950/770/ML Aeon i System. Issues?

Folks,

Could any Outlaws offer some input on the above combination for a 95% Music System?

I am shopping for a 2-ch (for now) music system for my home office/evil lair. I fell in love w/ the MartinLogan Aeon i's and intended on Bi-Amping them with the 770, leaving room to upgrade later to 5.1 for DVD-A & SACD.

Anyone doing anything similar? Any sonic issue with this pairing. Your thoughts and opinions are greatly appreciated!

Wolf

There's at least one user at ML Owner's Club running a 950/770 with Aeon's, and I've got a friend driving Aeon's with a Classe CA-101 (2x100w) that recently was joined by a 950/7100, ML Cinema, and currently a couple Paradigm Atoms for surrounds. I suspect that the 770 would drive the Aeon's as far as would ever be needed without bi-amping -- if you don't expect to ever go to 7.1, you might consider the 755.

------------------
gonk -- 950 Review | LFM-1 Review | Pre/Pro Comparison Chart | Saloon Links

So, if I was married to the concept of bi-amping would you suggest the 7100?

I can say that while I don't intend on going 7.1 (seems like overkill), I do like the idea of having that option avail for resale.

I wanted to experiment w/ bi-amping, just to form some opinions on it. Do you feel that the 770 would be dangerously overpowering the speakers (assuming sane volume levels) or just an unnecessary expense in a cost-to-sonic-benefit view?

Thanks again Gonk,

Wolf

The 770 isn't going to endanger the ML's (short of an attempt to drive them to such extreme levels that you're backing nails out of studs in your house framing), and in fact it would probably make an excellent match for the Aeon's. If you are interested in the extra two channels both for resale and for bi-amp experimenting, then it would be a good choice over the 755. The bi-amping and bi-wiring debates have rattled around here a fair bit over the years, with the concensus on bi-amping suggesting that it's most effective in cases where the speaker's internal crossovers are bypassed and crossovers are placed upstream of the speaker - a bit of work that I'd hesitate to do to Aeon's.

------------------
gonk -- 950 Review | LFM-1 Review | Pre/Pro Comparison Chart | Saloon Links

I can say that I definitely will NOT be opening up the ML's to touch the x-overs. In their manual, ML recommends passive bi-amping, using their x-over.

Let me ask you this; What would diminish the effectiveness of bi-amping by relying on the internal x-over? I can see how one would argue that nothing in the signal path would be better than the x-over in the path, but wouldn't the advantages be outweighed by the fact that the internal x-overs are custome designed for those drivers?

I passive bi-amp B&W N803's and have been very pleased. B&W recommends using its internal crossovers, as they are tuned to the drivers unique characteristics. Bi-amping allows the use of professional quality EQ of the bass circuit for room/speaker correction, while leaving the high frequencies out of the EQ signal path. Many like to use lower power valve (tube) amps for the mid-high circuit for that rounded tube sound.

While active crossovers certainly have their place. I believe that many speakers are just better left unaltered. The negative impact of carefully selected resistors and capacitors in the signal path is overstated in my opinion.

Allan

I have 2 Aeons, 1 Cinema and 2 Scripts and 2 Celestions (SL600 from old days) running off 770/950. I did not do bi-amping. I have no problem running it so loud that you can actually feel the air movements from Aeons!, of course your ears would be complaining by that time. I can send my pics if want to see them.

the effect that you get when bi-amping speakers with built in crossovers is twice as much power. the effect that you get when bi-amping speakers with an external crossover network also *could* double the power, but typically it is done to allow seperation of the treble and bass out of its typical single signal. while you may think that, bi-amping accomplishes this, it does not because while the signal leaves the amps seperated, it will be combined once it reaches the crossover built into the speaker. an external crossover network would allow seperation of the signal all the way to the driver, seperate amplifiers (if you desire, different kinds of amps) for treble and bass, and thus a cleaner sound. i say that, not wholeheartedly agreeing with the fact that bi-amping (xternal xover) is always better. some speakers are designed to be used with an external crossover network, and in that case bi-amping is a *better* choice than traditional wiring, but if your speakers have internal crossovers (one would assume that the speaker maker put what best matches their driver, so why try to out engineer them. if you think you can do a better job, then make your own, or buy another brand of speaker) then youre only gaining power.

perhaps your goal is to gain twice as much power, and if so then go for it. perhaps your goal is to see if you think bi-amping makes a difference, and if so then go for it. i would not expect any differences other than the ability to go louder, and if louder is what you want, then one amp with 2x as much power per channel would be a wiser choice because it will provide more reserve power per channel. granted an amp with 2x as much power output as the outlaw would probably be quite a bit more expensive, but 1 amp twice as good as two amps half as good is going to be better. good in this case could merely mean that it has more power, because hopefully you will be looking at something along the lines of quality as the outlaw.

having said that, i do things just to try them out all the time. part of what i enjoy about audio is the ability to tinker and see if i like or see any difference. since the whole industry is flooded with a bunch of b.s., its nice to actually see for yourself what works and what doesnt.

------------------
This post has been brought to you by curegeorg, thanks for reading.

"...then one amp with 2x as much power per channel would be a wiser choice because it will provide more reserve power per channel..."

Curgeorg, with regard to the above, why would there be more reserve power with one rather than two. My thinking was that 2 amps per chammel would double the damping factor (per channel) along with providing the same reserve power as the 400wpc amp.

Also, how are the signals recombined in the passive xover? I mean, if there was electrical connectvity btwn the high & low w/in the xover, wouldn't this cause a problem akin to connecting two amps to one set of speaker terminals?

I thought (but could DEFINITELY be wrong) that the only connection btwn the high pass xover & low pass xover were provided via the shorting bars on the speaker terminals.

Please clarify if you could! Thanx for all the help!

My speakers are also bi-amp capable and I know as a fact that the crossover inside the speaker is actually two crossovers connected by the external binding strap. Internally there is a low pass crossover that connects to the lower binding posts and is for the woofer and there is another crossover with it's own low and high pass for the mid and tweet. I also bi-amp and feel there is a great benefit if you can adjust the gain to the amp feeding the woofer. It just allows you a bit more control of the bass which seems to be the biggest problem in most rooms.