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?
- ...
- 118 posts total
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'?
|
@kraftwerkturbo wrote:
'Vertical' bi-amping is one stereo amp driving one speaker, its two channels divided over the two pairs of terminals on that speaker.
Active can do what passive does, and more - while not least getting out of the way between the amp and speakers. |
- 118 posts total