A few changes and a ? on Bi-amping

My TFM 45 is at Pgh Hifi getting healthy. Since I'm out an amp on my main system, I took the time to switch some equipment around. I took my Acurus A200x3 out of theater duty for a short time just to hear how it sounded with the Sunfire tube pre and Vandy's. It was nice, but not as nice as the 45. I didn't want to be ampless in my main system while the 45 was out, so I moved my m500 out of office duty and into my main system. Sounds great, but now my office system is down an amp. Lucky for me, I had Pgh Hifi get my HR 732 back in working order along with my Harmon Kardan 330i (1rst receiver bought new in 1982). So I have them both available, but am enjoying the 732 right now. I also was having issues with my Maverick Tubemagic DAC. I lost the USB for a while, but emailed back and forth with Ryan from Maverick and got it all worked out and working again. So, my main system is the Sunfire, M500, Mav DAC, NAD 525Bee, and Vandy 2's, and my office has the HR 732 (HK 330i), SDA/360, BA A60II's. I still need another DAC for the office and am thinking of the HRT II. Anyway, things are sounding good enough in both places, that I'm thinking of leaving the receiver(s) in the rotation, which will leave me an extra amp (M500) when I get my TFM 45 back.

What are the thoughts on bi-amping the Vandy's with the M500 and TFM45? Does the different power levels create issues? If I do try it, which amp on the highs and which on the lows? When I get the 45 back, I'll give it a try and will report back, so I'm just looking for some discussion/thoughts on bi-amping with the different amps.

Most prefer the tubey-sounding M500t on upper end; is yours the straight M500 or the M500t? Either way, you could experiment with both amps in each configurattion.

You PROBABLY won't hear much difference with passive biamping (leaving passive crossovers in the speakers in the loop) UNLESS you tend to push your amp to the edge. Passive biamping will give you some added headroom. Of course, active biamping could make all kinds of difference, but I doubt you want to go to that expense/complication.

As Bob is fond of saying: "i don't know; why don't we TRY it & see!"

i don't know about the expence part, a decent x-over is under 100 on the fleabay. he's got the other stuff. if he gutted the x-over, then a eq would add but still the same expence,

i don't know about the expence part, a decent x-over is under 100 on the fleabay. he's got the other stuff. if he gutted the x-over, then a eq would add but still the same expence,

Well, it gets goddamn complicated once you get into all of it. Let's let him try passive first before we try to convince him of active~

My Vandersteens have separate speaker connections for bass and treble. Would this be an active crossover?

M500 - no "T".

So no issue mixing amps in bi-amp situation? Cool!

My Vandersteens have separate speaker connections for bass and treble. Would this be an active crossover?

M500 - no "T".

So no issue mixing amps in bi-amp situation? Cool!

That would be a NO.

Look in my signature line: active crossover, parametric equalizers, etc. You'd need to disconnect your internal crossovers on the speakers, add an active crossover & eq's into your chain, then go about figuring out what the passive crossover does in order to replicate it's parameters in the active crossover.

Then the fun starts~

Well, that;s not quite right Gary. The ribbons are wqhat require the parametrics, because of their non-linear response in the cavity they are mounted in. I believe some Vandersteens have amplified subs. (amplifier in the box). You could put an active crossover in the box, but I doubt this is done. I think you have a separated passive network in your speakers, which will allow you to bi-amp. It is more efficient to use and active crossover outside the box rather than the internal passives, unless they shape the frequency response.