Given that the crossover of the SC-VI does have a lot of driver compensation, perhaps best is just to:
1) upgrade the critical components of the 4 way passive crossover.
2) bi-amp using one amp for the tweeter and 5"mid, and one amp for the 8" and 15" woofers. I would have the added control of having two amps per speaker. Should I feed the whole signal to the amps, or put a Pass XVR-1 between the preamp and the four mono-amps? If I feed the whole signal to each amp, the four way crossovers in the speakers would be able to deal with it, as they already do now. There are to pairs of binding post, the to goes to tweeter and 5", the bottom goes to 8" and 15" portion of the crossover.
3) I could possibly use the DEQX HDP-4 in-line Digital to Digital, before the Playback Designs MPS-5 and Krell Phantom, so I would not be using the DAC and PRE stages of the DEQX. I stopped using the TACT 2.2X Digital to Digital because it decreased substantially the level of detail. How good is a DEQX HDP-4 D to D? Much more transparent than the TACT?
What do you think?
Thanks.
1) upgrade the critical components of the 4 way passive crossover.
2) bi-amp using one amp for the tweeter and 5"mid, and one amp for the 8" and 15" woofers. I would have the added control of having two amps per speaker. Should I feed the whole signal to the amps, or put a Pass XVR-1 between the preamp and the four mono-amps? If I feed the whole signal to each amp, the four way crossovers in the speakers would be able to deal with it, as they already do now. There are to pairs of binding post, the to goes to tweeter and 5", the bottom goes to 8" and 15" portion of the crossover.
3) I could possibly use the DEQX HDP-4 in-line Digital to Digital, before the Playback Designs MPS-5 and Krell Phantom, so I would not be using the DAC and PRE stages of the DEQX. I stopped using the TACT 2.2X Digital to Digital because it decreased substantially the level of detail. How good is a DEQX HDP-4 D to D? Much more transparent than the TACT?
What do you think?
Thanks.