or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Audio › Audio theory, Setup and Chat › Question on bi-amping
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

# Question on bi-amping - Page 20

That is what I meant by available voltage and current. Put another way, bridging two amplifiers does not increase their rated voltage or current, it just doubles the voltage swing at the output. For a given load impedance that will quadruple the power assuming the amplifiers can also supply twice the current. The effective load seen by each amplifier is halved. For the equation-minded:

P = V^2 / R so doubling the voltage to 2*V yields Pbridged = (2*V)^2 / R = 4 * V^2 / R = 4 * P

Also P = V * I so I = P / V and clearly if power is quadrupled and voltage is doubled then current must also be doubled to sustain the higher output power for the same R (Ibridged = 4P / 2V = 2 * I).

Each individual amplifier still delivers voltage V but twice the current. Since R = V / I then Rbridged = R / 2, the apparent load to each amplifier is half what it was before bridging.

Hopefully Georg Ohm is happy.

HTH - Don

### Gear mentioned in this thread:

Quote:
Originally Posted by PrimeTime

Bridging increases voltage and current in the same proportions for a given load, as Ohm's law dictates.
Unfortunately, Ohm's law only covers DC theory. This is AC, not DC.

In practice, the limiting factor is the amplifier power supply. A stereo amplifier that's capable of doubling its output power at half the rated impedance (both channels driven) can be bridged to produce twice the power (and therefore current) into an identical load. However the number of stereo amps capable of that is very few.

So you're both wrong.
Glad to hear it, thanks for the correction. It has been extended recently using a factor known as "impedance" and found to be valid for AC circuits as well, however.

The output stage is the usual limitation, whether power supply, output devices, thermal management, whatever.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DonH50

Glad to hear it, thanks for the correction. It has been extended recently using a factor known as "impedance" and found to be valid for AC circuits as well, however.
Partially correct. It's not as simple as replacing resistance with impedance, unless of course there are no reactive components, but that's cheating. And to use Maxwell's equations, imaginary numbers and calculus comes into play.

These wrong equations that use R, and magically quadruple power are just plain wrong though. A linear transfer function does not produce exponential gain! 2E or (not to imply multiplication here!) 2I means 2P, not 4P.

Quote:
The output stage is the usual limitation, whether power supply, output devices, thermal management, whatever.
That sounds pretty fair.
@ Speed Daemon

I think everyone here understands that active biamping is "real" biamping, but not everyone is capable of doing it. The question is, are there any benefits to passive biamping? Forget about the "anti-audiophile-waste-of-money" argument... assume everyone already has the equipment and cables to do it, we just want to know if it's worth all the re-wiring. Given your ample experience, where do you stand?

Based on the opinions here, I moved from a 7.1 set up (with a biamped FL and FR speakers) to a 9.1 setup without biamping. Some said the 9.1 would yield definite benefits whereas 7.1 with biamping would not. Sadly he was wrong... 9.1 doesn't add much, muddied the imaging, and is a real pain to set up.

For what it's worth, I also prefer 6.1 over 7.1.... the dual rears seem to add nothing, are difficult to set up (due to my room constraints) and leaves a gapping hole behind the listener which the single rear filled with ease. but I digress...
Edited by stereoforsale - 11/23/13 at 5:43pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Speed Daemon

Quote:
Originally Posted by DonH50

Glad to hear it, thanks for the correction. It has been extended recently using a factor known as "impedance" and found to be valid for AC circuits as well, however.
Partially correct. It's not as simple as replacing resistance with impedance, unless of course there are no reactive components, but that's cheating. And to use Maxwell's equations, imaginary numbers and calculus comes into play.

These wrong equations that use R, and magically quadruple power are just plain wrong though. A linear transfer function does not produce exponential gain! 2E or (not to imply multiplication here!) 2I means 2P, not 4P.

You realize power is not a linear function? What is wrong with my equations? That is what I remember for power, although I admit it has been many decades since college...

Impedance = Z = R + jX -- impedance covers reactance. Or were you referring to the phase angles on V and I and thus P?

Whatever, I seem to have been drawn into another worthless discussion, back to practicing. - Don
The arrival of agreement concerning Bridged amp power seems to be more daunting then the merit of biamping. Bridging doubles the power, bridging quadruples the power, bridging power is dependent upon the power supply. Quite a bit of confusion.

Having read the various extrapolations, replete with detailed equations and personal credentials attempting to fortify each position, I'm reminded of the missing variable in the entire debate. The missing variable is... The lowly product user manual (engineers gasp!)

A couple of products that I've used specify the power available when using the bridge feature, and the results vary quite a bit.

Integra 7.1 Receiver: 140wpc - 220wpc bridged

Adcom 2 channel Amp: 8ohms 200wpc - 600w bridged

The Integra would offer a negligible improvement; and, very possibly, an inaudible improvement. OTOH, The Adcom will provide an extra 4.5dB SPL increase. Nice, if needed, but not a big game changer. Of course, two amps are needed for stereo applications with the bridged/mono Adcom.
Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk

http://www.chuckhawks.com/bi-wire_bi-amp.htm

"From the listener's perspective, if all goes well, the sound quality should remain exactly the same. However, the placebo effect insures that most folks who passively bi-amp their music systems report a sonic improvement. ... However, if doubling the system's amplifier power is necessary, it would be cheaper to buy (for example) one 200 watt stereo amplifier than two 100 watt stereo power amps of the same quality to get the same result."

Errrr. Uuuh. I'm not sure what to say, Arny. Should I buy chuck hawk a drink or two when he's in town? ;-)
Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk

http://www.chuckhawks.com/bi-wire_bi-amp.htm

"From the listener's perspective, if all goes well, the sound quality should remain exactly the same. However, the placebo effect insures that most folks who passively bi-amp their music systems report a sonic improvement. ... However, if doubling the system's amplifier power is necessary, it would be cheaper to buy (for example) one 200 watt stereo amplifier than two 100 watt stereo power amps of the same quality to get the same result."
Who is this guy??? This is what he said that you left out:

"The system's total amplifier power has been doubled, which is probably a good thing and may actually result in a sonic improvement at high listening levels."

I thought you just agreed with me that there is no real scenario under which the tweeter draws as much power as the woofer. So there is no doubling of power no matter what. Above is just the next sentence to what you quoted! How could there be "sonic improvement" yet "fools bi-amping" for good reason" as he says in the intro for this section?

I tried to find out his background but all he says is that he collects articles from people. I looked at some of his other pages and I landed on this: http://www.chuckhawks.com/class-a_components.htm, his "class A" products:

"Accuphase Laboratory (all tuners, SA-CD players, pre and power amps)
Ayre Acoustics (R Series and 5 Series)
Boulder (2000 Series, 1000 Series)
Classe' Audio (Omega Series, Delta Series)
Krell (all CD players, pre and power amps)
Luxman (all tuners, CD players, pre and power amps)
Marantz Reference (7, 9 and 11 Series CD players, pre and power amps)
MarkLevinson (all pre and power amps)
McIntosh (all tuners, CD players, pre and power amps)
Simaudio (Moon Evolution Series)"

Where is your favorite AVRs on his list Arny? And do I really see Simaudio on his list? The very company everyone derided in the parallel thread and wished them to go out of business?

If we are going to quote people, let's make sure they are qualified to be used as experts. And that their views are consistent with ours. Lacking both seems like the evidence was nothing but google search results that matched our opinion of what we wanted to convey. To say nothing of selective quoting...
Quote:
Originally Posted by DonH50

You realize power is not a linear function?
Actually power isn't a function at all, but as you said...whatever.

Thanks for helping me waste time though! My team was winning by so much that I lost interest in the game, and this was a welcome distraction.
Quote:
Originally Posted by stereoforsale

I think everyone here understands that active biamping is "real" biamping, but not everyone is capable of doing it. The question is, are there any benefits to passive biamping? Forget about the "anti-audiophile-waste-of-money" argument... assume everyone already has the equipment and cables to do it, we just want to know if it's worth all the re-wiring. Given your ample experience, where do you stand?
Honestly this is the first I've ever read about "passive biamping". If I had read it in any other context, I would have guessed that it involved a passive line level crossover. So I'm not being purposefully obtuse when I say that I'd have to have it defined. If, for example, you hooked up two unfiltered amps to the same unmodified home loudspeaker, I'm told bad things will happen. I've never wanted to waste perfectly good gear on experimenting, but I do trust my mentors. I'd count that one out.

The second possibility is hooking up unfiltered amps to raw drivers, and in that case, the drivers would be destroyed while sounding horrible. So that option isn't even to be considered.

Another possibility is defining it as an amped up form of biwiring, to be used on loudspeakers that have special passive crossovers that support biwiring, which not all loudspeakers do. In that case, the in-speaker crossovers would protect the individual drivers from out-of-band frequencies, just as they normally would. OTOH they'd still be there sucking power. In that case, true biamping can give up to 3dB more volume (barely noticeable), but the passive elements would eat up most if not all of that extra power. The power handling of tweeters is usually less than that of the low end, so there would also be some resistive attenuation to keep the highs and lows balanced, eating up still more power, or at least preventing one pair of amps to reach maximum power.

It's been a while since I've designed a system, but IIRC the main advantage of biamping PA systems was that the crossover circuitry was designed to be in a low power section, and that increased efficiency by turning less amplifier power into waste heat. It also allowed the selection of smaller (or fewer) power amps at higher frequencies, which saved on equipment and shipping costs. Some of those advantages simply aren't applicable in a home environment.

So really the bottom line is that it's a lot of work and risk for little to no practical return. Even true biamping would be a mostly wasteful endeavor unless the entire system was designed to be that way from the very start. Even then it's usually a very costly setup. I've had my eye on some ATC active triamped loudspeakers, and starting at \$15,000 each they're not for saving money. It's just one of those things that you might do once to see if it works, but not really have any practical purpose for 99% of the time. "Looks better on paper."

EDIT: Apologies. I looked over my post while reading a post on bridging, "fixed" an error that was actually correct, and then had to fix it back again. That'll teach me to try to do more than one thing at once. Biamping doubles the effective power for a 3dB bump....or something like that. I've long since forgotten why. I'm pretty sure it has something to do with divvying up the whole of the power spectral density up over two limits (amps), but don't quote me on that. I'll tackle it later.
Edited by Speed Daemon - 11/23/13 at 11:43pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm

Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk

http://www.chuckhawks.com/bi-wire_bi-amp.htm

"From the listener's perspective, if all goes well, the sound quality should remain exactly the same. However, the placebo effect insures that most folks who passively bi-amp their music systems report a sonic improvement. ... However, if doubling the system's amplifier power is necessary, it would be cheaper to buy (for example) one 200 watt stereo amplifier than two 100 watt stereo power amps of the same quality to get the same result."

Who is this guy??? This is what he said that you left out:

"The system's total amplifier power has been doubled, which is probably a good thing and may actually result in a sonic improvement at high listening levels."

I left that out because it is a technical error and the writer admits that he is no great shakes as a tech. I explained that a few posts back but far be it from certain people to actually read what others post, ;-)
Quote:
I thought you just agreed with me that there is no real scenario under which the tweeter draws as much power as the woofer.

Apparently unlike you Amir, I have some hands on experience with systems based on large ribbon tweeters. ;-)

I see that several B-G principals have joined Wisdom Audio, that the BG Corp web site is down, and their speakers are being sold by liquidators, Sic Transit Gloria.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Speed Daemon

It's been a while since I've designed a system, but IIRC the main advantage of biamping PA systems was that the crossover circuitry was designed to be in a low power section, and that increased efficiency by turning less amplifier power into waste heat. It also allowed the selection of smaller (or fewer) power amps at higher frequencies, which saved on equipment and shipping costs. Some of those advantages simply aren't applicable in a home environment.

So really the bottom line is that it's a lot of work and risk for little to no practical return.

Thanks for the info. Why would these advantages not apply in the home environment?

For what it's worth, it's really no trouble for me to biamp. I have all the equipment I need, plus it would allow me to double the speaker wire to my speakers (NOTE: I don't have the option of using 1 run of thicker cables, as the "anti-biwiring" camp usually recommends).
Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk

I left that out because it is a technical error and the writer admits that he is no great shakes as a tech. I explained that a few posts back but far be it from certain people to actually read what others post, ;-)
Why did you not preface this latest post with "this guy is no great shakes as a tech" then? And why would we have any use for quotations from a guy you know makes technical errors? It makes no sense other than hoping people won't discover he is worse than "no great shakes as a tech" and that his other writing you vehemently disagree with.
Quote:
Apparently unlike you Amir, I have some hands on experience with systems based on large ribbon tweeters. ;-)

I see that several B-G principals have joined Wisdom Audio, that the BG Corp web site is down, and their speakers are being sold by liquidators, Sic Transit Gloria.
Unlike me? Really? Here is a picture from an article linked to my company's web site on the design of our home theater: http://www.madronadigital.com/Showroom/HomeTheater.html

Those vertical arrays of small woofers and planar magnetics are Wisdom speakers! Yes, the founder is Davig Graebener who is the "G" in B&G. We carried the line because David is a long time and close friend of a couple of our employees at Madrona. As you see, above the Wisdoms we have the boring looking JBL Synthesis speakers. The Wisdoms on paper were supposed to be better. We then put an acoustically transparent video screen in front of that wall and testing began. The Wisdoms unfortunately did not perform well at all. In almost every test, which by definition was blind, they underperformed the JBLs. My repeated technical feedback to the company didn't get us anywhere: "all the other dealers say they sound great." So we parted ways amicably and sent the speaker system back to them (which retailed for a cool \$110,000). So I say I do have experience with lest you point out your blind testing of them. Visually they are stunning as you see but if the performance is not there, who cares?

The Wisdom system by the way, was active bi-amp so has no reading on passive bi-amp discussion. The planar magnetic drivers do go down to lower frequency than traditional drivers but still need the help of the traditional array of drivers as you see in the picture. Those drivers tax the amplification system like any other lower frequency system. Their response by the way goes way down at 80 Hz or so. As a result, a subwoofer is a must. The subs were actually nice and I kept them for myself and they are powering my theater .
Quote:

You quoted a post by Heinrich S. Did OllieS also post the same Rotel schematic somewhere in this thread?

OllieS

You're right - Ollie S was the OP. I was quoting Heinrich S' posts regarding the Rotel. What confused me was/is the fact that both of them are interested in deploying extra Rotel power amplifiers (possibly the same one) to get more power into their rig.

Heinrich S attached the Rotel schematic. What got me interested was when, after some derisive responses, he asked "Did you take a look at the schematic?" To which kbarnes701 replied rather dismissively, "What would be the purpose of that?" If kbarnes and arnyk had taken a look as requested, they could have pointed out the possible benefits of the bridge configuration illustrated in the Rotel attachment. (It's likely that they wouldn't expect to see a bridge mode option in a consumer product.)

Such observations and contributions are (or should be) the main goals of the more experienced posters here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PrimeTime

Heinrich S attached the Rotel schematic. What got me interested was when, after some derisive responses, he asked "Did you take a look at the schematic?" To which kbarnes701 replied rather dismissively, "What would be the purpose of that?" If kbarnes and arnyk had taken a look as requested, they could have pointed out the possible benefits of the bridge configuration illustrated in the Rotel attachment. (It's likely that they wouldn't expect to see a bridge mode option in a consumer product.)

Such observations and contributions are (or should be) the main goals of the more experienced posters here.

I also went on to say "Biamping requires electronic (active) crossovers between the pre and power amps and the removal of the passive crossovers in the speakers. Are you going to remove the passive crossovers from your speakers?  No? Then you are wasting an amp, some wire and your time."  Which is true.

Regardless of what the schematics show, they won't show anything which changes the laws of physics. Passive biamping confers no audible benefits in the real world. Active biamping, of course, has many benefits. No amount of looking at schematics will change a thing in what I said.  Was the OP prepared to remove the passive crossovers from his speakers was what I asked. If the answer is "no" and if he is not prepared to use active (electronic) crossovers between the pre and power amp stages, then he is wasting his time.

Quote:
Originally Posted by PrimeTime

If kbarnes and arnyk had taken a look as requested, they could have pointed out the possible benefits of the bridge configuration illustrated in the Rotel attachment. (It's likely that they wouldn't expect to see a bridge mode option in a consumer product.)

Such observations and contributions are (or should be) the main goals of the more experienced posters here.
You are correct, except for you, apparently no one (including Heinrich S) noticed that his amps were bridgeable. This is probably due to the fact that the thread isn't about bridging but is entitled "Question on bi-amping".

And these were Heinrich S's early posts in the thread; all related specifically to bi-amping:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Heinrich S

I'm using 2 x Rotel rb970bx power amps and I'm bi-amping my speakers using the preouts on my receiver. Each power amp is 2 x 60 watts, so that I'm getting 120 watts per channel when bi-amping.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Heinrich S

LTD02, my Rotel manual specifies they can be used for bi-amping purposes and even gives a wiring diagram for it. How can 2 x 60 watt stereo amplifiers still give 60 watts per speaker?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Heinrich S

Here is a diagram of my Rotel amp for bi-amping or are the engineers at Rotel clueless?

Heinrich S specifically directed us to the lower part of his schematic, which diagrams bi-amping. The upper diagram is not bi-amping so it was ignored by all except you.

If you read a few more posts into the thread you will see that Heinrich S has an apparent reputation here for trolling so that might be why he was ignored. OllieS does too, btw, as far as I'm concerned. I would look upon both of their hypothetical scenarios with some degree of skepticism. They seem to me to be more interested in stirring up trouble, here. For example, OllieS will ask seemingly innocent enough questions, get some reasonable answers, and yet then proceed to argue with the people who took the time to patiently answer his questions in the first place. Oftentimes he claims to be asking questions for and about a "friend's" system. Maybe Heinrich S is the friend.
Edited by sivadselim - 11/24/13 at 11:27am
Quote:

Quote:
Originally Posted by PrimeTime

If kbarnes and arnyk had taken a look as requested, they could have pointed out the possible benefits of the bridge configuration illustrated in the Rotel attachment. (It's likely that they wouldn't expect to see a bridge mode option in a consumer product.)

Such observations and contributions are (or should be) the main goals of the more experienced posters here.
You are correct, except for you, apparently no one (including Heinrich S) noticed that his amps were bridgeable. This is probably due to the fact that the thread isn't about bridging but is entitled "Question on bi-amping".

And these were Heinrich S's early posts in the thread; all related specifically to bi-amping:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Heinrich S

I'm using 2 x Rotel rb970bx power amps and I'm bi-amping my speakers using the preouts on my receiver. Each power amp is 2 x 60 watts, so that I'm getting 120 watts per channel when bi-amping.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Heinrich S

LTD02, my Rotel manual specifies they can be used for bi-amping purposes and even gives a wiring diagram for it. How can 2 x 60 watt stereo amplifiers still give 60 watts per speaker?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Heinrich S

Here is a diagram of my Rotel amp for bi-amping or are the engineers at Rotel clueless?

Heinrich S specifically directed us to the lower part of his schematic, which diagrams bi-amping. The upper diagram is not bi-amping so it was ignored by all except you.

If you read a few more posts into the thread you will see that Heinrich S has an apparent reputation here for trolling so that might be why he was ignored. OllieS does too, btw, as far as I'm concerned. I would look upon both of their hypothetical scenarios with some degree of skepticism. They seem to me to be more interested in stirring up trouble, here. For example, OllieS will ask seemingly innocent enough questions, get some reasonable answers, and yet then proceed to argue with the people who took the time to patiently answer his questions in the first place. Oftentimes he claims to be asking questions for and about a "friend's" system. Maybe Heinrich S is the friend.

+1.

Can't believe this thread is still going. 20 pages long! Goodness. I sort of tuned out after a while.
Quote:
If you read a few more posts into the thread you will see that Heinrich S has an apparent reputation here for trolling so that might be why he was ignored. OllieS does too, btw, as far as I'm concerned. I would look upon both of their hypothetical scenarios with some degree of skepticism. They seem to me to be more interested in stirring up trouble, here. For example, OllieS will ask seemingly innocent enough questions, get some reasonable answers, and yet then proceed to argue with the people who took the time to patiently answer his questions in the first place. Oftentimes he claims to be asking questions for and about a "friend's" system. Maybe Heinrich S is the friend.

Interesting conspiracy theory. However you are wrong. I was genuine when I asked the questions I did and to my surprise I got a whole lot of different answers. The fact this thread has carried on for 20 pages tells me the subject matter isn't so cut and dried as some would like us to believe.
Quote:
For example, OllieS will ask seemingly innocent enough questions, get some reasonable answers, and yet then proceed to argue with the people who took the time to patiently answer his questions in the first place.

So if you argue with the great clan of audiophile objectivists you're automagically labeled as a troll? Some interesting logic you have there.
Quote:
So if you argue with the great clan of audiophile objectivists you're automagically labeled as a troll?
No. But if the only reason you're here is to argue, then you are a troll. And if you ask a question under the guise of seeking help or advice and then proceed to argue with the people who try to help you, then you are most certainly a troll.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcnarus

No. But if the only reason you're here is to argue, then you are a troll. And if you ask a question under the guise of seeking help or advice and then proceed to argue with the people who try to help you, then you are most certainly a troll.

If I want to argue to defend my view points then I'll argue to my hearts content, just like you. I'm not on trial here, I can say what I want, as long as I remain respectful.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Heinrich S

If I want to argue to defend my view points then I'll argue to my hearts content, just like you. I'm not on trial here, I can say what I want, as long as I remain respectful.

Nobody said you couldn't. Feel free to post whatever you like.
Quote:

If you read a few more posts into the thread you will see that Heinrich S has an apparent reputation here for trolling so that might be why he was ignored. OllieS does too, btw, as far as I'm concerned..
If they are to be "ignored," then why are we at 20 pages and counting?

To my eyes, there was more emotional baggage attaching to the responding posts than to what I read in most of the S's (Henrich and Ollie) posts.

With inquiring posters, a putatively knowledgeable respondent would presume (especially from the substance of the inquiries) that the S's may not be fully aware of bridging, and its serendipitous (via the Rotel attachment) availability and relevance to their inquiries. That's where the forum gurus should step in. Instead, these guys seemed more interested in pontificating and debunking audiotech myths than assisting an OP with his situation. (Not to mention some off-target cheap shots at the Rotel engineers.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm

Why did you not preface this latest post with "this guy is no great shakes as a tech" then? And why would we have any use for quotations from a guy you know makes technical errors?

Probably the same reason he posted about the power efficiency of class A/B amps when the biamping arrangement splits the power equally between 2 amps.

Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk

I used that as an example. The logical tool I used is called "Hanging your opponent from his own petard" by presuming.........

Grasping at straws to validate arguments.
Quote:
Originally Posted by stereoforsale

Thanks for the info. Why would these advantages not apply in the home environment?
Home environments aren't typically broken down and shipped to a new location every day. For example, if I had to move my main speakers from room to room every day, pretty soon I'd trade in my large monolithic "2.0" speakers for smaller, easier to transport 2.1 or 2.2 components. With large PA systems it's possible to make further divisions, whereas there's no need to separate home speakers any further into their constituent parts.

Size is another consideration. Unless you live in a palace, you're not likely to have rooms that are large enough for things like reverberation and thermal stratification become major obstacles, or that it's economical to build speaker systems that focus sound energy into the populated area of a room. To look at it from the other direction, the tools that are used in large systems, like line arrays can't be scaled down to work in smaller rooms. There actually are small line array systems made for use in clubs that could fit in your living room. The tradeoff is that these small arrays only cover the physically smaller higher frequencies.

OTOH, as more "studio" gear makes it into people's living rooms, and digital signal distribution becomes the norm, self-powered speakers may become more popular for home use. Biamping is certainly practical in a home environment. Even 3-way active crossover systems are within reason. But the 4 and 5-way systems' speakers alone are so large and heavy that they aren't practical for most homes. So the short answer is that certain things don't scale well.

Quote:
For what it's worth, it's really no trouble for me to biamp. I have all the equipment I need, plus it would allow me to double the speaker wire to my speakers (NOTE: I don't have the option of using 1 run of thicker cables, as the "anti-biwiring" camp usually recommends).
If you want to do it for your own edification, don't let anyone here stop you! As long as you know what you're doing and understand the risks, I think it's a great thing to try at least once. When you do it, how about reporting your findings here?
Quote:
Originally Posted by PrimeTime

If they are to be "ignored," then why are we at 20 pages and counting?
Why do people stop and gawk at car crashes? Those who know first aid can assist the victims, and the rest can use the event to pass the time. Go ahead, say it's ghoulish. I'm still going to take a peek...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Speed Daemon

Home environments aren't typically broken down and shipped to a new location every day. For example, if I had to move my main speakers from room to room every day, pretty soon I'd trade in my large monolithic "2.0" speakers for smaller, easier to transport 2.1 or 2.2 components. With large PA systems it's possible to make further divisions, whereas there's no need to separate home speakers any further into their constituent parts.

Size is another consideration. Unless you live in a palace, you're not likely to have rooms that are large enough for things like reverberation and thermal stratification become major obstacles, or that it's economical to build speaker systems that focus sound energy into the populated area of a room. To look at it from the other direction, the tools that are used in large systems, like line arrays can't be scaled down to work in smaller rooms. There actually are small line array systems made for use in clubs that could fit in your living room. The tradeoff is that these small arrays only cover the physically smaller higher frequencies.

OTOH, as more "studio" gear makes it into people's living rooms, and digital signal distribution becomes the norm, self-powered speakers may become more popular for home use. Biamping is certainly practical in a home environment. Even 3-way active crossover systems are within reason. But the 4 and 5-way systems' speakers alone are so large and heavy that they aren't practical for most homes. So the short answer is that certain things don't scale well.
If you want to do it for your own edification, don't let anyone here stop you! As long as you know what you're doing and understand the risks, I think it's a great thing to try at least once. When you do it, how about reporting your findings here?

Thanks... some of this is over my head, but it sound like you're saying, at least in part, that biamping is beneficial in the professional setting because it's more efficient (i.e. you don't have to lug large amps around from show to show). So does this mean several smaller amps can do the job of fewer larger amps?
Quote:
Originally Posted by stereoforsale

Thanks... some of this is over my head, but it sound like you're saying, at least in part, that biamping is beneficial in the professional setting because it's more efficient (i.e. you don't have to lug large amps around from show to show). So does this mean several smaller amps can do the job of fewer larger amps?

No, there is a profound difference. In the pro audio world they use active biamplification. That is not the same thing as what audiophiles do. In active biamplification, the frequency filtering is done before the amplifiers and with no passive crossover in the speaker boxes. That isolates the drivers from one another and allows for individual adjustment of the filters. Yes they still lug large amps around. But the amps are attached directly to the drivers in the speaker enclosures. There is no internal passive network like this thread is talking about. It is possible to use smaller amps for the tweeters, of course, but that isn't the point. The point is that the tweeters and woofers aren't connected to one another in the speaker box and the performance of the crossover filters is adjustable. It allows the engineers to change the way the speaker system sounds.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
Return Home
Back to Forum: Audio theory, Setup and Chat

### Gear mentioned in this thread:

AVS › AVS Forum › Audio › Audio theory, Setup and Chat › Question on bi-amping