To bridge or not to bridge

[kjmtk]

I would like some opinions on how I should set up my next system.

I will be running some MLK165 components and am debating the following:

1) Run passive with 350W per channel from a bridged Arc amp

or

2) Run same amp non-bridged, bi-amped/passive with 100W to each tweeter and each mid-bass.

Don't really want to go active at this point in time. Just want to keep things simple and sounding great.

The MLKs are supposed to be power hungry so the 350W should drive them nicely with a bit of reserve power, however, don't you lose some signal/sonic quality when bridging an amp versus not bridging an amp?

Would bi-amping and running 100W non bridged power drive the MLKs sufficiently and provide better sound quality?

\Thanks in advance.

Click to read more...

 

[RidnClean 5,000+ posts]

bridge em.

that 350 is headroom, you wont see it.

 

[SicAudio 5,000+ posts]

if it is a 4 channel ( i assume it is ) just cross the rcas and bridge it run right rca signal to front channel and left to the rear channel voilla no signal degradation //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/smile.gif.1ebc41e1811405b213edfc4622c41e27.gif

 

[kjmtk]

Thanks for the quick responses. I do believe I will bridge and make sure I have ample power. Glad to hear I can run it that way with no loss in SQ.

Yes, it is a 4 channel amp (Arc KS300.4)

 

[SicAudio 5,000+ posts]

sq guys do it all the time it works awesome good luck nice amp too //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/wink.gif.608e3ea05f1a9f98611af0861652f8fb.gif

 

[James Bang 5,000+ posts]

Bi-amping would give you more flexibility in tuning (depending on your HU) and level matching between your mids and tweets.

Bridging would obviously give more power, which, IME mids like. However, 100w per mid isn't bad at all.