Was browsing for speaker's ads and found this one (I usually have insomnia and nothing better to do at 3AM, apart from browsing really old ads):
https://www.usaudiomart.com/details/649268271-energy-audis-sexy-a32-floor-standing-speakers/
I noticed the bindings, so I searched for documentation, and I got intrigued by the manufacturer's (apparent) lack of coherence:
This definitely does not make any sense to me:
Bi-amping usually means, as far as I know, having two amplifiers, one for the high, and one for the low frequencies.
On this particular case:
Frequency response
30-25k
Crossover points
1800hz
The manufacturer states that two amplifiers must be used, one for the low and one for the high frequencies, but looking at the image (image 4 on the PDF), they state that the left channel goes down and the right channel goes up (lower and higher frequencies respectively)
I'm not aware of any traditional amplifiers dividing channels by 1800hz, or I might be wrong?
Biamping is not meant to be used with active crossovers before reaching the speakers?
This configuration looks pretty useless to me, unless someone much more educated on this subject than me, states it otherwise.
So:
What's the point in biamping using full range on both frequencies?
https://www.usaudiomart.com/details/649268271-energy-audis-sexy-a32-floor-standing-speakers/
I noticed the bindings, so I searched for documentation, and I got intrigued by the manufacturer's (apparent) lack of coherence:
This definitely does not make any sense to me:
Bi-amping usually means, as far as I know, having two amplifiers, one for the high, and one for the low frequencies.
On this particular case:
Frequency response
30-25k
Crossover points
1800hz
The manufacturer states that two amplifiers must be used, one for the low and one for the high frequencies, but looking at the image (image 4 on the PDF), they state that the left channel goes down and the right channel goes up (lower and higher frequencies respectively)
I'm not aware of any traditional amplifiers dividing channels by 1800hz, or I might be wrong?
Biamping is not meant to be used with active crossovers before reaching the speakers?
This configuration looks pretty useless to me, unless someone much more educated on this subject than me, states it otherwise.
So:
What's the point in biamping using full range on both frequencies?
Yes, it looks that way because this is a secondary concern. Some like to choose which amps to use for each range. The idea at the time was to use one that works well at lower levels for the higher frequencies and vice versa, to avoid crossover distortion and to select a tone. It can also reduce distortion per level when done a certain way.
When biamping at 400hz do both amps need to be the same power
assuming the drivers have the same sensitivity. I know Nelson mentions
in this article while using a 80W amp for the woffer he only needed a 25 W
amp for upper frequencies but I think he was crossing over at 700hz.
https://www.firstwatt.com/pdf/art_lxmini crossover.pdf
assuming the drivers have the same sensitivity. I know Nelson mentions
in this article while using a 80W amp for the woffer he only needed a 25 W
amp for upper frequencies but I think he was crossing over at 700hz.
https://www.firstwatt.com/pdf/art_lxmini crossover.pdf
Biamping is not the same as active speakers. Active speakers you do the crossover at line level and then send each band to an amp and the amp is directly connected to the speaker. With bi-amping, you send the full range line level to several amps (can be identical types) and at the output of each amp is a passive crossover filter that is connected to the speaker.
The idea behind bi-amping is that you can use a big amp for the bass and smaller ones for mid/high and so have less "interaction" between the channels. Or if you like a big solid state for bass and a tube amp for mid/high. It sits somewhere between a normal passive setup and an active system. Most of these systems come with links installed between the terminals so you can use them with a single amp. You can see those in the second photo.
The idea behind bi-amping is that you can use a big amp for the bass and smaller ones for mid/high and so have less "interaction" between the channels. Or if you like a big solid state for bass and a tube amp for mid/high. It sits somewhere between a normal passive setup and an active system. Most of these systems come with links installed between the terminals so you can use them with a single amp. You can see those in the second photo.
The meaning of "biamping" is not well defined. It may be just a semantic difference of meaning between (central) europe and america/australia.
Rod elliott for example clearly uses the word for "actively" crossed over amps.
Last edited:
STV, thanks that was just what I was looking for. Looking at that article
if I use a 400hz xover point I may just need about 45% the power for
the fullrange driver and my fullrange is about 4 or 5 db more sensitive
as my woffer it looks like I just may get by using a 6 W amp to match
with my 40W bass amp. Heck Nelson's ACA Mini or the new 5W amp
he will discuss at the upcoming Burning Amp meeting,
if I use a 400hz xover point I may just need about 45% the power for
the fullrange driver and my fullrange is about 4 or 5 db more sensitive
as my woffer it looks like I just may get by using a 6 W amp to match
with my 40W bass amp. Heck Nelson's ACA Mini or the new 5W amp
he will discuss at the upcoming Burning Amp meeting,
It is indeed not always the same meaning. But if you just look at the construction of loudspeakers made for "bi-amping" (like the one at the beginning of the thread), then you notice that the passive filter always is there. So it makes no sense to add an active filter before the amps. On the contrary, doing that will change the slopes, phase and amplitudes at the crossover(s) points.
Yes, lots of confusion ...
Woody was thinking of something different than the thread starter.
"Bi-Amping" as i know it from german hifi magazines of the 90ies was clever marketing blahblah to sell more amplifiers, in my opinion.
Oh, but it is. There is no confusion once you accept there are different types of bi-amping. Or more correctly put, multiple means of implementing it.
stv, I will disagree with you. It all depends on what it is you are trying to achieve. Multi amp systems are sometimes the only way to achieve your goals. Much more than blahblah. Perhaps not required in many cases but unavoidable in others.
If you have 2 identical amplifiers, particularily with a single PS), usually it is best to use L for one frequency range and teh other channel for the other since the HF side will not put as great a demand on the PS leaving more for the bass.
Most biamp situations i have seen in practise use 2 different amplifiers.
There are 2 ways to biamp:
Active bi-amping: XO between pre and power-amps.
Passive biamping: Spitting a paallel passive XO into sperate legs and driving each leg with an amplifier channel. In this case the amplifiers are ideally all the same.
Active is generally considered better but passive means you don’t have to worry about doing the tweaking that went into the passive.
Energy says biwire, which is equivalent to the second type of bi-amping.
Not so much well defined, as not fully described.
In this case they use the term biwire not biamp. This makes the difference clear.
dave
yes, my statement was too polemic.
passive bi-amping makes sense to reduce load on single amps, reduce interaction of drivers and crossovers, avoid tweeter damage by clipping bass amp ...
I just think it is a waste to let amps drive single drivers via passive crossovers. Why not go fully active then?
audiophiles love to tweak their system and buying an additional amp to get the best out of their beautiful speakers is a great opportunity for the industry.
But I agree, it can indeed make a difference. No blahblah.
(Edited for better clarity)
Last edited: