Is Bi - amping worth the trouble?

Blindjim: Unless you're technically inclined with test equipment, stick to using identical amps that have been gain matched at the factory. Otherwise, it is easy to run into some strange situations that seem to vary from recording to recording.

Other than that, passively bi-amping is worth a small gain in terms of dynamic range and slightly smoothing things out. Unless one is using an under-powered amp for the specific speakers / desired listening levels, the associated costs aren't really worth the efforts in my opinion. Like you said, the extra amp, interconnects, speaker cabling, etc... can really add up quickly. If running big amps, another dedicated line might also have to be factored in.

When all is said and done, the money that you spent bi-amping could have probably been put to better use by either upgrading the speakers and / or amp. Adding a quantity of gear won't necessarily get you the quality of signal that you desire. Sean
>

I have passively biamped various speakers, with stunning results. I call it dual-amp biwiring, not "biamping", because traditionally biamping has ALWAYS meant an external active crossover. I have tried two identical McCormack amps and also two identical Music Reference amps. I would NOT mix different kinds of amps. One stereo amp devoted to the left channel, and one for the right is my favorite way to go. For speakers, I have compared 2-channels vs. 4-channels on Magnepan, Musical Fidelity, and Signet. Each of these speakers is set-up for bi-wiring, with two pair of inputs per speaker. In every case, the fine dynamics and liveliness of the music has increased significantly. In every other way, I hear no significant difference in sound, but increased liveliness is EXACTLY what differentiates a great system from a good one.

Macrojack
thank you, you’ve been most helpful with your input and experience both here and elsewhere with my queries. Really, though, is bi-amping ever truly a 'need'? for that matter little of what we do with Hi Fi gear is ever a ‘need’ I suspect. Personally, I think it simple ‘ego’.

"Blindjim- Your interest in bi-amping seems to be driven by boredom or curiosity more than need."

...eg. above. But you are probably right.

"And, while bi-amping might be an available option, your speakers were not designed with that in mind."

... I beg to differ, the designer did say differently, and if optimum performance were to be achieved. As did at least one reviewer, who tried several combinations during his account of the JRs. Given the former's, more so than the latter's input, and the curiosity/.desire you hit upon, here we are.... for regardless their accounts, one personal, one public, I’ve thought for some time now, to have a system with two amps… and I sort of do now, yet not in the classical sense, as my amp (s) share a single chassis.

I'm fast approaching the culmination of this exercise. three or four grand more and I should be near complete. Awaiting only a DAC to integrate my carosel (s) & PC.

Thus I'm pondering with some Enthusiasm, the notion of bi amping... so as to eek out that last bit or simply for the experience... I've never had a tube/tube set up. As the best sound I've yet to hear came from an ALL tubes rig, on the JRs, in fact, I'd like very much to attain that presentation to the degree I can afford. Ultimately. Though afforability looms large in this venture, narrowing the paths, and casting a brighter light upon the intricacies of each avenue seems only prudent to me. I'm sort of a belt and suspenders type. Measure two or three times, cut once. Knowing in advance and settting down the plan provides direction, and sets goals. Remaining flexible along the way is a must too. ...but that's me. That's just what I do. Research, therefore, is quite important when doing a new thing.

Thus whatever input I can obtain, from other's experience is of great import though not solely to myself, given these threads that increase all who are 'curious'. It's curiosity, remember, that drove us to folow our dreams and schemes down the Hi Fi Highway. …and that’s one thoroughfare whose toll can weigh quite heavily if it is errantly pursued.

Which brings me to this.. a dealer once told me that bridging amps reduces headroom… and the deficits outweigh the advantages… were I to gain another vk500 and just go that way, though I know it not a prerequisite, would bridging both amps actually be a poor choice, given it a vertical biamping set up? (that’s one amp per speaker, right?) . ?? AND “What’s headroom, exactly?” AND “What’s headroom, exactly?”

"Headroom" usually relates to the extra energy the amp has available to deal with (loud) transients in music without clipping.
Back to biamping --
a) I wouldn't have much to add to Sean's post above.
b) A quick reference of what you may expect with "passive" biamping is given by warjarret above. The result doesn't justify the cost -- esp. when compared to normal biamping (i.e. amp directly driving the drive units). That's a different level altogether.
...Unless you have a notoriously underpowered amp -- which you don't.

If V Scheik really means what he says about these spkrs having been designed for bi-amping, then he can provide you with the cross-over schematic, and you can take it from there.

Gregm
Many thanks. ...well that's what he said to me on the phone, when we first spoke of the JRs set up. In fact he said the best two amp set up he had heard on them was with a vk60 & a vk solid state driving the lower unit. he did seem sincere enough that I believed him.

Having heard several medium eff speakers, (84 - 88db), I've haerd them with 200wpc - 600wpc... different spkrs, & different amps... the bigger the amps current supply, the better the sound. Everytime. IN both dynamics, and control. the quality however did not necessaryily improve. hence the desire to add a tube amp in conjunction with mine.