Guys..

i need a bit of assistance here..

i have a set of Morel Elate 3 way splits containing the 6" midbass, CDM54 and supremo.. the crossovers allow bi-amping, which i find very handy!!!

my dilemma is this..
i have a PG Xenon 100.4 which i was going to use to run the front stage, using the bi-amp function of the crossovers.. this would feed 100wrms into each of the midbasses, and 100wrms between the midrange/supremo.
i have attached a pic of the crossovers so you know what im talking about.

i am going to be getting another amp (Ryval Designs 2x50) for my rears (so i can time align everything from the 9815 up front) but was thinking of something different..

would it work to get a Xenon 200.2 (i think) and use that for the midbass side of the crossover and use 1 pair of channels from the Xenon 100.4 for the other side? and use the remaining 2 channels for rears? i was thinking about the Xenon 200.2 as i already have a 100.4 and a 1200.1, and would like 3 matching amps.. :wink:
in 'diagramatic' means.

200.2 - midbass
100.4 - midrange/supremo
- rears

i am more concerned about the power difference than anything as i have never had this sort of thing before.. i have a feeling it will work, but how good.. i also have an Eclipse EQ2102 for tuning down in the boot..
do you follow what i mean?

thanx guys.. :thumb:

it will work fine...
basicalyl you'll run the 100.4 bridged, and the 200.2

personally i'd use the 200.2 for midbass, as it should have more headroom.
since there won't be any crossover settings on the amps, (other than a HP for the mid bass) you shoudl be able to swap between the amps pretty easily to see which suits which application better.

from memory they should have the same output power when the 100.4 is bridged?
if not i'd use the most powerful one on the midbasses

i wasnt thinking of bridging the 100.4 tho Mr_Bob..

i was thinking of using 2 channels only of the 100.4 for the midrange/supremo inputs and the 200.2 for the midbass inputs..
then using the spare 2 channels of the 100.4 for the rears instead of the smaller amp..
you get me?

better to have the 100.4 all running at the same time-aligned time (fronts only, i.e.)
otherwise you can 'muddy' the sound by having some sound earlier than others in the same amp (see channel cross-talk).
this would be especially noticable where you have tweeters and full-range (such as rears) running at slightly different times / phases within the same amp.

most 4-ch amps have A and B stereo sets, so A-ch left& right should run to the left mid & high of the x-over, B-ch left& right goes to the right mid& high of the x-over.

this will minimise crosstalk and improve stereo imaging and separation.

Damo, i get what you mean now!
that'll work fine, but personally, i'd prefer more power...

just run the rears off your deck, or buy a cheapy amp and hide it somewhere

forget about the time aliment.. if the speakers are installed correctly you shouldent need it...
and as Mr Bob said, use the deck to run the rear's.

then why not run full active???

or run the 100.4 bridged active for midbass

the 200.2 high pass active to run the mids and tweeters via passive x-over

run the rears off the headunit, or later off a matching pg amp

200.2
100.4

200.2 for 6"'s
100.4 (1 pair of chans) for mids
100.4 (other pair of chans) for supremos....
tri-amped?
Does the xover support this? Or you could go fully active...

Good luck with it, I plan on running my splits biamped too.

the crossovers don't support tri-amping, so it would require an external crossover

i'm pretty sure the 100.4 isnt' capable of BPing and probably doesn't have sufficient crossover flexibility (nor do i expect that the frequency range extends high enough)

head unit has a few settings if need be

what head unit is it?
most won't have crossover settings in the 2-5Khz region.
even if it does, you would need to set the triple RCA outputs to treble, split the rears to power the midrange and midbass
but this means that when you adjust the fader, you'll also adjsut the midbass+midrange volume!

of course everythign can be adjusted to suit correctly, but i doubt the head unit has the required adjustability.

just gotta say it now.. I am NOT going active..
i have thought about it, but to do it properly i would want to get the H701 processor but i already have the Eclipse EQ which i wanna use to tune it all up..

i only had the idea of more power for the front stage, by getting a third Xenon for this purpose..
i could easily use the 100.4 i have and use that to bi-amp the crossovers, feeding 125(tested)wrms into each input of the crossover which is what i was going to do, and use a smaller PG amp (hidden) to run the rears, but what if i had more power for the fronts.. thats what i was thinking..

hmmm...

i was going to use the 100.4 for front stage only as i already have that.. but the need for power crept in, so i thought about the 200.2 for the midbass, and use 2 channels for the higher end, and use the spare 2 channels for rears.. or subs up front..

*scratches head*

Fury the Morel cross over does not allow tri-amping which is a pity.
Damo if you are going to get another amp why not run 3 way active up front.

Im doing this now with my PG Elite 9-5-1 and i can say its even better than before.

Damn you got in before me Damo. So active is a no go.
Please disregard my active comment then.

clearly the sensible approach is to also buy a 600.2 for your midbass,
then use the 200.2 for the midrange and tweeters

you can use the 100.4 bridged for the rears, or use the spare 2 channels for ambient tweeters!

my setup is now semi active,
i've got a 4 channel bridged to my midbass drivers for 180WRMS/side.
and a 2X100 dual mono amp running my midranges and tweeters off a passive crossover.
then there's a small 2 channel driving my ambient tweeters and a monoblock for the subs.
this way, i've basically got a 4 band EQ, i can adjust midbass,midrange+highs, super highs or subbass as i see fit
of course, i've also got 31 bands /channel of EQ ontop of that to play with...
mmm toys!