We're not talking about a second identical amplifier. We're talking about a highly underpowered second amplifier. That will make things worse.
ESP uses the bi-amping definition that applies to active speakers.
Many regions use the bi-amping definition to add an extra amplifier to drive half the passive crossover already fitted to the speaker.
These two definitions are completely different.
Passive Bi-amping is very easy and very quick to try and very easy to revert to the original. It is not always good value.
Active speaker is very difficult to improve on the original speaker. It is generally not easily reversible, one has to modify the original speaker to get access to the driver terminals.
It is generally more expensive.
It is certainly more time consuming.
It can give very good results that cannot be matched by any passive technology. In this context it can be good value since no other technology can achieve the best results that become available.
Sorry Pete, but regarding passive biamp this really low quality article is non-scientific and nonaudiophile, but merely religious, and all comes to this belief with no background or evidence what so ever:
«Passive biamping (...) is, IMHO, a waste of money. Although there may be some moderate sonic benefits, they are not worth the expense of the extra amplifier.»
In my setup I have concluded this is absolutely false.
The author of the article protected himself by using the "IMHO" as he had no solid evidence of what he was talking about, still, articles of this kind (which are not supposed to be opinions but a vehicle to the truth) should not be just guessing and thus misguiding the readers.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.