BI-AMPING

Trelja,you are bang on.I have two Pairs of Coincident's, Super Conquest for 2 CH and Triumph for HT.First order crossovers are first rate.No reqirment for BI wire.Which model do you own.

I agree with Onhwy61 and Tml2. Since the mid 90s, a new(actually old) breed of speaker has emerged. Coming from companies like Coincident, Meadowlark, Silverline, Soliquy, etc. These speakers, while appearing status quo on the outside, are actually MUCH different. But, the differences are internal, where no one notices. They CANNOT be lumped into the design of loudspeaker which has ruled supreme since the early 70s. Higher(3rd and 4th) order crossovers have been eschewed for much simpler designs. Most of these units are first order. In fact, my Coincident speakers have exactly TWO crossover components. These components do not pollute the audio signal anywhere near the extent of the more complicated designs. Perhaps with these designs, the need for an active crossover, extra pair of (expensive)interconnects, and another stereo amplifier has been mollified to a greater degree than you realize. The impetus for these simpler designs has been the return of many of us to tube amplification. The more complicated the crossover design, the greater current required. These current hungry loudspeakers demand high powered solid state amplification. That was how high end audio evoled from the early 70s - mid 90s. It turns out that not only do first order crossovers present a much more benign load to the amplifier, to me, they sound much more immediate, lifelike, and natural. This may be the reason that many audiophiles preferred these simple designs in the 80s. Arguing(using their ears as the measuring device, instead of ocsilloscopes and spl meters) against the so called "experts" who argued all of the physics(replete with their charts and measurements). These pooh poohed audiophiles simply said that speaker(with the first order crossover) sounds better to me than that speaker(with the trick fourth order crossover). Many of us heard simple setups, using tube(even integrated or SET) amplifiers, and a benign speaker provide us the best sound we have ever had in our systems. The experts deemed us idiots. But who has the last laugh now?

Onhwy61 Well put.

Bi-amping does have a logical appeal, but if your main concern is with the "sound" of crossovers (both passive and active), then the best solution is to eliminate the crossover. Go to a full range, crossoverless system. The problem with my suggestion is that you are then limited to a small number of speakers that have a whole other set of sonic compromises (hard to drive, limited dynamics, large size, etc). My point is that there is not a single path to reach audio nirvana. Any road taken will result in a set of compromises. Current passive crossover designs are very good and when implemented with high quality parts (expensive) by a talented speaker designer the crossover does not significantly harm the music signal passing through it. Active crossover can offer higher precision and greater flexibility which can lead to higher sound quality, but the downside is twice the number of amps, twice the cable, "Y" connectors, etc. Choose your own poison.

This is the way to go if you can afford it.Biamping is the proper way of doing it.I am not a beliver in biwiring.Its not what its cracked up to be.I have been told that the New Rogue Tempest is set up to accept a Rogue 88 so you can Bi amp with this tube set up for under 3500.00

I used a Bryston 10b to biamp my Dunlavy SC-V. Bryston 7bst on the bottom ARC VT-200 on the top. The 10b added too much harshness. I liked the 7bst alone better. I ultimately went to high powered tube monoblocks. Just my experience.

Another really good crossover is the Marchand Electronics. They make solid state active crossovers and tube crossovers for high end applications. I know that they also offer a kit, if you're handy with a soldering iron.

Dan D'Agostino of Krell has said in the past that actively bi-amping (with his $4K KBX crossover) transforms the very good B&W800's into "the best speaker on the planet."

WELL I AGREE IT CAN BE MORE EXPENSIVE, BUT IT DEPENDS ON HOW YOU BUDGET YOUR SYSTEM (WHAT TYPE OF AMPS, PREAMPS ETC.). MY POINT WAS AND IS INSTEAD OF WASTING MONEY ON HIGH PRICED D/A'S FANCY CABLES AND TWEAKS WHICH CAN COST INTO THE THOUSANDS, PUT THE MONEY INTO THE X-OVER AND ANOTHER STEREO AMP.IF YOU ARE BI-WIRING YOU ALREADY HAVE THE EXTRA CABLES AND YOU MIGHT ALREADY HAVE THE EXTRA INTERCONNECTS. IT'S NOT THAT EXPENSIVE UNLESS YOU INSIST ON CABLES THAT ARE LIKE $500 A METER. I AGREE THAT IT DOES DEPEND ON THE X-OVER, BUT MOST PASSIVE ONES DO NOT DO THE JOB WELL SO BI-AMPING WINS OVER 95% OF THE TIME.A SUGGESTED SET-UP WOULD BE 2 BRYSTON 4S-ST'S AND A 10B X-OVER FOR A RETAIL PRICE OF $6000 WHICH IS LESS THAN THE MARK LEVINSON. CABLES YOU CAN GET THE CANARE OR BLEDEN WHICH ARE JUST AS GOOD AS THE HIGH PRICED BOUTIQUE BRANDS FOR A LOT LESS.

The merits of biamping really depends on the types of speakers you have. In my case, I have Vandersteen 3A Signatures and I am bi-amping with two Mark Levinson 331's (as recommended by Richard Vandersteen). I believe that the speakers sound much better than when I just had them bi-wired. This is also understandable because the load that each amplifier sees is much simpler. However, it should be remembered that you will need more than just aother stereo amplifier, but another pair of speaker cables and interconnects as well (duh). This can be a very expensive proposition. It really depends on the crossovers in the speaker systems.