Two same power amps are used in my setup, each speaker is driven by one power amp (mono mode) traditionally, seemed this was the only way I run it.
Just online found a pic shown, please see it. This connection is quite fresh to me, two power amps crossed to speakers. wonder if this method is better than the amp with mono mode? if it has any benifit, would try it.
Thanks.
Just online found a pic shown, please see it. This connection is quite fresh to me, two power amps crossed to speakers. wonder if this method is better than the amp with mono mode? if it has any benifit, would try it.
Thanks.
Attachments
I'm not super qualified to answer your question but I will give you my thoughts and experience with this situation.
If you are using a passive crossover then I would venture to say that your original configuration might be better as you would be running only 1 woofer per amp meaning less strain on each amp. 2 woofers per amp, especially if those amps are barely powerful enough to satisfy the power requirement for each speaker, might "tax" one amp too much resulting in a possibility of distortion at higher spl. Tweeters are generally pretty easy on your amplifier.
The diagram you showed represents how a DSP setup would look like when you want to adjust or refine the signal before sending the individually processed signals to their respective drivers
Bottom line is its an easy experiment and only you can determine if it's made a difference with your specific equipment. Very basic knowledge here and somebody may be able to chime in with more technical input bit I hope this helps a bit to get you started.
Wes
If you are using a passive crossover then I would venture to say that your original configuration might be better as you would be running only 1 woofer per amp meaning less strain on each amp. 2 woofers per amp, especially if those amps are barely powerful enough to satisfy the power requirement for each speaker, might "tax" one amp too much resulting in a possibility of distortion at higher spl. Tweeters are generally pretty easy on your amplifier.
The diagram you showed represents how a DSP setup would look like when you want to adjust or refine the signal before sending the individually processed signals to their respective drivers
Bottom line is its an easy experiment and only you can determine if it's made a difference with your specific equipment. Very basic knowledge here and somebody may be able to chime in with more technical input bit I hope this helps a bit to get you started.
Wes
I'm not super qualified to answer your question but I will give you my thoughts and experience with this situation.
If you are using a passive crossover then I would venture to say that your original configuration might be better as you would be running only 1 woofer per amp meaning less strain on each amp. 2 woofers per amp, especially if those amps are barely powerful enough to satisfy the power requirement for each speaker, might "tax" one amp too much resulting in a possibility of distortion at higher spl. Tweeters are generally pretty easy on your amplifier.
The diagram you showed represents how a DSP setup would look like when you want to adjust or refine the signal before sending the individually processed signals to their respective drivers
Bottom line is its an easy experiment and only you can determine if it's made a difference with your specific equipment. Very basic knowledge here and somebody may be able to chime in with more technical input bit I hope this helps a bit to get you started.
Wes
Thanks, I see. the way the pic shown is not "balanced" for two amps, don't need to try or test.
The advantage of splitting your amps high/low is in using different amps to drive the different parts of the frequency spectrum. I do this with a 15W valve amp on a wide ranger speaker and a 60W chip amp on the woofers, it works very well. The cost is power dumping from the blocked frequency range. Personally I found it to sound a lot better than mini DSP line level crossover or an active DJ type system between the pre and power amps.
The advantage of splitting your amps high/low is in using different amps to drive the different parts of the frequency spectrum. I do this with a 15W valve amp on a wide ranger speaker and a 60W chip amp on the woofers, it works very well. The cost is power dumping from the blocked frequency range. Personally I found it to sound a lot better than mini DSP line level crossover or an active DJ type system between the pre and power amps.
How is it again that you are keeping the different speakers from receiving full spectrum?
PSKI
Just online found a pic shown, please see it. This connection is quite fresh to me, two power amps crossed to speakers. wonder if this method is better than the amp with mono mode? if it has any benifit, would try it.
It's known as Bi-Amping. Usually, the amps are used in conjunction with electronic crossovers.
MCIt's known as Bi-Amping. Usually, the amps are used in conjunction with electronic crossovers.
I've been doing it for decades. The output power advantages are astounding in addition to the tune-able nature of the setup (Ohm's law, anyone?)
I was curious about his "power dumping" statement.
P
MC
I was curious about his "power dumping" statement.
P
I have no idea.
Hi,
Its just plain old bi-amping, there is no crossing involved.
Active crossovers are an entirely different matter.
Here the crossovers remain untouched in the speakers.
With identical power amplifiers its a particular bad diagram.
Each amplifier should drive each speaker. The bass channels
are far more stressed than the treble channels and it makes
no sense to run bass through one amp, and treble the other.
In real terms if "mono" mode is bridged you may lose some
maximum volume capability, but gain some sound quality
by going bi-amped, gaining some extra "ease" in the sound.
Or not, just simply try it. If a choice of pairs of speaker cables
using the thicker cable for the bass/mid is a good idea. If you
need to buy speaker cable to try it, concentrating on quality
not quantity for the treble units cable is probably an idea.
rgds, sreten.
You may also need some way of splitting the input if the amps
have no provision for parallel operation from one channel.
Its just plain old bi-amping, there is no crossing involved.
Active crossovers are an entirely different matter.
Here the crossovers remain untouched in the speakers.
With identical power amplifiers its a particular bad diagram.
Each amplifier should drive each speaker. The bass channels
are far more stressed than the treble channels and it makes
no sense to run bass through one amp, and treble the other.
In real terms if "mono" mode is bridged you may lose some
maximum volume capability, but gain some sound quality
by going bi-amped, gaining some extra "ease" in the sound.
Or not, just simply try it. If a choice of pairs of speaker cables
using the thicker cable for the bass/mid is a good idea. If you
need to buy speaker cable to try it, concentrating on quality
not quantity for the treble units cable is probably an idea.
rgds, sreten.
You may also need some way of splitting the input if the amps
have no provision for parallel operation from one channel.
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
Last edited:
Sorry about the confusing terminology the power from the amplifier is blocked if you use one bass and one mid/high amplifier. So if you configured two 30WPC amplifiers this way it would only go as loud as one 30WPC amplifier. If you configure them one speaker each then you would have double the power (a 3dB gain).
No.wonder if this method is better than the amp with mono mode? if it has any benifit, would try it.
It's called passive or fools biamping. Real biamping involves splitting the signal before the power amps via a xover at line level.
Brett - I think you can leave the "fool's' out of the equation - while not as effective as fully active, passive bi-amping is still bi-amping - now bi-wiring is a another matter altogether 😀 🙄
And as Sreten notes, with identical power amps, vertical passive makes far more sense than the horizontal as shown. If a higher powered amp is available, use that for the bottom in horizontal set-up.
An RCA y-cord at each amp might save an extra length of line level cable
And as Steve says - it does work, and you just might like it - if nothing else you might well hear less distortion in the upper range
And as Sreten notes, with identical power amps, vertical passive makes far more sense than the horizontal as shown. If a higher powered amp is available, use that for the bottom in horizontal set-up.
An RCA y-cord at each amp might save an extra length of line level cable

And as Steve says - it does work, and you just might like it - if nothing else you might well hear less distortion in the upper range
Last edited:
No, it's entirely appropriate.Brett - I think you can leave the "fool's' out of the equation -
It's not effective at all.while not as effective as fully active, passive bi-amping is still bi-amping
Show me the measurements that show this reduction in HF distortion, that is at an audibly significant level.if nothing else you might well hear less distortion in the upper range
Hi,
FWIW "fools" biamping makes excellent sense with two Quad 303's.
Given it has a regulated supply with limited current capability.
I would say buying another power amplifier to bi-amp a two way
is generally a pretty foolish idea and I don't recommend it at all.
What I generally recommend with identical power amplifiers is a
3 way speaker, with active bass/mid, and passive mid/treble with
all EQ done in the active crossovers, unfortunately not that simple.
rgds, sreten.
FWIW "fools" biamping makes excellent sense with two Quad 303's.
Given it has a regulated supply with limited current capability.
I would say buying another power amplifier to bi-amp a two way
is generally a pretty foolish idea and I don't recommend it at all.
What I generally recommend with identical power amplifiers is a
3 way speaker, with active bass/mid, and passive mid/treble with
all EQ done in the active crossovers, unfortunately not that simple.
rgds, sreten.
It would make more sense to me to sell both of them and buy/build and amp that's capable of meeting your requirements. It certainly makes zero sense to add a second 303 to passively biamp.FWIW "fools" biamping makes excellent sense with two Quad 303's.
Given it has a regulated supply with limited current capability.
Agreed.I would say buying another power amplifier to bi-amp a two way
is generally a pretty foolish idea and I don't recommend it at all.
I don't see the point in that at all unless it's done to save money buy using a simpler active xover and 2ch less amplificationWhat I generally recommend with identical power amplifiers is a
3 way speaker, with active bass/mid, and passive mid/treble with
all EQ done in the active crossovers, unfortunately not that simple.
OK passive bi-amping throws away power but it does have its uses. Personally I prefer the sound of solid state amplifiers for bass and the easy access to power they provide. But for a wide ranger in a FAST system I prefer valve amps and you don't need much power there even in an OB system.
SO I'm happy to run my valve amp into the wide ranger and a chip amp into the bass. I've made a passive line level crossover (RC type) purchase a entry level active line level crossover, run a line level Mini-DSP digital crossover and run my speakers passively bi-amped and it sounds MUCH better passively bi-amped with reasonable quality crossovers and at reasonable cost.
Most of these solutions can be applied for a couple of hundred dollars and I suggest you try them yourself and see which works best. I do measure my system and often see differences in the measurements, but you need an ear to decide what really works. For example I find EQing the sound to achieve a "flat response" generally takes all the life out of the music. Presumably we are doing this to experiment and have fun, go forth, muck around, the truth is out there.
SO I'm happy to run my valve amp into the wide ranger and a chip amp into the bass. I've made a passive line level crossover (RC type) purchase a entry level active line level crossover, run a line level Mini-DSP digital crossover and run my speakers passively bi-amped and it sounds MUCH better passively bi-amped with reasonable quality crossovers and at reasonable cost.
Most of these solutions can be applied for a couple of hundred dollars and I suggest you try them yourself and see which works best. I do measure my system and often see differences in the measurements, but you need an ear to decide what really works. For example I find EQing the sound to achieve a "flat response" generally takes all the life out of the music. Presumably we are doing this to experiment and have fun, go forth, muck around, the truth is out there.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
- Home
- Loudspeakers
- Multi-Way
- Two power amp connections?