The Difference Between Bi-amping and Bi-wiring

[PENG]

Bi-amping does have some manufacturer support. There is also reasonable science in that amps react differently to load changes. All amps distort and most measurements are not complex waveforms driving loads. Reducing the load on an amp reduces distortion even when the amp is not "clipping".
The degree of distortion is audible (driving a speaker) is not fully understood.
Passive crossovers networks can be very good but are not necessarily linear and may interact when connected.

Passive Bi-amping may be beneficial and worthwile but it depends on your speakers, amp, and perception. By that, I mean if a person finds no benefit, that is a completely valid conclusion as is finding a benefit.

The salient points are:

• The claim that passive bi-amping is a waste and of no possible benefit is FALSE.
• Bi-amping is simple to try at home and hear for one-self

I don't know how to be clearer that that

I use Monoprice 12x4 cables. I suppose it is possible the Kimbre cables improve sound. I am not going to spend hundreds of dollars to find out.

Harmon (Veocks) is clearly NOT recommending bi-wiring.

- Rich

I don't agree with the first and last sentences but fully agree with your salient points. The last sentence is likely based on hearsay by people who do have enough understanding of electrical theories. I do trust Dr. Floyd though, but did he also NOT..... bi-wiring and did he give his rationale? To me the salient points apply to biwire also, just to much lesser extent overall.

 

[Alex2507]

I would definitely use the amp instead of storing it. You will hear better highs especially at louder spl, sorry for repeating so many times but the effects of Placebo is also well documented. Regardless, imo if you have the gear why not use it?

I'm surprised that you think I will actually hear an improvement. I won't have any way to accurately compare one to the other either but I figure placebo effect wears off eventually. I listen at low spl too but with time I have gotten to know a few sets of speakers in this nearfield set up.

This will be the first time I step up from from rec'r power in this 2 channel set up. BTW, it's a Yamaha RX-V2600.

 

[fmw]

The salient points are:

• The claim that passive bi-amping is a waste and of no possible benefit is FALSE.
• Bi-amping is simple to try at home and hear for one-self

I don't know how to be clearer that that

- Rich

I might be able to add some clarity. passive biamplifiaction may provide a possible benefit but not an audible one. Relieving the bass amplifier of a few milliwatts isn't going to make any audible difference at all.

Yes it is simple and easy to try at home. However, a sighted comparison isn't going to do anything other than allow you to prefer the biamplified setup because of hearing bias. So testing it at home is actually very difficult to do properly. I spent years doing bias controlled tests so I can tell you that amplifier audibility tests are very demanding, very fussy and very boring. It isn't that you don't hear a difference. It is why you hear the difference. That may not matter to you but at least I provided some clarity from the dissenting side.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

FYI, Kevin Veocks is head of marketing for Revel, not an electrical engineer (Siegfried Linkwitz), speaker designer (Dennis Murphy) or speaker researcher (Floyd Toole, Sean Olive).

 

[RichB]

I might be able to add some clarity. passive biamplifiaction may provide a possible benefit but not an audible one. Relieving the bass amplifier of a few milliwatts isn't going to make any audible difference at all.

Yes it is simple and easy to try at home. However, a sighted comparison isn't going to do anything other than allow you to prefer the biamplified setup because of hearing bias. So testing it at home is actually very difficult to do properly. I spent years doing bias controlled tests so I can tell you that amplifier audibility tests are very demanding, very fussy and very boring. It isn't that you don't hear a difference. It is why you hear the difference. That may not matter to you but at least I provided some clarity from the dissenting side.

Gene produced a video saying stating that bi-amping did provide a benefit (but not always), Voecks has said as much. Toole sets up his home theater and listens to it and makes judgements.
So even among the most scientific minded, listen and make judgements.

To listen to your own system and be incapable of making judgements is taking bias-fear to an absurd level. Ultimately, you will determine what sounds best to you. Some us do that using measurements and their ears. Some only use measurements and adjust their tastes accordingly. The later does not make you an objectivist, it proves that you have a different bias.

Here is the typical interaction with a forum objectivist:

Poster:
I have found that bi-amping is beneficial.

Objectivist:
Passive (Fools) Bi-amping does not increase power.

Poster:
But the crossovers are separated. The amps see different loads. Distortion is reduced.

Objectivist:
All below the threshold of audibility.

Poster:
Those measurements were not this amp driving complex loads. How do you know what distortion levels are produced in my system and when they become audible.

Objectivist:
You did not properly level match.

Poster:
It is the same amp, so the same gain.

Objectivist:
Your test is sighted and biased.

Poster:
I had three people do SBT's.

Objectivist:
It was not double-blind.

As said in Ben Hur: It goes on Juda...

So if an objectivist feels there car is running rough and the computer and mechanic tells me there is no problem, that's the end of it

- Rich

 

[fmw]

I provided information. I said it may not matter to you. Obviously it does not. But I've done more bias controlled testing than any of the people you mention. Listening to your system to make adjustments is common sense. Where it loses its value is in inaudible areas such as passive biamplifiaction or wires. The bias controlled tests say it causes no audible difference. Therefore, what you hear is in your brain's reaction to the environment, not the biamplification itself. It happens to eveyone.

Let me help you understand some of the science behind it. Tweeters dissipate power in milliwatts, not watts. It is the woofer that dissipates almost all of the amplifier power. Biamplification certainly does relieve the woofer amp of some power requirement but only milliwatts. It simply doesn't matter. You can want it to matter. You can hear differences but the truth is it doesn't matter.

I understand you don't accept that. It's OK. But don't try to convince me otherwise. I have actually done the testing and I know better.

 

[RichB]

I provided information. I said it may not matter to you. Obviously it does not. But I've done more bias controlled testing than any of the people you mention. Listening to your system to make adjustments is common sense. Where it loses its value is in inaudible areas such as passive biamplifiaction or wires. The bias controlled tests say it causes no audible difference. Therefore, what you hear is in your brain's reaction to the environment, not the biamplification itself. It happens to eveyone.

Let me help you understand some of the science behind it. Tweeters dissipate power in milliwatts, not watts. It is the woofer that dissipates almost all of the amplifier power. Biamplification certainly does relieve the woofer amp of some power requirement but only milliwatts. It simply doesn't matter. You can want it to matter. You can hear differences but the truth is it doesn't matter.

I understand you don't accept that. It's OK. But don't try to convince me otherwise. I have actually done the testing and I know better.

I gave up on trying to convince you of anything. That is not my purpose.
Your conclusions are presented as facts that contradict others who are well respected.
Dismiss that if you will, what you present is are not all the facts. Arguments are presented as absolutes and in way "prove" your position.

For example, the Salon2's are crossed at 150hz. The mid-bass, midrange, and tweeter crossed at 105Hz process a great deal of power. not milliwatts.
Bias is ignoring data the contrary and picking a fact for arguments sake.

"In science, contrary evidence causes one to question a theory. In religion, contrary evidence causes one to question the evidence." - Floyd Toole​

In this case, I contend that the religious position is that bi-amping cannot ever provide a benefit.

- Rich

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

Maybe the take home message is:

If your amp is great or powerful enough for your speakers, then your speaker only needs single-amp.

If your amp isn't great or powerful enough for your speakers, then your speaker may or may not benefit from passive bi-amp.

 

[Alex2507]

My only regret is that I can not bi-wire and bi-amp at the same time.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

My only regret is that I can not bi-wire and bi-amp at the same time.

I'm sure you can find a way. I have faith.

 

[Swerd]

My only regret is that I can not bi-wire and bi-amp at the same time.

Bi-wiring/bi-amping speakers is for amateurs.

I bi-wire my turntable.

 

[fmw]

I gave up on trying to convince you of anything. That is not my purpose.
Your conclusions are presented as facts that contradict others who are well respected.
Dismiss that if you will, what you present is are not all the facts. Arguments are presented as absolutes and in way "prove" your position.

For example, the Salon2's are crossed at 150hz. The mid-bass, midrange, and tweeter crossed at 105Hz process a great deal of power. not milliwatts.
Bias is ignoring data the contrary and picking a fact for arguments sake.

"In science, contrary evidence causes one to question a theory. In religion, contrary evidence causes one to question the evidence." - Floyd Toole​

In this case, I contend that the religious position is that bi-amping cannot ever provide a benefit.

- Rich

My position is hardly religious. I spent two years doing bias controlled comparisons with an audio society group. What I say is not opinion. It is test results. That is why I say it with confidence.

I am talking about biamplification. You are referring to three way speakers. There are two crossover points. 150 hz and some other frequency. I understand that the speakers probably have only two sets of connectors on the back. Most of my three way systems are the same. I always thought it was a lazy approach. My comments were aimed at biamplifiction of a two way system.

Naturally, the second amp in a three way system could well relieve enough power requirement from the bass amp to prevent clipping at a higher volume level than a setup with a single amp. If your amplification is that close to clipping it would make more sense to get a bigger amp than to add more amps and more complexity to the system.

In your shoes I would measure my actual power dissipation at the speakers. That might be an eye opener. I'm willing to bet you aren't anywhere near clipping but measurements will tell you for sure. If a single amplifier isn't clipping then adding another amplifier will be meaningless. If it is clipping then employing a larger amp would make more sense to me than adding more amps. An alternative approach would be turn the volume down 3db. You would likely not notice the difference and you would reduce the power dissipation by 50%

I like Toole's quote and I agree with it. But understand that you haven't provided any more evidence than I have. Also don't forget that I haven't challenged that you heard what you heard. I simply offered an alternative explanation for why you heard it. And it is an explanation based on a bunch of experience.

 

[Irvrobinson]

I might be able to add some clarity. passive biamplifiaction may provide a possible benefit but not an audible one. Relieving the bass amplifier of a few milliwatts isn't going to make any audible difference at all.

Yes it is simple and easy to try at home. However, a sighted comparison isn't going to do anything other than allow you to prefer the biamplified setup because of hearing bias. So testing it at home is actually very difficult to do properly. I spent years doing bias controlled tests so I can tell you that amplifier audibility tests are very demanding, very fussy and very boring. It isn't that you don't hear a difference. It is why you hear the difference. That may not matter to you but at least I provided some clarity from the dissenting side.

Well, if you're going to add clarity, fmv, at least get your facts straight. If you have a speaker systems with a sensitivity of 86db/2.83v/m that has to produce 100db peaks at the listening seat within the tweeter's bandpass, and you're sitting 15 feet away, the tweeter will not be handling milliwatts. It will be handling a multiple of whole watts.

 

[Irvrobinson]

My position is hardly religious. I spent two years doing bias controlled comparisons with an audio society group. What I say is not opinion. It is test results. That is why I say it with confidence.

I am talking about biamplification. You are referring to three way speakers. There are two crossover points. 150 hz and some other frequency. I understand that the speakers probably have only two sets of connectors on the back. Most of my three way systems are the same. I always thought it was a lazy approach. My comments were aimed at biamplifiction of a two way system.

Naturally, the second amp in a three way system could well relieve enough power requirement from the bass amp to prevent clipping at a higher volume level than a setup with a single amp. If your amplification is that close to clipping it would make more sense to get a bigger amp than to add more amps and more complexity to the system.

In your shoes I would measure my actual power dissipation at the speakers. That might be an eye opener. I'm willing to bet you aren't anywhere near clipping but measurements will tell you for sure. If a single amplifier isn't clipping then adding another amplifier will be meaningless. If it is clipping then employing a larger amp would make more sense to me than adding more amps. An alternative approach would be turn the volume down 3db. You would likely not notice the difference and you would reduce the power dissipation by 50%

I like Toole's quote and I agree with it. But understand that you haven't provided any more evidence than I have. Also don't forget that I haven't challenged that you heard what you heard. I simply offered an alternative explanation for why you heard it. And it is an explanation based on a bunch of experience.

There's more to amplifier performance than clipping. Still, most speakers are very easy loads for solid state amps. It is unlikely that bi-amping is a benefit in most cases, but only unlikely, not anywhere near impossible. You can't just assume that clipping is the perfect predictor.

As for religion, you do seem to have a lot of religion about convincing people they are hearing things that don't exist. Given how poor humans are at comparing audio sources that differ only subtly, the SBT or DBT argument is, to me, just as bogus as the sighted comparison argument. Both stink.

 

[PENG]

Given how poor humans are at comparing audio sources that differ only subtlety, the SBT or DBT argument is, to me, just as bogus as the sighted comparison argument. Both stink.

That's another reason why I do rely more on verifiable science such as measurements, theoretical design that lead to final outcomes, than my hearing. I value both, just one more than the other and I accept the fact that others, such as RichB value the opposite more.

 

[j_garcia]

Difference between biamping and biwiring: I've never heard a difference with biamping and even less of a difference with biwiring.

 

[PENG]

It is a funny fact that if you are biamping you must be biwiring at the same time.

 

[RichB]

That's another reason why I do rely more on verifiable science such as measurements, theoretical design that lead to final outcomes, than my hearing. I value both, just one more than the other and I accept the fact that others, such as RichB value the opposite more.

I am all about choosing the components that perform best and optimizing the system within my budget. I was already bi-amping the Salon2s and only after months did I bother to try them the other single-amped. Given Irv's experience, I was not expecting to hear difference, but I did.

GSR brought over his JC-1, I had no idea which one would sound better. We both felt the JC-1 was the best (in our abbreviated listening session). You know the JC-1 was silver and the A21 is black, other than that these amps look and weigh about the same.

The simplest choice would be to move the JC-1s which I could do at a modest upgrade cost.

I'd like to listen to the new ATI AT6000 amps. The question then becomes: should I bi-amp.

Irv: At one time, you were bi-amping using your sub(s) for bass management. I like having the extra channels to have that option or an option to apply PEQ to the woofers only.

- Rich

P.S.

Thus far, I don't find REQ lossless, but that’s another subject that undoubtedly will piss someone off

 

[RichB]

It is a funny fact that if you are biamping you must be biwiring at the same time.

That may account for the different outcome

- Rich

 

[Irvrobinson]

Irv: At one time, you were bi-amping using your sub(s) for bass management. I like having the extra channels to have that option or an option to apply PEQ to the woofers only.

Yeah, but I found with experimentation and measurement that the bass management strategy for the Salon2s was a brain fart. The Salon2s go so deep with such low distortion that the best strategy is to run them full-range, and then apply PEQs to the sub output to fill dips in the room response. And the fill-in strategy doesn't need four amp channels. I'm still mystified that you heard such an improvement with the Salon2s by bi-amping. If I can dig out the right cables I may try it again, to see if you're hallucinating. (With anyone else I'd just assume it. )