Rotel RMB-1095 bi-amp fronts?

[Keith raufer]

Running a Rotel RMB-1095 5x200 watts @8ohm. Wondering if it's worth bi-amping my SVS Ultra towers, and running the rears off my receiver?

Yamaha RX765 receiver
SVS Ultra towers
SVS Ultra centre
Klipsch B20 bookshelf rears
SVS SB13 Ultra sub.

Thanks for your help


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Keith raufer]

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Keith raufer]

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[lovinthehd]

Passive bi-amping is mostly about marketing and wasting wire IMO. Active bi-amping with the passive components removed from your speakers might be more interesting but more difficult than bi-wiring/passive bi-amping.....

 

[Keith raufer]

I understand bi-wiring is pointless, but wouldn't bi-amping my Rotel give me 2x200 watts to each tower? So 400 verified watts to each tower split between its high and lows?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[lovinthehd]

I understand bi-wiring is pointless, but wouldn't bi-amping my Rotel give me 2x200 watts to each tower? So 400 verified watts to each tower split between its high and lows?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Doesn't add up like that.

 

[markw]

The lows are what use the power. the highs don't require anywhere near the same power. Maybe 1/10th of what the bass requires, and that's not even on a steady basis.

Sending the same amount of power to the highs is a waste of good amplifier power . don't expect a noticeable improvement in sound.

 

[Alex2507]

Wondering if it's worth bi-amping ...

It's the only way to be sure. Mind you it's worthless, but if you don't try it you will never know. Or if you're like some, you'll continue to bi-amp and talk about how good it sounds. That works too.

I've got 200 watts going to my tweeters mostly just to irritate people.

 

[PENG]

I understand bi-wiring is pointless, but wouldn't bi-amping my Rotel give me 2x200 watts to each tower? So 400 verified watts to each tower split between its high and lows?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You should ask SVS if the mid range driver is grouped with the tweeter when the linked is removed. If yes, then I would say you should try biamp (passive) first and hear it for yourself. I agree biwire and passive biamp are mostly hype/marketing but in some cases passive biamp can make an audible difference. Obviously we all know doubling the power means only 3 dB more SPL so if power is your concern you need to get a more powerful amp than the Rotel.

To be clear, biamping with your Rotel will only get you incremental gain even if the mid range driver is grouped with the tweeter, in that case the power draw split may be around 20/80 to 30/70 so the impact will still be negligible. If you are not going to upgrade the amp, then I would say there is nothing to lose biamping. Your AVR can handle the Klipsch surrounds easily.

 

[RichB]

I don't agree that passive bi-amping is worthless and I am doing just that with the Salon2's each driven by an AT6002s. It upper end is opened up and the bass is tight and clean.

For some reason, those the oppose passive bi-amping support active bi-amping. Largely, because active crossovers are more efficient and linear. However, when you disconnect the crossovers you remove interaction between the crossovers themselves. A Revel dealer has posted on AVS that Revel stated that it can improve performance.

It seems reasonable that bi-amping with a quality amp has a greater potential for improvement than a pair of $15K mono-blocks. Marketing seems more biased toward uber amps than a much less expensive quality stereo (or multi-channel) amp.

As I have pointed out before, bi-amping is a simple and cheap experiment that you can perform at home with a single speaker. If you find a benefit, go for it. If not, it's no big deal.

- Rich

P.S. Gene is now bi-amping to apply REQ using a MiniDSP as part of his multi-subwoofer bass solution.

 

[PENG]

I don't agree that passive bi-amping is worthless and I am doing just that with the Salon2's each driven by an AT6002s. It upper end is opened up and the bass is tight and clean.

For some reason, those the oppose passive bi-amping support active bi-amping. Largely, because active crossovers are more efficient and linear. However, when you disconnect the crossovers you remove interaction between the crossovers themselves. A Revel dealer has posted on AVS that Revel stated that it can improve performance.

It seems reasonable that bi-amping with a quality amp has a greater potential for improvement than a pair of $15K mono-blocks. Marketing seems more biased toward uber amps than a much less expensive quality stereo (or multi-channel) amp.

As I have pointed out before, bi-amping is a simple and cheap experiment that you can perform at home with a single speaker. If you find a benefit, go for it. If not, it's no big deal.

- Rich

P.S. Gene is now bi-amping to apply REQ using a MiniDSP as part of his multi-subwoofer bass solution.

I agree with you, but the OP has SVS towers not Salon2. And I do believe even with those speakers he would get some incremental gains, though he may or may not hear the difference. I also feel that since he has the gear to do it, he should at least try it.

 

[Alex2507]

I don't agree that passive bi-amping is worthless

Sorry, I shouldn't have said worthless. I didn't mean worthless.

"Of questionable perceptibility to me with the gear I use" is what I should have said. When I do think I hear a difference I am listening so hard it's not funny but now that bi-amping is the new normal I have to wonder if it's in my head.

Now if we could just get Irv to weigh in with a fresh bi-amp story about Salon2's.

 

[Keith raufer]

i might ask SVS and post their response

 

[markw]

i might ask SVS and post their response

Don't forget to tell 'em you want to send 200 watts to the tweeters.

 

[PENG]

Don't forget to tell 'em you want to send 200 watts to the tweeters.

I bet SVS will confirm my educated guess that the 6.5" mid range driver(s) (at least one of the two) and the tweeter are grouped together so with the strap removed he won't be sending 200 watts to the tweeter.

Just to be sure the OP should ask SVS directly.

 

[RichB]

I bet SVS will confirm my educated guess that the 6.5" mid range driver(s) (at least one of the two) and the tweeter are grouped together so with the strap removed he won't be sending 200 watts to the tweeter.

Just to be sure the OP should ask SVS directly.

Here are the specs:
http://www.svsound.com/products/ultra-tower

Crossover

• 3.5-way crossover with premium-grade capacitors, air-core inductors and heavy-trace printed circuit boards
• Unique tapered midrange array minimizes off-axis lobing and enhances radiated sound power into listening space
• Top midrange-to-tweeter crossover: 2 kHz
• Bottom midrange taper frequency: 700 Hz
• Dual midrange-to-woofer crossover: 160 Hz

It is likely that the lower end utilizes the 160 Hz crossover which is a pretty good power distribution.

- Rich

 

[markw]

And, getting some idea about thermal compression might be a good thing too. this example talks about large drivers but it holds true for smaller ones as well. ...only moreso.

http://www.stereophile.com/reference/1106hot/#vuxqJxEXz6v3UZXY.97

It's interesting to note that this article mentions that a tweeter generally only requires about 3% the power the woofer requires, and is designed as such.

 

[Alex2507]

... a tweeter generally only requires about 3% the power the woofer requires ...

Then I need a much bigger amp for my woofers.

 

[Swerd]

Then I need a much bigger amp for my woofers.

200 watts ÷ 0.03 = 6666 watts!

For that kind of power, you'll need the Lucifer Amp – the amp from hell.

 

[Keith raufer]

From Jack from SVS.

Hi Keith - passive bi-amping (as opposed to a full active crossover before the amps) does not make a huge difference so I'd just run everything off the Rotel. The low inputs feed the woofers but the speaker's crossover is still filtering the signal. -JackG


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk