Axiom Home Page Forums General Discussion Hearing Things A six month long test of an Axiom Tower vs. ???

As of now, the bi-amping would be as suggested by Axiom - passive bi-amping. This still yields benefits over running full range.

Perhaps Andrew could address the issues with active, or electronic bi-amping.

For those who don't know what this would mean: Active, or electronic bi-amping has an "pre-amp" level controller which would dedicate the power amp to the frequencies as specified.

For example, Let's look at the LFR-1100 and M-100 ... they cross over from the bass section to the mid/tweeter section at 160 Hz.

With an active crossover, the two amps would be separated by the crossover, with the bass amp dedicated to frequencies below 160 Hz and the mid/tweeter amp handling frequencies above 160 Hz.

With passive bi-amping, the speaker's crossover handles this within the speaker itself, and is separating the high level signal from the power amp.

The amplifier is less taxed when using an electronic crossover than in passive bi-amping. There are other issues that arise with active bi-amping, especially in level matching the drivers, which the current speaker crossover already does.

This would be something that Axiom would decide was a worthy "accessory" with the LFR-1100 and M-100.

My guess is that with an amp like the ADA-1000-6 available, if Axiom was going to bi-amp, they would jump to tri amp, with a dedicated amp to each the woofer section, mid range section and tweeter section, making for an "active" speaker system with the M-100.

With the LFR-1100, it would require dual ADA-1000-5's, and ten total channels of amplification, to tri-amp this to a full functional tri-amp set up.

This would be quite the project, for sure.