what is the advantage of using separated amp on svs ultra? (1 Viewer)

[felix_suwarno]

i just dont get it. why?

 

[Mark Seaton]

felix,

Please define what you mean by a "separated" amplifier? As far as I know, an SVS CS_Ultra is only offered in a passive version, so there is no option of an internal amplifier. Do you mean two separate amplifiers for a pair? As in the case of a pair of monoblocks?

 

[felix_suwarno]

the samson 1000. why didnt they make it a built in feature?

 

[ColinM]

Maybe, once you get to that level, you more often than not want the option to buy your own amp anyway. The market research would dictate selling slave subs.

Less investment.

Guess.....

 

[Keith Mickunas]

Part of it may be that they highly recommend two subs for reference level. Then you use something like the samson, which is a stereo amp, to provide the power. I'm guessing its cheaper that way than buying two monoblocks. It also makes hook up simpler. With the samsons, you run the LFE out from your receiver/processor into one input, then set the amp correctly and the signal is sent to both amps.

There may also be build issues to consider, such as whether or not putting the amp in the sub affects the sound. I imagine it has some affect since it will lessen the interior volume.

Also there's the flexibility. One point they make on their web site about their subs, you don't need a lot of power for the CS series. If you got an old receiver or amp you can use that for your sub. Thus you're able to get one of their subs cheaper by buying a passive one.

 

[felix_suwarno]

oh ok i got it. thanks.

but i still wish they made a version of svs ultra with built in amp. i dont like too many equipments eating up my space.

for reference level...i thought it could be reached even with only 1 ultra?

 

[Keith Mickunas]

My guess is that its the second thing I mentioned. They spent a lot of time making that cylinder just so. To throw an amp in it takes a lot of effort, and I think does cause them some issues. There are specific benefits to the cylinder, changing its shape affects those benefits. Hopefully Tom or Ron will jump in here to clarify. But you may have noticed that when they did the + series, the CS+ was first, and the PC+ still isn't available yet because of the time needed to redesign, as was the case with the original CS and PC. The PC is meant to be a relatively low cost one-piece solution. The Ultra is supposed to be the Ultra, the sacrifices of the internal amp take away from that and thus aren't worthwhile.

Some people build their own amps to get one in a smaller footprint that's easy to hide. You might consider that option. You buy a bare bones amp, put it in a box, and tuck it behind the woofer, your TV, whatever.

 

[felix_suwarno]

thanks for the replies keith.

 

[John Kotches]

Felix,

In response to this question:

oh ok i got it. thanks.

but i still wish they made a version of svs ultra with built in amp. i dont like too many equipments eating up my space.

for reference level...i thought it could be reached even with only 1 ultra?

This is solely dependent on the room. If memory serves me correctly, even a single CS Ultra can't serve up reference level at 20Hz in a 2500-3000 ft^3 room.

Regards,

 

[jeff lam]

Felix,
They did make one. A prototype. I believe Parker Clack has it. I think they are working on the ultra PC as we speak and are going to incorperate a digital plate amp with the ultra.
I think Parker did a review of it several months ago.
EDIT:
Found it!
http://www.hometheaterforum.com/htfo...ighlight=ultra
Remember, this is only a prototype one time deal they did.
I believe they still have plans for releasing the PC ultra when they get all the AMP details squared away.

 

[felix_suwarno]

jeff, thanks for the link! i wasnt a member here when that thread is posted. just thinking about a pc ultra made me drool to no end.

 

[jeff lam]

Just be patient, it will be here eventually.