Best Aleph bi-amp connection

[Sony]

Cheers!

What would be the more "audiophile" way of connecting a bi-amplification setup based on one Aleph P preamplifier and two
power amplifiers: Aleph 3 and 0s.

* Solution 1: Spliting the RCA output of Aleph P in two, driving both Alephs through the RCA inputs.

* Solution 2: Using the balanced (XLR output) of Aleph P, which has more gain, connected to the RCA inputs of both alephs (one aleph with pins 2 and 1, and the other with pins 3 and 1 (ground as shared negative) and with its phase inverted at the speaker output.

Would solution 2 be more dynamic and solution 1 more transparent?
Will inverting the phase at the speaker output (on solution 2) guarantee a total final coherence between the two signals, independently of the speaker cable length? Should the cables conductance direction be inverted in this case? (arrows pointing from speaker to amp)

Thanks!

[chris ma]

That is not bi-amping I think. What you describe reminded me of the old Pioneer Receiver I have before which it has a switch to power the A + B groups of speakers.

You need active crossovers to do bi-amping, me think!

The Butcher

[Sony]

This is a bi-amplification setup since two stereo amplifiers are used.
One drives the HF drivers and the other the LF driver.

The only difference to that active bi-amplification config you are mentioning is that, in that case there is one active crossover between the preamplifier and the power amps; and in this case there are two (four) passive crossovers between the amplifiers and the speakers' drivers.

In both cases, in terms of power and driver handling one amplifier only "sees" the HF drivers and the other only "sees" the LF drivers.

[chris ma]

I am sorry, I thought bi-amping has no crossover between amps and speakers. My mistake.

Best Wishes,
The Butcher

[Bill Fitzpatrick]

The bi-amp method that Sony is using is not the traditional method and does not provide the advantages of true bi-amping.

[JEKYLL]

Both are bi-amplifying:

-passive method: crossover after the amps.

-active method: crossover before the amps.

[GRollins]

You're not getting the passive crossovers out of the way, so you still have insertion loss. The passive crossover is still between the amplifier and the woofer, so you're not getting an increase in damping factor. The passive crossover for the tweeter is...
It sounds like an awful lot of trouble to go to for very little, if any benefit. Given the situation that I think you're describing, I'd just stick with one amp until you're ready to biamp in the active sense.

Grey

[Sony]

Grey, the most important advantages prevail in passive or active multi-amplification.

Each amplifier drives sub-sets of drivers allowing better driving capability, and the possibility of using different amplifiers most suitable for each driver. For instance, one amplifier with high current for the low-bass; a transparent and fast amplifier for the bass; and hollographic low power amplifiers for midband driver and tweeter.

As you know 2-stage Aleph amplifiers just cannot control as expected most speakers with real low-bass capability, altough they are excellent in the other frequencies range.
After hearing the Aleph 0, you just can't live happy with the low-bass performance of the Aleph 2,3,4,5. After hearing the Aleph 3 or 5, you think the 0 should have a more hollographic and organic midband.
Joining a 3-stage Aleph to handle the difficult woofers to a 2-stage Aleph for the other drivers, is the trick to overcome the limitations of both designs.

Active crossovers also have serious disadvantages that don't make them clear winners over passives ones.

Wherever you go, it's always a win-lose situation.

Rgrds!

PS: Still waiting for the answer to my initial question.

[Gaucho]

Active crossovers also have serious disadvantages that don't make them clear winners over passives ones.

Please elaborate on these 'serious disadvantages' because I'm having a rather hard time trying to imagine what you could possibly mean. I do however have first hand experience with the very real benefits of an active low-pass XO on a two-stage Aleph and tell can you the improvement in bass control is dramatic.

With respect to your initial question; I suggest you drive both amplifiers balanced.

[pamaz]

I'm bi amping ( passive) with a P1.7 that's driving two stereo aleph 30 with bias crancked up, connected to monitor audio studio 20.
In my own case, 2 amps are a far way better than a single one.
Better control of the bass, better imaging, better intellegibility in speech etc. What i can say is that this is my second time in bi amping, (previously they were two quad 405 heavily modified connected to sonus faber minima amator) and also in my previous experience, the final result was much better than with a single amp.
Going back to the way of connecting the pre to the power amps, I'm going straight balanced to both amps.

ciao

paolo