AVS Forum banner

1 - 20 of 75 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
24 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
16,876 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedingInfo /forum/post/14255695


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?

If you want to passively bi-amp, then that is how you would do it with your equipment. So, basically, what you are asking is if anyone would recommend you passively bi-amp your speakers. Good luck getting a reasonable and straightforward answer to this question.


Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedingInfo /forum/post/14255695


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.

You are going to be told it is a marketing ploy to satisfy consumers who insist upon bi-wiring or bi-amping. And to help amp manufacturers sell amps.


Another related and pertinent question would be why do so many AVR manufacturers now offer the ability to assign unused surround rear amps to passive bi-amp duty? And you'll get a similar answer.


One thing to note is that passively bi-amping also provides the same benefits that bi-wiring MAY provide.



Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedingInfo /forum/post/14255695


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?

Those who feel that passively bi-amping is not useful will probably say that bridging 2 monoblocks per speaker would be a better option as it will definitely provide more power to the speakers. Of course, if you did this you could still bi-wire the speakers.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
24 Posts
Discussion Starter #4
I am running Polk LSi15s in the front. LSiC Center, and RM7s and RM8s for rear and surrounds, and a Velodyne SPL1000. Not sure if it is relevant to the debate, although it seems like there won't be one



Is there to be no "definitive" answer? Are we doomed to the nether world of wishy washy, not to mention $500 ethernet cables

http://www.networkworld.com/newslett...61608lan1.html
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,023 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedingInfo /forum/post/14256289


I am running Polk LSi15s in the front. LSiC Center, and RM7s and RM8s for rear and surrounds, and a Velodyne SPL1000. Not sure if it is relevant to the debate.......

Ok. If you don't feel that inquiring about what speakers you have when asking a question regarding bi-amping is relevant, then I guess I have nothing to offer. Latah.........!!
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
5,125 Posts
“There can only be one” and that’s active with me, I wouldn’t hear about anything else other than to divide the full-range frequency up into groups for independent playback of lower lows and higher highs with less distortion.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,562 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by JBLsound4645 /forum/post/14256543


“There can only be one” and that’s active with me, I wouldn’t hear about anything else other than to divide the full-range frequency up into groups for independent playback of lower lows and higher highs with less distortion.

what he said.

using active crossovers is the only way to go (edit-my opinion)(and only with speakers designed for it). and i most likely wouldnt even use active bi-amping for home use. i used to use it for 'pro' sound reinforcement and the like, mostly.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,156 Posts

Quote:
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?

I see no advantage to doing this. The reasons why there is no advantage to doing this have been explained in other threads. Of course, if you've got all the gear, there's no disadvantage to doing it, either. So why not?

Quote:
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.

They don't insist on it, and it's not a ploy. Many (not all, even at the high end) manufacturers provide dual binding posts because they know that some customers will want them. Whether or not the customers actually know what they're doing is of no concern to the manufacturers.

Quote:
5) Finally, does anyone think this is all just bs?

Well, it might all be just bs. If your receiver isn't quite up to the job of driving your speakers, then passive biamping might just help. Of course, so would using the pre-outs to the monoblocks, w/o biamping. That's what I'd be tempted to do, if I had a bunch of MA-500s lying around.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
16,876 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by westgate /forum/post/14256561


using active crossovers is the only way to go.

Not necessarily. I wouldn't recommend active biamping for anyone who has store (or internet) bought speakers that were designed by engineers and is asking this sort of question. To quote from the Anthem website regarding the benefits of passive biamping:

Quote:
Q5: Doesn't passive biamping waste the amp's power because each channel still has to amplify the full range signal and not just the highs or the lows?


A: 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.


According a recurring audio-myth, only an active crossover should be used for biamping, in order to split the band before the power amp instead of inside the speaker, thereby reducing the amount of work each amp channel has to do. While active crossovers do have their place in PA systems, it should be noted that equalizers are also a part of it.


A generic active crossover on its own merely divides the audio band into smaller ones. The carefully custom-designed crossover in a high performance home audio speaker does a lot more. It is responsible for correcting frequency response aberrations of the individual drivers, maintaining phase coherence between drivers, optimizing off-axis response, balancing levels between drivers, setting up impedance, at times improving woofer performance by rolling off not just the top, but also frequencies that are too low and cause it to misbehave, and other things that vary according to model.


Tearing out the speaker's own finely-tuned crossover to replace it with an active crossover with generic controls almost guarantees that, just for starters, frequency response will be altered. Different sound doesn't mean better sound. Using the passive crossover in the speaker is indeed the correct way to biamp.


(What's biamping? It's using one amp channel for the speaker's mid-high frequency drivers, and another for the low-frequency drivers. The speakers must have separate inputs for this - be sure to remove the jumpers from the speaker inputs first or amp will become instant toast! If one amp starts running out of power, usually the one driving the woofer, then the other side remains clean instead of becoming part of the problem, a double-win. This is the very idea behind bass management and powered subwoofers in home theater systems.)
http://www.anthemav.com/NewSitev2.0/...hsupport.php#5
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
24 Posts
Discussion Starter #10

Quote:
Originally Posted by lwien /forum/post/14256420


Ok. If you don't feel that inquiring about what speakers you have when asking a question regarding bi-amping is relevant, then I guess I have nothing to offer. Latah.........!!

Heaven forfend... As I said, I am simply "not sure" if it is relevant. As you have 1559 posts to your credit, and I have, like, 3, I am all ears (or eyes).

 

·
Registered
Joined
·
16,876 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by mcnarus /forum/post/14256673


They don't insist on it, and it's not a ploy. Many (not all, even at the high end) manufacturers provide dual binding posts because they know that some customers will want them. Whether or not the customers actually know what they're doing is of no concern to the manufacturers.

If true, why is that NOT a ploy?



Quote:
Originally Posted by mcnarus /forum/post/14256673


Of course, so would using the pre-outs to the monoblocks, w/o biamping. That's what I'd be tempted to do, if I had a bunch of MA-500s lying around.

Well, of course he's going to do that. But he is "tempted" to passively biamp because he has so many amps "lying around".
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,562 Posts

Not necessarily. I wouldn't recommend active biamping for anyone who has store (or internet) bought speakers that were designed by engineers and is asking this sort of question. To quote from the Anthem website regarding the benefits of passive biamping:end quote]




i should have been more clear. and said it was my opinion.

i would (and have) only use active bi-amping with speaker systems designed for it. ie with no or by-passable internal x-overs.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
24 Posts
Discussion Starter #13

Quote:
Originally Posted by sivadselim /forum/post/14256845


Not necessarily. I wouldn't recommend active biamping for anyone who has store (or internet) bought speakers that were designed by engineers and is asking this sort of question. To quote from the Anthem website regarding the benefits of passive biamping:



http://www.anthemav.com/NewSitev2.0/...hsupport.php#5

You know, just when you think you've got this thing down, and decide you're going to just use one monoblock PER SPEAKER, along comes a link like this one, and you're back where you started. Not sure who these guys are, but it makes sense to me...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,156 Posts

Quote:
You know, just when you think you've got this thing down, and decide you're going to just use one monoblock PER SPEAKER, along comes a link like this one, and you're back where you started. Not sure who these guys are

Those guys are people who make amps, and would like to sell you as many as possible. And their biggest problem in that regard is people who know what they're talking about pointing out that passive biamping in most cases doesn't do squat. But notice that Anthem isn't really making much of an argument that passive biamping is beneficial; they're mostly arguing against active biamping. It's a clever bit of jujitsu, but that's all it is.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
16,876 Posts
Active biamping and passive biamping are NOT opposite sides of the same coin. In most circumstances, if a user is considering passive biamping, active biamping is not even anywhere near being a reasonable alternative. All too often the answer to someone's question regarding passive biamping is "active biamping is the only way to biamp". That's the easy way out of the question. The OP is asking about passive biamping, not active biamping.


Other common answers are:


It's a waste of an amp.


or


Just get a more powerful amp to begin with.



But the OP already has the amps and buying another amp is not an option he is even considering. The same thing is true when someone asks about using the unused 6th and 7th channel amps to passively biamp with a receiver that features the capability to assign these amps to biamp duty. The amps are already there. Why not do it?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,674 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedingInfo /forum/post/14255695


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?

No, it would be active bi-wiring. Provided you're not running into thermal shutdown (in which case the extra heat sinks will help) it's not going to do any more than passive bi-wiring apart from drain your wallet.

Quote:
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.

Some people use tube amps to impart a certain sound on the high frequencies while using a solid state amplifier with good damping factor in the bass. Some people like to spend money on shiny boxes. The terminals help both groups of customers.

Quote:
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?

You'll get up to 6dB more headroom before the amplifers clip. Depending on your listening level that may be either a big deal or non-issue. The amplifiers essentially see half the load impedance.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
16,876 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by Drew Eckhardt /forum/post/14257460


No, it would be active bi-wiring.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Drew Eckhardt /forum/post/14257460


............it's not going to do any more than passive bi-wiring apart from drain your wallet.

The OP made it very clear that it would, indeed, NOT cost him anything at all.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,023 Posts
Hmmmmmm........many moons ago, I had some Braun (ADS) LV-1020's that were tri-amped speakers. They were pretty darn good.
 
1 - 20 of 75 Posts
Top