Joined
·
24 Posts
Greetings all:
Having spent the last 3 days (thank you, permissive employer) reading about bi-amping, bi-wiring, passive versus active, and all things bridging, (not to mention rewiring my setup over and over again), I thought I would finally just get to the point and ask my "final" question, and in doing so hopefully help put a certain matter to rest.
Yes - I am looking to open up the bi-amp debate, and after this is settled I will ask whose G-d is real.
But for now...
1) I have a Marantz Receiver, and 7 Marantz MA500 monoblocks. I also have plenty of quality interconnects, y cables, and fine, heavy gauge speaker cable. Translation - I have the kit and need not spend anything more. So no need to answer my next point with "not worth the money."
2) Does anyone recommend using 4 monoblocks to run my two fronts, one amp to each binding post? This would be passive bi-amping, except for the fact that I am using 4 amps and not two. If so, why?
3) If you answer no, then why do speaker manufacturers insist on providing double sets of binding posts? If it is to bi-wire, something that appears to get even less respect than passive bi-amping, then I am shocked and perturbed. If it is a marketing ploy, all the more so.
4) If you feel I should not bi-amp, does anyone think I should bridge my two fronts? Will that create a thd problem? Any benefit?
5) Finally, does anyone think this is all just bs? If so, you might just see 7 monoblocks on ebay over the next few weeks
Seriously, there are several posts already on this topic, but everyone qualifies their answers (not worth the extra cost - does this mean there is a benefit, but just not one worth the amp?) or does not address the question directly. I say we have it out once and for all
If you ask me what I think when I listen, well, I "think" that bi-amping is somewhat better. Asked my wife after a blind A B test and she also chose the bi-amp, but again not a stellar change.
Having spent the last 3 days (thank you, permissive employer) reading about bi-amping, bi-wiring, passive versus active, and all things bridging, (not to mention rewiring my setup over and over again), I thought I would finally just get to the point and ask my "final" question, and in doing so hopefully help put a certain matter to rest.
Yes - I am looking to open up the bi-amp debate, and after this is settled I will ask whose G-d is real.

1) I have a Marantz Receiver, and 7 Marantz MA500 monoblocks. I also have plenty of quality interconnects, y cables, and fine, heavy gauge speaker cable. Translation - I have the kit and need not spend anything more. So no need to answer my next point with "not worth the money."
2) Does anyone recommend using 4 monoblocks to run my two fronts, one amp to each binding post? This would be passive bi-amping, except for the fact that I am using 4 amps and not two. If so, why?
3) If you answer no, then why do speaker manufacturers insist on providing double sets of binding posts? If it is to bi-wire, something that appears to get even less respect than passive bi-amping, then I am shocked and perturbed. If it is a marketing ploy, all the more so.
4) If you feel I should not bi-amp, does anyone think I should bridge my two fronts? Will that create a thd problem? Any benefit?
5) Finally, does anyone think this is all just bs? If so, you might just see 7 monoblocks on ebay over the next few weeks

Seriously, there are several posts already on this topic, but everyone qualifies their answers (not worth the extra cost - does this mean there is a benefit, but just not one worth the amp?) or does not address the question directly. I say we have it out once and for all

If you ask me what I think when I listen, well, I "think" that bi-amping is somewhat better. Asked my wife after a blind A B test and she also chose the bi-amp, but again not a stellar change.
