Can bi-amping be done with A/B speaker connectors of one amp?
Davy G
Unregistered guest
Posted on
I know, stupid question. But if my receiver has A and B speaker outputs (allows two pairs of speakers), could they both be connected to one pair of speakers to achieve bi-amping? Or does it have to be from two seperate amps?
It would be biwiring. However, instead of the tycial split cable used for biwiring, you are using the amplifier A and B outputs that are tied together internally in parallel within the amplifier. All you have done with this array is change the point of signal convergence, from the speaker cable junction point to within the amplifier.
Davy, have you properly wired the speakers so far? A tip that FrankAbela gave me.replace the binding strips with speaker wire, and send the pos feed to the tweeter side, the neg line to the bass side, on opposite posts. Made a large difference for me.
Davy, I think I worded that poorly. The drivers are still in parallel, just the + on the tweeter+, - on the bass- post. What speakers do you have?
Davy G
Unregistered guest
Posted on
Nuck, I have Mission m31i. The company actually suggests bi-wiring, but by removing the bridge and sending two wires two each speaker. Why would the short wire from woofer to tweeter connections you suggest instead of the existing bridges be any better? And that would not be "bi-wiring", correct?
Davy, although those binding strips look good, the quality suffers, usually, because of oxidation and the lack of 'toothed' screw downs on the posts for best contact. Further, the speaker wire tends to add to the continuity of the system, I followed through with the same wire, though only on the bass side.
It may sound nit-picky, but Frank Abela suggested the wiring, and put forth the caveat of little or large change in sound. I got a lot, and like it.
Davy G
Unregistered guest
Posted on
Nuck, ok, I see the logic of using wire instead of bridges now. But in effect, it is ignoring the manufacturer suggestion of bi-wiring (which I know is controversial anyway) and simply increasing the quality of existing connections.
I am, however, confused about "I followed through with the same wire, though only on the bass side." The base of both the black and red come connected to the tweeter of black and red (i.e., red to red, black to black). What am I missing here, and what would your suggestion effectively do? Thanks.
Davy G
Unregistered guest
Posted on
Nuck, ok, I see the logic of using wire instead of bridges now. But in effect, it is ignoring the manufacturer suggestion of bi-wiring (which I know is controversial anyway) and simply increasing the quality of existing connections.
I am, however, confused about "I followed through with the same wire, though only on the bass side." The base of both the black and red come connected to the tweeter of black and red (i.e., red to red, black to black). What am I missing here, and what would your suggestion effectively do? Thanks.
Davy, changing out he internal wiring to the xo's and after the xo's will give a bit of linearity to the speaker. Again, a little nit-picky, but really free, and a fun way to kill a few hours. Does your xo have 2 stages, one high and one low? Or a common single xo with 2 resistors?
Davy, I looked up your speakers and I think the wiring will work pretty well. Now Art is bi-amping with kimber twisted for the tweets, but what amp/or receiver do you have? The wiring combo's do not work with every power source, The Mission's that you have dip to 4ohm, by the tech on the website, adding the Kimbers might cause a 'whoopsie'. But everything can be changed back. The bi-amp is not likely to get you anything, as your amp is basically paralled on the output side, as Frosty pointed out. Now bridging the A and B lines might work, (I,ve done that), but it comes with no money back guarantee. No warranty implicated or implied.