Bi-amping - Is Paradigm selling snake-oil??

[KEW]

Maybe they are in good (or bad) company, but from what I have learned about bi-wiring/bi-amping on Audioholics, Paradigm is really pushing some misconceptions about how speaker connections work!

They make the distinction between bi-wiring and bi-amping, and also state in emphatic terms that substantial improvements will be realized from bi-amping. I really expected them to be vague about it.

A link to the Signature Series owners manual is on this page (click the download & support tab):
http://www.paradigm.com/products/paradigm-reference/bookshelf/signature-series/signature-s2

Images on page 7 show connection options.

On page 12, Paradigm talks about "high-frequency input terminals" and "low/mid-frequency input terminals" and removal of the jumpers allows separate access to the two frequency sections!

On page 13, Paradigm says "Passive bi-amping offers a dramatic improvement in clarity, openness, and detail with much better bass solidity and definition."

If this is typical for other manufacturers, it is no wonder people are so resistant to believing there is no audible difference in SQ when they bi-wire or bi-amp!

 

[GranteedEV]

You got a problem with it?! Selling snake-oil is the world's most historic, most time-tested marketing paradigm...

(sorry but i had to)

 

[pzaur]

Yup. Paradigm is marketing using untruthful information. Active bi-amping will produce differences. Passive bi-amping does nada.

-pat

 

[dkane360]

Some people probably view the double binding posts as a selling point, and paradigm would lose some sales if they didnt include them. But because they have the extra binding posts, people would probably ask questions as to why they were there, and instead of having everyone call customer support and asking, they just put it in the manual.

...or they're just jumping on the snake-oil bandwagon.

 

[bandphan]

Some speakers have been designed for bi-amping but very few

 

[PENG]

Placebo effect could work on some people. People believe expensive preamps make significant differences too even for line level sources, and of course many believe in expensive interconnects.

Just knowing there is an extra set of gold plated binding posts surely could guarantee noticeable improvements in sound qualtity. The Signature series are expensive enough for Paradigm to go after people with golder ears.

 

[JerryLove]

I own a pair of S2v1's, they are great speakers. But yes, the claim in the manual is false.

 

[walter duque]

This is a great company. Maybe they are trying to tell us if you want the full potential out of these speakers they need to be bi-amped. I have been checking out some bookshelfs that can take 1000 watts so I don't think a 100 watt AVR would do these justice. They just want you to know what these speakers are capable of.

 

[bandphan]

Gene's RBHs lend themselves to bi amping.

My tower speakers have built in passive subs. That is why I biamped. The actual subs have no xover so they are run full range relying on the natural rolloff of the drivers to act as a LPF. I like bi-amping these speakers b/c I feel you get better control of the bass. Not all speakers will benefit from biamping however.

 

[KEW]

I consider Paradigm a great company as well, that is why I was so surprised to see this in their manual!
As their manual reads, I could run the leads to the Low/Mid terminals and remove the jumpers and loose much of the high end!

I certainly think I could convince myself change such as "bi-amping" sounded better if:
a) I didn't know better.
b) figuring it takes several minutes to add the wires there was no way to A-B in real time (which would be very difficult)
c) I read enough (from manufacturers and Audio Mags) about the expected improvements to be convinced - (and certainly the concept has an intuitive "ring of truth" to it if you don't think about the details).

Going out into left field...
It has actually been established that the placebo effect can improve people's rate of healing in medical situations. Presumably, the mind affects the improved healing with the benefit of believing the medicine is assisting the process.
Although "bi-amping" won't change the airwaves that reach your ears, it is not too great of a reach to believe that (via a placebo effect) the way your ears and mind perceive the sound may actually cause it to be more enjoyable!

 

[Swerd]

I consider Paradigm a great company as well, that is why I was so surprised to see this in their manual!

Bi-amping has been often discussed without a clear answer to whether it makes a difference or not. There are wide differences of opinion without much evidence for or against it. The polite way to say it would be that the subject remains controversial. Speaker manufacturers, such as Paradigm and many others, only want to avoid losing potential customers, so they put in two sets of binding posts and wire things inside the cabinet so the drivers can be separately driven. It costs very little to do that, and if it means more sales, then it's worth it.

My own opinion is that bi-amping is a holdover from 20 or more years ago when high powered amps were much more expensive compared to better speakers. If someone had one low powered amp, it cost less to buy another low powered amp and use both than it cost to buy a big amp. At least that way you could send more power to the speakers, and that may have made a difference. Today, big high powered amps are much cheaper and bi-amping makes little sense. Despite that, the controversy continues.

Going out into left field...
It has actually been established that the placebo effect can improve people's rate of healing in medical situations. Presumably, the mind affects the improved healing with the benefit of believing the medicine is assisting the process. Although "bi-amping" won't change the airwaves that reach your ears, it is not too great of a reach to believe that (via a placebo effect) the way your ears and mind perceive the sound may actually cause it to be more enjoyable!

I'd be careful how you word that. The placebo effect in medicine is best documented in clinical trials where patients either take a new experimental medication or a placebo treatment, such as a sugar pill. A positive response for patients taking the placebo cannot be attributed directly to the placebo itself as many other factors have to be eliminated before that can be said with confidence. The experience of receiving professional care by visiting a doctor or hospital has been known to have this effect, even without taking any medication or placebo.

But if you mean by "placebo effect" that attitude, beliefs, and expectations play a large role in what we perceive, then you are right.

 

[KEW]

The experience of receiving professional care by visiting a doctor or hospital has been known to have this effect, even without taking any medication or placebo.

Assuming that the professional care did not include treatment such as medicine, this is still considered placebo effect.

From Scientific American Mind February, 2009:

Placebo effects can arise not only from a conscious belief in a drug but also from subconscious associations between recovery and the experience of being treated—from the pinch of a shot to a doctor’s white coat. Such subliminal conditioning can control bodily processes of which we are unaware, such as immune responses and the release of hormones.
Researchers have decoded some of the biology of placebo responses, demonstrating that they stem from active processes in the brain.

 

[AJinFLA]

Maybe they are in good (or bad) company, but from what I have learned about bi-wiring/bi-amping on Audioholics, Paradigm is really pushing some misconceptions about how speaker connections work!

They make the distinction between bi-wiring and bi-amping, and also state in emphatic terms that substantial improvements will be realized from bi-amping. I really expected them to be vague about it.

One is pretty much nonsense (bi-wire) although it could make "a difference" (JNeutron could explain, I won't bother).
Bi-amping OTOH, could certainly make an audible improvement, depending on the voltage supply rails of your amplifier.
If you are using a HT receiver that allows bi-amping (perhaps their typical intended use?), if the power supply is capable, utilizing both sets of output transistors would increase the amount of power delivered to the loudspeaker system, but more importantly, separate the clipping spectral components when driven hard. So that if the woofer (low) amplifier is driven into clipping, the distortion will be sent only to the woofer leg of the xo, the low pass filtering effect and the natural bandpass of the woofer will suppress the HF spectral components of the distortion, making it less audible than were the full bandwidth clipped signal be sent to the parallel legs of the XO, where the high passed tweeter would reproduce them as well - making them more audible.
I'm not sure how Paradigm explained it, but there is good reason to bi-amp like this, even with a MCH receiver, better yet with a separate (higher) power amp for the low pass section.
Active bi-amping is better yet, but that does not mean passive is BS.

cheers,

AJ

 

[JerryLove]

If you are using a HT receiver that allows bi-amping (perhaps their typical intended use?), if the power supply is capable, utilizing both sets of output transistors would increase the amount of power delivered to the loudspeaker system, but more importantly, separate the clipping spectral components when driven hard. So that if the woofer (low) amplifier is driven into clipping, the distortion will be sent only to the woofer leg of the xo, the low pass filtering effect and the natural bandpass of the woofer will suppress the HF spectral components of the distortion, making it less audible than were the full bandwidth clipped signal be sent to the parallel legs of the XO, where the high passed tweeter would reproduce them as well - making them more audible.

As I read this you are saying "if you are clipping your amp, which is likely damaging your speaker, you won't hear it as much if you bi-amp... assuming that you are running an amp that is both too weak to power your speaker properly and functionally quad mono-amps so that the shared power-supply isn't the weak link".

Serously?

Let's be crazy and assume that the person who just spent $4000 on his speakers actually spent the $300 it would take for a proper amp and reask if there's any advantage.

Heck: let's ask if anyone who is running into clipping so often that sound quality is his concern should be operating his speakers at all.

I'm not sure how Paradigm explained it, but there is good reason to bi-amp like this, even with a MCH receiver, better yet with a separate (higher) power amp for the low pass section.

But the corrilary is that you believe there should be a seperate (lower) power amp for the HF. Why? Unless you are under-amping and running into component-damaging clipping.

The single amp that can take your highest load should have no problem with your lesser loads.

Active bi-amping is better yet, but that does not mean passive is BS.

That's an entirely different beast.

 

[3db]

One is pretty much nonsense (bi-wire) although it could make "a difference" (JNeutron could explain, I won't bother).
Bi-amping OTOH, could certainly make an audible improvement, depending on the voltage supply rails of your amplifier.
If you are using a HT receiver that allows bi-amping (perhaps their typical intended use?), if the power supply is capable, utilizing both sets of output transistors would increase the amount of power delivered to the loudspeaker system, but more importantly, separate the clipping spectral components when driven hard. So that if the woofer (low) amplifier is driven into clipping, the distortion will be sent only to the woofer leg of the xo, the low pass filtering effect and the natural bandpass of the woofer will suppress the HF spectral components of the distortion, making it less audible than were the full bandwidth clipped signal be sent to the parallel legs of the XO, where the high passed tweeter would reproduce them as well - making them more audible.
I'm not sure how Paradigm explained it, but there is good reason to bi-amp like this, even with a MCH receiver, better yet with a separate (higher) power amp for the low pass section.
Active bi-amping is better yet, but that does not mean passive is BS.

cheers,

AJ

The output stages are wired in parallel if I understand this correctly but I fail to understand how parallel trasnsitor set-ups from the same power supply yields more power to the speaker. Maybe the transistors in one channel are not working as hard as the other but the cumlative power seen from the the same power supply is still the sum of the output power of the two channels.

 

[AJinFLA]

On page 13, Paradigm says "Passive bi-amping offers a dramatic improvement in clarity, openness, and detail with much better bass solidity and definition."

That part is doubtful. But there is "a difference". How audible? That depends.

Notice the two ch power delivered is not half of the one. Nor is the five ch 1/5th.
2ch total power 244w. 5ch 375w. 4 would be slightly less, but more total than 2.
Each would see a different reactive load, in typical speakers, the woofer leg will have a lower impedance than the tweeter (not always), so it's entirely possible to clip a peak waveform on the woofer channel while not on the tweeter....unlike when a single channel drives the voltage divider.

cheers,

AJ

Btw, finally found the link missing from Cordells site about peak power/clipping http://www.audioxpress.com/magsdirx/ax/addenda/media/smith2791.pdf

 

[3db]

That part is doubtful. But there is "a difference". How audible? That depends.

Notice the two ch power delivered is not half of the one. Nor is the five ch 1/5th.
2ch total power 244w. 5ch 375w. 4 would be slightly less, but more total than 2.
Each would see a different reactive load, in typical speakers, the woofer leg will have a lower impedance than the tweeter (not always), so it's entirely possible to clip a peak waveform on the woofer channel while not on the tweeter....unlike when a single channel drives the voltage divider.

cheers,

AJ

Btw, finally found the link missing from Cordells site about peak power/clipping http://www.audioxpress.com/magsdirx/ax/addenda/media/smith2791.pdf

An amp clips because the power supplies cannot sustain the draw on it. Wether or not you put that cross one channel or two is immaterial. One power supply supplies both channels, Because of this, its impossible to dervive more power out of passisve bi-amping. It would work if each channel had its seperate power supplies but that feature isn't usually found in an AVR.

 

[JerryLove]

Notice the two ch power delivered is not half of the one. Nor is the five ch 1/5th.
2ch total power 244w. 5ch 375w. 4 would be slightly less, but more total than 2.

OK. Let's assume we are discussing something like an Emotiva UPA-5 which has a normal cost of $550. And I'll assume that 4-channel manages just as much total power (374w) (-1 so I can divide more easily).

That means 187w per channel from bi-amping with a multi-channel amp.

Well... not really.

See, what that actually means is 94w per channel into 4 channels (two HF, two LF)

So here comes that spike we were worried about clipping, and it's a thump at 110w at 80Hz on the right side. On our non-bi-amped, we didn't clip (remember, 122w per speaker), but now that's trying to run through just one channel (right low-frequency), and that (according to your measurments) is 94w or so.

And the story gets worse from there. We could have, instead, spent about the same money (yes, the UPA-5 is an oddball this month cause it's on sale... I'm skipping that because it's anyomolous) to get an XPA-3 and had 200w per channel to handle that spike. That's not only more power than the real power available to a single driver (94w) that's more power than the theoretical power for a spike with absolutley even dispersion between HF and LF (122w)... and by a lot.

Maybe we should bi-amp with two amps? It gets *much* worse then. Two UPA-2s will put you out $700. You get a theoretical 250w per channle, but only 125w per driver... and you've buttedup against the price of an XPA-2 which has 300w per channel.

I don't want to get too stuck on Emotiva. Perhaps you'd like to use Yamaha ProAmps (what I have here at home). $419 will get you a 250W amp, times 2 and you'll be out $838.

500W Yammy pro? $629.

Even if we make the case that bi-amping 2x250 offered an advantage over 1x250, it certaily is not advantageous over 1x500, which is also cheaper.

 

[96cobra10101]

OK. Let's assume we are discussing something like an Emotiva UPA-5 which has a normal cost of $550. And I'll assume that 4-channel manages just as much total power (374w) (-1 so I can divide more easily).

That means 187w per channel from bi-amping with a multi-channel amp.

Well... not really.

See, what that actually means is 94w per channel into 4 channels (two HF, two LF)

So here comes that spike we were worried about clipping, and it's a thump at 110w at 80Hz on the right side. On our non-bi-amped, we didn't clip (remember, 122w per speaker), but now that's trying to run through just one channel (right low-frequency), and that (according to your measurments) is 94w or so.

And the story gets worse from there. We could have, instead, spent about the same money (yes, the UPA-5 is an oddball this month cause it's on sale... I'm skipping that because it's anyomolous) to get an XPA-3 and had 200w per channel to handle that spike. That's not only more power than the real power available to a single driver (94w) that's more power than the theoretical power for a spike with absolutley even dispersion between HF and LF (122w)... and by a lot.

Maybe we should bi-amp with two amps? It gets *much* worse then. Two UPA-2s will put you out $700. You get a theoretical 250w per channle, but only 125w per driver... and you've buttedup against the price of an XPA-2 which has 300w per channel.

I don't want to get too stuck on Emotiva. Perhaps you'd like to use Yamaha ProAmps (what I have here at home). $419 will get you a 250W amp, times 2 and you'll be out $838.

500W Yammy pro? $629.

Even if we make the case that bi-amping 2x250 offered an advantage over 1x250, it certaily is not advantageous over 1x500, which is also cheaper.

But I still have a question.
If I have 2 speakers, each with one driver in it, and I power them with a 2 channel amp, lets say a 100 wpc and I get a certain sound level, before clipping. Then, what if I add another setup exactly like this. Same speakers and amp, is it going to be louder before clipping? If it is louder, is it because of more speakers or more power?

 

[bandphan]

Ibtl .