bi amping question - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #1 of 49 Old 10-23-2010, 10:52 PM - Thread Starter
Member
 
dtowntke's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 75
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
If I set my sc 05 to bi amp front using my s. Back and I send those and when I say those signals I mean my fronts from the pre to the amp. Then bi amp my speakers this way, I have lsi15 and I am just is this smart ?If so my rear channel on the amp gives off 80 watts a channel in 8 ohms not sure what that is in 4.and my from channel is giving off 150 in 4 ohms, I noticed when bi amped the highs which is the from channels only push the tweeter and the surrounds push the mid and lows should I have the higher watts on the low/miss instead of the highs, i am trying to achieve better bass
dtowntke is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 49 Old 10-23-2010, 11:07 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
MichaelJHuman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Colorado Springs, CO
Posts: 18,511
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 53 Post(s)
Liked: 71
Your post is mostly incomprehensible, sorry.

I can't say for sure, but I think biamping won't help what you want.

"But this one goes up to 11"
MichaelJHuman is online now  
post #3 of 49 Old 10-24-2010, 12:24 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Roger Dressler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Oregon
Posts: 8,131
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 50 Post(s)
Liked: 144
Bi-amping is of questionable value, but one thing is sure, it will not improve the bass at all. Don't bother.
Roger Dressler is offline  
post #4 of 49 Old 10-24-2010, 01:07 AM
AVS Special Member
 
RoboRay's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 2,155
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
As far as I know, bi-amping within a single receiver never improved much of anything. The capability is included for marketing reasons.
RoboRay is offline  
post #5 of 49 Old 10-24-2010, 05:27 AM - Thread Starter
Member
 
dtowntke's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 75
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
But shouldn't biamping my signals on my amp and sending those signals to the power amp gibe me more current to my speaker compa one signal? Correct me but my thinking was that sending 2 signals to one speaker I was sending my speakers more power
dtowntke is offline  
post #6 of 49 Old 10-24-2010, 05:49 AM
585-645-1006
 
jdsmoothie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Orlando, FL
Posts: 42,774
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 256 Post(s)
Liked: 1299
Perhaps if you used an external amp, but not using the single power supply in your SC-05.

---------------------------------
"JD" – jd@avscience.com ; shop.avscience.com ; 585-645-1006, AVScience - AVSForum sponsor for 15 years  
Mon - Fri: 8am – 8pm EST (Sat/Sun, leave message)
Call for pricing on Denon, Marantz, Yamaha, Onkyo, Klipsch, Def Tech, Oppo, Parasound 
** Think the AVR is defective?  Reset the microprocessor 4-5 times. 
jdsmoothie is offline  
post #7 of 49 Old 10-24-2010, 05:56 AM
FOH
AVS Special Member
 
FOH's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Midwest
Posts: 4,734
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Liked: 206
There are two types of biamping; active biamping, and passive biamping. Passive biamping is generally a waste of time and effort.

To achieve the benefits of bi-amping, one must remove the passive, lossy components of the speaker crossover system. Then the amp terminals are directly connected to the driver without the DC insertion losses associated with passive elements(capacitors, inductors, resistors), therefore damping is improved and better control over the exact crossover frequencies.

Additionally, one needs an active or electronic crossover to distribute the signal accordingly, be it marginally done in a receiver, or ideally executed in an outboard, purpose built electronic crossover.

However, even if you accomplish the biamping in the receiver, all the amp channels are typically supplied from a common power supply. The current capability of that supply cannot properly handle the demands of simultaneous power into all those channels. When the supply is tasked to supply all channels, the power per channel is oftentimes greatly reduced.

If you find yourself needing more power through biamping, a better route would be high sensitivity/high output speakers combined with dedicated power amplifiers.

Good luck

------------------------------------
Flat, Deep, Clean, Linear, and Loud
------------------------------------
Active 16.8kw, 7.3 system
(3)Seaton Cat12C up front, (4)QSC K8 sides/rears
(2)Seaton SubM-HP, (4)18" IB
FOH is offline  
post #8 of 49 Old 10-24-2010, 06:00 AM - Thread Starter
Member
 
dtowntke's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 75
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
The carver is a five channel amp 80w rear 8 ohms not sure what that is 4 ohms and 150w for the front channel. So I put my reciever in bi amp mode then I use the pre outs to send the signals to the carver the to the lsi15,
dtowntke is offline  
post #9 of 49 Old 10-24-2010, 06:24 AM
Advanced Member
 
kouack's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Montreal
Posts: 572
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Read again the post prior your last, FOH did explain it very very simple in a very basic way to the fact unless you do what he did explain you are wasting your time.

Warning to prevent risk of injuries, you should always be smarter than the equipment you are about to use.
kouack is offline  
post #10 of 49 Old 10-24-2010, 07:39 AM
Advanced Member
 
TKO1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Canada's capital city.
Posts: 554
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 65
The opinions here related to passive bi-amping are not consistent with what Anthem states in their FAQ about bi-amping:

doesnt-passive-biamping-waste-the-amps-power-because-each-channel-still-has-to-amplify-the-full-range-signal-and-not-just-the-highs-or-the-lows

Quote:


No. With the jumpers removed on a biampable speaker, the impedance of each section is not the usual 4 or 8 ohms, but several hundred if not more at the frequencies that the amp is "not supposed to be amplifying". Higher impedance means less current draw. No meaningful amount of current, no wasted power.

I have no opinion either way just found this an interesting statement from a renowned source of audio expertise.


Cheers.
TKO1 is offline  
post #11 of 49 Old 10-24-2010, 09:00 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
MichaelJHuman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Colorado Springs, CO
Posts: 18,511
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 53 Post(s)
Liked: 71
As far as I know TK, that's right.

Using a receiver's biamping capability just seems pointless though, as the two amps are still limited by the shared power supply.

If using two amps rather than one, increases the normal point of clipping somehow, maybe it would be helpful. But how would that work? Would it reduce the load on the low side amp causing less power supply voltage sag under load? It would only decrease the load a little, as the high side amp is not carrying much load (the high side of a speaker requires less power than the low side.)

"But this one goes up to 11"
MichaelJHuman is online now  
post #12 of 49 Old 10-24-2010, 09:37 AM
AVS Special Member
 
JHAz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 3,807
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 13 Post(s)
Liked: 139
Quote:
Originally Posted by TKO1 View Post

The opinions here related to passive bi-amping are not consistent with what Anthem states in their FAQ about bi-amping:

doesnt-passive-biamping-waste-the-amps-power-because-each-channel-still-has-to-amplify-the-full-range-signal-and-not-just-the-highs-or-the-lows



I have no opinion either way just found this an interesting statement from a renowned source of audio expertise.


Cheers.

But if you can use the full power of both amp channels in biamping, your theoreticak maximum increased headroom is only 3 dB, which is "about one notch" louder to most folks. If you're not running out of steam with a single channel, doubling the power adds nothing that is needed.

Plus, even assuming the amp can deliver full power with the additional channels in use, chances are you cannot actually use that power. In a typical two way speaker, the power needed for the tweeter is not much more than 20% or so of the power needed for the woofer (IIRC). That's just the power distribution in typical musicic or movies - - only about a fifth of the power is in the higher frequencies. So you really can only add about 20% more power by biamping such a speaker, or around one decibel. If you're running out of headroom with single channels, chances are you need more than one dB more headroom . . .

There are widely varying opinions about whether there is some other reason that biamping makes a sonic difference. If you just want to do it, there's no problem. I used tobiamp my maggies. You may even perceive a difference (whether that's a placebo effect thing will be unknowable). Just make sure you remove the straps that conect the two sections of the crossover on the back of the speaker or you run a significant risk of blowing up amp channels.
JHAz is offline  
post #13 of 49 Old 10-24-2010, 10:24 AM - Thread Starter
Member
 
dtowntke's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 75
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I could be mistaken,but by putting the receiver in bi-amp mode, you have to connect the speakers to the receiver. Useing the pre-outs negates the amp section of the receiver for those channels you use pre-outs for...... is this true ?
dtowntke is offline  
post #14 of 49 Old 10-24-2010, 10:27 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
MichaelJHuman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Colorado Springs, CO
Posts: 18,511
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 53 Post(s)
Liked: 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by dtowntke View Post

I could be mistaken,but by putting the receiver in bi-amp mode, you have to connect the speakers to the receiver. Useing the pre-outs negates the amp section of the receiver for those channels you use pre-outs for...... is this true ?

Right.

"But this one goes up to 11"
MichaelJHuman is online now  
post #15 of 49 Old 10-24-2010, 10:35 AM - Thread Starter
Member
 
dtowntke's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 75
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
then why am i getting mids/ and bass that match the highs
dtowntke is offline  
post #16 of 49 Old 10-24-2010, 10:49 AM
Advanced Member
 
kouack's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Montreal
Posts: 572
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
because the low (bass signal) is wasted in your crossover on the tweeter side in the speakers and when you are doing fake biamping like you are trying to do, you do not get 80 watts of hi signal you still have about only 10-20 % of hi content into the signal sent to speakers.

Warning to prevent risk of injuries, you should always be smarter than the equipment you are about to use.
kouack is offline  
post #17 of 49 Old 10-24-2010, 11:24 AM
Advanced Member
 
TKO1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Canada's capital city.
Posts: 554
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by dtowntke View Post

I could be mistaken,but by putting the receiver in bi-amp mode, you have to connect the speakers to the receiver. Useing the pre-outs negates the amp section of the receiver for those channels you use pre-outs for...... is this true ?

Sorry I am kinda confused by how you are explaining this...

By what I have read so far you are attempting to use the setting in the SC-05 to bi-amp your front speakers from the non-existant surround backs in a 5.1 system. This is fine and fully supported in the SC-05, as follows:

1) take the speakers output from the SC-05 and feed the surround back signals to the low portion of your bi-amplifable speakers remembering to removed the jumper. Then take the front speakers' output and feed that to the high portion (or vice versa). Remember to configure the setting in the Pioneer menu: System setup->Surround back and choose Front Bi-Amp.

However, when you are trying to use a 5-channel amplifier from the SC-05 pre-amplifier output you are not going to be able to do it without splitting the amplifiers in both systems to compensate for the fact your Carver only has 5 channels. So you need to do something different like this:

2) feed the pre-amp outputs from the fronts and the surround backs to whatever inputs you want on your five channel amplifier. Then output each of them to the speakers in the same manner above (e.g. front left and right to the high portion and then whatever other two inputs you used to the low portion of the speakers). This means that you are using both amplifier and receiver to compensate for the fact that your outboard amplifier is only a 5-channel amp. Four channels to the Carver and then the normal surrounds and center channels (three channels) being amplified by the Pioneer.

The SC-05 amplifier section is very good and my recommendation would be to try it as described above in 1).

130W x 7 (20Hz - 20kHz, .09% THD@ 8 ohms, All Channels Driven) and it is THX Select2 Plus certified which is a fairly extensive guarantee that it can deliver that power as stated.

Hope this helps. Cheers.
TKO1 is offline  
post #18 of 49 Old 10-24-2010, 12:51 PM
Member
 
jonfitch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 143
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 14
Your power bill will definitely feel the difference with an increase in idle power draw, lol. Power output should increase slightly but I don't think this actually adds to headroom, since both amps are in parallel, rather that average SPL increases.
jonfitch is offline  
post #19 of 49 Old 10-24-2010, 12:58 PM
AVS Special Member
 
JerryLove's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Tampa, FL
Posts: 1,597
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 76
Generally speaking, if you are having a problem with an underpowered speaker, it will not be solved with passive bi-amping.

And yes, setting your Pioneer to "bi-amp" will not affect the pre-out section, and therefore do nothing given that you are using a carver external amp.

What is really odd to me is that you are using the pre-outs on a 140W AVR to run an 80W amp. Have you tried running the L/R speaker through the AVR?

Perhaps I have not found it but: what are your speakers?
JerryLove is offline  
post #20 of 49 Old 10-24-2010, 03:46 PM - Thread Starter
Member
 
dtowntke's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 75
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Poll lsi 15, carver is 150@ 4 ohms front, 80 @ 8 ohms rear, what is that into 4 ohms
dtowntke is offline  
post #21 of 49 Old 10-24-2010, 03:51 PM - Thread Starter
Member
 
dtowntke's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 75
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
#2 of this is what I was doing but I was told that I wouldn't hear any diffrence I thought doing it this method was correct but over on the poll forum and here I was wrong and it would not work ....... maybe I was unclear.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TKO1 View Post

Sorry I am kinda confused by how you are explaining this...

By what I have read so far you are attempting to use the setting in the SC-05 to bi-amp your front speakers from the non-existant surround backs in a 5.1 system. This is fine and fully supported in the SC-05, as follows:

1) take the speakers output from the SC-05 and feed the surround back signals to the low portion of your bi-amplifable speakers remembering to removed the jumper. Then take the front speakers' output and feed that to the high portion (or vice versa). Remember to configure the setting in the Pioneer menu: System setup->Surround back and choose Front Bi-Amp.

However, when you are trying to use a 5-channel amplifier from the SC-05 pre-amplifier output you are not going to be able to do it without splitting the amplifiers in both systems to compensate for the fact your Carver only has 5 channels. So you need to do something different like this:

2) feed the pre-amp outputs from the fronts and the surround backs to whatever inputs you want on your five channel amplifier. Then output each of them to the speakers in the same manner above (e.g. front left and right to the high portion and then whatever other two inputs you used to the low portion of the speakers). This means that you are using both amplifier and receiver to compensate for the fact that your outboard amplifier is only a 5-channel amp. Four channels to the Carver and then the normal surrounds and center channels (three channels) being amplified by the Pioneer.

The SC-05 amplifier section is very good and my recommendation would be to try it as described above in 1).

130W x 7 (20Hz - 20kHz, .09% THD@ 8 ohms, All Channels Driven) and it is THX Select2 Plus certified which is a fairly extensive guarantee that it can deliver that power as stated.

Hope this helps. Cheers.

dtowntke is offline  
post #22 of 49 Old 10-24-2010, 03:58 PM - Thread Starter
Member
 
dtowntke's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 75
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Is my carved av 405 bridgeable I bought it used and it didn't come with a manual. I can't find much on line
dtowntke is offline  
post #23 of 49 Old 10-24-2010, 04:41 PM
Advanced Member
 
Nick @ Anthem's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 852
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 15 Post(s)
Liked: 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by FOH View Post

To achieve the benefits of bi-amping, one must remove the passive, lossy components of the speaker crossover system. Then the amp terminals are directly connected to the driver without the DC insertion losses associated with passive elements(capacitors, inductors, resistors),

It's not all bad because the biggest power robber is almost always the voice coil.

The ultimate setup is indeed an amp channel per driver preceded by purpose-made active (preferably DSP-based) crossover but this is too expensive and complex for nearly everyone. The best practical solution when not dealing with PA systems is the right amp for the right speaker for the application, limiting active duties to the division between sub and mains. It's no coincidence that this is how HT works.

So why are so many home speakers biampable despite the abundance of powerful enough amps? To avoid being dismissed as non-hi-end. In large installations there's more to it - amps with output that exceeds a certain voltage can't be classified as a consumer model, and there are hi-end speakers that can take more.

Regardless, biamp terminals on a speaker are handy if trying to improve rather than replace a system using what's at hand, i.e. unused amp channels. The goal isn't increased power output, strictly speaking, but lower *audible* distortion. When the amp driving the bottom clips, the distortion is kept there since the top half is doing its job in isolation. There's a similar effect with intermodulation distortion.

This is effectively the same as having the bigger amp that's needed, assuming the power supply doesn't get starved so much that things go in the opposite direction. It can also save tweeters since underpowered amps driven into clipping account for many blown drivers. A simplified example just to illustrate: Say middle C is played cleanly - the tweeter gets the amount of overtone it was designed for, i.e. from a natural sound. Now imagine the same note played at the same level but with an underpowered amp that's clipping - the tweeter has more work to do resulting from the harmonic distortion.

The most important noise floor is in your head. Always remember to protect your hearing.
Nick @ Anthem is offline  
post #24 of 49 Old 10-25-2010, 05:17 AM
FOH
AVS Special Member
 
FOH's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Midwest
Posts: 4,734
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Liked: 206
I never stated benefits can't be achieved, in previous theoretical arguments, I've clearly laid out the marginal benefits attainable by passive biamping.
However, as I stated in my first post "Passive biamping is generally a waste of time and effort."
I do not want to muddy the waters, however let me attempt to describe whats attainable via Passive Biamping;

1.) In the passive bi-amp situation, the load that each amp is presented with is reduced when compared to the total load on the amp in the single amp scenario. Load sharing. The inputs are paralleled, and that voltage is amplified, however it's where the current demands are different, that's where one attains the small benefit.

The load on the HF amp; it possesses a high impedance at low frequencies, so it is easier to drive. As I understand it, the amp stages are boosting voltage, then the current is determined by the load at the terminals, and in this case the current demands are very low because it's amplifiying the upper portion, or the higher frequencies of the signal. Thus, not depleting the current reserves of the amp. High potentials can exist without current flow, it's the high current flow that saps everything from the output stages, the supply rails, and all the way back to the wall voltage during peak current demands. In this scenario, using a seperate amp for the high pass section, that huge current depletion doesn't occur.


Likewise, the amp supplying the low side of the crossover network, is presented with a high impedance above the pass band, so although the voltage amplification remains (parallel input), the current demands are reduced somewhat. Now obviously the dramatic lowering of current demands aren't the same in the LF amp as they are in the HF amp, but a reduction of the load is benefited by the amp, just a lesser degree.



2.) The second benefit is the theoretical reduction of potential inter-modulation distortion, created in the LF section, and surfacing as distortion artifacts in the HF section. Very briefly, when transient drive voltage ceases at the LF driver, however the driver continues to move prior to settling, this generates a voltage. It is possible that this can contaminate the HF drive signal, if a low impedance path is present to ground (amp terminals), the corruption may be minimized.

Would I reccomend passive bi-amping? No, not if one has to buy gear to do it, it's hardly worth the trouble, even if you have the extra (identical) amps. Gain matching would be important.

There are many things of far greater importance, such as the speaker room interface, whereby one's attention should be focused for much more significant gains. That being said, I do welcome any input, or corrections.

Thank you

An analogy would be "D" sized batteries. One "D" battery @ 1.5 Volts, vs two "D" batteries in parallel; the voltage remains the same, still 1.5 volts, but the current capability is doubled.

And as I've stated every time, even though there are advantages, it's not worth the effort.

Thanks

------------------------------------
Flat, Deep, Clean, Linear, and Loud
------------------------------------
Active 16.8kw, 7.3 system
(3)Seaton Cat12C up front, (4)QSC K8 sides/rears
(2)Seaton SubM-HP, (4)18" IB
FOH is offline  
post #25 of 49 Old 10-25-2010, 05:58 AM
FOH
AVS Special Member
 
FOH's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Midwest
Posts: 4,734
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Liked: 206
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nick @ Anthem View Post

It's not all bad because the biggest power robber is almost always the voice coil.

The ultimate setup is indeed an amp channel per driver preceded by purpose-made active (preferably DSP-based) crossover but this is too expensive and complex for nearly everyone. The best practical solution when not dealing with PA systems is the right amp for the right speaker for the application, limiting active duties to the division between sub and mains. It's no coincidence that this is how HT works.

So why are so many home speakers biampable despite the abundance of powerful enough amps? To avoid being dismissed as non-hi-end. In large installations there's more to it - amps with output that exceeds a certain voltage can't be classified as a consumer model, and there are hi-end speakers that can take more.

Regardless, biamp terminals on a speaker are handy if trying to improve rather than replace a system using what's at hand, i.e. unused amp channels. The goal isn't increased power output, strictly speaking, but lower *audible* distortion. When the amp driving the bottom clips, the distortion is kept there since the top half is doing its job in isolation. There's a similar effect with intermodulation distortion.

This is effectively the same as having the bigger amp that's needed, assuming the power supply doesn't get starved so much that things go in the opposite direction. It can also save tweeters since underpowered amps driven into clipping account for many blown drivers. A simplified example just to illustrate: Say middle C is played cleanly - the tweeter gets the amount of overtone it was designed for, i.e. from a natural sound. Now imagine the same note played at the same level but with an underpowered amp that's clipping - the tweeter has more work to do resulting from the harmonic distortion.

Interesting post,
Allow me to make a few points
Quote:
It's not all bad because the biggest power robber is almost always the voice coil.

Power compression and the associated effects are HUGE, and I post on the effects often. When one is exposed to how seriously "blunted, dulled and softened" the presentation becomes due to compression, the bigger issue of high sensitivity, and the importance of dynamics in H/T come into focus.

Quote:
The ultimate setup is indeed an amp channel per driver preceded by purpose-made active (preferably DSP-based) crossover but this is too expensive and complex for nearly everyone.

Technical complexity aside, there are some very reasonably priced solutions in this regard.

Quote:
The best practical solution when not dealing with PA systems is the right amp for the right speaker for the application, limiting active duties to the division between sub and mains. It's no coincidence that this is how HT works.

In mid level pro audio offerings, one is seeing a great deal more active, dsp controlled/voiced gear in recent years. The same can be said for near-field monitors in studio work. In H/T, there are some very exciting active products that target and solve so many inherent hurdles in a variety of applications. So, respectively I disagree, the best practical solution IMO, is active multi-ways, distributed around the room.

With regard to speaker terminals, I've never considered them "bi-amp" terminals. They're "bi-wire" terminals that may be used in a bi-amp scenario. Until recently, I'd never heard of them referred to as bi-amp terminals. It seemed to coincide with the Receiver marketing biz, beginning their bi-amp options. Maybe I'm wrong with the timing, but I'm still referring to them as bi-wire terminals that can be ill-advisably used as biamping terminals.

Thanks

------------------------------------
Flat, Deep, Clean, Linear, and Loud
------------------------------------
Active 16.8kw, 7.3 system
(3)Seaton Cat12C up front, (4)QSC K8 sides/rears
(2)Seaton SubM-HP, (4)18" IB
FOH is offline  
post #26 of 49 Old 10-25-2010, 06:11 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
penngray's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Florida
Posts: 26,779
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nick @ Anthem View Post

It's not all bad because the biggest power robber is almost always the voice coil.

The ultimate setup is indeed an amp channel per driver preceded by purpose-made active (preferably DSP-based) crossover but this is too expensive and complex for nearly everyone.....

I may comment on the rest of the post later but I have to disagree with your opinion that active is too expensive or complex for nearly everyone because I do it and there are many options out there. Recently it even got a little cheaper and Im hoping some speaker manufacturers pick up on some of the available options.

I will clarify that active designs are definitely not common and the ones that exist from likes of Salk or Mark Seaton are definitely higher priced but that does not mean active designs are inherently expensive because in the DIYer they are a low cost solution to even passive designs.

A new product like the MiniDSP is an incredible active XO tool and its $160 for a stereo 2-way design. That is a good starting point. Add 4 channel amp and a good 2-way speaker design and you have a product that blows passive design 5 times the cost away. It also gives full control over the in room response.....

That isnt expensive or too complex if people can follow instructions but its not for those window shoppers of the world

It is not "open-minded" to reject knowledge - Bob Lee
penngray is offline  
post #27 of 49 Old 10-25-2010, 06:14 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
penngray's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Florida
Posts: 26,779
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by TKO1 View Post

The opinions here related to passive bi-amping are not consistent with what Anthem states in their FAQ about bi-amping:

doesnt-passive-biamping-waste-the-amps-power-because-each-channel-still-has-to-amplify-the-full-range-signal-and-not-just-the-highs-or-the-lows

Quote:
No. With the jumpers removed on a biampable speaker, the impedance of each section is not the usual 4 or 8 ohms, but several hundred if not more at the frequencies that the amp is "not supposed to be amplifying". Higher impedance means less current draw. No meaningful amount of current, no wasted power.

I have no opinion either way just found this an interesting statement from a renowned source of audio expertise.


Cheers.

renowned source of audio expertise????

Well that statement quoted is grossly exageratted and most likely in accurate for most speakers. Anyone that can do an impedance test on drivers with high pass and/or low pass filters on them will tell you this isnt all that meaningful.
The signal going into the amp and out to the speaker IS STILL A FULL RANGE signal. A proper setup is when the signal is filter BEFORE the amp!! High impedance is simply LARGE resistance (nice spin on saying less current draw), which anyone with a college education should know is just heat.

It is not "open-minded" to reject knowledge - Bob Lee
penngray is offline  
post #28 of 49 Old 10-25-2010, 06:23 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
penngray's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Florida
Posts: 26,779
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 29
What I find interesting is that people wanting to do all this bi-amping, bi-wiring tend to have bad rooms and low cost speakers to start with. Sorry if that offends anyone but I would think more energy and focus should be on the room and the speaker improvements because that is where all the real audio improvements exist. You get those maximized then you can waste tons of time getting all you want out of placebo induced changes like bi-wiring and bi-amping (when there is no active design in pace).

Instead of bi-amping maybe he should just buy a better amp!!

It is not "open-minded" to reject knowledge - Bob Lee
penngray is offline  
post #29 of 49 Old 10-25-2010, 06:25 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Easyaspie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 2,310
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 14
Quote:
Originally Posted by kouack View Post

because the low (bass signal) is wasted in your crossover on the tweeter side in the speakers and when you are doing fake biamping like you are trying to do, you do not get 80 watts of hi signal you still have about only 10-20 % of hi content into the signal sent to speakers.

Thats not true, read the link in post #10.

p.s. I'm not making some claim that passive bi-amping improves SQ, just that power isn't wasted as many mistakenly believe.
Easyaspie is offline  
post #30 of 49 Old 10-25-2010, 07:03 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
penngray's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Florida
Posts: 26,779
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 29
See post #27, IMO post #10 is false.

If the signal is not filter before the amp the amp sends out atleast 20Hz to 20KHz signal, there is no way around that. The amp signal is converted to heat....Impedance is simply resistance nothing else.

Honestly, I care little about the "Power is wasted" topic period. Its a silly point when the main point is the simple fact that people should just buy properly amplification and work on real SQ changes in their system. Too much time and money is wasted on the wrong parts of this audio hobby.

It is not "open-minded" to reject knowledge - Bob Lee
penngray is offline  
Reply Receivers, Amps, and Processors

User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off