I have a spare Rotel RB980BX. I have a 990 driving my main speakers at the moment. Somebody suggested that I bi-amp my B&W LCR600 using the spare 980 to power the high frequency of the main speakers and the 990 to power the low frequency of speakers.
I have googled and it seems that there is a lot of controversy and discussion about bi-amping. True bi-amping with the use of active or electronic crossovers gives the most dramatic improvement, so they say. Others who have gone with the other form of bi-amping i.e without the use of active crossovers, claimed that they indeed experience improvements. However, this is refuted by the other camp the supports the theory that true-biamping can only be done with active crossovers.
I want to know the experiences of users here from either methods. To further complicate things, there is also a horizontal and vertical way of active or passive bi-amping.
Any inputs is appreciated.
Turbodog
Unregistered guest
Posted on
Have you looked at what B&W has to say? Look here: http://www.bwspeakers.com/index.cfm/fuseaction/local.faq/ObjectID/F5CA2E9F-3D20- 11D4-A67F00D0B7473B37
Referring to Bi-amping retaining the passive crossovers in the speakers: basically, the impedance presented to each amp is better behaved, because it is not the complex combination of both the high-and low-frequency crossovers in parallel. It eliminates all interaction of the low- and high-frequency crossover networks. It reduces current load on the amp, which may improve the sound. It's worth a try before ripping the crossovers out of your speakers and buying an active crossover.
According to B&W, they design their internal crossovers to help flatten out the inherently non-flat response of the drivers. If you bypass these circuits and use an active crossover, or even modify the existing crossover (better caps, etc.)they feel you may well degrade the sound. Read this: http://www.bwspeakers.com/index.cfm/fuseaction/local.faq/ObjectID/F5CA2D4B-3D20- 11D4-A67F00D0B7473B37
and this: http://www.bwspeakers.com/index.cfm/fuseaction/local.faq/ObjectID/F5CA2EE1-3D20- 11D4-A67F00D0B7473B37
For most people and most speakers it isn't worth the effort. Most speakers have their own crossover networks and are designed to operate with standard amplification. There are a few that may benefit from bi-amping and there aren't any that benefit from bi-wiring, unless you have insufficient diameter wiring to begin with.
Wkennedy
Unregistered guest
Posted on
thanks a lot for the response. Yes, I have contacted B&W and they strongly suggest passive bi-amping if the customer have the means. They are against active bi-amping, however, because according to them, no matter what active cross over is used, it sure degrade the sound quality according to them.
I have passively biamped my system and although there is no night and day difference in the sound quality, I feel much more sonic definition and the bass is not that boomy anymore.
turbodog
Unregistered guest
Posted on
I did the same with my old DM640s, and got results similar to yours. I thought the improvement was worth the cost/effort, since I had the 2nd amp available.
swampcat
Unregistered guest
Posted on
I bi amped a pair of klipsch speakers and heard an improvement. 200 watt amp to woofers and 100 watt amp too tweeters. (Gain matched in both amps). This using passive method using speakers existing crossover. Bi wire was a waste of time heard no difference.
bi amping can probably make the most difference. when you are actually under powering your speakers. and driving the amps to hard. so you split it up between a couple amps and will usually find a bit more punch in the system.
or if you have a system that is maybe a 3way where the upper 2 speakers play the midbass to high freq and the bass comes from maybe a lower cabinet then use an active crossover to biamp with you can see a nice improvement.
I'd have to disagree with you on the Bi-wiring issue unless the speaker only has one set of binding posts. If it has two sets, there's just the crappy metal piece to conduct the signal from the low frequency binding posts to the mid/high frequency binding posts. Or the other way round if you connect the cable to the mid/high range binding posts. The metal pieces are most often just a piece of gold plated brass, and not exactly a great conductor. I've tried both methods of connecting my front speakers, and even the signal amplitude is higher with biwiring, meaning the speakers sound considerably louder than with the metal shorting pieces.
Actually, some bi-wireable speakers don't even have these metal connectors, and you need 4 cable connectors for it to work at all. Like my center speaker. It only has 4 sockets for banana plugs, and no binding posts.
Of course you don't need 2 separate cables to each speaker, just 2 sets of connectors in the same cable is fine. Even using a small piece of cable instead of the shorting brackets is much better.
Most bi-wireable speakers come with some sort of plate or bar that connects the two (+) and the two (-) terminals (one for high frequency and one for low frequency) to each other. By using these plates or bars, you are "bridging" the two sets of terminals together creating only one connection point, so that you only need to make one speaker connection to each speaker.
By using the same amplifier channel (and terminals) for each set of bi-wire terminals on your speakers, you would be bridging the two sets of terminals together with your amplifier (since they share the same connection point on the amplifier). From an electrical perspective, this is NO different than running one speaker cable to the speaker, and bridging the two sets of terminals together with the bar or plate. This is a basic law of physics and if you can prove otherwise you will win a Nobel Prize.
As long as the diameter of your speaker cable is adequate, there is no electrical difference.
Bi-wiring advantages can really only be had when it is used in conjunction with bi-amping (running more than one amplifier channel per speaker). And even then, in order to bi-amp the "right way", an external crossover between the preamplifier and each amplifier channel will be needed (so that only the high-frequency or the low-frequency parts of the signal will be amplified), and the internal crossovers inside the speakers will need to be disconnected (so that each amplifier will go directly to the corresponding speaker driver, i.e. the woofer for low frequency and the tweeter for high-frequency).
But so long as you have passive crossovers inside your speakers there can be no benefit.
No doubt, the best absolute speaker designs would be from separate amp channels going through an ACTIVE crossover to each speaker driver. Then the bi or tri-wiring and bi or tr-amping makes total sense.
Hehe, I'm well aware how the bridging/shorting bars work, and yes I'm also well aware of the laws of physics.
If you read my post carefully, you'll see my point was that the bars are too small, and are off poor construction, using unsuitable materials like brass instead of copper.
Again, as I said; just replacing the bars with a small piece of proper gauge cable instead, will significantly improve the sound.
It doesn't matter whether there is brass, copper, gold, or a glass of water connecting a bi-wireable speaker in a passive crossover system.
As long as the diameter of the speaker wire is adequate then there is no improvement possible from wires emanating from the same amp channel. Just connect a good pair of 12-14 gauge speaker wires to one pair of speaker inputs in a passive crossover system.
The signal has to pass through the passive crossover anyway. Let's say you have a two way speaker with a passive crossover (a very typical design). Or even a 3-way speaker with 2 passive crossovers (another very typical design). Actually these two designs are the predominant designs in the loudspeaker field. The only way to improve the sound (as long as the diameter of your wire is fine)is to disable the passive crossovers and separately amp each speaker driver through an active crossover. That way, each amp channel only delivers the proper frequency to each driver and can be optimally tuned.
This is the only way that bi or tri wiring makes any sense.
gregory you may disagree with adam but i don't think your getting one of his points correctly.
he is saying that he believes the small pieces of metal that connect the two positives and or two negatives together on the back of the biwired speakers is inferior and just replacing that with a small piece of wire on each side instead of the metal bracket then wiring them up with a single set of wires.will improve the sound.
i am not saying i believe this just wanted to let you know because it looked like you misunderstood.
also i have a slightly different take on how you can use an active crossover while biamping some speakers with passive crossovers.
let say you have a 2way design with biwire for seperate woofer and tweeter and you know the crossover frequency for both you can then set up the active crossover to start the tweeter before the passive would and cut off the woofer after the passive. and if the internal crossover was a second order and your active was a first order you now have a third order to each driver and the ones in the speakers have to filter less because they are being sent less.
now i am not saying this will allways sound best but if taken the time to get the crossover freq right you can make a very big differnce. if not done right you can make it sound worse.by having a hole or the fact that the speaker doesn't like a third order crossover.
and some active crossovers can be made to be 1st or second or third or fourth order crossovers and then you really have some tweeking you can do to get the phasing correct for the best imaging and what not.
more than likely though for the average person a biamped pair of speakers with passive and active crossovers would not be worth the hassle of trying. but it can be done.
Like Kegger says, you're misunderstanding me. I'm not claiming that the high and low frequency signals are improved or anything like that when you're biwiring. What I'm saying is that the bridging bars are crappy.
If you remove the bridging bars and connect a single cable to one set of binding posts (lets say the low freq range), we agree that no signal is sent through the other set of binding posts, and that only the low frequency part of the signal is played by the speakers? If you then connect the bridging bars, we agree that the signal for the high freq. binding posts have to travel through both the speaker cable and bridging bars, whereas the signal for the low freq range only passes through the cable? So if the bridging bars have considerably different electrical properties like higher resistance, the high freq. signal will be of less amplitude than the low freq. signal.
My personal opinion is that there is no need for 2 sets of binding posts on midrange speakers. With a single set you avoid the bridging bar issue. Of course there are probably very different quality bridging bars out there, but the ones I've had experience with, were all pretty crappy, and as I said, one of my speakers has no possibility for non-biwire except for juryrigging something with two pieces of cable and 4 banana plugs. This is the solution I'm using now. It sounds fine, but looks pretty "ghetto".
Okay---Guess I misunderstood what you were saying. My view based on physics is that it is just a waste of time and money to bi-wire a passive crossover system as no electrical benefits can be derived. The only reason speaker manufacturers do it is because of BS from the "tweako" community and BS from some wire manufacturers. And since these speaker manufacturers have to deal with reviews from tweako publications and retailers selling high priced wire, they take the path of least resistance. Bi-wiring a passive crossover system has about as much effect as green magic markers on cd's, audio bricks, and remember those nutty Tice clocks--whew:-)
Kegger--
I think if one is going to go through the trouble of bi-amping (a two-way speaker system) or tri-amping (a 3-way speaker system) then it is definitely best to disable the passive crossover. Too many problems could occur otherwise. There are a number of companies, Bryston being among the better ones, that make very good active crossovers. Of course, most people are neither DIY inlined enough and also don't want to spend the money on separate amplification for each driver and the active crossovers.
As most people own receivers, passive crossovers are the easiest way to go. But if one wanted to make their own speakers there are great designs and performers from bi or tri-amping with active crossovers for your speakers.
But there are much better solutions for those who want great speakers. Someone handy like yourself could probably build one of the GREAT loudspeakers that Siegfried Linkwitz (of Linkwitz-Riley crossover fame) has designed. Just do a google search for Linkwitz website and you will find it. His Orion speaker is probably the best speaker available under $15K (maybe even for a higher price)--and one could probably build it for around $3K or have Linkwitz's friends build it for between $6500-$7k. When you consider the cost of the expensive quality speakers he supplies, the active crossovers, amps, cables, and everything else it is a bargain. One could save some money if one already had or bought the appropriate amp themselves.
Since I can't seem to be able to buy a used Waveform Mach 17 (no one wants to sell theirs)and I am not very handy, I am seriously considering buying a pair of these Linkwitz Orion speakers.
Take a look--it is a great site and very informative.
If I buy these speakers I guess someone will get a great deal on a pair of PSB Stratus Gold i's and maybe even my pair of ProAc Response 2's (although I am very loathe to sell them--they are great for passive boxed speakers).
gregory i agree with you absolutly 100% if i am going to biamp or triamp there will not be a crossover in the speaker.
i am with you also on the ultra expensive speakers. to much for me.and i will i'm sure in the next few years attampt a build at a very very high end speaker job.
i have also seen the orion speakers in the past and they are incredable.
right now i am concentrating on upgrading all of my 20 or so speakers in the house and learning a few new techniques along the way.mostly in the crossover area and cabinet design.
i have seen plenty of nice sets of speakers to build.
right now i am trying a few things on my own to see if i can come up with something really really nice with some of the parts i have.and some of it is very promising so far.my 2 channel and surround have come along way.
now this pertains to the original post i could not have gotten to where i am without some experimentation and some expensive mishaps/wrong directions.if you like to tinker are good at it and can afford to do so. to me their is no better way to learn than to just do it.
Wkennedy replied: "thanks a lot for the response. Yes, I have contacted B&W and they strongly suggest passive bi-amping if the customer have the means. They are against active bi-amping, however, because according to them, no matter what active cross over is used, it sure degrade the sound quality according to them. "
That makes sense when you have complex internal crossovers using Zobel networks notch filters and such, designed to contour the drivers output for a specific behavior and response.
I think the good folks over at Bowers & Wilkins know what they're talking about. At least with their products
Anonymous
Posted on
On this subject of Bi-Amping. I have a nakamichi surround sound amp. I can select "small" and "large" in surround mode, and in stereo. In surround mode it puts out 80 wpc, and in stereo it puts out 100 wpc. My concern is I've just blown speakers during an extended high volume crank session. What I'm thinking of doing with my next set of speakers, is setting the amp to "small" and just wiring the tweeters ( using bi wireable speakers) and then using my carver amp to power the woofers. Carver has 250 wpc. My only concern here is timing. how can I find out the timing between when the sound leaves my nak to the speakers, vs. the "sub" out wire, and the carver to the woofers. Can I just eyeball it? Is the output of the sub timed to corelate with the higher frequencies?
all the frequencies are played at the same time. if they were not played "as in come from the reciever" at the same time you would get some really weird/ strange sounds.
basically if your playing music and a cymbal is played and kick drum was played on the recording at the same time but your reciever delayed one of them it would not sound right.so they have to come out at the same time.
There is no timing problem. The speed of the electric signal over wire is not much slower than the speed of light.
But you could get speakers that are more efficient (over 90db)--thus eliminating your power problem with the Nak. What was the efficiency of the speakers you "fried"?
Or you could set your speaker settings on the Nak receiver to small and get one or two passive subwoofers. SVS or HSU both carry some excellent passive subwoofers and use your Carver amp. If your Carver amp is bridgeable, you can power a single high quality SVS or HSU passive subwoofer. If not bridgeable, you might want to buy two smaller passive subwoofers. I recommend talking to the folks at SVS or HSU if you go this route. They will match you up with a proper passive sub for your amp and room size.
Then with an SPL Meter (less than $50 at Radio Shack)you can balance the speakers and the subwoofer (s) to the spot where you sit.
Anonymous
Posted on
Thanks, The carver is bridgable, and the speaker sensitivity was 89db(mission m72). So I guess the best bet is to get another pair of bookshelf speakers, but this time add a larger sub.
Here are a few thoughts in regard to the general concept of bi-amping. Firstly, proper bi-amping REQUIRES an active crossover. Deciding which is the best frequency dividing method concerns many factors, some of which have been discussed previously. Passive and active crossovers each employ high and low-pass filters and component quality as well as design integrity are variables.
Secondly, one of, if not THE biggest advantage in biamping is the resultant clarity simply from the separation. Just as you gain clarity in stereo operation by separating some of the audio material to left and right, separating the full-range signal by frequency range before the power amplifier (active crossover) will net clarity because the amplifiers are processing less information.
Thirdly, bi-amping will also increase the headroom of the power amplifiers. When a power amp is driven to clip, it is the low frequency material that drives the signal beyond the rails. High frequencies ride low frequencies. If your crossover occurs before the power amps, your highs are amplified independently of your lows, therefore your headroom is increased (more gain before distortion). More loudness.
Lastly, the quality of sound has the potential of being increased by the ability to select particular power amps that work better for the frequency ranges determined by the active crossover. For example, you can select valves for mids and highs and solid-state for lows.
This is a fact: all things being equal, multi-way amplification (bi-amp or tri-amp) is simply better. Unfortunately, all things aren't equal. Loudspeakers that require a lot of signal processing in the passive crossover to achieve "that sound" are probably going to be difficult to improve by bi-amping. Far be it from me to say anything negative about a manufacturer like B&W, but personally, I prefer boxes that don't color the sound with a lot of electronics and I tri-amp.
SOME recievers let you assign amp channels as certain outputs. so if you have one of those "very few" then yes you could biamp from your recievers amp channels.
another way to do it would be using an external amp on the preamp outs of your reciever and use the recievers internal amps.
Interesting...ok now for the details. I have included some snap shots (HTRpics.zip) from the Yamaha HTR-5760 Receiver and JBL e100 manual. I think in theory the way I will hook them up is as follows:
The JBL e100's are bi-ampable (rearpanel5.jpg) so I will hook one set of pre outs to the bottom speaker terminals to the Surround Back Pre Outs on the receiver (rearpanel.jpg or rearpanel2.jpg) and then the Front Pre Outs to the top terminals of the speaker.
The reason for using the Surround Back Pre Outs are because (rearpanel6.jpg) have the most configurable with respects to directing frequencies low or high. However the JBL's have a crossover of 1000Hz, 5000Hz so if I need to tweak the crossovers I could as an option.
If you look at rearpanel4.jpg it says in the notes section, "Each PRE OUT jack outputs the same channel signals as the corresponding speaker terminals" so I am assuming that this will all work.
Thanks for your advice!
Oh well...I am trying to upload the pics but I don't know of any pics that can be under 1k. I will find a better way to upload them for everyone.
I'm of the persuasion that bi-amping with the internal crossovers still in the speakers is a waste of time. As for bi-wiring, it's just an excuse to have to buy two lots of speaker cable. Much better to spend the same amount on single runs and thus your speaker cable is twice as good....and therefore bound to sound better. As previous posters to this thread have commented, try to replace the metal jumpers on your speaker terminals with two pieces of good quality copper wire, the thicker the better. Don't go overboard though because the wiring INSIDE the speakers isn't going to be the best in the world!
Ok, update for those wanting to accomplish this. I have now set up everything and have it running. Now, just to let you know that I don't have the extra speakers for HTX, I only have a pair of JBL e100's right now so I am only a 2ch strero guy; however there were some pros and cons.
The JBL's have bi-amping capabilities so why the hell not use the unused amps to split the load and give a cleaner dedicated amp source to the speakers. The way that JBL does it is the two top post of the speaker cabinet are for the midrange and tweeter and the bottom pair is for the bottom two woofers. So I hooked the FRONT output on the receiver to the bottom posts and the SURROUND output to the top posts.
Now the only thing tricky is finding the correct preset on the receiver's 9000 effect settings to allow one of them to have both FRONT and SURROUND for 2ch stereo. I found one called "7-ch stereo" that allows me to control the level output to the Center, Surround Left, Surround Right, Surround Back and Presence amp outputs. I could have hooked up the midrange and tweeter to Surround Back or the Presence outputs for the same effect. Hell, I could have amped 4 way if I had separate speakers and crossovers to each.
Now for a con, being that I am a bass man the tone control on the receiver only outputs control for the FRONT outputs so being that I only have the woofers connected to the FRONT outputs I can only control the bass. The Treble control is disabled because they are on the SURROUND output. If you switch around to the other effect settings very weird because of the amp/speaker separation.
Now this all goes out the door when I am ready to get the other dedicated speakers and amps for HTX but for now for a 2ch setup pretty cool idea to get the most out of your system.
Now instead of only having 100 watts going to one cabinet I now have 200 watts a side and it sounds great and it is running hotter and consuming more power! Hmmm...is that a good thing? ;-)
