4 total drivers, 1 channel to each driver), you now have 200Ws to each component.

MJHSC400

BUT-- you still are dividing that same power and the frequencies filtered is left unused--

100w will drive the amplitude of the wave at say 1khz to the same level regardless -- The reason I still think it's the other way --

It's possible there are other advantages besides just sheer power alone that people are looking for from biamping, like maybe less heat due to less fluctuation of resistance from taking one driver out of the equation, and a smoother curve due to that reason also--

I've always wondered if sq is a predominant reason-- I've done it too, but just never put this much thought into it--

Where is Robert J when ya need him--

Suneet

Yeah I agree with what you're saying, its as if you have a one-way speaker thats running 100W. You sohuld get a wave that has that kind of amplitude, but each speaker is not seeing 100W. I'm sure that its not exactly the same as one driver pushing 100W because some power is dissipated in the x-over, but its probably close enough.

With bi-amping you're truly getting 100W to each driver. It would be like running 200W to your x-over.

And vin, yeah I understand 200W is not double the "loudness". I don't think anyofus could handle listening to 400W upfront at full volume..

Really I just want to buy this amp, and I'm only exploring the possibility of bi-amping so I can justify to myself buying it..

MJHSC400

I guess in reality you're getting a 100w full range wave that's chopped at a certain freq. regardless-- so the amplitude would seem to be the same, hence the power each speaker would see is the same--

Vin 78 stated that he didn't see an increase in output when biamping-- I'm still thinking that you gain less impedance jumping when you move one speaker out of the equation and leave one channel for each driver--

The active xover will be better than passive too--

Not to mention, that amps not only rated at 12.5v, it's ALSO rated at .05% THD -- So at .5% it should approach 125w rms 4ohm per channel or even more at 15v-- maybe closer to 150w per ch. -- That's one hell of an amp I will say again--

I want one -- Mine are just hard to part with-- that 1500dx is a monster that looks like the size of a standard 75x2 --