Bi-Amp High-Frequency and Low-Frequency on denon avrx4400h with KEF R500

[john20182050]

My receiver is denon avrx4400h. My front speakers KEF R500 supports Bi-Amp. I see my receiver also support true active bi-amp 7.1 setup. When I bi-Amp the front speakers, I see KEF R500 has connections points with label HF (high frequency) and LF (Low Frequency) as shown in the below pic. Now, I have also pasted the screenshot of my receiver 7.1 bi-amp setup from the manual. Now, what is not clear to me is that which one from receiver connects to HF and which one from receiver needs to be connected to LF? The Front endpoint in the receiver has to be connected to HF in speaker or the height endpoints in the receiver has to be connected to the HF int he speaker?

My fronts speakers are KEF R500, not R100. Not my speaker image but mine looks same as below image.

 

[Irvrobinson]

Bi-amping is a complete waste of wire with those speakers and that receiver, even if you won't be using the amp channels anyway. If you want to do it just because you think it's cool, that's cool, it won't do any harm. (Well, it won't do any harm if the receiver isn't going to insert it's own crossover circuitry between the amp channels, but I assume it won't do that. I'm just unfamiliar with the functional details of that AVR.)

I bi-amp my speakers mainly to amuse myself when my technical friends see the cable pairs and give me lectures about how stupid it is. (And I have extra amp channels, so it's free.) We're planning to have a physicist and his wife over for dinner one of these days, and I can't wait for that lecture. Condescension from a physicist is so special.

 

[lovinthehd]

The Denons do not support active bi-amping (or please point out where in the manual you see that). There were a couple Onkyo avrs a few years back that had an actual active bi-amp feature. Try this article https://www.audioholics.com/frequent-questions/the-difference-between-biamping-vs-biwiring

 

[john20182050]

The Denons do not support active bi-amping (or please point out where in the manual you see that). There were a couple Onkyo avrs a few years back that had an actual active bi-amp feature. Try this article https://www.audioholics.com/frequent-questions/the-difference-between-biamping-vs-biwiring

Oh! I didn't know Denon avrx4400h doesn't support active bi-amp. I have read that article before but didn't know avrx4400h doesn't support active bi-amp. So, is it totally a waste of time and money? Does it mean avrx4400h supports passive bi-amp?

 

[lovinthehd]

Oh! I didn't know Denon avrx4400h doesn't support active bi-amp. I have read that article before but didn't know avrx4400h doesn't support active bi-amp. So, is it totally a waste of time and money? Does it mean avrx4400h supports passive bi-amp?

Well all the Denon does is supply two amp taps, both full frequency range (and using a single power source too). Active bi-amp would involve taking the passive components out of the speaker and using an external active electronic crossover. Passive bi-amping is a term that is somewhat contested but what I use to describe what an avr with a speaker with it's passive crossover components intact involves...I think it's a waste of time and wire. I did consider getting the Onkyo 818 a few years back, it had an actual two-way active crossover feature for certain set crossover frequencies (altho still using just a single power source), might be fun to play with for setting up your own active speakers....but I didn't do it. The only way your avr really does active bi-amping is with a speaker and a sub (altho it isn't "amping" the sub).

 

[john20182050]

Well all the Denon does is supply two amp taps, both full frequency range (and using a single power source too). Active bi-amp would involve taking the passive components out of the speaker and using an external active electronic crossover. Passive bi-amping is a term that is somewhat contested but what I use to describe what an avr with a speaker with it's passive crossover components intact involves...I think it's a waste of time and wire. I did consider getting the Onkyo 818 a few years back, it had an actual two-way active crossover feature for certain set crossover frequencies (altho still using just a single power source), might be fun to play with for setting up your own active speakers....but I didn't do it. The only way your avr really does active bi-amping is with a speaker and a sub (altho it isn't "amping" the sub).

But why do say passive bi-amp is a total waste. I understand bi-wiring is totally waste. But even the article link that you gave says there some advantages in using passive bi-amp. I only bi-amp front speakers

 

[PENG]

Bi-amping is a complete waste of wire with those speakers and that receiver, even if you have you won't be using the amp channels anyway. If you want to do it just because you think it's cool, that's cool, it won't do any harm. (Well, it won't do any harm if the receiver isn't going to insert it's own crossover circuitry between the amp channels, but I assume it won't do that. I'm just unfamiliar with the functional details of that AVR.)

I bi-amp my speakers mainly to amuse myself when my technical friends see the cable pairs and give me lectures about how stupid it is. (And I have extra amp channels, so it's free.) We're planning to have a physicist and his wife over for dinner one of these days, and I can't wait for that lecture. Condescension from a physicist is so special.

In theory, if done well, passive biamp can be good too, while if not well done, active biamp could be bad. I am not going to argue with anyone on the subjective side, below is one that claimed passive biamp can be good.

From Anthem's FAQ:

https://www.anthemav.com/support/faq.php

"Doesn't passive biamping waste the amp's power because each channel still has to amplify the full range signal and not just the highs or the lows?

No. With the jumpers removed on a biampable speaker, the impedance of each section is not the usual 4 or 8 ohms, but several hundred if not more at the frequencies that the amp is "not supposed to be amplifying". Higher impedance means less current draw. No meaningful amount of current, no wasted power.

According a recurring audio-myth, only an active crossover should be used for biamping, in order to split the band before the power amp instead of inside the speaker, thereby reducing the amount of work each amp channel has to do. While active crossovers do have their place in PA systems, it should be noted that equalizers are also a part of it.

A generic active crossover on its own merely divides the audio band into smaller ones. The carefully custom-designed crossover in a high performance home audio speaker does a lot more. It is responsible for correcting frequency response aberrations of the individual drivers, maintaining phase coherence between drivers, optimizing off-axis response, balancing levels between drivers, setting up impedance, at times improving woofer performance by rolling off not just the top, but also frequencies that are too low and cause it to misbehave, and other things that vary according to model.

Tearing out the speaker's own finely-tuned crossover to replace it with an active crossover with generic controls almost guarantees that, just for starters, frequency response will be altered. Different sound doesn't mean better sound. Using the passive crossover in the speaker is indeed the correct way to biamp.

(What's biamping? It's using one amp channel for the speaker's mid-high frequency drivers, and another for the low-frequency drivers. The speakers must have separate inputs for this - be sure to remove the jumpers from the speaker inputs first or amp will become instant toast! If one amp starts running out of power, usually the one driving the woofer, then the other side remains clean instead of becoming part of the problem, a double-win. This is the very idea behind bass management and powered subwoofers in home theater systems.)"

 

[PENG]

But why do say passive bi-amp is a total waste. I understand bi-wiring is totally waste. But even the article link that you gave says there some advantages in using passive bi-amp. I only bi-amp front speakers

It is a total waste because the theoretical difference is most likely not audible, except to some golden ears. The same can be said about going from a $3000 ATI amp to a $10,000 Krell amp, that it is a waste to spend $7000 more.

 

[john20182050]

It is a total waste because the theoretical difference is most likely not audible, except to some golden ears. The same can be said about going from a $3000 ATI amp to a $10,000 Krell amp, that it is a waste to spend $7000 more.

Okay. You guys seem to be experts. I'm just a novice. See, I have some extra wires left unused.
1.) Now It's my understanding that even if passive bi-amp doesn't add much value, it doesn't cause any problems. Right? Is that correct?
2) If that's correct, can I just use the unused extra 14 AWG wire left to just bi-amp the front speakers?
3) If yes, then to my original question, which one I connect to HF and which one LF? Looks like it doesn't matter in passive bi-amp? Am I correct?

 

[Irvrobinson]

In theory, if done well, passive biamp can be good too, while if not well done, active biamp could be bad. I am not going to argue with anyone on the subjective side, below is one that claimed passive biamp can be good.

From Anthem's FAQ:

https://www.anthemav.com/support/faq.php

"Doesn't passive biamping waste the amp's power because each channel still has to amplify the full range signal and not just the highs or the lows?

No. With the jumpers removed on a biampable speaker, the impedance of each section is not the usual 4 or 8 ohms, but several hundred if not more at the frequencies that the amp is "not supposed to be amplifying". Higher impedance means less current draw. No meaningful amount of current, no wasted power.

According a recurring audio-myth, only an active crossover should be used for biamping, in order to split the band before the power amp instead of inside the speaker, thereby reducing the amount of work each amp channel has to do. While active crossovers do have their place in PA systems, it should be noted that equalizers are also a part of it.

A generic active crossover on its own merely divides the audio band into smaller ones. The carefully custom-designed crossover in a high performance home audio speaker does a lot more. It is responsible for correcting frequency response aberrations of the individual drivers, maintaining phase coherence between drivers, optimizing off-axis response, balancing levels between drivers, setting up impedance, at times improving woofer performance by rolling off not just the top, but also frequencies that are too low and cause it to misbehave, and other things that vary according to model.

Tearing out the speaker's own finely-tuned crossover to replace it with an active crossover with generic controls almost guarantees that, just for starters, frequency response will be altered. Different sound doesn't mean better sound. Using the passive crossover in the speaker is indeed the correct way to biamp.

(What's biamping? It's using one amp channel for the speaker's mid-high frequency drivers, and another for the low-frequency drivers. The speakers must have separate inputs for this - be sure to remove the jumpers from the speaker inputs first or amp will become instant toast! If one amp starts running out of power, usually the one driving the woofer, then the other side remains clean instead of becoming part of the problem, a double-win. This is the very idea behind bass management and powered subwoofers in home theater systems.)"

I'm with you PENG on the theory, but I think it's a rare speaker in a big room played at high volumes with bass-heavy material that really benefits. I had such a set of speakers once, the original Legacy Audio Focus (three 12" woofers, and a friend measured its impedance at below 2 ohms at about 40Hz),but the OP's speakers are not such a weird tour de force.

 

[Irvrobinson]

Okay. You guys seem to be experts. I'm just a novice. See, I have some extra wires left unused.
1.) Now It's my understanding that even if passive bi-amp doesn't add much value, it doesn't cause any problems. Right? Is that correct?
2) If that's correct, can I just use the unused extra 14 AWG wire left to just bi-amp the front speakers?
3) If yes, then to my original question, which one I connect to HF and which one LF? Looks like it doesn't matter in passive bi-amp? Am I correct?

Like I said above, bi-amping is unlikely to do harm. So if you want to, go for it. It doesn't matter which channel goes to the woofer or tweeter sections, so long as they're both getting a full-range signal of the appropriate L/R channel from the AVR.

 

[lovinthehd]

1/ If done creatively yes you can do damage (like not removing the jumper bar or twist those knobs on your speaker pictured when connecting the two sets of wires from the amp(s) ).
2 / Go ahead.
3/ Same signal/amp on your avr so doesn't matter.

I was thinking of how you could compare accurately between one speaker hooked up bi-amp vs normal....but can't think of a quick way to do that comparison (and I think quick switching would be essential to compare). Maybe someone else has an idea. I was thinking of using a mono mode and switching from left to right speaker quickly, but on the Denon don't think there's a way to do that.

 

[snakeeyes]

1/ If done creatively yes you can do damage (like not removing the jumper bar or twist those knobs on your speaker pictured when connecting the two sets of wires from the amp(s) ).
2 / Go ahead.
3/ Same signal/amp on your avr so doesn't matter.

I was thinking of how you could compare accurately between one speaker hooked up bi-amp vs normal....but can't think of a quick way to do that comparison (and I think quick switching would be essential to compare). Maybe someone else has an idea. I was thinking of using a mono mode and switching from left to right speaker quickly, but on the Denon don't think there's a way to do that.

This is the part where he damages his amp.

I saw some posts last year where an amp was damaged by someone making the mistake you listed.

 

[mtrycrafts]

Even if an AVR does active biamping unless the speaker can bypass the passive crossover circuits totally, it is not a true active bi-amp setup.

 

[j_garcia]

Even if an AVR does active biamping unless the speaker can bypass the passive crossover circuits totally, it is not a true active bi-amp setup.

I can't say I've ever seen a passive speaker that could completely bypass its crossover in this way, so pretty much isn't going to happen. Not sure why you would want to do than anyway. An active setup should presumably strive to achieve the same conditions as the passive one to get the same sort of sound out of the speaker.

I've done passive biamping (with separate amps, not an AVR) myself too, just to see if I found a real benefit since I often have some extra amps around. The speaker sounded no different at normal listening levels, which is where most people are going to be doing the vast majority of listening. If you were expecting magic, you will be disappointed. When cranked to the extreme, it may have held its composure a little better, but I'd say the same would be true of just running a single channel with enough wattage to achieve those SPLs instead of two amps.

 

[mtrycrafts]

I can't say I've ever seen a passive speaker that could completely bypass its crossover in this way, so pretty much isn't going to happen. Not sure why you would want to do than anyway. An active setup should presumably strive to achieve the same conditions as the passive one to get the same sort of sound out of the speaker.

I've done passive biamping (with separate amps, not an AVR) myself too, just to see if I found a real benefit since I often have some extra amps around. The speaker sounded no different at normal listening levels, which is where most people are going to be doing the vast majority of listening. If you were expecting magic, you will be disappointed. When cranked to the extreme, it may have held its composure a little better, but I'd say the same would be true of just running a single channel with enough wattage to achieve those SPLs instead of two amps.

The whole intent of active bi-amping is to eliminate the passive components in a speaker system. The amp only sees the coil in the speaker cone, no other caps or inductors or resisters. If not eliminated, all you are doing is perhaps a different crossover points in the amp and slope, you still have the passive components.
If the speaker system is 3 way, you really need a 3rd amp for a full active system.
As is, it would be a quasi active crossover.

 

[PENG]

The whole intent of active bi-amping is to eliminate the passive components in a speaker system. The amp only sees the coil in the speaker cone, no other caps or inductors or resisters. If not eliminated, all you are doing is perhaps a different crossover points in the amp and slope, you still have the passive components.
If the speaker system is 3 way, you really need a 3rd amp for a full active system.
As is, it would be a quasi active crossover.

Agreed, but then active bi-amp without the passive filters will have to use active/electronic filters. I highly doubt the average DIY'ers can do a better job than reputable speaker manufacturers such as KEF, B&M, Magico, Dynaudio, GoldenEar, Revel, Philharmonic Audio, Salk, just to name a few. If I were to go active bi-amp/tri-amp, I won't go the DIY route for sure, but would consider brand names, such as the ones I listed.

 

[j_garcia]

Agreed, but then active bi-amp without the passive filters will have to use active/electronic filters. I highly doubt the average DIY'ers can do a better job than reputable speaker manufacturers such as KEF, B&M, Magico, Dynaudio, GoldenEar, Revel, Philharmonic Audio, Salk, just to name a few. If I were to go active bi-amp/tri-amp, I won't go the DIY route for sure, but would consider brand names, such as the ones I listed.

And that's what I was getting at. You're second guessing the speaker designer at that point and/or doing some guess work and tweaking. I'd be shooting to replicate what the designer did because most likely I picked that speaker because I liked the way it sounded. In an active setup, I'd say you're not talking about the average person who is thinking about biamping off an AVR.

 

[mtrycrafts]

Agreed, but then active bi-amp without the passive filters will have to use active/electronic filters. I highly doubt the average DIY'ers can do a better job than reputable speaker manufacturers such as KEF, B&M, Magico, Dynaudio, GoldenEar, Revel, Philharmonic Audio, Salk, just to name a few. If I were to go active bi-amp/tri-amp, I won't go the DIY route for sure, but would consider brand names, such as the ones I listed.

Didn't say it is easy to do active crossovers before the amps of each driver as that is where it would be. Speaker companies perhaps design a drive to meet certain specs then create the passive crossovers for the driver/s. They do passive as not many consumers are interested in multiple amps for each driver.
One reason why active all the way is not for the faint of heart.

Even with a speaker that is bi-amp capable, I believe even the low frequency driver has passive components after the shorting bar is removed. If that is the case, it is still a passive bi-amp and even if a receiver claims active bi-amp capable, those passive parts are not eliminated. That built in characteristics are still there.

 

[Verdinut]

For most audiophiles, it is much easier to use an electronic crossover than to build a smooth passive crossover.

What I like about the QSC DCA series of amps, is that you can use them for bi-amping with their XC-3 two-way crossover with delay. I use these with my DCA 1222s to divide frequencies between the subs and the mid-bass drivers on my 3 front channel speakers. The XC-3 is fixed to the back of the amp saving rack space.