Simple Bi-Amping QUestion

[Markgm]

Hi,
I'm electronically challenged, so I don't know how to just do this myself, and this looks like a pretty savvy crowd! Very cool site, btw, as I am spending time here learning about digital amps - very exciting!

On my two-ways, there is a cap and coil on each pass, and a 4 ohm resistor on the high pass (but it all looks like its connected together to me!)

I need to try my speakers Bi-Amped to try out this multi-channel receiver I'm playing with, which I believe means that I need to put half on each? (high pass on one, low pass on the other) By any chance, can someone help me with this? (This receiver cannot be bridged, but it can be used for bi-amping) Does this mean just separating the high/low pass circuits?

How much of a difference can bi-amping make? It appears I am running short on dynamics, and this was the idea suggeted to me. The binding posts will be interesting, but I can hang something off the back, or fasten it to the back with more binding posts on it. (for now)

TIA -
Mark

[AndrewT]

Many do not believe me but I am an advocate for bi-wiring and bi-amplifying.

I have a pair of Tannoy HPDs. They were terminated for single wiring only.
I used them for some years with a single stereo Crimson 1704.
I opened up the passive crossover and added a wire to allow twin sets of terminals to be fitted.
Listen now with bi-wiring. Small but easily perceptible improvements to bass and to stereo image location.
Later I built a second stereo Crimson 1704.
Now I could bi-amplify, with shorter cables.
The change was much bigger than the change brought about by bi-wiring. It was almost like a new pair of speakers. Tremendous bass extension, better treble detail, better image location. Everything seemed better, except the cost.
I have never gone back to single amplifiers on long term solution. All my 2way and 3way speakers perform better when bi or tri-amplified.
I have tried active speakers on one occasion. I could never get them to sound as good as with passive bi-amping. It's a project on long term hold, until I find the time to develop an active crossover that at least matches the standard passive 2way crossover.

By the way,
the Tannoys are 8ohm and the amplifiers are supposedly built to drive 4ohm speakers and self protect at 2r7 loading.

[vdi_nenna]

Do you have 2 seperate sets binding posts on the back of your speaker? Do you have 4 total?

If you don't, you'll have to seperate the high pass (HP) filter from the low pass (LP)filter wiring inside the speakers and add another set of binding posts to the speakers. Shouldn't be too hard. Just keep all LP seperate from HP connections.

There is an audible difference.

[troystg]

Originally Posted by Markgm

Hi,
I'm electronically challenged, so I don't know how to just do this myself, and this looks like a pretty savvy crowd! Very cool site, btw, as I am spending time here learning about digital amps - very exciting!

On my two-ways, there is a cap and coil on each pass, and a 4 ohm resistor on the high pass (but it all looks like its connected together to me!)

I need to try my speakers Bi-Amped to try out this multi-channel receiver I'm playing with, which I believe means that I need to put half on each? (high pass on one, low pass on the other) By any chance, can someone help me with this? (This receiver cannot be bridged, but it can be used for bi-amping) Does this mean just separating the high/low pass circuits?

How much of a difference can bi-amping make? It appears I am running short on dynamics, and this was the idea suggeted to me. The binding posts will be interesting, but I can hang something off the back, or fasten it to the back with more binding posts on it. (for now)

TIA -
Mark

1. I don't know of ANY receiver that does bi-amping (what is the make and model?) as that would require a consumer to have an in depth knowledge of frequency cutoff's, filter slopes, filter types and such.

2. More likely you mean bi-WIRING were you have full-range signals run through separate parallel paths to the speakers using the passive XO in the speakers to filter the frequencies.

If no. 2 is correct then your speakers need bi-wire binding posts (2 stereo pairs for 4 total).

More than likely you are using it with a HT processor and if you require more dynamic range you can set the main spkrs to "small" and add stereo powered subs to increase SPL.

Good luck.. (I SAID GOOD LUCK...)

[Speedskater]

Some loudspeaker crossover networks are easy to split for bi-amping. Other networks use shared PC traces and/or components and will require some knowledge and skill to separate.

[Key]

Originally Posted by troystg

1. I don't know of ANY receiver that does bi-amping (what is the make and model?) as that would require a consumer to have an in depth knowledge of frequency cutoff's, filter slopes, filter types and such.

I don't know of ANY that don't do it. All you need are two of them assuming they are stereo. And one if it is multichannel. Using a recievers A/B section doesn't work though because most likely A and B are just connected to the same amps.

2. More likely you mean bi-WIRING were you have full-range signals run through separate parallel paths to the speakers using the passive XO in the speakers to filter the frequencies.

A common misconception that seems to be floating around. You can in fact Bi-amp with a passive crossover. You just need the HP and LP connected to it's own respective binding post. It is true that you do not gain all of the benefits of using an active crossover but it does alleviate what possibly is the worst deficiency of a tradition passive crossover with monoamping - intermodulation of the mid and/or bass driver with the tweeter.

And yes it is true that some audiophiles Bi-wire without Bi-amping but this is not the same thing. In that case I doubt there is much of an effect if any.

[troystg]

Using a NAD (or the like) with internal amp powering top end, and RCA outs to an external amp (usually larger) to power the low end is bi-amping. And it is an incremental improvement over single amping or bi-wiring. You can even do it with identical amps providing the same pwr to all drivers.

That is..... Not the smartest move.

If you are going to make the effort to bi-amp, use an electronic xo and use the amps more efficiently.

[Drew Eckhardt]

Originally Posted by troystg

1. I don't know of ANY receiver that does bi-amping (what is the make and model?) as that would require a consumer to have an in depth knowledge of frequency cutoff's, filter slopes, filter types and such.

Some home theater receivers support sending the same source channel to multiple amplifiers for what audiophiles would call passive bi-amping and I'd refer to as active bi-wiring.

[AndrewT]

Originally Posted by troystg

Using a NAD (or the like) with internal amp powering top end, and RCA outs to an external amp (usually larger) to power the low end is bi-amping. And it is an incremental improvement over single amping or bi-wiring. You can even do it with identical amps providing the same pwr to all drivers.

That is..... Not the smartest move.

If you are going to make the effort to bi-amp, use an electronic xo and use the amps more efficiently.

Originally Posted by troystg

1. I don't know of ANY receiver that does bi-amping (what is the make and model?) as that would require a consumer to have an in depth knowledge of frequency cutoff's, filter slopes, filter types and such.

2. More likely you mean bi-WIRING were you have full-range signals run through separate parallel paths to the speakers using the passive XO in the speakers to filter the frequencies.

If no. 2 is correct then your speakers need bi-wire binding posts (2 stereo pairs for 4 total).

More than likely you are using it with a HT processor and if you require more dynamic range you can set the main spkrs to "small" and add stereo powered subs to increase SPL.

Good luck.. (I SAID GOOD LUCK...)

this is bad advice when bi-amping guarantees results whereas active crossover into power amp direct to drivers is virtually guaranteed failure if one does not have the skills to complete the driver/amp EQ that the standard passive crossover was designed to achieve.

I have already failed to reach the same standard as the passive crossover using the active approach.

[troystg]

Originally Posted by AndrewT

this is bad advice when bi-amping guarantees results whereas active crossover into power amp direct to drivers is virtually guaranteed failure if one does not have the skills to complete the driver/amp EQ that the standard passive crossover was designed to achieve.

I have already failed to reach the same standard as the passive crossover using the active approach.

My "advice" for more dynamics, as Mark requested, was to set the receiver to "small speakers mode" (active high-pass) and get stereo powered subs...

I do not think he is ready for an all electronic xo/eq/** system. <funny, it removed "b" and "s" for baffle step as a bad word>

Mark-

If you post a picture of your speaker XO I am positive we can advise on whether it is single wire or bi-wire capable and how "easy" it may be to set it up for bi-wire / amp operation. However I don't think that will get the end results you are looking for.