Every situation is unique, and there are always a lot of variables. There are also a lot of ways to bi-amp (tri-amp, etc). Which is best is usually subjective, but typically if all else is equal an amp with less responsibility has some advantages over one that’s got a heavier work load. How audible any improvements from a given bi-amp setup is also a variable. My experience has been that some scenarios are just subtle refinement, but some situations can be eye opening. |
| Post removed |
As poster @ditusa pointed to, bi-amping isn’t just bi-amping. In the pro segment "bi-amping" is usually understood as that which implies active configuration (and, it seems, even as a descriptive, general term when tri- or quad-amping is actually applied). In domestic, audiophile circles bi-amping is usually referred to as simply using a pair of typically similar amps either vertically or horizontally over passively configured speakers. With passively configured speakers I’d likely go with a single stereo power amp. In previous setups with lower sensitivity speakers I’ve had good results with some amps in bridged mode. It brought the speakers that were used more to life with cleaner transients and a more effortless, firm foundation to the sound. The surplus in power and what the bridged mode in itself might have brought to the table with some amp to speaker combos seemed to outweigh a more expensive, single stereo amp. Now however with no less than moderately sensitive/not load heavy and passive speakers (I don’t use passive speakers, but just as an imagined scenario) I’d likely prefer a single, high quality stereo amp. Actively bi-, tri- or more-amping is an intrinsic part of the "equation;" this is where using several amps is a necessity by design and brings with it obvious, actual benefits. Here I prefer using what’s essentially similar amps - from the top all the way down to the sub bottom - power differentiated certainly over the subs. What many misses out on is realising the importance of using a powerful quality amp, essentially similar to the ones used in the range above, over the subs - if such are used. Most subs are bundled, active packages with very different, typically built-in class D plate amps compared to the amp(s) used over the main speakers. |
If I understand your question, I believe that it is. I have been bi-amping for many years and have been very happy with the results. Originally my system was a 3-way system. I have always been told that a 4-way system sounded better and the theory made sense to me, so I have been intrigued by the idea for years. After hemming and hawing for several years I finally bit the bullet almost a year and half ago and added a mid-bass module to my system. I figured that the results probably weren’t going to be that noticeable and the I was probably throwing my money away, but dadgummit I was going to do it. It took me a couple of months to get it dialed in, but once I did the results wildly exceeded my expectations to the point where my final step in this audio journey will be (if I live long enough and don’t go broke in the process) to go with an active 4-way system with an amp for each speaker, because I will more that likely use mono blocks. To be clear the active crossover is much more important than the amplifiers, imo. Also imo, if you do go active, a balanced system becomes more important. Because with an active system you are going to add several more interconnects, and if the interconnects are single ended, each one of those interconnects has the potential to pick up noise, and the upstream interconnects will be going through a second gain stage, amplifying that noise even more before it gets added to the noise picked up by the down stream interconnects. In a balanced system the interconnects will reject that noise. |
