Pre/Pro which has bi-amping capabilities

[BoredSysAdmin]

For the most part, eq only applies to linear distortion. In this case, yes poor quality drivers require more eq. However the eq filters are still static. Active doesn’t mean dynamic. Very few speakers use dynamic eq. That is used on better systems to improve their performance at the limits but again, not something average joe needs to worry about. If I were designing a cheap speaker, I would apply limiters and dynamic eq to help the speaker play louder with less distortion. This is different from biamping or active filters generally.

Just to be clear I wasn't asking about bi-amping. So dynamic EQ is possible and given sharply dropping the cost of processing seems reasonable more budget active speakers. Is it possible to assume that dynamic DSP with active xover could overcome some of the limitations of budget drivers, proving more neutral but dynamically limited speaker?

 

[Verdinut]

That’s the exact article I was referencing when I mentioned articles loaded with conjecture but lacking in proof. It’s a good read but it overstated the benefits in my opinion. Taking TIM from inaudible to more inaudible is of no practical benefit. He also makes a lot of claims about crossovers that assume pretty crappy crossovers and axagerate the seriousness of those distortions. Which is all to say, I think everything he says is right but I still question how much merit it has. Certainly we have no proof that it makes a difference. It just hasn’t been studied.

Have a look at Bruce Bartlett's article on bi-amping advantages (paragraph on this topic starts at the middle of the page):

https://www.prosoundweb.com/topics/education/amplifier_power_master_class_not_all_ratings_are_similar/4/

We have to note that there's no indication that Bartlett sells amplifiers and electronic crossovers, so there doesn't appear to be any conflict of interest here.

 

[Matthew J Poes]

Just to be clear I wasn't asking about bi-amping. So dynamic EQ is possible and given sharply dropping the cost of processing seems reasonable more budget active speakers. Is it possible to assume that dynamic DSP with active xover could overcome some of the limitations of budget drivers, proving more neutral but dynamically limited speaker?

Well I mean, I don’t want to overstate what dynamic eq and limiters can do. You can use limiters to prevent a speaker from distorting. It limits how loud the system goes, but that is better than hearing distortion. A lot of modern subwoofers use limiters for this reason. Dynamic eq is a little different. Since voice coil heating can cause compression that can change the linear response of the driver, you wouldn’t want to compensate for that. That would just make the problem worse. Instead you might actually apply a cut filter to the frequencies that cause it. This makes the response worse but it reduces distortion and can reduce the onset of compression to some extent. So in that regard, small cheap speakers can have more bass at normal levels, sound fuller, play louder. Just not all at the same time. Dynamic eq and limiters can’t make a cheap speaker play louder over a full bandwidth and reduce distortion. Something has to give. It’s just that a slight shift in the tonal balance of a speaker is less objectionable than the onset of significant distortion.

 

[Matthew J Poes]

Have a look at Bruce Bartlett's article on bi-amping advantages (paragraph on this topic starts at the middle of the page):

https://www.prosoundweb.com/topics/education/amplifier_power_master_class_not_all_ratings_are_similar/4/

We have to note that there's no indication that Bartlett sells amplifiers and electronic crossovers, so there doesn't appear to be any conflict of interest here.

Yeah there is nothing inherently wrong with his claims. I would just again say that the audible benefit of this in a domestic system is not so great.

Remember that we all have biamped systems already if we use powered subwoofers. That is common and makes total sense. The issue now is going further with biamping of the mains. I’m suggesting that for the mains these benefits are not so great. I do think active biamped speakers are better. I just think we have far bigger problems with speakers that should be of greater concern.

This guy is making the same claims and similarly without proof. It’s academic conjecture. This should be true in theory therefor it must be better. There is no relation to how important it is for our subjective enjoyment. When you consider the critical work that Toole did in trying to quantify the most important dimensions of sound in a speaker design. Then align those dimensions with biamping. What you are left with is a set of dimensions that you have slightly incrementally improved over a passive single amp system while still neglecting the most important things.

So...if you get all the other things right, yes I think biamping with active crossovers provides a meaningful improvement (at least in theory, this still all remains unproven). However many people using biamping in their systems have not fixed all those other problems.

I’ll also add that I’ve done some experiments with TIM, IM, harmonic distortion, and amplifier output levels when biamping my own speakers because I had this same debate with a Geddes. I didn’t win that debate. The measurements did not pick up anything and the tweeter was drawing so little power that if a dynamic advantage existed, I wasn’t willing to push the system to find out.

I’ll also say that pro audio operates on a whole different level from home. They are pushing that equipment to far greater limits and distortion and amplifier headroom is a common issue. That is less true in homes. A lot of that stuff may have more merit in a pro environment than a home one. I would still focus on speakers with a higher dynamic range themselves, greater sensitivity, and bigger amps before I got hung up on biamping.

 

[ellisr63]

I always thought that it was bi wiring that was non different. I have been told of good results with bi amping. I have never gone down that road though and know very little but I would love to hear a system set up that way.

I believe you need to disconnect your analog crossover if you are going to bi-amp, and you need to make sure you have the adjustment capability to tune it properly after removing the analog crossover from the signal path.

 

[ellisr63]

What’s the difference between bridged and bi amped as My 10 channel poaa1hd can be bridged to 300 watts in a 5.1 setup.Otherwise it’s 150 watts per channel.

Bridged, and biamped are 2 different things. Bridging is to gain more power output, and biamping is when you split your signal to multiple drivers that then operate at a specific range of frequencies. When you biamp you have one amp running to say the woofer, and another running to the mids or tweeters depending on how many ways you are splitting them up. When the woofer gets a signal at the same time as the mid or tweeter does your mid or tweeter has plenty of power since it doesn't have to power the woofer, and the mid or tweeter at the same time.

 

[Verdinut]

Yeah there is nothing inherently wrong with his claims. I would just again say that the audible benefit of this in a domestic system is not so great.

Remember that we all have biamped systems already if we use powered subwoofers. That is common and makes total sense. The issue now is going further with biamping of the mains. I’m suggesting that for the mains these benefits are not so great. I do think active biamped speakers are better. I just think we have far bigger problems with speakers that should be of greater concern.

This guy is making the same claims and similarly without proof. It’s academic conjecture. This should be true in theory therefor it must be better. There is no relation to how important it is for our subjective enjoyment. When you consider the critical work that Toole did in trying to quantify the most important dimensions of sound in a speaker design. Then align those dimensions with biamping. What you are left with is a set of dimensions that you have slightly incrementally improved over a passive single amp system while still neglecting the most important things.

So...if you get all the other things right, yes I think biamping with active crossovers provides a meaningful improvement (at least in theory, this still all remains unproven). However many people using biamping in their systems have not fixed all those other problems.

I’ll also add that I’ve done some experiments with TIM, IM, harmonic distortion, and amplifier output levels when biamping my own speakers because I had this same debate with a Geddes. I didn’t win that debate. The measurements did not pick up anything and the tweeter was drawing so little power that if a dynamic advantage existed, I wasn’t willing to push the system to find out.

I’ll also say that pro audio operates on a whole different level from home. They are pushing that equipment to far greater limits and distortion and amplifier headroom is a common issue. That is less true in homes. A lot of that stuff may have more merit in a pro environment than a home one. I would still focus on speakers with a higher dynamic range themselves, greater sensitivity, and bigger amps before I got hung up on biamping.

I agree with you on the point that bi-amping in a domestic system is usually not so great. But, when the crossover frequency for the woofer is below 400 Hz, in my system it is fixed at 200 Hz, and I don't want to annul the amplifier's damping factor with a series inductor, the only solution is to bi-amp.

 

[Verdinut]

Bridged, and biamped are 2 different thing. Bridging is to gain more power output, and biamping is to split your signal to multiple drivers that then operate at certain frequencies.

You also get more power output with bi-amping. For example, when you use two identical amplifiers, you get the equivalent of at least 3 dB in power gain with the bi-amplification.

Rod Elliott explains how that occurs: http://sound.whsites.net/bi-amp.htm

 

[Matthew J Poes]

I agree with you on the point that bi-amping in a domestic system is usually not so great. But, when the crossover frequency for the woofer is below 400 Hz, in my system it is fixed at 200 Hz, and I don't want to annul the amplifier's damping factor with a series inductor, the only solution is to bi-amp.

I fully agree. A good high power inductor can cost as much as an amp at that point. That’s a pretty special case though.

 

[ellisr63]

You also get more power output with bi-amping. For example, when you use two identical amplifiers, you get the equivalent of at least 3 dB in power gain with the bi-amplification.

Rod Elliott explains how that occurs: http://sound.whsites.net/bi-amp.htm

Yes, but Tthey are still 2 different things. Biamping is usually done to take the load off of the amp having to run the whole frequency spectrum , and by doing that can have a cleaner, more dynamic sound. As mentioned in the article some people will also use different amps for the bass than for the mids or tweeters to get a desired power output, and or different sound. Bridging is increasing the power of the amp, and usually still handling the full frequency response (but not always running the full signal). I am currently getting ready to bridge, and biamp my setup, but I am only bridging my B&O amps as this is the only way to run them as balanced...otherwise I would just be biamping as I already have way more power than I will need under 90% of my listening.

Sent from my SM-T550 using Tapatalk

 

[awdio]

Bi-amping does no harm, so have fun. Just don't invite any electrical engineers or physicists over to your house, because if they see the dual sets of cables they'll give you crap about it.

You're confusing bi-wiring with passive bi-amping. Seriously, people who have no idea what they are talking about should refrain from clogging the internet with more misinformation

 

[lovinthehd]

You're confusing bi-wiring with passive bi-amping. Seriously, people who have no idea what they are talking about should refrain from clogging the internet with more misinformation

What's confusing? Both are worthless. IMO.

 

[Mikado463]

What's confusing? Both are worthless.

wrong, at least not completely worthless..............reference @ the 5:50 mark

 

[Pogre]

wrong, at least not completely worthless..............reference @ the 5:50 mark

As with all things audio "it depends". You didn't mention the qualifiers. Yes, there are some situations where passive bi amping might offer slightly better performance, but how many people own speakers like the ones gene described? There are far more situations where it's a waste of wire and time.

 

[Mikado463]

Yes, there are some situations where passive bi amping might offer slightly better performance,

my point exactly

but how many people own speakers like the ones gene described?

more than you realize.......

There are far more situations where it's a waste of wire and time.

perhaps, but that wasn't my point .......

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

Personally, there is only ONE reason I would bi-amp: to bi-amp the BIG WOOFERS of a BIG speaker to actively control the volume of the bass.

But I think if the question is 1) bi-amp using an external amp vs. 2) bi-amp using the same AVR, then I think we can all agree that using the external amp is better.

Does bi-amp using the SAME AVR makes sense? I mean most AVRs will go from 120WPC x 2Ch down to 50WPC x 5Ch anyway.

 

[lovinthehd]

wrong, at least not completely worthless..............reference @ the 5:50 mark

Yeah, okay, almost always

 

[Irvrobinson]

You're confusing bi-wiring with passive bi-amping. Seriously, people who have no idea what they are talking about should refrain from clogging the internet with more misinformation

WTF? I get on AH to read the latest sane posts on the Coronavirus thread, and what do I find? Some bozo has pulled a 2018 thread out of his ass, and replied with a nonsensical insult. Look, I recommend waiting until you're not drunk or stoned to post. If one of those conditions aren't the problem, and you're just plain stupid, I recommend not posting at all.

 

[Mikado463]

Come on Irv, tell us how you really feel !!

 

[Irvrobinson]

Come on Irv, tell us how you really feel !!

Subtlety is not my forte.