Is Bi - amping worth the trouble?

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.

With 84 - 88 dB speakers, you could never have enough power. This is why you've heard very noticeable improvements when providing them with drastically increased amounts of reserve.

Other than that, i would consider 84 - 88 dB speakers to be low efficiency, not medium. Of course, i'm talking about using 1 watt @ 1 meter and not 2.83 volts @ 1 meter standard of measurement. There can be HUGE variances in rated output using the latter format depending on the nominal impedances of the speakers being compared. Using 1 watt provides a FAR more uniform standard of measurement. Sean
>

Blindjim,
You're welcome. I'm happy to hear that you find me helpful.
Passive bi-amplification amounts to sending the signal from two amplifiers into the speaker's passive crossover and, unless lack of power is an issue, does not differ substantially from bi-wiring.
True bi-amplification places an active crossover between the preamp and the power amps, sending the portion of the signal that you assign to each amplifier and subsequently to each driver (or driver set). An active crossover will normally afford much more flexibility by allowing you to alter and adjust X/O points (frequency cutoff), crossover slopes (db/octave) and increasing or decreasing relative gain.
It also does not usurp a large portion of your amplifier power as the passive crossover in your speaker will.
I am not very familiar with VS design but I'm sure I've owned something like them in the past. Unless they provide you with a way to completely bypass their internal crossover, they are not setup for true bi-amplification and the advantages it affords. Please remember that much of the advice you receive from dealers, the factory and even certain, if not all, reviewers is driven by marketing interest. This forum is a good, neutral source of info but you need to be aware that at least some of what you read here is the well-intentioned echo of the aforementioned marketing people.