I've considered bi-amping my JBL 1400's, whenever you bi-amp you need to modify the crossover - I believe. May be worthwhile, although crossover design is a black art IMO.
Am I wasting money on the theory of Bi-amping?
As a long time audiophile I'm finally able to bi-amp my setup. I'm using two identical amps in a vertical bi-amp configuration.
Now me not fully understanding all of the ins/outs of internal speaker crossovers and what not. I've read quite a few people tell me that bi-amping like I'm doing whether it's vertical or horizontal bi-amping is a waste since there's really not a improvement because of how speaker manufacturers design the internal crossovers.
Can anyone explain to a third grader how it's beneficial or if the naysayers are correct in the statement?
- ...
- 123 posts total
Removing biamp options is a doofus move by the likes of Wilson, Magico, etc. (My guess is that went on a route where their crossover designs are suboptimal for biamping). I don’t care for their speakers eitherway. Other high-end manufacturers (TAD, Schwiekert, etc) who have stuff that sounds even better do permit biamping. No problem there! As a practical matter, biamping is a way to put some high fidelity lower powered class A amps on the mid driver, tweeter, etc and some class AB or class H that runs cooler for the bass drivers. Running gigantic space heaters/amps in the room will inevitably make the HVAC system kick on a whole lot more ---> Higher noise floor from the airconditioner running ---> You just lost your high fidelity when the air conditioner/HVAC kicked on Sherlock. |
@barts *L* It's that 'elusive average tweak setting' scenario (aka EATS).... (locally, "....that Eats it...😖 " ).... Fine if not 'listening for nuance'... otherwise, nimble fingers do they stuff...*G*
|
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:
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:
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.
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. |
@phusis what about passive line level crossovers? |
- 123 posts total