The Dynaudio Arbiters are here
- Thread starter Roysen
- Start date
Roysen,
Can you use amplifiers with different gain in the Arrakis? I have no experience with the MA-3, but considering my experience with the MA-2, I would not discard the possibility of four MA-2's. Do you have access to the impedance curve of the low section of the Arrakis?
I spoke with Andy Payor about the Arrakis...I am focused on passives. He said 1 Colosseum stereo could drive it...and that I could also do 2 Colosseum stereo...so I would not have to trade my Colosseum in for monos.
I would imagine so since the A2s have an external active crossover with gain controls.
And yet for some reason, someone did say something (somewhere) advising to use the same amps across the board. And in all of the Arrakis 2 setups, it is 4 monos...either 4 VTL Siegfried 2s or 4 Gryphon Colosseums/Mephistos. Your logic makes sense to me...I wish I knew where I had read this and what the rationale was.
If I'm not mistaken, the "upper half" tweeter, mids, mid-basses are handled by one pair and the "bottom" the side firing woofers are handled by another pair of amps. I would imagine then that you'd still need a pretty powerful amp up top if this is the case. It's configured differently from say, a VR-11 where one pair runs tweeters and mids, the second pair only mid-basses and the 4 15" rear firing woofers have a 1.5kW plate amp each.
It makes sense then that you see muscle amps up top like those that mentioned Lloyd. I guess it makes sense to just double up on them.
It makes sense then that you see muscle amps up top like those that mentioned Lloyd. I guess it makes sense to just double up on them.
I think you are right, Jack. There must be a reason that every single setup of ARrakis I have ever seen includes very very powerful amps up top (that are identical to the bass amps). I think it might actually have been Andy Payor who mentioned in an interview that the amp/driver interface Iimpedance, loading, etc) is critical and perhaps then having different amps for different drives in his speaker starts to create unmanageable even if slight differences? Here's my non-techie's total guess...let me see if I can possibly find out where I heard or read that advice about keeping all the amps the same...
Bingo! Found it...it WAS Andy Payor himself in an interview (Soundstage). Ok, it did NOT say you MUST use exactly the same amps...but it DOES suggest Andy is NOT a fan of SET tubes up top and say massive Class D down below. I think this, coupled with the fact that several well setup systems all use 4 identical amps, says something to me. In any event, if I do go this route, I am going passive anyway as I do not wish to get entangled with active crossover, double the sets of ICs, 2 stereo amps let alone 2 sets of monos amps with 2 sets of (Opus MM2...ouch) speaker cables. Arrakis passive with the Beryllium tweeter would already be great enough for me...
"Payor: I find that one real challenge is educating the customer that, in a truly high-end system, it is unwise to use radically dissimilar amplifier topologies in a multi-amplified system. In an age where relatively inexpensive class-D amplification is often used in powered subwoofers, it’s sometimes difficult to stress enough the importance of having system amplifiers with the same transfer function if high fidelity is actually the objective. The notion that one can use a 15W single-ended triode for the main amplifier (because it doesn’t have to contend with making bass) coupled to a 1000W class-D amplifier for the bass may sound like the best of both worlds, but in practice it doesn’t work very well. This approach has been responsible for robbing the true performance potential of many a biamped system, as have poor setup and integration of levels within the system. Sometimes, when the flexibility and power are available, it’s difficult to resist turning the bass up to 11, even though it’s at the expense of natural tonal balance and a correct fundamental-to-harmonic-series relationship. . . . I make it a point to affirm that the active Arrakis has no “subwoofer” section, but that the extremely light, very compliant, low-distortion twin 15” woofers, each with approximately four cubic feet of volume, should be viewed as the foundation of the system, not merely an adjunct to extend bass. Because we are not attempting a lawless coercion of nature to extend the bass response, the integration is exceptional."
"Payor: I find that one real challenge is educating the customer that, in a truly high-end system, it is unwise to use radically dissimilar amplifier topologies in a multi-amplified system. In an age where relatively inexpensive class-D amplification is often used in powered subwoofers, it’s sometimes difficult to stress enough the importance of having system amplifiers with the same transfer function if high fidelity is actually the objective. The notion that one can use a 15W single-ended triode for the main amplifier (because it doesn’t have to contend with making bass) coupled to a 1000W class-D amplifier for the bass may sound like the best of both worlds, but in practice it doesn’t work very well. This approach has been responsible for robbing the true performance potential of many a biamped system, as have poor setup and integration of levels within the system. Sometimes, when the flexibility and power are available, it’s difficult to resist turning the bass up to 11, even though it’s at the expense of natural tonal balance and a correct fundamental-to-harmonic-series relationship. . . . I make it a point to affirm that the active Arrakis has no “subwoofer” section, but that the extremely light, very compliant, low-distortion twin 15” woofers, each with approximately four cubic feet of volume, should be viewed as the foundation of the system, not merely an adjunct to extend bass. Because we are not attempting a lawless coercion of nature to extend the bass response, the integration is exceptional."
Well, he would probably know being one of the original Gryphon dealers, and an owner of Rockport Hyperions (the predecessor to the Arrakis)...and further, if I recall correctly, which he had completely upgraded with the latest drivers from Rockport. Funny - I actually was just thinking about the Hyperions because relative to the nearly 7 foot tall Arrakis, the Hyperion is 'only' 6 feet tall...more like the size of an X2 or XLF...it makes a difference.
Any one ever heard the Hyperions and can compare them with the Arrakis? Does Grellman have any views on this?
Since he has upgraded to Altair 2, So I guess its clear he doesn't think the Hyperions are better. He also said he thinks the Arrakis 2 are superior to the Altair 2.
Thanks! That is very helpful. BTW, does Rockport still make the passive Arrakis or are you only looking in the used market.
That says a lot...thanks. Personally, I LOVE the Altair 2...extraordinarily coherent, transparent and natural (imho)...it showed me a very, very stable and DEEP image which I had not found before in the (innumerable) Wilson auditions and at home. I am NOT a soundstage freak at all, and I tend to listen off-axis while I work anyway. But still, it certainly showed me things I have not experienced before.
As my system electronics has continued to improve, and as I have learned more about what to listen for in better and better systems...I am started to hear my trusty old X1s 'creak' a bit as they show their age in terms of crossover design/coherence, mechanical reproduction of sound. And they ARE wonderful and I have found little that gives me this particular combination of scale, effortlessness, detail, etc...but it is showing its age and the Altair 2 highlights that for me better than anything (other than the XLF which clearly is 7 generations later of the same design and thus an even better direct comparison).
It is simply the scale of the Altair 2 that holds me back. Do you think that Altair 2 plus 2 massively powerful and well setup subs (I think you might have Magico in mind)...would match the Arrakis in scale in a room, say 5.5 m x 10m? (17.5 x 33 or so). And by scale I don't mean just volume or bass depth of course...I mean scale as in when I play Hans Zimmer soundtracks, does the orchestra lay out before me equally widely and deeply on both setups? Does the power of each of the individual violins really spread forward into the room and remind me of what its like to sit on the orchestra level in a concert hall towards the mid to back section?
A lot at this level depends on room...and the above dimensions are practically speaking the largest I expect to be in for quite some time. Thanks for your advice Roysen (or any others who wish to opine).
I will say that when I heard the Arrakis with 4 VTLs I played Nirvana Unplugged...and Norah JOnes....not exactly huge scale. But in a room 18 x 30 with a 12 ceiling...Kurt Cobain's VOICE was so corporeal I was shocked...not just solid, not just 'there'...but DENSE and the impact of his words had the power of a person stepping up to a mike. ON Norah Jones, the very first note of the entire album took me by total surprise...a single guitar note and I was already shocked at how 'BIG' it sounded compared with big Wilsons...and by that I do NOT mean a gigantic string...but rather the sheer POWER of that note even at moderate levels was really surprising.
On the one hand, that is not BASS, so subs are not technically delivering a bass note or a voice...but then again, I know that bass delivers special cues and DOES have a big influence on mids in many other ways I do not totally understand.
Hence my question about Altair 2s + 2 ginormously powerful/controlled subs (magico?) vs Arrakis in scale in a room of 17 x 33.
On the one hand, that is not BASS, so subs are not technically delivering a bass note or a voice...but then again, I know that bass delivers special cues and DOES have a big influence on mids in many other ways I do not totally understand.
Hence my question about Altair 2s + 2 ginormously powerful/controlled subs (magico?) vs Arrakis in scale in a room of 17 x 33.
Hi, Lloyd.
Actually I think a pair of great subwoofers like Magico Q-Sub18, Wilson Audio Thor's Hammer, JL Audio Gotham, Burmester S8 etc with a pair of Altair 2 might have some benefits compared to the Arrakis 2 in terms of bass and scale, which is closely related. This is because it gives you the freedom to place the speakers where they sound best well into the room to avoid early reflections and create the best soundststaging while you can place the subwoofers near the room boundaries where they give best bass response and scale. This setup might help cancel out some of the bass standing waves in your room.
The drawback is that integrating a pair of subwoofers with a pair of fullrange seperate speakers is very difficult.
But I am not sure what you call scale is similar to what I mean with scale. Scale to me is soundstaging - depth, width, image size etc.
However to create that sense of power and energy, I think its more a combination of midbass/lower midrange and amplifier. I had that with my Audio Physic Cerubin/Krell MRA and lost it with the Magico Q7/Dynaudio Arbiter. The Cerubin has 8x 10 inch bass drivers in each speaker and a 6 inch midrange but crossed the bass drivers over at 250Hz while the Magico has 2x 12 inch bass drivers, a 10 inch midbass and a smaller midrange but the bass drivers are crossed over much lower. So they don't contribute to the midbass or midrange. I think this increased driver area in the midbass/lower midrange pluss a more powerful amplifier created this sence of power and energy - or what you call scale. In this area I think the dual midbass and dual midrange drivers of the Arrakis 2 can't be matched by Altair 2 and subwoofers.
I guess to have it all Arrakis 2 and subwoofers is the way to go.
Last edited:
Interesting...what you say has great merit. Trying to optimally place a speaker the size of the Arrakis is difficult in a big room, let alone a 'smaller one that is only 17 x 33'. Furthermore, I can say having lived with Subs in my system consecutively for 20 years...integration is key and I am perfectly prepared to go thru the 'pain' of doing so. Because once done, it is GREAT.
Finally, I know an audio engineer who used to work with Arnie Nudell...and I have heard his work on a pair of Genesis 1.1s which he custom modd'd. This audio engineer knows his stuff...and he prefers the Altair 2 to the Arrakis...in fact, he loves the altair 2 from what I recall when we sat down over dinner. But he had concerns about the ultimate ability to setup the Arrakis ideally given its size and d'appolito array.
The financial ability to have some fun with ridiculously powerful subs like Magico or Krell Master Ref Subs also increases instantly when going with Altair 2 vs Arrakis of course. In fact, you could go for the multi-sub option (4)...and REALLY layout an even soundstage across the room with ultimate control. hmmmm...having really loved the remarkable coherence of the Altair 2 (and its natural pairing with my electronics as designed by Andy Payor himself...CJ, Gryphon, Transparent)...certainly makes this a tempting consideration. Thanks for that...will have to do some more exploration of Altair 2 plus dual subs to start...
Similar threads
- Sticky
 | Steve Williams Site Founder | Site Owner | Administrator |  | Ron Resnick Site Owner | Administrator |  | Julian (The Fixer) Website Build | Marketing Managersing |