Help Me set-up Bi-amp for Yammy RX-V659

[OttoMatic]

So, you believe he should bi-amp with a receiver that only has one amp?

It only has one amp? I'd say it only has one power supply, just like my five-channel amp has.

You can't get more power out of that receiver with more wires. If you want more power, it has to be added.

It's not only about getting more power necessarily, but I still am not sure you understand the concepts involved.

I don't think you have contributed to this thread in any way.

Well, while no one was able to discern if the receiver in question can actually remap the rear outputs to be copies of the fronts, I think there has been some decent discussion on what bi-amping actually is.

I had an idea. Good or bad, it was an idea.

Yeah, it was a bad idea. I'd speak up if you told him to put sand in his gas tank as well... So, like I said before, perhaps the OP has learned what not to do, and that can be very valuable in and of itself.

Sorry to have ruffled your feathers.

Likewise, and no hard feelings.

Done with this one.

You sure?

Looks like the OP is too. Pretty sure this isn't the responses he was looking for.

Well, hopefully we all learned something.

 

[davidtwotrees]

What a Trippy Thread!

Man, you boys are trippin'!
My MS 502's have a powered 10 inch sub each. I use a passive, vertical biamp set up with an Acurus A250 two channel amp on each side. Quite a large qain in the sound of my system.
The OP is asking a $300 ht receiver to do much much more than it is supposed to. If he was an electronic geek he could start tearin apart crossovers, but he wouldn't be asking the question if he was, I guess.

My advice would be instead of wasting the time trying to make his duck into a swan, spend the time at work making some moolah for a multi channel amp, or a new receiver with extra amps for biamping.

 

[100r1]

Wow,
Didn't mean to start a long drawn out debate. I just really wanted to know how to set the 659 up to Bi-amp the Mains from the internal Amplifier section. I thought I read where it could be done and something about re-mapping the back surrounds (channels 6/7), Perhaps that can be done on another Yamaha AVR as I was considering 3 - 4 different ones at the same time. I was just intending on playing around with trying the internal bi-amping and not keeping it set up that way (like I stated in the first post I'm hard headed) and besides I like to tinker around with things.

As far a future plans (distant as in the next 12 months)..... The idea of turning my Main towers in a dual speaker (sub & main) has crossed my mind more than a few times since I have limited space with no where to put a true sub within the confines of the room. My mains have separate crossovers with the crossover for the 12" being in the lower chamber and the crossover for the other 3 upper freq drivers in the upper chamber. But the crossover freq. of the current crossovers (both 12" & uppers) would not really provide the best results......I know it could be done and work quite well but don't want to re-engineer the set up at this time.....This is really a whole different concept than what I am currently asking about and if I decide to pursue this I would post again perhaps in the D.I.Y corner thread.

So I guess the answer to my original question is that the 659 DOES NOT allow for re-mapping (amplifier assignment) of the amplifier channel outputs.

I just wish I could remember where I read which AVR could do this procedure.

Hey good information from everyone and many thanks to keeping ideas open.

 

[zumbo]

100r1, sorry for the debate.

Found an article on a Denon receiver.

http://www.audioholics.com/reviews/receivers/denon-avr-5803/bi-amping-the-denon-avr-5803/?searchterm=bi-amp receiver

From the 659 review:
Multi-Zone / Multi-Source Audio

"I was quite taken by the full multi zone / source audio features bestowed upon this receiver. Not only did it have the ability to serve 3 independent zones of audio, but it also had power amp assignability for Zone2 so you could divert the unused back or presence channels to this duty. Best of all, you don't even have to power up the main zone to get music going to Zone 2. I loved the fact that you could power up Zone2 independently and adjust level control and input selection all accessible on the front panel of the receiver via Zone 2 on/off and Zone control buttons."

Full review:
http://www.audioholics.com/reviews/receivers/yamaha-rx-v659/overview-and-build-quality

Bi-amping and bi-wiring:
http://www.audioholics.com/education/frequently-asked-questions/the-difference-between-biamping-vs-biwiring

 

[junchoon]

i have a very similiar set-up with the OP: RX-V659 with 5.0 speakers (Yamaha NS-555 mains, NS-C444 center, and NS-333 surrounds). the mains are bi-wired. source is Pioneer DV-696 universal player. i have yet to try what zumbo has indicated of using the Zone 2.

the way i see it, to get bi-amp in RX-V659 to work, you have to sacrifice a lot, mainly the use of Multi-Channel inputs, which is not practical and forcing the DVD player to do the processing before outputting to the amp as PCM. the amp will be a better processor for this kind of task.

if i were to do it using my current set-up, and not following zumbo, here is i what i will do:

0) set the DVD to output PCM instead of RAW
1) using a Y cable, split the DVD's analog L channel output to the amp's L and also SBL input
2) do the same for the DVD's R channel output
3) connect the other channels - center, SL and SR outputs - in a normal fashion.
4) from the amp speaker outputs, connect L (either A or B) to the low frequency, and SBL to the high frequency on the L speaker input.
5) do the same for the amp's R channel output
6) select Multi-channel input in the amp.
7) depends on steps 4 and 5, select EITHER A or B speakers
8) cross your fingers the amp won't blow the main speakers.

more practical to get higher end amp with built-in bi-amp facility, like RX-V2700. or like the OP said, an external amp in the future.

i am very interested to see if u r can test out either my idea or zumbo's.

hth,
wps

 

[zumbo]

Very, very interesting.

One question. If you use a splitter from the l & r channel out of the player, and then use l & r out of the receiver for the low end, and sbr/sbl for the high end, doesn't it add back up to the same signal?

In other words, you split the signal from the player, and then connected to the same speaker from the receiver(split r/l-sbr/sbl) that has the same amount of power it did when you started. Sounds like a bunch of wires that are not needed to me. And, this would only work with the player. What about everything else?

Now with a dedicated 2-channel, or 2.1 audio only system using a multi-channel amp, this could be a very interesting idea.

Or, a dvd-a/SACD surround system using m/c out from the player with splitters and two m/c amps. Isn't it easier just to get an amp with twice the power?

Sorry for the run-on sentences.

 

[junchoon]

before i continue further, i have a disclaimer: i have yet to actually test the idea i presented earlier, and it is purely a theory. so i will not be responsible for any damage(s) caused.

Very, very interesting.

One question. If you use a splitter from the l & r channel out of the player, and then use l & r out of the receiver for the low end, and sbr/sbl for the high end, doesn't it add back up to the same signal?

In other words, you split the signal from the player, and then connected to the same speaker from the receiver(split r/l-sbr/sbl) that has the same amount of power it did when you started. Sounds like a bunch of wires that are not needed to me. And, this would only work with the player. What about everything else?

yup. it is the same signal. please note, though, the amplification and also the ohms on the speaker posts (L+SBL and R+SBR) will be different. in theory, the amount of power will NOT be the same in this case. it will ONLY work with the player. if u want to connect more equipments like PS3 or DVR, then u r out of luck.

Now with a dedicated 2-channel, or 2.1 audio only system using a multi-channel amp, this could be a very interesting idea.

Or, a dvd-a/SACD surround system using m/c out from the player with splitters and two m/c amps. Isn't it easier just to get an amp with twice the power?

Sorry for the run-on sentences.

of course it will be easier to get another more powerful amp or an external amp, or an amp with bi-amp built in, as oppose to bi-wire. the RX-V659 is cabable of bi-wire with the A/B speaker switch. i am just giving an idea to what the OP was asking: bi-amping from RX-V659 to the main speakers.

cheers,
wps

 

[OttoMatic]

yup. it is the same signal. please note, though, the amplification and also the ohms on the speaker posts (L+SBL and R+SBR) will be different. in theory, the amount of power will NOT be the same in this case. it will ONLY work with the player. if u want to connect more equipments like PS3 or DVR, then u r out of luck.

Yep, sounds right. You are then passively bi-amping the mains, but as noted, only for the player.

 

[zumbo]

Yep, sounds right. You are then passively bi-amping the mains, but as noted, only for the player.

Sounds crazy to me. With the splitter, you are halving the signal strength. Then, sending two sets of halved signals to a piece of equipment that has the same power supply it had to start with. Sounds more like buy-wiring to me.

As far as the note, I pointed that out. It would be a screwed-up HT system for sure. Can't believe you would go along with that idea, and not mine. Wait, yes I can.

And, this would only work with the player. What about everything else?

 

[OttoMatic]

Sounds crazy to me. With the splitter, you are halving the signal strength. Then, sending two sets of halved signals to a piece of equipment that has the same power supply it had to start with. Sounds more like buy-wiring to me.

I don't think it will halve the signal strength. The input to the amp is looking to amplify a voltage signal. Since the inputs are in parallel, with respect to the incoming signal, the voltage will be identical at both inputs. Since the preamp section is interested in a voltage, and not current, the signal will be amplified identically as if it were not split at the input. If you have a Y splitter lying around, try it out. Split that signal and dump it into an unused 7.1 input and see if you can hear or measure a difference.

In that type of setup, the user would now be using four amplifiers on the mains (L, R, SBL, SBR); that's two amps per speaker. With the "top/bottom" bridge straps removed from the speakers' inputs, each amplifier is driving one half of each main (when considering the "top" of the speaker as half and the "bottom" of the speaker as half). That's passive bi-amplification.

I read this pretty quickly, but this guy appears to have correctly described active bi-amping, passive bi-amping and bi-wiring.

Believe me, I'm not trying to argue here, just adding to the discussion.

As far as the note, I pointed that out. It would be a screwed-up HT system for sure.

Agreed, it would not be an ideal or flexible setup, but it would be usable as a full 5.1 system when used with the DVD player only.

 

[zumbo]

Believe me, I'm not trying to argue here, just adding to the discussion.

Me too. It's all in good fun. But, it all seems like a bunch of mess. If you polish a turd, it's still a turd.

While one may perceive more power with all of these wiring tricks, it takes too much junk to get it done. And, I doubt the extra(if any) power is worth the trouble.

I honestly believe the only way to benefit from bi-amping, is to bi-amp. More than one. A whole separate unit of power.

IMO, if more power is needed, then add more power. It's as simple as that.

 

[OttoMatic]

I honestly believe the only way to benefit from bi-amping, is to bi-amp. More than one. A whole separate unit of power.

Are you saying that to get the benefits that you should "actively bi-amp"? I suppose at this point, we should try to agree that the term "bi-amp" is ambigious and needs to be preceded by either "passive" or "active".

In the case described most recently (using R, L, SBR, SBL to drive a single pair of mains) he is bi-amping, passively. It's not bi-wiring.

There may be limitations of the receiver's power supply such that it might not be able to give full power to all channels at maximum output, but that aside, he's still passively bi-amping...

 

[zumbo]

There may be limitations of the receiver's power supply such that it might not be able to give full power to all channels at maximum output, but that aside, he's still passively bi-amping...

With wires. IMO, there is not another amp. Even if the receiver claims there is. A receiver will also claim 90W x 2, or 90W x 7. It's magic. NOT!

My conclusion. Passive bi-amping with one source=bi-wiring. Or, a form of. The only thing there is more than one of is wires.

 

[OttoMatic]

Did you read the link I posted?

 

[zumbo]

Did you read the link I posted?

About five years ago. Did you read the links I posted?

The first sentence states "mixed opinions".

http://www.audioholics.com/education/frequently-asked-questions/the-difference-between-biamping-vs-biwiring

 

[OttoMatic]

About five years ago. Did you read the links I posted?
The first sentence states "mixed opinions".

Actually, I did read it the other day when you posted it. It says "There are mixed opinions about biwiring."

This guy's not bi-wiring. Even with that receiver, using four discrete amps of it means he's bi-amping.

My conclusion. Passive bi-amping with one source=bi-wiring. Or, a form of. The only thing there is more than one of is wires.

My point is this -- it's not your conclusion to make. Active bi-amping, passive bi-amping and bi-wiring are all defined for you. The only difference is NOT more wires! The difference is that he's split his signal to four amps instead of two (even if those four amps are all in the same receiver housing).

Think of this -- instead of using a Y-splitter to go to the R,L,SBR,SBL, put a different signal into the SBR! Anything you want -- an input from an iPod, or anything else. Because he's using four discrete amps (or, more precisely, "amplifier channels", as described in my link), one of those four channels would now be wrong (the SBR one). If, suppose, the SBR is assigned to the "top" of his "right" speaker, that "half" of the speaker will now be playing something that the "bottom" of itself, as well as being different altogether from the "left" speaker.

That situation would be impossible with bi-wiring, as you would only be able to divide left speaker from right speaker, and not tops and bottoms of each speaker.

If it's been five years since you read that link, have a look again. And then read it again. I assure you that, even though he's using a receiver, the Y splitter and R, L, SBR, SBL setup is considered passive bi-amping (just as much as my assigning four channels of my five channel amp to my mains is passive bi-amping).

 

[OttoMatic]

One other thing -- at this point, I'm not debating any performance increase or perceived change from bi-wiring, bi-amping (of either sort) or anything else. I'm just trying to agree on the basic definitions of the two flavors of bi-amping and that of bi-wiring.

 

[zumbo]

One other thing -- at this point, I'm not debating any performance increase or perceived change from bi-wiring, bi-amping (of either sort) or anything else. I'm just trying to agree on the basic definitions of the two flavors of bi-amping and that of bi-wiring.

Not worried about definitions. It is what it is. There is nothing to gain when extra wires or splitters are used with one power source. There is no more power. I don't care what the definitions of any link state. Bi-amping means more than one amp to me. A m/c receiver is not the same as a m/c amp. It's just not. Bi-wiring means more than one set of wires. It is what it is.

A m/c receiver can state it's 90 x 7. Are we to believe it can produce 630W, just because it's defined that way?

 

[zumbo]

I'm just trying to agree on the basic definitions of the two flavors of bi-amping and that of bi-wiring.

There are two flavors of blondes. Bleached and real. Some may be bi. In that case, I'll have two real bi blondes. If you get my point.

 

[OttoMatic]

Not worried about definitions.

Fair enough. However, your ignorance of these definitions have really fueled a lot of this needless debate. Please don't take the word "ignorance" wrong -- you are simply "ignoring" the base starting point, and it's causing confusion.

I don't care what the definitions of any link state. Bi-amping means more than one amp to me.

Well, I guess you can feel that way, but it doesn't lend any credence to your arguments or your discussion to say "I don't care about definitions." We need to have a common starting point, and by ignoring the definitions, I would submit that we can't even really get started...

...A m/c receiver is not the same as a m/c amp.... A m/c receiver can state it's 90 x 7. Are we to believe it can produce 630W, just because it's defined that way?

I would imagine that some can if they are properly designed and measured. You're getting hung up on crappy receivers with overstated power specs. There's nothing to prevent Krell or Sunfire or whoever from taking a top-of-the-line amp and cramming receiver technology in the same box. It would be exactly the same amplifier section, but still be considered a "receiver". And such a receiver would be capable of a bi-amp configuration. Just like the Yamaha being discussed.

Let's even say that the receiver in question can really only ever supply 50 clean WPC, but it can supply it to all channels (even though it's spec'd to 100 WPC in an effort to boost its specs). So we re-rate it to 50 WPC. Now with a "normal" setup, you can get 50 to each speaker. With the same receiver in a bi-amp setup you can get 100 W (in general) to each speaker. Doesn't matter if it's a great design or not. There is a power difference. If you read both my link and yours, you will also see that there are other potential benefits to bi-amping that aren't necessarily related to power (and I'm not arguing for or against them, but they are different from bi-wiring).