Some refer to active configuration simply as "bi-amping," or tri-, quad- etc. ditto, as it requires running multiple amp channels to feed each their driver section. As such it’s an inherent necessity of active and its true asset compared to just bi-amping passively. Multiple-amping as an approach should at least have its specific implementation clearly outlined to avoid confusion, i.e.: whether it’s passively or actively configured, but no doubt the latter option holds the real advantage here.
@mikelavigne wrote:
bi-amping, in my experience, is best with 4 identical channels of amplification and a speaker allowing separate low octave and upper octave inputs. the reason is my priority is always coherency first and foremost. and if the amps for upper and lower octaves are different, unless the speaker is designed with those particular amps in mind, you will always fight for optimal coherency.
I fully agree. It’s a tempting route to try and tailor amps to their respective driver sections, which I’ve tried in my 3-way active setup, and while I’m not saying it can’t be done with a careful approach (or luck) the effect of hearing what similar amps can do by comparison, to me at least, has been the most convincing and rewarding. It requires of one the seek out the amp that "has it all," or certainly has a balanced presentation that ticks off the boxes to one’s preference over the entire frequency range, in regards to resolution, tonality, power capacity, etc. Once there I’ve not since looked back; it just makes the presentation fall into place more effectively.
@wolf_garcia wrote:
Ask yourself why almost nobody, including people who could easily afford it and wouldn’t mind the extra hassle, ever bi-amps home audio systems. Almost nobody
You mean actively? If so, then ask yourself how many have actually tried configuring their speakers actively. Not that many are aware of the fact that ’active’ isn’t defined preemptively as a bundled, all-in-one package, and as an outboard active solution intimidation creeps in with the thought of not least setting filter values by oneself. I can understand that, truly, but for someone who doesn’t mind the extra hassle and perhaps has a secondary system to experiment with, it’s just go ahead and do it.
No, by and large it’s not experience with actual intel to go by that keep audiophiles from venturing into outboard active bi-, tri- or whatever-amping, but rather the opposite and a bunch of conjecture. Conservatism as well, even dogma. Economy may be a factor to some, but it doesn't have to be expensive as such to go active. Use the same money on 2 or 3 cheaper, less powerful amps for an active approach. Many would be surprised to hear those cheaper, actively configured amps would likely, and rather easily hold on to the more expensive amp running the speakers passively.
@panzrwagn --
Lot of interesting info, some of which I agree with, other that I don’t.
... the advantages proper bi-amping are clear: improved LF performance and dynamic range, but are most apparent only in high output (loud) applications. If your home listening never gets above 90dB or so, bi-amping is doubtfully a cost effective add-on . If you have a big system in a big room, it’s the only way to go.
I believe that’s shortchanging active a bit in its breadth and diversity of use. Yes, improved LF performance and dynamic range, but it goes beyond that to my ears with improved resolution, less smear, and an overall more uninhibited and tonally "accurate" presentation - at all volumes. Perhaps it’s the added "bonus" of active at elevated SPL’s with its better composure and precision here that to some makes for the more impressive take-away, which I cherish as well, but I find there’s much more to it than that.
