Real Life Bi-Amplification: Some considerations

F

fmw

Audioholic Ninja
Many audio enthusiasts are confused about the concept of bi-amplfication and rightly so because it can be a fairly complex subject. I’ll spend some time here explaining things in the simplest terms I can. Hopefully, it will help.

The Crossover Network. Most speaker systems are designed with more than one driver. A two way system will have a low frequency driver (woofer) and a high frequency driver (tweeter.) A three way system will add a third midrange driver to the mix to handle the middle range of the frequencies of the music we hear. Multi driver speaker systems include a crossover network that divides the incoming signal from the speaker terminals into separate bands of frequencies and sends them to the appropriate driver - low frequencies to the woofer etc.

Crossover networks in passive speaker systems are themselves passive and lossy. Not only is there some inherent loss in the circuitry itself but the network usually has resistors designed to even out the different sensitivities of the drivers. This is known as padding. If the drivers don’t have the the right sensitivities relative to each other, the speaker system will have a less accurate frequency response.

Passive networks are also sensitive to the impedances of the various drivers so their own ability to separate the frequencies can depend to a degree on the frequency content of the input. They will do their job more accurately sometimes and less accurately at others.

It is fair to think of the passive crossover network in a speaker system as a necessary evil.

The Active Crossover. Many of the evils of the passive network can be resolved by using an active electronic crossover network. This is an electronic device that is installed between the preamplifier and the power amplifiers that does everything the passive crossover does in a speaker system but does it better. It is not lossy. It is not sensitive to the impedance of the drivers and even makes the speakers easier to drive. It requires no padding. It provides adjustable frequency crossover points, allowing you to adjust the way it separates the signal into the various frequency bands. It serves to isolate the various drivers from each other because of its stronger cutoff slopes and the fact that each driver has its own separate amplifier. In other words not much high frequency content reaches the woofer and not much low frequency content reaches the tweeter. The active crossover also allows you to install the most appropriate mix of amplification to the system. As an example, low frequencies require much, much more amplifier power than high frequencies so you can adjust the required amplifier mix power to the job. Think of the active crossover as a better mouse trap all the way around.

The Setup. In a biamplified system, the active crossover is not added to the existing passive crossover in the speaker systems. It replaces it. You need to go inside the speaker enclosures and disconnect the passive network from the drivers or groups of similar drivers so there is no interactivity between them. You also must add a separate amplifier for each driver or each group of similar drivers. You can’t do it with a single amplifier like you did before because you have separated the various drivers from each other completely within the speaker enclosure. A bi-amplified two way system requires two amplifers per speaker system. A tri-amplified three way system requires three, etc.

If you simply add another amplifer to your existing speaker system and connect it to your drivers through the existing passive network, you aren’t really bi-amplifying. You are bi-wiring with some added amplifier power. Bi-wiring is the practice of connecting cables to both ends of the crossover network instead of just one end. The drivers, however, are still connected to each other electrically through the crossover network so it doesn't accomplish much, if anything.

While some audiophiles value bi-wiring, I’m here to tell you that the theoretical advantages of bi-wiring have not been shown to be audible. This has been proven time and again in bias controlled objective listening tests.

Don’t get me wrong. There may be an advantage in your situation to increasing amplifier power and, if there is, you should increase it. But adding it to your system in a bi-wired scheme accomplishes nothing that adding a larger amplifer wouldn’t also accomplish. You wouldn’t get any of the other benefits of bi-amplification.

Powered Bi-Wiring. You may read about the practice of “bi-amplifying” with unused surround amplifers in a receiver by simply connecting them to the bi-wire terminals of the speaker system. Let’s look at this practice objectively. I’ll call it powered bi-wiring for lack of a better term.

Since we didn’t replace the passive crossover by adding an active crossover between the preamp and the power amps, we didn’t do anything beyond bi-wiring because we didn’t isolate the drivers from each other. Furthermore, the amplifiers we added are driven by the same power supply as the amplifiers we had connected before. If the power supply supplies enough current and voltage to handle the job then all is well. If it doesn’t then all is not well. That is the case regardless of the number of amplifiers the shared supply is driving. One amp, two amps, eight amps. It doesn’t matter. In the end we didn’t really add any amplifier power to the speakers because the limiting factor is the shared power supply, not the number of amplifiers it supplies. We did nothing at all except to add a pair of wires.

Would there be a benefit to using two external amps in the powered bi-wiring configuration? Yes, if your situation requires more amplifier power. No, if it does not. Since each amp has its own supply then we are adding real amplifier power to the system, not just wires. That, at least, can be a plus.

If you are one of those who believe that bi-wiring helps, then bi-wire. If it improves your confidence to use different amplifiers on a shared power supply to do it, then go ahead. It certainly can’t hurt anything. But don’t harbor the illusion that you are bi-amplifying your system or making any change in its performance beyond adding amplifier power in the case of separately supplied amplifers. Bi-amplifiying can make meaningful improvements to the accuracy and performance of your sound system. But understand that all bi-amplifying isn’t really bi-amplifying. Hope this helps clear up some misconceptions.
 
T

trnqk7

Full Audioholic
I appreciate the explanation, but have a question about a specific set of speakers, the Dali Ikon 6's. It may apply to others as well, but I'm not aware. The Ikon 6's have 2 pairs of binding posts, but the low pass crossover and the bandpass/highpass crossovers are not physically connected unless the jumper strap (sorry if there's a better term) connecting the binding posts is in place. I guess it's still a case of just adding more power for most people, but the my point was I guess that not all crossover networks are tied together physically all the time. I.e. I have a denon 2807, I could "biamp" (using the popular term) with surround back channels and have different amplifier channels powering distinctly separate portions of the speaker, not just adding to the total power. Granted I'm still using a shared power supply with the inherent limitations that that imposes, but it seems to me that the woofer and mid/tweeter sections would be now powered independent of each other. I think this may stretch your definition of "biamping" a bit-my apologies if I misread your informative post however.
 
F

fmw

Audioholic Ninja
I appreciate the explanation, but have a question about a specific set of speakers, the Dali Ikon 6's. It may apply to others as well, but I'm not aware. The Ikon 6's have 2 pairs of binding posts, but the low pass crossover and the bandpass/highpass crossovers are not physically connected unless the jumper strap (sorry if there's a better term) connecting the binding posts is in place. I guess it's still a case of just adding more power for most people, but the my point was I guess that not all crossover networks are tied together physically all the time. I.e. I have a denon 2807, I could "biamp" (using the popular term) with surround back channels and have different amplifier channels powering distinctly separate portions of the speaker, not just adding to the total power. Granted I'm still using a shared power supply with the inherent limitations that that imposes, but it seems to me that the woofer and mid/tweeter sections would be now powered independent of each other. I think this may stretch your definition of "biamping" a bit-my apologies if I misread your informative post however.

If removing the strap isolates the speaker drivers from one another and disconnects the crossover network, then what would steer the frequencies to the correct driver? You need a crossover network of some sort-passive or electronic. What your description tells me is that either you would need to use an electronic crossover when you remove the straps or removing the straps doesn't do what you say it does or they say it does. It doesn't make any sense to me. It shouldn't make any sense to you either. Think about it.
 
Last edited:
T

trnqk7

Full Audioholic
There are two pairs of binding posts. When the binding strap is in place, connecting both pairs to each other, the signal/power is distibuted as needed to the woofer, mid, and tweeters. If you take the binding strap out of place, as it is described by the manufacturer, Dali, the low pass network is directly connected to on pair of binding posts and the bandpass and high pass networks are connected directly to the remaining pair of binding posts. For example, the woofer's xover is connected directly to the bottom pair of binding posts and the bandpass/highpass xovers are connected directly to the top pair of binding posts. With the binding strap in place, they are seen as being in parallel with each other. Remove the binding strap however, and they are completely isolated from each other. Hooking power up to only one pair of the binding posts would then leave half the speaker unpowered. By "biamping" with an extra surround channel, you would provide x watts to the mids and highs and y watts to the woofer . It would not be a sum total of x+y watts to the whole speaker, being distributed as needed. Instead, the woofer would use a percentage of x watts that it needed and the midrange and tweeters would use a percentage of y watts that they needed. Make more sense? I can try again-sometimes I don't do the best job of explaining.
 
F

fmw

Audioholic Ninja
Think about it again. How would the low frequencies know to get into the amp that drives the woofer? It wouldn't. It would send the entire frequency spectrum to the woofer terminals and the other amp would do the same thing to the tweeter terminals. If you isolated the drivers from each other in the enclosure, there is no crossover network.

What is it? Two 1/2 networks? I suppose you could send all frequencies to the woofer terminal and the 1/2 network could send the bass to the woofer and the other frequencies to ground but what does that accomplish? Lower efficiency? How about padding and balance? How would that scheme provide a benefit over a normal passive network? Sorry, it makes no sense to me at all.
 
Last edited:
T

trnqk7

Full Audioholic
The low pass crossover is connected directly to one set of terminals. The band pass (for the midrange) and high pass (for the tweeter) networks are connected to the other set of terminals. With the strap in place, they are in parallel. Without it, they are completely separate networks that are totally isolated from each other. As far as the amplification goes, yes, even in sending two channels to "biamp" the speaker, you will be sending a full range signal to each network. The crossover networks do their job, and only the required portion of the signal gets through. The "job" it would do would be to allow (in the denon's case) for 110W to be sent to the woofer and 110 watts to the midrange and tweeter, for a total of 220W watts of possible amplification. How would this lower efficiency? As far as padding and balance...I would think that the entire system just became much less reactive as a whole by isolating one large system and breaking it into smaller parts. The dc resistance will remain the same, but with less reactive components in each system, the ac impedance should fluctuate less, most likely.


I haven't actually ripped open the speaker to visually inspect the way it's wire up-it's just how the company describes it.
 
cwall99

cwall99

Full Audioholic
Unless...

Unless the folks who engineered your amp or your receiver were clever enough to consider this. It doesn't strike me as impossible that a clever designer might consider this and, when you set up your receiver or amp for bi-amplification, that the amp's active crossover would send the low frequency content (I'm just sayin' here) to the surround channels, and the mid and upper frequencies to the normal channels.

Then, of course, it would be up to you to know which binding posts (presuming your speaker has two sets of binding posts) feed the woofer, and which binding posts feed the midrange and tweeter.

If anyone has actually engineered their amps or receivers to do this, I don't know, but it doesn't seem like it's that outrageous.

Or maybe I'm just showing off my ignorance.
 
T

trnqk7

Full Audioholic
it would make sense to me that someone would do this, but I don't know of any that do it either. do you at least understand what I am saying about the xover networks being hooked up to different sets of binding posts and that without the jumper strap in place, they are separate networks? I only intended to challenge what I thought was a narrow definition of biamplification by giving an example that he may not have considered.
 
F

fmw

Audioholic Ninja
cwall, what you are describing is true bi-amplification with an active crossover.

However, receivers don't work that way. They have a separate bass management capability that can drive a subwoofer separately from other speakers but that isn't the same thing as a crossover that separates frequencies for the various drivers within an enclosure. You still need to have a passive crossover network inside the enclosure if you don't have an electronic network in front of the amps.

I think trnqk7 might be describing a scheme to allocate amplifier power rather than frequencies but I don't know. I do know he can't separate and allocate frequency bands without a crossover network. And I know that disconnecting the drivers from the crossover takes out the crossover network.
 
T

trnqk7

Full Audioholic
what you don't understand is that I'm not disconnecting the crossover networks at all. they are directly wired to the binding posts. the woofer's network to one pair, and the mid/tweets to the other pair! The networks are still in place! The only thing we have done is to remove the binding strap between the terminals (not the networks to the terminals), therefore taking the networks out of parallel with each other. Therefore, you can use the surround back channel to amplify the woofer only (yes, it gets a full range signal, but the lowpass network is still in place and takes care of this!) and the main front channel to amplify the mids and highs (also with a full range signal-one that could be bass managed if you wanted, but regardless, the xover network is still in place that relates to the midrange and tweeter, and therefore filters out the needed signals!). We are now using two channels of amplification to drive the speakers-one for the woofer and it's network and another for the mid/highs and their network. If you want, pm me and I will draw up a rough schematic of what I am talking about and send it/email it to you. I just don't think you are understanding what I am saying unfortunately.
 
Swerd

Swerd

Audioholic Warlord
I think trnqk7 might be describing a scheme to allocate amplifier power rather than frequencies but I don't know. I do know he can't separate and allocate frequency bands without a crossover network. And I know that disconnecting the drivers from the crossover takes out the crossover network.
I cobbled together a diagram of a 2-way system that I hope can sort out some of this confusion.

On top is a conventional system with a single amp and a passive crossover inside the speaker cabinet. The crossover contains both high pass and low pass circuits on one board.

On the lower left is a passively biamped set up, as I think trnqk 7 is describing. Separate high pass and low pass filters are inside the cabinet, driven by two separate amps.

On the lower right is an active biamped system where the high and low pass filters are upstream of the amps and not inside the speaker cabinets.

Both biamp systems work.
 
J

JKL1960

Audioholic
Great little article. It confirmed my suspicions about so called bi-amping by using unused channels in a surround receiver.

Anyone with a sub connected to LFE is bi-amping. With an active crossover. :D

I'm glad you touched on the bi-amping with unused channels on a receiver. I don't see any advantage to this. In fact I can see drawbacks. Each amp in a receiver can only produce so much power. Each amp also draws on the same power supply. With a normal single wire setup one amp drives full frequency to a speaker. With this non-crossed over bi-amp setup you now have two amps producing full frequency (for each bi-amped speaker) and drawing on the same power supply. When a sound demands maximum power for some bass two amps are now going to respond to that putting extra load on the power supply. This could actually inhibit the 'bass' amp from achieving full power while the higher frequency amp is also producing full power only to have much of it lost to the tweeter's crossover. While a single amp setup can deliver full power without fighting over current with another amp.

So, to me I can see why this setup could actually impede performance rather than enhance it. Am I crazy or is there some sense to this?
 
T

trnqk7

Full Audioholic
Thank you, the bottom left image is exactly what I'm talking about. It is a scenario that he didn't discuss in his initial post (which by the way was very informative and I enjoyed). Pictures can be worth a thousand words-case and point!
 
T

trnqk7

Full Audioholic
I can see what you are saying about the shared power supply-perhaps I don't listen at reference levels or there is enough headroom in the amp, I don't know. Look at the posted diagram in the bottom left corner though to get the idea of what I was discussing. In most cases-where the amp is not being driven to max levels on all channels, I would think there would be more free power to the speaker by wiring it this way. I could be wrong about that however.
 
Swerd

Swerd

Audioholic Warlord
Anyone with a sub connected to LFE is bi-amping. With an active crossover. :D
Yes. Maybe in the future HT receivers will include all the circuitry needed for active bi-amping.
I'm glad you touched on the bi-amping with unused channels on a receiver. I don't see any advantage to this. In fact I can see drawbacks. Each amp in a receiver can only produce so much power. Each amp also draws on the same power supply. With a normal single wire setup one amp drives full frequency to a speaker. With this non-crossed over bi-amp setup you now have two amps producing full frequency (for each bi-amped speaker) and drawing on the same power supply. When a sound demands maximum power for some bass two amps are now going to respond to that putting extra load on the power supply. This could actually inhibit the 'bass' amp from achieving full power while the higher frequency amp is also producing full power only to have much of it lost to the tweeter's crossover. While a single amp setup can deliver full power without fighting over current with another amp.

So, to me I can see why this setup could actually impede performance rather than enhance it. Am I crazy or is there some sense to this?
This seems to make sense in theory but in practice it may come out a little different that what you think. The drawback you mentioned, that both amps will still amplify the full range of sound in the signal, doesn't end up being such a problem.

Consider the passive crossover filter that is between the amp and the tweeter. Let's say that it filters out signals below 2000 Hz with a crossover slope of 24 dB/octave. At 1000 Hz the signal is attenuated by 24 dB, at 500 Hz is 48 dB lower, at 250 Hz it is 72 dB lower, etc. By the time you get to the bass frequencies that really require power, the signal is nearly totally blocked by the high pass filter. The tweeter draws current from the amp only at the frequencies allowed by the high pass filter. If no current is drawn at the lower frequencies, no power is consumed either. Thus the amp driving the tweeter really only generates power at the frequencies passed by that filter. The same works inversly for the woofer and its amp.
 
OttoMatic

OttoMatic

Senior Audioholic
The tweeter draws current from the amp only at the frequencies allowed by the high pass filter. If no current is drawn at the lower frequencies, no power is consumed either.
This is the thing that so many people don't seem to understand about bi-amping. There is an electrical difference, and some people may be able to hear it.

Unfortunately, even the widely accepted terms of "passive bi-amping" and "active bi-amping" are frequently misused here. That's sad, as it's not a terribly difficult concept to understand. To say that passive bi-amping is the same as bi-wiring with more power is patently incorrect, as was shown in the diagram posted above.

The thing I don't understand is why does there continue to be so much discussion on this topic. It's been beaten to death many forums, including this one, as well as print media and probably some lecture circuit as well.
 
F

fmw

Audioholic Ninja
This is the thing that so many people don't seem to understand about bi-amping. There is an electrical difference, and some people may be able to hear it.

Unfortunately, even the widely accepted terms of "passive bi-amping" and "active bi-amping" are frequently misused here. That's sad, as it's not a terribly difficult concept to understand. To say that passive bi-amping is the same as bi-wiring with more power is patently incorrect, as was shown in the diagram posted above.

The thing I don't understand is why does there continue to be so much discussion on this topic. It's been beaten to death many forums, including this one, as well as print media and probably some lecture circuit as well.
The reason is that I haven't read them and was unaware of them. I now understand what everybody meant by passive bi-amping. I can see how it would change the sound of the speaker system in the speaker illustrated. I don't think it guarantees that the change would be for the better, however, unless there were inadequate amplifer power in the first place. I don't see how it would affect the sound of the speaker at all if the crossover network is in place unless, again, the amplifier power were inadequate without it. I'll do some more reading.
 
Swerd

Swerd

Audioholic Warlord
The thing I don't understand is why does there continue to be so much discussion on this topic. It's been beaten to death many forums, including this one, as well as print media and probably some lecture circuit as well.
You and me both.

Back in the days (1980s and before) when powerful amps were very expensive compared to good full-range speakers, biamping maybe made sense. Now, powerful amps are relatively cheaper than good full-range speakers. If you need more power, its cheap and abundant.
 
TLS Guy

TLS Guy

Audioholic Jedi
The problem is that an active crossover, like in Swerd's excellent diagram lower right, still has to take into account the roll off of the drivers. An analog active crossover still has to designed specifically for the drivers involved. These crossovers have identical phase and delay problems that passive one do. However there are advantages as the only inductors in the amp circuit are the speaker voice coils. There are no caps on the amp speaker circuit. The padding takes place without loss of efficiency. For low frequency low pass it eliminates the need for large costly inductors.

Now usually active analog crossovers have the same range of orders as passive ones, first, second, third and fourth. You can increase the order, but it means a lot of op amps and time delay problems get highly significant.

Digital active crossovers are another matter. They can be constructed with very high order roll off, and even brick wall, without phase or time delay problems. So that leaves the possibility of operating drivers well within their pass band and not have to worry about driver roll off and the gain of the two drivers at crossover.
 
A

Antus

Audioholic Intern
on the speaker crossover design, i have seen a B&W 804 cut out and there are TWO set of crossover inside the cabnet. one at the bottom connected to woofer, and another one sit behind mid range for high/mid driver. in that case, even if you passively biamped the speakers, it should sounds better (in theory) than not biamping it.

another big problem of crossover is resistance swing. take B&W 804 as an example, from 20Hz to 20KHz, the resistance swing from lower 3 Ohm to as high as 30 Ohm. in that case, the ampifier not only have to ampify different frequency, but also need to work with very different indepence. of course, that result in distortion.

with that in mind, the perfect system would be active crossover, bi, or tri amp, and connect directly to the speakers. the cut off point on the crossover would be just before the driver's resistance starting to swing higher. in this case, the amp will remain constant in the resistance. actually, this approach has been using on commercial application for many years, i guess it's too complex to set up for average home user who want to "set it and forget it".
 
newsletter

  • RBHsound.com
  • BlueJeansCable.com
  • SVS Sound Subwoofers
  • Experience the Martin Logan Montis
Top