bi amp imrpoving?

Rodman, that is confusing two meanings for biamping. The usual meaning in most audio arenas is independently powering the drivers (or groups of drivers) within a commercial multiway system or by design of an active multiway system. In those cases, the bypass or removal of the passive high-level network (or its omission) is mandatory for the use of a custom external active low-level network. The reason is that you do not want multiple networks operating in the same bandwidth because they will interact in, often, unpredictable and unfortunate ways.

What you are directly referring to is the addition of (sub)woofer to an existing system. In that case, the built in crossovers are not operating in the frequency range where the external crossover to the (sub)woofer is operating. Thus, removal of the inbuilt one is not only not necessary, it is incorrect.

While the use of the term "bi-amping" for this is technically correct, it is not what is most often meant. The OP is terse to the point of obscurity but my interpretation is that he is asking about the use of additional amp(s) with an already existing system and not the addition of speakers.

Kal

Some of the above responses seem to imply that when "passively" biamping (i.e., using two amps on a biwirable speaker with no external line-level crossover added, be that active or passive -- "passive" biamping is actually a misleading/confusing term in that sense!), you don't get the benefits of relieving the upper-frequency amp from having to deal with the bass frequencies. Although passive attenuation (by the speaker's crossover) after the power output isn't exactly the same as filtering out those bass frequencies before feeding the signal to the treble-range power amp in the first place, there is still worthwhile benefit to be gained (at least in theory) by not requiring that amp to drive a woofer. The amp inputs may "see" the full frequency range, but the output section of the HF amp is not being called upon to deliver much current in the LF. This is of course in addition to the other theoretical benefits, like doubling the available amp power (assuming the top and bottom amps are identical).

I've only ever done passive biamping, but my feeling is that the main benefits of "active" biamping (again in theory - in practice, as has been pointed out above, all bets may be off under the wrong circumstances) are mostly in implementing the frequency-divider network at the low-power line level instead of the high-power speaker level. (Which, as was also pointed out above, relieves the power amps from having to deal with the more reactive load of a speaker's crossover -- in addition to eliminating the high power-handling requirement so the crossover can be miniturized, and removing it from the highly vibrational environment inside the speaker cabinet.) My guess is that this factor is much more significant than any benefit gained from restricting the frequency range seen at the power amp inputs per se. After all, to my knowledge no one has postulated a benefit in relieving the system preamp from handling the full frequency range by dividing the signal after the source and using two preamps...

BTW, I also have to disagree about the wisdom of using different and possibly dissimilar amps for the different frequency ranges (subwoofer amps excluded) -- in my (albeit limited ) experience, using identical or very similar amps (and cables) top and bottom is necessary for the sound not to risk becoming discontinuous, at least with speakers that are coherent/consistent top-to-bottom to begin with.

A small but important qualification to Zaikesman's post:

This is of course in addition to the other theoretical benefits [of passive biamping], like doubling the available amp power (assuming the top and bottom amps are identical).

This is a common misconception. In general, passive biamping cannot be expected to double the available power (which is only a 3db increase anyway), or to even come close to doubling the available power.

The amount of power that can be delivered to the speakers is most commonly limited by clipping, i.e., by the amplifier being asked to swing its output voltage to a level that is greater than it is capable of swinging. Since in a passively biamped configuration both amps are being fed full-range signals, the output voltage range they are required to swing will be no different than it would be in a single-amped configuration.

***AN IMPORTANT IMPLICATION OF THIS: If in a passively biamped configuration a low powered tube amp is used on top (for example), and a high powered solid state amp on the bottom, most of the power capability of the high powered amp will be unavailable and wasted. The power capability of the high powered amp that can be utilized will be limited by the clipping point of the low powered amp.***

Passive biamping will only result in an increase in available power to the extent that the internal voltage rails of the amps increase as a result of reduced current demand, and/or to the extent that power delivery of the single-amped configuration that is being compared to is limited by current capability, not voltage swing capability.

Regards,
-- Al

Don't see the point of using identical amps to biamp. Ya, it makes it easy but you're not taking advantage of mixing different characters. The result may be schizo but it's entertaining. Simple enough to tame gain with an attenuator. If you want easy power, just buy a good amp and forget about biamping. On the other hand, let's not forget this is a hobby and we can have fun. For serious, mind-melting fun and possibly endless playtime, there's DSP crossovers with RTA. Now, go out and run with those scissors.

Hi Al, although I think a potential increase in headroom of up to 3dB is nothing to sneeze at (and although I happen to be one one of those who feels that, other things being equal, more power -- and a realistic playback level -- is better for lifelike reproduction), it needs to be said that the audible benefits of increasing power capability, whether via biamping or just moving to a more powerful single amp, are not necessarily directly related to whatever is conferred in terms of sheer ability to play louder. One may never listen more loudly than before (and never bump up against the system's clipping or dynamic headroom limits) and yet still hear benefits from so-called "passive" biamping. My own feeling is that this results mostly from the (doubled number of) output devices having a more advantageous grip on an easier load combined with an effective doubling of the power supply (as well as the effective doubling of the cable guage and the elimination of possibly inferior jumpers, as in simple biwiring). Assuming your statement about the unchanged voltage output swing when the input remains identical is accurate (and granting that my technical [in]competence to discuss such matters is likely below the chart relative to yours), I'm not sure what bearing this actually has on amp performance or audible results, at least as compared to current output demands.