I recently picked a used five channel amp (a Chiro C-500) so I can add rear
speakers to my existing 5 channel (a Chiro C-300 and C-200) setup. I have
just started experimenting but I was wondering what sort of setup other
people are using. Should I leave my front speakers on the C-200 and plug all
the others into the C-500 or perhaps use the C-300 for the fronts and the
C-500 for the sides and rears?

The issue would seem to depend on how manufacturers alter the power supplies
as they add more channels to the amps.

Thanks,

Mark Lewis

"Mark Lewis" wrote in message
et

I recently picked a used five channel amp (a Chiro C-500) so I can
add rear speakers to my existing 5 channel (a Chiro C-300 and C-200)
setup. I have just started experimenting but I was wondering what
sort of setup other people are using.

There are probably not a lot of people posting here that have personal
experience with all of these amps.

Should I leave my front
speakers on the C-200 and plug all the others into the C-500 or
perhaps use the C-300 for the fronts and the C-500 for the sides and
rears?

These products all apear to be the same output stage module packaged in
varying numbers per box.

The issue would seem to depend on how manufacturers alter the power
supplies as they add more channels to the amps.

If the amps have the same continuous power rating per channel with all
channels driven, then the power supply has been scaled up proportionally to
the number of channels. Given the nature of multichannel music this means
that at worst the 5 channel amp is as capable in the real world as the 2
channel amp. It also means that at best, the 5 channel amp is more capable
than the 2 channel amp, but marginally so.

In fact any audio power amp that passes a continuous sine wave test has a
power supply that is vastly overbuilt when it comes to handling music.

In short, I don't see any advantage to reconfiguring, presuming that of the
amps are all in equally good operating condition. Any audible gain would be
less valuable than the work it takes to recable. The biggest advantage I see
to the 5 channel amp is that is would appear to be smaller than the 2
channel and 3 channel taken together. The biggest disadvantage I see to the
5 channel amp is that it is heavier and bulkier than than either the 2
channel or the 3 channel model.

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Mark Lewis" wrote in message
et

I recently picked a used five channel amp (a Chiro C-500) so I can
add rear speakers to my existing 5 channel (a Chiro C-300 and C-200)
setup. I have just started experimenting but I was wondering what
sort of setup other people are using.

There are probably not a lot of people posting here that have personal
experience with all of these amps.

The local shop carried Chiro until Kinergetics went out of business, but
I never heard the stuff! IIRC, there was a receiver and a
preamp-processor.

Should I leave my front
speakers on the C-200 and plug all the others into the C-500 or
perhaps use the C-300 for the fronts and the C-500 for the sides and
rears?

These products all apear to be the same output stage module packaged in
varying numbers per box.

The issue would seem to depend on how manufacturers alter the power
supplies as they add more channels to the amps.

If the amps have the same continuous power rating per channel with all
channels driven, then the power supply has been scaled up proportionally to
the number of channels. Given the nature of multichannel music this means
that at worst the 5 channel amp is as capable in the real world as the 2
channel amp. It also means that at best, the 5 channel amp is more capable
than the 2 channel amp, but marginally so.

In fact any audio power amp that passes a continuous sine wave test has a
power supply that is vastly overbuilt when it comes to handling music.

In short, I don't see any advantage to reconfiguring, presuming that of the
amps are all in equally good operating condition. Any audible gain would be
less valuable than the work it takes to recable. The biggest advantage I see
to the 5 channel amp is that is would appear to be smaller than the 2
channel and 3 channel taken together. The biggest disadvantage I see to the
5 channel amp is that it is heavier and bulkier than than either the 2
channel or the 3 channel model.

I guess the OP could sell the excess amp, but considering how little
he'd get, it might be more fun to add channels to his setup.

Stephen

"MINe 109" wrote in message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Mark Lewis" wrote in message
et

I recently picked a used five channel amp (a Chiro C-500) so I can
add rear speakers to my existing 5 channel (a Chiro C-300 and C-200)
setup. I have just started experimenting but I was wondering what
sort of setup other people are using.

There are probably not a lot of people posting here that have
personal experience with all of these amps.

The local shop carried Chiro until Kinergetics went out of business,
but I never heard the stuff! IIRC, there was a receiver and a
preamp-processor.

Seems to me that Zippy used to talk about Chiro products occasionally.

Should I leave my front
speakers on the C-200 and plug all the others into the C-500 or
perhaps use the C-300 for the fronts and the C-500 for the sides and
rears?

These products all apear to be the same output stage module packaged
in varying numbers per box.

The issue would seem to depend on how manufacturers alter the power
supplies as they add more channels to the amps.

If the amps have the same continuous power rating per channel with
all channels driven, then the power supply has been scaled up
proportionally to the number of channels. Given the nature of
multichannel music this means that at worst the 5 channel amp is as
capable in the real world as the 2 channel amp. It also means that
at best, the 5 channel amp is more capable than the 2 channel amp,
but marginally so.

In fact any audio power amp that passes a continuous sine wave test
has a power supply that is vastly overbuilt when it comes to
handling music.

In short, I don't see any advantage to reconfiguring, presuming that
of the amps are all in equally good operating condition. Any audible
gain would be less valuable than the work it takes to recable. The
biggest advantage I see to the 5 channel amp is that is would appear
to be smaller than the 2 channel and 3 channel taken together. The
biggest disadvantage I see to the 5 channel amp is that it is
heavier and bulkier than than either the 2 channel or the 3 channel
model.

I guess the OP could sell the excess amp, but considering how little
he'd get, it might be more fun to add channels to his setup.

Bridging could be an option.

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

Me:
I guess the OP could sell the excess amp, but considering how little
he'd get, it might be more fun to add channels to his setup.

Bridging could be an option.

Yes, especially if there's subwoofer in the system. I don't know if the
amps are designed to be bridged, but it couldn't hurt to check.

Stephen

Thanks to all for your comments. I will explore bridging but am not sure
that is an option here.

Mark Lewis

"Arny Krueger" said:

In fact any audio power amp that passes a continuous sine wave test has a
power supply that is vastly overbuilt when it comes to handling music.

Uhuh.
Never mind phase-shifting loads, never mind transient response.
An "8 ohms" speaker is really 8 ohms over the entire range, right?

--
Sander de Waal
" SOA of a KT88? Sufficient. "

"Sander deWaal" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" said:

In fact any audio power amp that passes a continuous sine wave test
has a power supply that is vastly overbuilt when it comes to
handling music.

Uhuh.

Never mind phase-shifting loads, never mind transient response.
An "8 ohms" speaker is really 8 ohms over the entire range, right?

Wrong.

Note that I did say: "a power supply that is vastly overbuilt when it comes
to handling music".

Note that I didn't say "an output stage that is vastly overbuilt when it
comes to handling reactive loads"

Shall I explain the difference Sander, or can you take it from here?

"Arny Krueger" said:

In fact any audio power amp that passes a continuous sine wave test
has a power supply that is vastly overbuilt when it comes to
handling music.

Uhuh.

Never mind phase-shifting loads, never mind transient response.
An "8 ohms" speaker is really 8 ohms over the entire range, right?

Wrong.

Note that I did say: "a power supply that is vastly overbuilt when it comes
to handling music".

Note that I didn't say "an output stage that is vastly overbuilt when it
comes to handling reactive loads"

Shall I explain the difference Sander, or can you take it from here?

An amplifier is a modulated power supply. Duh.

--
Sander de Waal
" SOA of a KT88? Sufficient. "

"Sander deWaal" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" said:

In fact any audio power amp that passes a continuous sine wave test
has a power supply that is vastly overbuilt when it comes to
handling music.

Uhuh.

Never mind phase-shifting loads, never mind transient response.
An "8 ohms" speaker is really 8 ohms over the entire range, right?

Wrong.

Note that I did say: "a power supply that is vastly overbuilt when
it comes to handling music".

Note that I didn't say "an output stage that is vastly overbuilt
when it comes to handling reactive loads"

Shall I explain the difference Sander, or can you take it from here?

An amplifier is a modulated power supply. Duh.

An amplifier is thus composed of two subsystems.

(1) A more-or-less fixed voltage output power supply

(2) A modulator.

Which subsystem has the greater real-world potential to limit the
performance of the entire system with regards to transient respont and
phase-shifting loads?