Help Me set-up Bi-amp for Yammy RX-V659

What are steps to setting up the RX-V659 to run a pair of main speakers in a Bi-amp mode using the 659's own internal amps.

Here is what I am doing;

main floor standing towers set to large (4 way with seperate binding post and crossovers for the 12" woofer) (other binding post crossover for 8", 5" & tweeter)

Center speaker set to large

surrounds (2 way w/ 5-1/4" woofer / tweeter) set to small

I have no SUb (.1 ), no rear(back) surrounds (7.1) and no presence speakers.

How do I go about setting up the Bi-amp on the mains? (other than speaker wires and removing the jumpers on the binding post)

>> Does the RX-V659 have re-asignable power amps ? seems I remember reading somewhere that it does, I can't find it in the owners manual. Can I re-route the back surround amplifier to bi-amp my front mains?

>>>> And Yes I have read many post about power limitations of Bi-Amping / Bi-wiring of a AVR amplifier section and the limitations of 15A power source and no sonic improvements etc, etc...... I'm a hard headed gotta prove it to my self type of person and want to play around a bit plus my next in the future move will be true Bi-Amping with external Amps thru the pre-outs.

Thanks

I would buy a separate amp for the LFE. Run the LFE out from the receiver to the amp. Run to the 12's in the mains. Set all speakers to SMALL in the receiver. Set crossover to 80, 60 if your center channel makes it to 40. Set the receiver to send LFE to the sub only(12's in the mains)

Something like this:
http://www.audioadvisor.com/prodinfo.asp?number=NHTA1

http://www.onecall.com/ProductDetails.aspx?id=15948

Or:
http://www.accessories4less.com/cgi-bin/item/ONKM282

Bridgeable Adcom. Can handle a 2ohm load. Very Nice!
http://www.onecall.com/ProductDetails.aspx?id=21234

zumbo said:

I would buy a separate amp for the LFE. Run the LFE out from the receiver to the amp. Run to the 12's in the mains. Set all speakers to SMALL in the receiver. Set crossover to 80, 60 if your center channel makes it to 40. Set the receiver to send LFE to the sub only(12's in the mains)

Something like this:
http://www.audioadvisor.com/prodinfo.asp?number=NHTA1

http://www.onecall.com/ProductDetails.aspx?id=15948

Or:
http://www.accessories4less.com/cgi-bin/item/ONKM282

Click to expand...

Thats the future plan

What I'm looking for now is a HOW TO with the 659's internal power.

Thanks for the links for future reference

zumbo said:

I would buy a separate amp for the LFE. Run the LFE out from the receiver to the amp. Run to the 12's in the mains. Set all speakers to SMALL in the receiver. Set crossover to 80, 60 if your center channel makes it to 40. Set the receiver to send LFE to the sub only(12's in the mains)

Click to expand...

That's an interesting idea; have you ever experienced a setup like that?

I think it would "work", but I don't know if I would go that way. Depending on your intended usage, there are some limitations. First, you're going to lose your stereo separation, as that sub signal is going to end up being mono. Although "bass is non-directional", that's a sacrifice I wouldn't be willing to make (although many are). Second, I've found that if you're able to run mains as "large", it's usually better that way. Unless everything's perfectly set up, employing digital crossovers usually mucks things up. Third, and probably most importantly, there are passive crossovers inside of those main speakers. The application of the receiver's digital crossovers on top of the passive crossovers will now provide a more extreme filter slope, and things are not going to sound right. If you were going to set up a system like this, I think it would be necessary to remove all the passive crossover parts from the speakers, since the receiver is now doing that work.

If you're willing to buy a new amp (yeah, I know that wasn't part of the original plan), I'd just go for a "real" 5-channel amp, and use it to bi-amp your mains while running your center channel from the remaining channel. I did notice a difference in bi-amping my mains with a Sunfire Cinema Grand.

As to the original post -- you're on the right track. You need to find a way to assign channels "6 and 7" to the same signal as the front. I have never run into a problem with my 15A circuit, but I'm sure it's possible. If you can't reassign channels 6 and 7, you may be able to use another amp from the preouts -- do you have another receiver or amp that you could use for a while, if only for a test?

Anyway, good luck!

If the units has pre-outs/7.1 channel input couldn't he use the front channel preouts and connect them to the surround back inputs from the 7.1 input? I think he would still get sound from the front speaker terminals as well as from the surround back terminals. If so, he could power the woofers with the front channel speaker terminals and the mid/tweeters with the surround back speaker terminals. Someone correct me if I'm wrong...I just woke up and am still half asleep.

Doug917 said:

If the units has pre-outs/7.1 channel input couldn't he use the front channel preouts and connect them to the surround back inputs from the 7.1 input?

Click to expand...

I'm not sure that would work. Suppose that the DVD player (or whatever) is connected to the "DVD" input. So you would have to select the "DVD" input to get sound from that source. OK, then feed the front pre-outs into the 7.1 input for the "rear" channels only. But now he'd have to select the "7.1" input in order to activate those inputs and direct sound out of the receiver. Of course, when the "7.1" input is selected, the "DVD" input is no longer selected, so there will be no sound.

100r1 said:

What are steps to setting up the RX-V659 to run a pair of main speakers in a Bi-amp mode using the 659's own internal amps.

Click to expand...

I just checked out the owner's manual, as well as the thread here for the review done on this unit by Audioholics. I was hoping to find the setting for you, but I've got to call no joy on this one. I just can't find a way to assign the surround back amplifier to the mains. Sorry.

OttoMatic said:

I'm not sure that would work. Suppose that the DVD player (or whatever) is connected to the "DVD" input. So you would have to select the "DVD" input to get sound from that source. OK, then feed the front pre-outs into the 7.1 input for the "rear" channels only. But now he'd have to select the "7.1" input in order to activate those inputs and direct sound out of the receiver. Of course, when the "7.1" input is selected, the "DVD" input is no longer selected, so there will be no sound.

Click to expand...

See...I told you I hadn't woke up yet. Whatever happened to the good ole days when they put pre-out/main-ins on Yamaha mid level receivers?

OttoMatic said:

That's an interesting idea; have you ever experienced a setup like that?

Click to expand...

Nope. I don't use speakers with 12" woofers in my HT, and I don't have my mains buyamped or buywired.

OttoMatic said:

I think it would "work", but I don't know if I would go that way. Depending on your intended usage, there are some limitations. First, you're going to lose your stereo separation, as that sub signal is going to end up being mono.

Click to expand...

It's mono in a 5.1 or 7.1 anyway.

OttoMatic said:

Although "bass is non-directional", that's a sacrifice I wouldn't be willing to make (although many are). Second, I've found that if you're able to run mains as "large", it's usually better that way.

Click to expand...

I disagree. I want to mains and my center to match FR so my front line sounds equal.

OttoMatic said:

Unless everything's perfectly set up, employing digital crossovers usually mucks things up.

Click to expand...

How do you bi-amp without employing crossovers?

OttoMatic said:

Third, and probably most importantly, there are passive crossovers inside of those main speakers. The application of the receiver's digital crossovers on top of the passive crossovers will now provide a more extreme filter slope, and things are not going to sound right. If you were going to set up a system like this, I think it would be necessary to remove all the passive crossover parts from the speakers, since the receiver is now doing that work.

Click to expand...

That is correct. Bypassing the internal crossover units in the speakers is necessary for correct bi-amplification.

OttoMatic said:

If you're willing to buy a new amp (yeah, I know that wasn't part of the original plan), I'd just go for a "real" 5-channel amp, and use it to bi-amp your mains while running your center channel from the remaining channel. I did notice a difference in bi-amping my mains with a Sunfire Cinema Grand.

Click to expand...

How did you bi-amp without employing any of the variables above?

zumbo said:

Nope. I don't use speakers with 12" woofers in my HT, and I don't have my mains buyamped or buywired.

Click to expand...

While I haven't personally heard much (any?) difference in bi-wiring, I have definitely heard a difference in bi-amping. The "buywire" term is cute for the former, but perhaps less applicable to the latter.

It's mono in a 5.1 or 7.1 anyway.

Click to expand...

The OP asked about bi-wiring his mains, which generally mean applying the same preamp-level signal to two different amplifiers (per channel). That two channel amplifier than drives the "top" and "bottom" of one of the mains, say the left side. Repeat for the right side. Stereo separation is fully maintained. This describes "passive" bi-amping, which I'm sure is what he's asking about, since there was no discussion of outboard electronic crossovers.

What you're suggesting is to apply bass management via the receiver, send that signal to an amp and then send that signal to the "bottom" part of his mains (in this case, the 12" drivers that are in his mains). You're effectively using the 12s as "subs" at this point. The signal would be mono, stereo separation is lost. This is definitely not biamping.

If the OP is actually using a sub, he may also run into problems with flexibility and control of the "other" sub.

I disagree. I want to mains and my center to match FR so my front line sounds equal.

Click to expand...

Depending on the crossover points, I'd be less worried about this; I'd be most concerned with timbre matching, which would be more apparent at higher frequencies. Regardless, he's only talking about biamping mains, so I'm not exactly sure how a 5.1 or 7.1 system fits into his plans.

How do you bi-amp without employing crossovers?

Click to expand...

Passive bi-amping uses the crossovers networks that are part of the speaker itself. Active bi-amping would use an external electronic crossover and requires that passive crossover networks generally not be use. I passively bi-amp by using four channels of a five channel amplifier (two channels per speaker).

That is correct.

Click to expand...

Right. I'm not sure the OP wants to tear into his speakers like that...

How did you bi-amp without employing any of the variables above?

Click to expand...

Passively, as described.

1) Don't you have to buy another amp to buy-amp?

2) He is not using a sub.

3) He is using a center channel.

4) Part of your response states how you need to bypass the internal crossovers in the speakers, and then you state that you don't employ this technique. Well, my friend, your speakers are not correctly bi-amped.

On a final note, I believe in using the original speakers design with the finest most powerful amp one can afford. My responses were intended to help the OP overcome some problems due to the presumed limited fundage. It had nothing to do with my, or Otto Matic's set-up.

zumbo said:

1) Don't you have to buy another amp to buy-amp?

Click to expand...

The implication is that it's wasted money. Come on.

2) He is not using a sub.

Click to expand...

Doesn't matter. What you've proposed with your original idea is to implement a sub/satellite setup, even though they are in one box. It's not biamping your mains if you've lost your stereo separation.

3) He is using a center channel.

Click to expand...

OK. Still doesn't apply to discussions about bi-amping mains.

4) Part of your response states how you need to bypass the internal crossovers in the speakers, and then you state that you don't employ this technique. Well, my friend, your speakers are not correctly bi-amped.

Click to expand...

I think I described passive vs. active bi-amping. Mine are passively bi-amped. Period. Don't know what else to say...

What you proposed initially, or at least by omission of discussion, was to actively and passively bi-amp at the same time (well, it's still not bi-amping, per se, but you know what I mean). Your setup would have left him with an electronic crossover as well as a passive crossover, because you failed to note that he would have to remove his speakers' internal passive crossovers. That's what I was pointing out -- that it wasn't that simple to just hook up an amp that's fed out of the sub out.

OttoMatic said:

The implication is that it's wasted money. Come on.

Click to expand...

Isn't it?

OttoMatic said:

Doesn't matter. What you've proposed with your original idea is to implement a sub/satellite setup, even though they are in one box. It's not biamping your mains if you've lost your stereo separation.

Click to expand...

There are tons of speakers made with the powered sub in the mains. Not my preference, but the OP has a dilemma. Isn't the goal here a 3.1 set-up since a center channel is being used? Isn't the .1 seperate anyway? HMMM?

OttoMatic said:

I think I described passive vs. active bi-amping. Mine are passively bi-amped. Period. Don't know what else to say...

Click to expand...

This is not about you.

OttoMatic said:

What you proposed initially, or at least by omission of discussion, was to actively and passively bi-amp at the same time (well, it's still not bi-amping, per se, but you know what I mean). Your setup would have left him with an electronic crossover as well as a passive crossover, because you failed to note that he would have to remove his speakers' internal passive crossovers. That's what I was pointing out -- that it wasn't that simple to just hook up an amp that's fed out of the sub out.

Click to expand...

Would he? Couldn't he just disconnect the wires from the internal crossovers to the woofers, wire the woofers to the external amp, and run the high-end off of the receivers main speaker output while using the receivers crossover to separate the two? HMMM?

zumbo said:

Isn't it?

Click to expand...

In my opinion, no. Have you ever heard a proper passively bi-amped system on two-channel audio?

There are tons of speakers made with the powered sub in the mains. Not my preference, but the OP has a dilemma. Isn't the goal here a 3.1 set-up since a center channel is being used? Isn't the .1 seperate anyway? HMMM?

Click to expand...

The OP had a question about passively bi-amping mains. This isn't necessarily the same as having a built-in sub. Really, I was addressing the concept of bi-amping mains, which is totally separate from external subs, built-in subs, 3.1, 5.1, 7.1 and so on.

This is not about you.

Click to expand...

but previously you also posted this:

4) Part of your response states how you need to bypass the internal crossovers in the speakers, and then you state that you don't employ this technique. Well, my friend, your speakers are not correctly bi-amped.

Click to expand...

I'm not trying to make it personal about me. However, I was only responding to the above statement. My personal experience with passive bi-amping is utterly relevant, so I have offered how things work for me.

Would he? Couldn't he just disconnect the wires from the internal crossovers to the woofers, wire the woofers to the external amp, and run the high-end off of the receivers main speaker output while using the receivers crossover to separate the two? HMMM?

Click to expand...

You're still talking about opening up the speakers, and it may or may not be so simple as you imply. It's not something that I would take lightly. Crossover design is a difficult topic, and simply removing (or bypassing, or whatever you want to call it) a passive crossover and using a receiver's bass management in place of it may give indeterminate results. Furthermore, as mentioned above, running a separate amp that's utilizing a "sub" signal is NOT biamping speakers in the traditional sense. Your ideas are relevant from an experimentation angle; I'll give you that.

Listen, you clearly have some need to be right, and that's OK. I'm not trying to give you a hard time, but my descriptions of passive and active bi-amping are correct. My particular setup is correctly bi-wired, and anyone who does understand about bi-amping will agree. I don't know about you, but I exist on these forums to discuss ideas, exchange thoughts and learn. I'm not always right. Although I have fewer than 1% of your post count on this forum, please don't mistake me for a fool or a newcomer to this hobby.

It is my understanding from the 1st opening question from the OP that a rational, professional, expensive, elaborate set-up is not the idea here. The idea is to drive a three channel system with a surround receiver. This is certainly not the way you or I would do it. But, the OP seems to want to get the most out of what he has, while keeping his full-range mains with 12" woofers, and not implementing a sub. The SQ from a dvd in 2-channel not utilizing DD 5.1 or DTS 5.1 will be lacking. My idea was to get the system set-up in the least expensive way following the OP's idea to yield a decent result.

Instead of giving the OP your idea, you came into this thread attacking my idea. How does that help the OP? You could just give your idea and be done.

What was your idea for the OP?

As far as bi-amping, I stated I believe in buying the most powerful quality amp one can afford to drive the speakers.

I would choose a separate amp for each speaker before bi-amping a speaker. But, hey, that's just me.

But, I thought you said your system was bi-amped. Is it bi-amped, or bi-wired?

OttoMatic said:

I passively bi-amp by using four channels of a five channel amplifier (two channels per speaker).

Click to expand...

OttoMatic said:

My particular setup is correctly bi-wired, and anyone who does understand about bi-amping will agree.

Click to expand...

zumbo said:

It is my understanding from the 1st opening question from the OP that a rational, professional, expensive, elaborate set-up is not the idea here. ... My idea was to get the system set-up in the least expensive way following the OP's ideto yield a decent result.

Click to expand...

So in order to accomplish that, you suggest he buy another amp so that he can NOT bi-amp with his current receiver.

Instead of giving the OP your idea, you came into this thread attacking my idea. How does that help the OP? You could just give your idea and be done.

Click to expand...

Yep, and the reason for my objection is simple: your advice is bad. First, it doesn't utilize the OP's current receiver, as he noted in a response to you. Second, it doesn't accomplish bi-amping as has been discussed ad nauseum. Third and finally, instructing someone to apply both electronic and passive filters is going to make things much worse than he currently has it (and there's nothing inherently wrong with the way he has it now).

What was your idea for the OP?

Click to expand...

The best advice I could offer him at the time was to not listen to your advice, for the reasons noted above.

zumbo said:

But, I thought you said your system was bi-amped. Is it bi-amped, or bi-wired?

Click to expand...

Brilliant! You've caught me in a typo! I've described how my system is wired, and aside from this instance, I have been utterly consistent in its description as being bi-AMPED, and passively at that. I would edit that post, but it seems too much time has expired.

So, you believe he should bi-amp with a receiver that only has one amp? You can't get more power out of that receiver with more wires. If you want more power, it has to be added. If the OP was made of money, I would say start over. And, if the system was fine the way it was, the OP wouldn't be asking for help. I don't think you have contributed to this thread in any way. I had an idea. Good or bad, it was an idea. Sorry to have ruffled your feathers. Done with this one. Looks like the OP is too. Pretty sure this isn't the responses he was looking for.