Bi-Amping... Placebo or Real

In my situation, will it sound better?

Originally Posted by kouack

Warning to prevent risk of injuries, you should always be smarter then the equipment you are about to use.

Originally Posted by kouack

my french side will fix it thanx hee hee

Originally Posted by ElevatorHappyFun

Preface:
After searching this forum and others I have not found a simple answer.
Bi-wiring, we all agree, is bogus.
You need to use a crossover for effective results.

Originally Posted by CAVX

Running full range signal to a speaker and then relying on its built in passive filter componets works, but you waste power and the system will never be as dynamic as separte powered bands.

Originally Posted by ElevatorHappyFun

Thanks for the replies everyone.

OK, so I gather that using my Onkyo 607 I should not bother with it.

What if I also have a stereo (2.0 channel) receiver and also use that?
Would it be worth it now?

Again thanks for the replies.

Originally Posted by tvrgeek

Real bi-amping, with a real quality external crossover I find to be superior. The big advantage is allowing the amp to work as a real constant current source. Steeper crossovers may be an advantage. I really wish modern AVR's had pre-out, main -in for ALL of the amps. I have a 7 channel Denon that I wish I could split it up and use the extra amps to bi-amp. But alas, they don't let us be this clever.

Now, a few speaker builders have a reputation for such quality passive covers that my view would not hold. Vandersteen comes to mind.

I thought the consensus was you had nothing to lose by trying it

Originally Posted by mcnarus

No, I think the consensus is that it's useless AND you have nothing to lose by trying it.

it can be useful under specific circumstances (a.k.a. when you don't supply enough power to your speakers).

Originally Posted by Easyaspie

The problem with using an external crossover and bypassing the speaker maker's crossover is that the internal crossover provides more than just frequency filtering. They provide impedence matching and voicing (EQ)functions. Probably more than that too, I don't know.....I don't design speakers. lol

Originally Posted by Easyaspie

Somewhat true. But remember that the signals above or below the X-over cutoff frequency will be of such high impedence to not draw any significant amount of power.

IOWs the signals above a low pass filter don't draw much power and those below a high pass filter don't draw much power.

Even then, there is not really any audible benefit to bi-amping with an AVR's unused channels. I just do it because speaker wire is cheap.

Originally Posted by CAVX

What I meant was that power amps driving the speakers are still being fed a full range singal so amplify that regardless if it being used or not by the speaker. The best example is actually passive sub Vs an active sub which is why virtually all subs these days are active and why all AVRs have an electronic sub filer - AKA Bass management.

Bi-amped system using passive filters.
LPF Amp: 20Hz - 20KHz. Speaker: 20Hz - 80Hz
HPF Amp: 20Hz - 20KHz. Speaker: 80Hz - 20KHz
(This system just does not play loud).

Bi-amped system using active filters.
LPF Amp: 20Hz - 80Hz. Speaker: 20Hz - 80Hz
HPF Amp: 80Hz - 20KHz. Speaker 80Hz - 20KHz.
(This system produces bass you can feel).

Originally Posted by CAVX

What I meant was that power amps driving the speakers are still being fed a full range singal so amplify that regardless if it being used or not by the speaker. The best example is actually passive sub Vs an active sub which is why virtually all subs these days are active and why all AVRs have an electronic sub filer - AKA Bass management.

Bi-amped system using passive filters.
LPF Amp: 20Hz - 20KHz. Speaker: 20Hz - 80Hz
HPF Amp: 20Hz - 20KHz. Speaker: 80Hz - 20KHz
(This system just does not play loud).

Bi-amped system using active filters.
LPF Amp: 20Hz - 80Hz. Speaker: 20Hz - 80Hz
HPF Amp: 80Hz - 20KHz. Speaker 80Hz - 20KHz.
(This system produces bass you can feel).

Originally Posted by lbaccoustics

the situation described is a 'active' crossover not bi-amping- in design it is superior for several reasons- in reality, often it doesnt meet expectations because of the quality of active xo's available for anything like reasonable money.

- a digital xo is the future, i have no doubt about it.- just gotta get behringer to do maximum 'quality' instead of maximum features, (-and stop using other companys patented designs)

they can be modded -sure, but you cant get the jitter down to a reasonable level.

bi-amping is the best option till then imho.

Originally Posted by penngray

This discussion really has nothing to do with LFE content so all things 80Hz and under go through the Sub Out and obviously subs have their own amps.

Th discussion should really focus on 80hz to 20KHz and if giving the woofer and tweeter separate power improves SQ. I would say it does not improve SQ if the correct amplification is used in the first place.

If someone is using inadequate power amps then maybe but why not have better amps instead?

In the end the only time anyone should have an amp per driver is when they are using an active crossover setup. All other times people should buy the proper amplification and stop wasting time on this silly bi-amping or silly-bi wiring topics.

Originally Posted by penngray

This discussion really has nothing to do with LFE content so all things 80Hz and under go through the Sub Out and obviously subs have their own amps.

Th discussion should really focus on 80hz to 20KHz and if giving the woofer and tweeter separate power improves SQ. I would say it does not improve SQ if the correct amplification is used in the first place.

If someone is using inadequate power amps then maybe but why not have better amps instead?

In the end the only time anyone should have an amp per driver is when they are using an active crossover setup. All other times people should buy the proper amplification and stop wasting time on this silly bi-amping or silly-bi wiring topics.

Originally Posted by mcnarus

Oh, come on. We're talking about a single AVR here. If it's not supplying enough power through 2 wires, do you really think it's going to supply enough through 4? All the channels are working off the same power supply.

Originally Posted by hd_newbie

What if he had 7 speakers then? In that case Onkyo would supply less power than what was advertised if we go by your argument, correct?

Actually it would. The rated power is with 2 channels driven.

Driving more speakers does decrease the power available for all speakers individually. But, not all channels are asked to deliver max power simultaneously, so it's not really a concern.

Originally Posted by mcnarus

Or maybe only one! AVR manufacturers are getting away with murder on their spec sheets these days.


Same thing in this case, as the mid/woofers are pulling the bulk of the power already. I would think the additional power available to them via "biamping" would be marginal at best.

Originally Posted by Easyaspie

Thing is, they're not lying.....just getting creative witht the writing.

I have a theory about that 2nd part. First off I don't know the anatomy of an AVR or amp. But my theory is that driving the separate parts of a loudspeaker with different AVR channels is that even though one channel could possibly be clipping, most likely one of the mid/woofer channels, the high section channel wouldn't in all probability be clipping as well. I know that all channels are fed by one power supply and like I said I don't know the anatomy of an AVR, but is that a possibility? Just because one channel clips does that mean the others suffer as well?

I know clipping is a result of taxing the power supply too much, but are there additional caps in there to still get adequate current to the other channels?