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?

ibisghost

OK folks. Listen up. Here's WHY active crossovers are so very much better than passive. A single loudspeaker driver is an inductor, and provides a frequency dependent, reactive load to an amplifier. Looking at the image here, the blue line on the bottom is the frequency dependent impedance curve for an SB Acoustics SB29RDAC Ring Dome Tweeter, and it typical of any dynamic tweeter. As you can see, it is anything but flat, yet it is listed as having a 4 ohm impedance. It's 4 ohms at about 1200 hz, but at 600 hz, has an impedance of nearly 10 ohms.

Now if you put a passive crossover circuit in front of it, you add capacitors, resistors and inductors, which then give you a frequency dependent impedance curve which looks like a Coney Island roller coaster. And that's just for a tweeter high-pass circuit.

Now when you add in mid and bass drivers, with high and low pass filters there... It's a real mess. But we're not done there yet. Nope. Many of your extreme hi-end loudspeakers add in equalization to their crossover designs, which makes that impedance curve even worse. This is very hard for an amp to properly manage. That's why people drop many, many thousands of dollars on things like Krell, Threshhold, Bryston, or Rowland Research solid state power amps.

Now when you use an active crossover, an amp channel only has to manage a single driver. There's no passive, reactive component in between the amp and the loudspeaker driver. Then you don't need a megabuck amp to deal with it.

All of the Linkwitz loudspeaker designs use active crossovers. Earlier designs used analog crossovers, but his last designs were all digital crossovers. There are some digital crossovers that offer DSP EQ, which allows you to tailor the total system response for the room you are in. Then you're not just limited to whatever sound your speakers give you in the room you're stuck with.

The lowest cost active crossovers are typically pro grade, from manufacturers like Behringer, dbx, Rane or even Nady. There are many manufacturers. Some of the best known home audio digital crossovers are from miniDSP.

Another major benefit is that you can use much, much lower powered amps when you use active crossovers. A lot of power is wasted having to push through a passive crossover. You really don't need to push many watts into a tweeter or mid-range driver to get a lot of level out. You could even run a single ended tube amp on your tweeter, and a mid-level tube power amp on your mid-range driver, and a solid state amp for the bass driver. You have a lot of options.

So instead of dropping $7,000 on that Threshold Stasis 8.0 power amp. You could spend much less on an active crossover and the various much more modestly priced amps of your choice.
 

@russbutton  *S*  Someone who can R(ant) & R(ave)s' better than me.... ;)

...and does a fine cover of the sense of the process...

1st serious speakers were a pair of 901s2s' with it's active eq.... Yes, not a 'xover' in fact, but they'd sound all sort of strange without....

Next iteration was a pair of Infinitys' with an equalizer in the tape loop, which began to allow for a crude DSPish approach; xover still onboard the speakers, but edging closer....

Following that, the Kenwood L series with the outboard mono amps....an AudioControl C-101 eq with a calibrated mic that allowed to employ a more serious

launch into DSP.  Sure, the AMT 1Bs' still had their onboard  xover, but it was just a 2 way that handed most off to the large Heils'....and the xover just tweaked the point between....  I still have a pair of the xovers for references' sake, but on the shelf....

These days.....one could say 'in excess', but...*G* I prefer 'flexibility'....

Xovers': a Behringer, a dbx, a Parasound C2, and an ESS Eclipse 2241AM;  the latter an unusual item I've devious designs upon....

Eq available: The 'puter can supply whatever wherever, pre or post....as can a pair of Behringers' and the C2.  All of which can host a mic....

14 channels of amplification, 12 of which can be mono'd to 6.

And a self amp'd sub.

"Bi-amp....how...quaint...." ;)

 

 

 

I'm in the camp of using an active x-over and horizontal bi-amping w/different amps, using tubes to power the top and SS on the bottom.  The woofers have been removed from the x-over and wired directly to the binding posts.  (Speakers were built bi-wireable so two sets of binding posts are present.)  I use an original Wavelet active x-over and just picked up a MiniDSP DDRC 88A/BM that I plan to substitute for the Wavelet as I want to see if DIRAC w/BM is an improvement over the Bohmer room correction. 

Never heard of horizontal and vertical bi-amping. 

My assumption for passive bi amping with speakers built for it always was that by removing the 'bridge', I get a low pass for the woofer and a seperate high pass for the mid/high. The use 2 amps to feed those. 

I now assume that horizontal/vertical deals with the option of using 2 stereo amp for the 2x2 'feeds'. Either one stereo amp for each SPEAKER or one stereo amp for the woofers and one stereo amp for the mid/high. If that is the case, what is considered 'vertical'?