Which version?
Here in the UK, bi-amping means using two amplifiers to drive the separate terminals of a passive crossover speaker.
Over in the US, bi-amping seems to mean building an active system where each amplifier is dedicated to a driver that is driven directly and the crossover is handled before the amplifying stages.
I would start with first option and later followed by option 2. We need to keep on building
) Thats the fun of this hobby The thing that I'm considering all this is that I love the sound of the AlephJ but in the lows it just doesn't control these RF-7's. I tried the F5 which was good but in the end I preferred the AlephJ. now I was wondering if this could give me best of both......?
I've read that an X version of an Aleph has a perceptually better control of the lows.....so that could also be an option but it's something I do not fully understand if the damping factor is similar or even slightly higher. At least that's what I've read somewhere on the forum.
I've read that an X version of an Aleph has a perceptually better control of the lows.....so that could also be an option but it's something I do not fully understand if the damping factor is similar or even slightly higher. At least that's what I've read somewhere on the forum.
Hi wuffwaff,
Good idea indeed to try that. Ill give it a shot this weekend
How do you come to suggest 60%
Dank je
for UK bi-ampling the two amplifiers must have the same gain.I would start with first option and later followed by option 2. We need to keep on building
But then, when you go to active, the gains of the amplifiers are determined by the sensitivity of the speaker drivers.
You are likely to have at least 6dB gain difference and can approach 20dB of gain differences.
The two speaker driving philosophies are quite different: Bi-amping is not equivalent to active when considering the amplifiers required to drive the speakers.
You are likely to have at least 6dB gain difference and can approach 20dB of gain differences.
The two speaker driving philosophies are quite different: Bi-amping is not equivalent to active when considering the amplifiers required to drive the speakers.
I think there's one important advantage to "biamping" into the speaker's passive
crossovers, which is that it allows you to use different amplifiers to get
the sound you want. You might do something like an F5 or comparable SS
amp on the bottom (or maybe more power!) and then drive the mids and top
with tubes or something else, maybe lower power Class A.
This really works, and of course you want to be able to independently adjust
the levels of the amplifiers. Even when identical amplifiers are used top and
bottom, you often find yourself needing a level tweak.
crossovers, which is that it allows you to use different amplifiers to get
the sound you want. You might do something like an F5 or comparable SS
amp on the bottom (or maybe more power!) and then drive the mids and top
with tubes or something else, maybe lower power Class A.
This really works, and of course you want to be able to independently adjust
the levels of the amplifiers. Even when identical amplifiers are used top and
bottom, you often find yourself needing a level tweak.
Right, and another way to put this is that we cheapskate DIYers should take advantage of making upgrades in the smallest steps possible (baby steps!), for the sake of both the extra experience AND stretching our pocket money. No sense in peaking too early and have no money left over for tunes nor any experience for listening?I would start with first option and later followed by option 2. We need to keep on building
Although my long term plan is to go to fully digital active bi-amping, for now I am quite pleased with analog passively bi-amping on top while analog actively bi-amping on the bottom. Does that make it Analog Passive-Active Bi-amping? Maybe that's another term for AndrewT's UK-US dictionary?
I think there's one important advantage to "biamping" into the speaker's passive
crossovers, which is that it allows you to use different amplifiers to get
the sound you want. You might do something like an F5 or comparable SS
amp on the bottom (or maybe more power!) and then drive the mids and top
with tubes or something else, maybe lower power Class A.
This really works, and of course you want to be able to independently adjust
the levels of the amplifiers. Even when identical amplifiers are used top and
bottom, you often find yourself needing a level tweak.
I have actually put this advantage to good use, knowing that my speakers' frequency response has a livelier top end compared to the mid-band. I utilized my 14dB gain Zen v4j for the tweeters and a stock 20dB Aleph 3 for the basses/mids. It eliminated both tizziness and sibilance even at high volume levels. In my room it is now more well balanced across the audio bandwidth and can be listened to for long periods of time. My system also does double duty as a stereo home theater and bi-amping really helps the low end response on special effects sounds.
I also tried the other way around and it was naturally unbalanced and unlistenable. I also tried a W'speed V12 to adjust levels independently for bass/mids and highs but I kept going back to the unadjusted levels as the above bi-amping. I have been enjoying my system this way for over 5 years now.
I think there's one important advantage to "biamping" into the speaker's passive
crossovers, which is that it allows you to use different amplifiers to get
the sound you want. You might do something like an F5 or comparable SS
amp on the bottom (or maybe more power!) and then drive the mids and top
with tubes or something else, maybe lower power Class A.
This really works, and of course you want to be able to independently adjust
the levels of the amplifiers. Even when identical amplifiers are used top and
bottom, you often find yourself needing a level tweak.
I don't see how you can bi-amp into a passive crossover with different amps for top and bottom. This would require (passive or active) filtering before the amps and subsequent bypassing of the passive crossover in the speaker.
If two amps sound different, at least one of them is wrong.
why do you need the crossover before the amps? there is no problem using the internal crossover.
and why can't you use different amps for low and top end?
you may want a amp with a strong bottom on the lowpass, and maybe a more laidback amp on the top.
Last edited:
Using the internal crossover cannot be done at with series filters, and with parallel you would need to open the box, split the filter, and this is usually impossible or inpractical to do. It would also be rather silly. One of the nice things of bi-amplification is that you can get rid of a whole bunch of coils and caps which are at the exact wrong place in the signal path: where their operating points are determined by the non-linear characteristics of the drivers. It is much better to do the filtering at a spot where input and output impedances are exactly defined, that is, before the amps.
Both 'amps with a strong bottom' and 'laidback' are in all likelyhood not true wire-with-gain type of devices, but effect boxes. If a speaker needs compensation of one kind or another, the amplification stage is not the best place to apply them; that's where filters are for.
Both 'amps with a strong bottom' and 'laidback' are in all likelyhood not true wire-with-gain type of devices, but effect boxes. If a speaker needs compensation of one kind or another, the amplification stage is not the best place to apply them; that's where filters are for.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.