[mikur]

From the postulate, BW Nautilus appreciate biamp, does it mean that an biamp solution via one stereo amp per speaker will be better than a multichannel high end amplification (Classé CAV180, theta digital dreadnaught, EAD PM2000). Is it possible and for what budget ? I own BW Nautilus 803 and HTM1 ..

 

[dblloyd]

I'm not certain that this answers your question, but you may wish to read a past thread on bi-amping.


There seems to be several kinds of "bi-amping":

Code:

[B]"fools" bi-amping:[/B]

    signal
        -> two-way splitter
            -> amp1 -> speaker's high internal cross-over
            -> amp2 -> speaker's low internal cross-over

[B]passive bi-amping:[/B]

    signal
        -> passive cross-over
            -> high signal -> amp1 -> speaker's high posts
            -> low signal -> amp2 -> speaker's low posts

[B]active bi-amping:[/B]

    signal
        -> active cross-over
            -> high signal -> amp1 -> speaker's high posts
            -> low signal -> amp2 -> speaker's low posts

I hope that terminology makes sense. Please feel free to correct me.


I believe the consensus was that "fools" bi-amping isn't really worth it. But both active and passive bi-amping can achieve significant improvements, but isn't simple to get right.

 

[mikur]

I think that what you name "fool" biamp is not so fool for a speaker like the BW Nautilus, even the simple biwiring is better on this speaker.

 

[mikur]

So I narrow my question.


I have 4 BW Nautlus 803 and 1 HTM1, in a traditionnal passive biamp (I keep the speakers 'crossover)) can I get a better solution than an high end multichannel amp (classe, EAD, THeta) for a similar budget (let's say up to 1000 $ more) ?


For example if I take 5 Rotel RB1080 will it be better than a single CAV-180...I don't think so and you ? Other amplifiers ?

 

[dblloyd]

Again, I have no experience with this. I'm just repeating what I have read. It would be great if someone with more experience jumped in.


Theoretically, bi-wiring should make an improvement. But how much of an improvement and at what cost? B&W has this to say:

Quote:

We are talking small changes here, but the resolution of some modern drivers is now so good that small improvements like this are readily detectable by keen listeners.

Check out B&W's page on bi-wiring and bi-amping.


From what I've read, this is one of those "improvements" that you can't actually hear. Tell me this is wrong, though. I'd love to know.



And specific to your question, I believe many people will tell you to skip the "fools" bi-amping, and focus your $$ on getting one good channel of amplification to each speaker. Again, I'd love to hear an argument to the contrary.

 

[pocoloco]

I'm understanding your question as whether or not it's better to biamp with a "lower quality" amp vs. not biamping with a "high quality" amp. For example, you have $5000 to spend, you can either get 2 $2500 amps or a higher quality single $5000 amp. I don't have much experience in this area but FWIW, I know Thiel's philosophy is the latter. They recommend for what you're spending, you're better off getting the single higher quality amp rather than double (b-amp) a lower quality amp. Here's the link:

http://www.thielaudio.com/THIEL_Web/Pages/faqbiamp.html

 

[Jerry Pease]

Quote:

Originally posted by mikur So I narrow my question. I have 4 BW Nautlus 803 and 1 HTM1, in a traditionnal passive biamp (I keep the speakers 'crossover)) can I get a better solution than an high end multichannel amp (classe, EAD, THeta) for a similar budget (let's say up to 1000 $ more) ? For example if I take 5 Rotel RB1080 will it be better than a single CAV-180...I don't think so and you ? Other amplifiers ?

I went from a receiver powering my Linn AV5140's to using the receiver as pre and adding a Linn AV5105 power amp for a short period of time. The improvement was night and day. Then I bought another Linn AV5105 and I went the passive bi-amp route. Sound improved very nicely again but it wasn't night and day like going from a crappy receiver amp to a nice amp. The bass was tight and the highs-mids had more clarity to them. Then I went tri-amp the improvement was less than bi-amp but the sound stage was better defined, improved image and more space between the instruments. My final upgrade was active tri-amp. That made the world of difference.


In your case base on my experience I would go the bi-amp with multiple mid-amps than a single high-end multi-channel amp.


I think the value of bi-amping is more about isolating driver/crossover interaction than sheer power.


my .02$

 

[mikur]

someone else ?