Jump to content



Sign up for a free account!

Signing up for an account is fast and free. As a member you can join in the conversation, enter contests to win things like this Logitech Harmony Ultimate Remote and you won't get the popup ads that guests get. Click here to create your free account.

Photo
- - - - -

Rockets, Swans Bi-ampable?


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
21 replies to this topic

#1 of 22 Hung Nguyen

Hung Nguyen

    Extra

  • 15 posts
  • Join Date: Jul 15 2004

Posted November 08 2004 - 05:31 AM

I'm deciding to get either the Swans or Rockets. Before I decide on either, I would like to know if Rockets can be bi-wired or bi-amp. Same for the Swans.

thanks,

#2 of 22 Rob Kramer

Rob Kramer

    Second Unit

  • 435 posts
  • Join Date: Mar 30 2004

Posted November 08 2004 - 07:05 AM

The 5.2s are bi-ampable and tri-ampable. I believe the same is true for the 6.1s.

#3 of 22 John Garcia

John Garcia

    Executive Producer

  • 11,522 posts
  • Join Date: Jun 24 1999
  • Real Name:John
  • LocationNorCal

Posted November 08 2004 - 07:19 AM

Not sure about the Reference, but a 30 second trip to their website shows the Rockets are not because they only have one set of terminals.
HT: Emotiva UMC-200, Emotiva XPA-3, Carnegie Acoustics CSB-1s + CSC-1, GR Research A/V-1s, Epik Empire, Oppo BDP-105, PS4, PS3,URC R-50, APC-H10, Panamax 5100 Bluejeans Cable
System Two: Marantz PM7200, Pioneer FS52s, Panasonic BD79
(stolen) : Marantz SR-8300, GR Research A/V-2s, Sony SCD-222ES SACD, Panasonic BD-65, PS3 60G (250G)

Everybody is a genius, but if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it’ll spend its whole life believing that it is stupid.” – Albert Einstein

 


#4 of 22 Hung Nguyen

Hung Nguyen

    Extra

  • 15 posts
  • Join Date: Jul 15 2004

Posted November 08 2004 - 08:15 AM

Rockets Posted Image for not having the ability to bi-wire and bi-amp.

Swans Posted Image for having that ability. I guess i'm going with SwansPosted Image
thanks

#5 of 22 Rob Kramer

Rob Kramer

    Second Unit

  • 435 posts
  • Join Date: Mar 30 2004

Posted November 08 2004 - 08:36 AM

In defense of the Rockets, they have a very complex crossover, in which the drivers are interlinked in some form of non-linear array (or something like that). I would guess that the crossover doesnt lend itself into separating the drivers into individual circuits. This would only be a "con" if you have an under-powered amp (however, most of us do).

#6 of 22 Alex Prosak

Alex Prosak

    Supporting Actor

  • 765 posts
  • Join Date: Dec 09 2001

Posted November 08 2004 - 09:19 AM

Correct, the crossover on the Rockets does not lend itself to biamping. FWIW their Ref 2 and Ref 3 speakers can be biwired but their probably out of your price range based on what you're currently looking at.

They are both fine speakers. My suggestion is to try and audition both and let your ears decide, not the connection on the back.


#7 of 22 John Garcia

John Garcia

    Executive Producer

  • 11,522 posts
  • Join Date: Jun 24 1999
  • Real Name:John
  • LocationNorCal

Posted November 08 2004 - 09:37 AM

IMO, unless you actually have separate amp channels for each driver, bi-wiring isn't going to be a huge improvement anyway.
HT: Emotiva UMC-200, Emotiva XPA-3, Carnegie Acoustics CSB-1s + CSC-1, GR Research A/V-1s, Epik Empire, Oppo BDP-105, PS4, PS3,URC R-50, APC-H10, Panamax 5100 Bluejeans Cable
System Two: Marantz PM7200, Pioneer FS52s, Panasonic BD79
(stolen) : Marantz SR-8300, GR Research A/V-2s, Sony SCD-222ES SACD, Panasonic BD-65, PS3 60G (250G)

Everybody is a genius, but if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it’ll spend its whole life believing that it is stupid.” – Albert Einstein

 


#8 of 22 Chu Gai

Chu Gai

    Lead Actor

  • 7,270 posts
  • Join Date: Jun 29 2001

Posted November 08 2004 - 10:57 AM

You, ummmm, have had the opportunity to hear both speakers, no?

#9 of 22 Ronneil Camara

Ronneil Camara

    Stunt Coordinator

  • 235 posts
  • Join Date: Dec 02 2002

Posted November 08 2004 - 03:29 PM

Are Swan Speakers made in the U.S.?

#10 of 22 Mark LS

Mark LS

    Stunt Coordinator

  • 125 posts
  • Join Date: Mar 10 2002

Posted November 08 2004 - 07:58 PM

Quote:
Rockets for not having the ability to bi-wire and bi-amp.

Swans for having that ability. I guess i'm going with Swans
thanks


Nice decision... fine product... very nice company...

One question...

Are you speaking of having the ability to bi-wire, or bi-amp...

Thanks for your time...

All the best...

mls

Mark L. Schifter
President and Founder
Perpetual Technologies / www.av123.com

#11 of 22 Rob Kramer

Rob Kramer

    Second Unit

  • 435 posts
  • Join Date: Mar 30 2004

Posted November 09 2004 - 12:35 AM

Quote:
Are Swan Speakers made in the U.S.?


"Our products undergo rigorous design and innovative engineering by professionals in the US, [while the product is] manufactured in China"

From:
http://www.swanspeak...om/htm/base.htm

#12 of 22 Hung Nguyen

Hung Nguyen

    Extra

  • 15 posts
  • Join Date: Jul 15 2004

Posted November 09 2004 - 01:36 AM

Quote:
Correct, the crossover on the Rockets does not lend itself to biamping. FWIW their Ref 2 and Ref 3 speakers can be biwired but their probably out of your price range based on what you're currently looking at.


I've actually heard the Rockets already. I like the rockets, but I heard the Swans are similar and want to give them a try also, but there is no one in my area. I could just order a pair from TAI and tried it out...but something tells me that if I keep Swans for about 20-30days I might just want to keep it to justify the cost of shipping back etc.

Quote:
Nice decision... fine product... very nice company... Are you speaking of having the ability to bi-wire, or bi-amp...

Thanks for your time...

All the best...

mls


I was speaking of having the ability to bi-amp the Rockets or Swans. Just having the flexibity to play around with your speakers to try to get the best sound possible is always a hobby. I currently don't have receiver/amps setup yet. Prob looking for that next after I choose a set of speakers.

Quote:
You, ummmm, have had the opportunity to hear both speakers, no?

If I heard both speakers, I wouldn't be asking too many questions.

#13 of 22 Jon Lane

Jon Lane

    Stunt Coordinator

  • 118 posts
  • Join Date: Apr 02 2003

Posted November 09 2004 - 01:42 AM

Are Swan Speakers made in the U.S.?


As with perhaps 85% of the speaker product in the US, no they're not. They're made to US spec offshore...

#14 of 22 Russell _T

Russell _T

    Supporting Actor

  • 579 posts
  • Join Date: Aug 26 2001

Posted November 09 2004 - 09:10 AM

Bi-wiring was a useless trend that fortunately passed several years ago, and never produced any sonic improvement. Most speaker companies have dropped the practice because even they couldn't argue the merits. Bi-amping if done properly may or may not lead to improved sound, but it is more complex than it may seem on the surface, and is best left to very serious tweekers who know what they are doing.
I wouldn't buy a pair of speakers on their ability to be bi-wired alone. The design and engineering behind each company is telling as to the implementation of the sonic signature and quality of sound produced by that particular speaker.
I have a pair of Swan 6.1's and a pair of Rocket 750's sitting side by side, and they are very different animals.
Russ Tarvin
If it's too loud, you're too old.

#15 of 22 Terry St

Terry St

    Second Unit

  • 393 posts
  • Join Date: Jun 21 2002

Posted November 09 2004 - 12:17 PM

Bi-amping is good for getting more power out of weaker amps, but probably won't produce any audible benefits unless you use active crossovers and make sure that the internal crossovers of the speaker are defeated. (Just because a speaker has two sets of binding posts does not mean there aren't further connections inside which render them cosmetic.) I have no idea what the internal wiring of the Swans are like, so you have homework to do. If you wanted to put the work in, you could bypass the rockets internal crossovers with a little rewiring, but the external crossover network would be quite a complicated build.

#16 of 22 Hung Nguyen

Hung Nguyen

    Extra

  • 15 posts
  • Join Date: Jul 15 2004

Posted November 10 2004 - 03:29 AM

Quote:
I have a pair of Swan 6.1's and a pair of Rocket 750's sitting side by side, and they are very different animals.


Russel_T, Since you have both the Swans and Rockets, what is your impression of both speakers?

Quote:
If you wanted to put the work in, you could bypass the rockets internal crossovers with a little rewiring, but the external crossover network would be quite a complicated build.


Terry St, I'm not that savvy to try to do something like that. I do have weaker amps and want to do 7.1 setup...which ever speakers I end up...I'll prob just buy a dedicated amp for the fronts so I'll under power them. You guys are probably right...maybe bi-amping is not too big of a deal....maybe I should start a new thread asking folks if anyone tried to bi-amp the Swans and have any improvement/success..etc.

#17 of 22 John Garcia

John Garcia

    Executive Producer

  • 11,522 posts
  • Join Date: Jun 24 1999
  • Real Name:John
  • LocationNorCal

Posted November 10 2004 - 04:48 AM

Biamping without active x-overs is still a big benefit because you are effectively increasing the available power to each driver at all times. The improvement will come in detail, clarity and SPL, and would not require rewiring anything. IMO, using anything but the x-over designed for a speaker will result in unpredictable results.
HT: Emotiva UMC-200, Emotiva XPA-3, Carnegie Acoustics CSB-1s + CSC-1, GR Research A/V-1s, Epik Empire, Oppo BDP-105, PS4, PS3,URC R-50, APC-H10, Panamax 5100 Bluejeans Cable
System Two: Marantz PM7200, Pioneer FS52s, Panasonic BD79
(stolen) : Marantz SR-8300, GR Research A/V-2s, Sony SCD-222ES SACD, Panasonic BD-65, PS3 60G (250G)

Everybody is a genius, but if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it’ll spend its whole life believing that it is stupid.” – Albert Einstein

 


#18 of 22 Stephen Hopkins

Stephen Hopkins

    Screenwriter

  • 2,598 posts
  • Join Date: Jul 19 2002

Posted November 10 2004 - 06:12 AM

Non-active bi-amping DOES NOT increase the power to each driver. The crossover for each driver still filters information outside of the crossover's frequency range and in turn filters the power driving the frequencies outside the crossovers frequency range.

Here's a slightly over-simplified example...

If you feed a speaker a single input of 100 watts the crossover filters it and sends 10 watts to the tweeter and 90 watts to the mid/woofer. If you feed the same speaker 100 watts to the tweeter and 100 watts to the mid/woofer then the tweeter crossover filters the frequencies below it's range and still sends the tweeter only 10 watts of power. The mid/woofer crossover filters frequencies above it's range and sends the mid/woofer only 90 watts.

As you see, given the same power in a mono-amper and bi-amped situation yeilds the same amount of power to the drivers. There's more going on with amp/crossover/driver interaction than this but the basics still hold.


#19 of 22 Jon Lane

Jon Lane

    Stunt Coordinator

  • 118 posts
  • Join Date: Apr 02 2003

Posted November 10 2004 - 07:14 AM

Stephen is correct: In short, the crossovers dictate the power division per driver.

As far as bi-wiring goes, in the case of all parallel crossover networks, which probably account for over 90% of all passive crossovers, the multiple amplifier connection is theoretically superior to the single amplifier connection. Multiple parallel connections ground each respective circuit (tweeter, midrange, woofer, etc.) at the amplifier terminals. Electrically speaking, this is a bit more elegant. Highly complex or non-parallel crossovers cannot be bi-wired (or easily bi-amped).

Whether or not you can hear a difference in bi-wiring is an entirely different discussion...one I'm going to stay out of. Posted Image

Concerning bi-amping, this is a technique that when done in the classic, preferred way (with each driver circuit driven with it's own amplifier and using no passive crossovers) literally replaces the passive crossovers inside the speaker with an active crossover upstream of the individual amplifiers. Since the passive crossovers designed into the speakers originally include extensive equalization and contouring in addition to their band-filtering chores, replicating these complex functions in the active stages preceding the individual amps is no easy task.

#20 of 22 John Garcia

John Garcia

    Executive Producer

  • 11,522 posts
  • Join Date: Jun 24 1999
  • Real Name:John
  • LocationNorCal

Posted November 10 2004 - 08:11 AM

Quote:
Stephen is correct: In short, the crossovers dictate the power division per driver.

Understood, but that division is still based on the power present, so each driver is, in effect, getting more power. Each driver may not be getting the full rated power of the amp driving it, but it does now have all the headroom it wants; probably more than it needs, depending on the driver/x-over. Feeding a speaker with a single channel of 100w vs 200w or 100w to each driver, is still an increase in power and that was my point (I'm assuming monoblocks). Yes, two 50w feeds vs a single 100w feed would yeild essentially the same results, though the availability of current is now slightly greater (again, monoblocks) due to a dedicated power supply & cap(s) per driver. Correct me if I'm mistaken.
HT: Emotiva UMC-200, Emotiva XPA-3, Carnegie Acoustics CSB-1s + CSC-1, GR Research A/V-1s, Epik Empire, Oppo BDP-105, PS4, PS3,URC R-50, APC-H10, Panamax 5100 Bluejeans Cable
System Two: Marantz PM7200, Pioneer FS52s, Panasonic BD79
(stolen) : Marantz SR-8300, GR Research A/V-2s, Sony SCD-222ES SACD, Panasonic BD-65, PS3 60G (250G)

Everybody is a genius, but if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it’ll spend its whole life believing that it is stupid.” – Albert Einstein

 



Back to Speakers, Subwoofers & Headphones



Forum Nav Content I Follow