如何把这个分频器改成bi-wire的？

[dalplex]

原来的接线柱是下压式的。已经换成香蕉插座。

我想顺便改成bi-wire接法。

我的理解是把0.6毫亨电感及低音喇叭这一路单独接一对接线柱。其余的不动接原来的接线柱。

请问还有什么特别的接法吗？

[lighting]

作者: dalplex

原来的接线柱是下压式的。已经换成香蕉插座。

我想顺便改成bi-wire接法。

我的理解是把0.6毫亨电感及低音喇叭这一路单独接一对接线柱。其余的不动接原来的接线柱。

请问还有什么特别的接法吗？

http://www.audiokarma.org/forums/attachme...

What is LP the abbreviation for ?

不用去理解，你把你的分频器电路画出来，就百无一失了。

[老广]

作者: lighting

What is LP the abbreviation for ?

不用去理解，你把你的分频器电路画出来，就百无一失了。

LP,老婆，LOW PASS
dalplex的图片LINK? NO SEE.

[dalplex]

why no see？

[老广]

作者: dalplex

why no see？

you try, logout http://www.audiokarma.org, then can you see?
because I do not login there.

[dalplex]

agree.

can you see it from #4?

[老广]

作者: dalplex

agree.

can you see it from #4?

sure.
地线也要分开接才好。就是2对接线柱间是绝缘的。所以高低频可以反相输入。

[100khz]

中音/低音一阶分频，压电超高音，可调高音/超高音....

你的想法，应该是这样：
把低音喇叭上的0.6毫亨电感另一端和低音喇叭（-）与原分频线路断开，分别接到接到新接线柱的+- 作为LF，原有的接线端子+-极性不变作为HF，这是比较好的Bi-wire接法。

[hugoo]

直接整成电子分频得了，功率分频再怎么整也就那么回事。

[100khz]

作者: hugoo

直接整成电子分频得了，功率分频再怎么整也就那么回事。

对发烧友而言，弄三台性能一样的功放和有源分频器也不是难事。

[hugoo]

关键是电分那个difference真是day and night.
bi-wire又能make多大difference呢？最后还不是有个功率分频器加在攻放和喇叭单元之间，吸走能量，加进失真。

作者: 100khz

对发烧友而言，弄三台性能一样的功放和有源分频器也不是难事。

[老广]

作者: hugoo

关键是电分那个difference真是day and night.
bi-wire又能make多大difference呢？最后还不是有个功率分频器加在攻放和喇叭单元之间，吸走能量，加进失真。

没那么大的区别. 很多HI-END都是无源分频的。电子分频的元件是电阻电容，功率分频用的是电感电容，作用和原理都是一样的。只是功率级不同。反而电子分频一般需要加入IC作为增益，会产生噪声和失真。IMO，电子分频的好处是输出级的阻尼因素可以是恒定的（从喇叭看的）。功率分频的调整实际上很难。

[hugoo]

也别太迷信hi-end，很多hi-end也不过是个传说而已。

在我听来，区别大的很。

2百多的电分有源箱子，里面单元和功放都是不入流的东西，听起来比1千的KEF箱子加2千多的功放好的多，就一耳朵的区别， 一个是清楚通透，一个是浑浊朦胧，而价钱差了10倍！

唯一的解释就是分频器。

电分是先分再放大，功率分频是全频放大以后在分，原理不同。电分就必然用bi-amp or tri-amp，amp和单元间只有导线，amp对单元的grip大大加强，声音有力，速度快，而且没有功率分频器夹在单元和功放之间，浪费功率，带进各种失真。

烧友烧到一定阶段，要用bi-amp/tri-amp，真正的bi-amp/tri-amp就是要get rid of功率分频器，不是没有他的道理的，因为听过没有功率分频箱子的耳朵，很难再接受那个分频器在里面捣乱。

追求低失真，频响平直，无音染，速度快，高解析的专业监听决大部分都是用电分，也不是没有他的道理的。

当然如果你不喜欢那种声音，反而喜欢有韵味（有音染和失真？），低解析（有音乐味？），速度慢（松软？）的声音的话，电不电分的没意义，不过电分在技术上的优势是公认的。

作者: 老广

没那么大的区别. 很多HI-END都是无源分频的。电子分频的元件是电阻电容，功率分频用的是电感电容，作用和原理都是一样的。只是功率级不同。反而电子分频一般需要加入IC作为增益，会产生噪声和失真。IMO，电子分频的好处是输出级的阻尼因素可以是恒定的（从喇叭看的）。功率分频的调整实际上很难。

[hugoo]

网上看来的，比较active和passive speakers，不过主要就是在讲电分以及电分之后用bi-amp/tri-amp带来的好处。

The fact that the crossover is done at line level before amplification. The result being that the crossover can easily incorporate extra features like time delay correction to idealize overall phase response and tailored low frequency EQ to extend the low frequencies beyond what is possible with a similar sized and designed passive speaker (often as much as a full octave of addition low frequency output). Many higher end pro monitors and all of Meridian's current active consumer loudspeaker line up actually only accept a digital signal input, and perform the crossover and correction in the digital domain which can offer even more benefits.

The line level electronic crossover requires multiple amplifiers dedicated to each speaker, one per frequency band. This is a much more efficient use of amplifier power as passive crossovers "waste" much of the amplifier's output in the loudspeaker crossover. This efficiency is exhibited in an active loudspeaker's maximum acoustic output vs the total power of its individual amplifiers. My little 2 way Meridian M3s and M2s, early analog active designs from Meridian using a similar driver compliment to the classic LS3/5A, use a 35 watt amp on the tweeters and a 70 watt amp on the mid-bass drivers. to achieve the same peak acoustic output out of a similar passive design like the LS3/5a would require a single amplifier in well excess of 200 watts/ch.

In an active design each amp is directly connected to the driver with no intervening passive components other than a short length of speaker wire. Thus the individual amps are better able to efficiently control the driver's motion. Active loudspeakers are often described as "sounding faster" than equivalent passive models. This can be attributed to the reduced overshoot of the loudspeaker drivers due to the improved damping of direct drive.

Each amp can be tailored perfectly to the load it must drive and as mentioned above it requires fewer watts to achieve similar acoustic output level. Complex passive crossovers tend to be difficult for an amplifier to drive as the load presented often is very reactive (all those big inductor coils and capacitors) rather than simply resistive (the drivers themselves). This is why some loudspeaker designs with seamingly reasonable efficiency ratings can be total power hogs requiring large high current amplifiers to "bring 'em to life". Thiel loudspeakers for example are notoriously tough loads. All things being equal, it is easier to make great sounding smaller amps with their simpler circuits and fewer paralleled output devices.

An active loudspeaker will exhibit reduced levels of distortion and compression for a given acoustic ouput level. First there will be reduced levels of intermodulation distortion due to the fact that with an active crossover design we can use much steeper crossover slopes and yet still have ideal minimum phase behavior. In addition as mentioned above, we have the reduced overshoot and ringing from the improved damping. And finally, its worth pointing out that the measured performance of both speaker drive units and the components in passive crossover designs will drift as they are thermally stressed by being driven hard. The fact that active loudspeakers can use fewer watts to achieve the same output levels with a complete absence of passive crossover parts imbues them with a sense of dynamic freedom (lack of compression) that is largely absent in all but cost-no-object loudspeaker designs.

Active loudspeakers can make very complex high-end, high performance music and theater systems seemingly appear very simple, neat, and tidy by reducing the "box count", the size of the loudspeakers for a given performance level, and eliminating large speaker cables (replaced by much smaller analog or digital interconnects. As described above, due to all the efficiencies being realized in a good active design, the seemingly more expensive active loudspeaker design is almost always substantially cheaper than attempting to achieve the same performance with a traditional passive setup.

作者: 老广

没那么大的区别. 很多HI-END都是无源分频的。电子分频的元件是电阻电容，功率分频用的是电感电容，作用和原理都是一样的。只是功率级不同。反而电子分频一般需要加入IC作为增益，会产生噪声和失真。IMO，电子分频的好处是输出级的阻尼因素可以是恒定的（从喇叭看的）。功率分频的调整实际上很难。

[老广]

全频喇叭才是根本之道。分配器都可以不要了。
有源分频是有相当年头历史了，主要是专业箱用，因为拉线长，无源的喇叭线粗不实际。真正广泛应用并不多，还不如更新的D类放大器发展快。当然你有2套有源箱是个例外。
还有，

This is a much more efficient use of amplifier power as passive crossovers "waste" much of the amplifier's output in the loudspeaker crossover.

这不完全对。理论上电感电容是不消耗功率的，消耗的是无功功率。而实际上电子分频的并联放大器才需要更多的功率。如一个功放100W推动箱子，电子分频要有同样输出就要超过100W的功放。就是100瓦低频功放加高频功放。也可参考这中文的，也有缺点的。我看相位移动是一个较大问题，因为高阶分频的采用。所以我现在也模一台4分频箱，准备试试错开分频点做法。就是分频点范围内是另有第3个喇叭是在带通内的。

[hugoo]

老广呀，你真是要多看看多了解先，专业界电分箱子现在早已经是统治地位了，那有说用的不多？人家用的原因也不是你说的喇叭线长/粗不实际，你要这样说给那些玩专业的，要给人笑话的。

全频喇叭谁要能作出符合40-20khz +/-2db频响的，那啥都别说了，可惜物理定律决定了没人作的出呀。

我看你的耳朵已经被你自模的箱子给惯坏了，听到那种直白失真小高解析的箱子，你是习惯不了了。

作者: 老广

全频喇叭才是根本之道。分配器都可以不要了。
有源分频是有相当年头历史了，主要是专业箱用，因为拉线长，无源的喇叭线粗不实际。真正广泛应用并不多，还不如更新的D类放大器发展快。当然你有2套有源箱是个例外。
还有，。这不完全对。理论上电感电容是不消耗功率的，消耗的是无功功率。而...

[lighting]

作者: hugoo

人家用的原因也不是你说的喇叭线长/粗不实际

专业领域全都用平衡传输，不过也只是最后Monitor监听一段，大都是PCM数码或光纤传输。

[hugoo]

不管怎么说把,
下面这个看法是个big misconception:
"专业界用有源电分箱是因为无源的喇叭线太长太粗"

作者: lighting

专业领域全都用平衡传输，不过也只是最后Monitor监听一段，大都是PCM数码或光纤传输。

[dalplex]

看来得走出去多开阔视野。

电分的一个问题是质量。连一段导线都觉得不理想更何况多出一个设备？

再有弄3套功放是相当不实际的。

这位有3套机器我以前一直没明白为什么。

要3750。

[hugoo]

看看国内的老烧现在在玩什么

看133楼
http://www.jd-bbs.com/thread-2498978-9-1.html

要玩就玩点新花样的，这功率分频双线分音之类的，几十年的古董技术了，在上面再怎么折腾，意思不大了，还不如学学新东西，玩玩新技术呢。

作者: dalplex

看来得走出去多开阔视野。

电分的一个问题是质量。连一段导线都觉得不理想更何况多出一个设备？

再有弄3套功放是相当不实际的。

这位有3套机器我以前一直没明白为什么。

要3750。

http://www.canuckaudiomart.com/image...mage=2344732&a...