The Difference Between Bi-amping and Bi-wiring

P

PENG

Audioholic Slumlord
One of the dangers associated with making a claim on the internet, but not backing it up in any meaningful way (test methodology, associated gear, detailed results...). Still, fmw claims to have more experience in bias controlled testing than Floyd Toole & Gene, so I'm sure that's merely an oversight on his part.
Okay I missed that one too. I hope he exaggerated it in trying to make a point but only he knows.
 
P

PENG

Audioholic Slumlord
I now think that is overstating things. He shows reasons how some passive crossovers create problems that can and should be avoided. Certainly the home audio industry has largely ignored his opinions. I think the practical & economic arguments against active crossovers carry equal weight to his electronic arguments for them. In the future, as prices and fashions change, that balance might shift.
Yes I am on the same page with you on this one. I don't doubt there are speakers out there that are based on excellent crossovers that rival the best active crossover setups. My one point in my list is just that whether passive biamp could produce audible benefits, or just "difference" may depend on the crossovers of the speakers in use.
 
RichB

RichB

Audioholic Field Marshall
Yes I am on the same page with you on this one. I don't doubt there are speakers out there that are based on excellent crossovers that rival the best active crossover setups. My one point in my list is just that whether passive biamp could produce audible benefits, or just "difference" may depend on the crossovers of the speakers in use.
and amplifer. The Parasound JC-1 was include in my (not to be taken too seriously) listening session.
Both gsr and I felt the JC-1 (single-amped), was the best. Of course, this proves nothing except, I am not advocating bi-amping, just there is a possiblity for a benefit.

I like to try things and others who also like to try things, should try things, but don't waste money :D

Still, I do wonder if the Salon2's might respond better to a beefier multi-channel amp, say something from ATI ;) :D

I wonder if Irv will give it another go, so I can find out :p

- Rich
 
F

fmw

Audioholic Ninja
One of the dangers associated with making a claim on the internet, but not backing it up in any meaningful way (test methodology, associated gear, detailed results...). Still, fmw claims to have more experience in bias controlled testing than Floyd Toole & Gene, so I'm sure that's merely an oversight on his part.
The oversight is on your part. I said I have more bias controlled testing experience than them because I do. I'm not aware that either one of them has done a single bias controlled comparison. I've done two years of it. I've had enough insult. I'm out of here.
 
Steve81

Steve81

Audioholics Five-0
I'm not aware that either one of them has done a single bias controlled comparison....I've had enough insult. I'm out of here.
Perhaps you should spend time becoming aware instead of making assumptions and unverifiable claims. In any event, adieu.
 
RichB

RichB

Audioholic Field Marshall
And yes, I was annoyed at RichB's comments about bi-amping. I doubt if he really intends to make broad scientific conclusions, but he took one (and only one) case, perhaps an atypical exception or perhaps an artifact of unintended testing bias, and trotted it out as the exception that proves the rule. It's easy for me to take his comments as a direct challenge to my dearly held principles of scientific method & thinking.
I absolutely did NOT intend to make any scientific conclusion. I think that is where misunderstandings occur in forum based discussion. It is very difficult to convey "tone". Hey, I must be doing something wrong, judging from the arrows sticking out of me :D

I have a dearly held belief that Objectivism like Subjectivism can be taken to an extremes. It seems logical that if industry experts have, even if in extremely rare cases, found an improvement, then the possibility exists. The claim that there is no possibility for an improvement seems to be the more extreme position. Folks who come down on people hard on these forums actually stomp on conversation and limit discussion, even if this is not intended. That feels like bullying and I don't like bullying, not one bit.

I've read that long Rod Elliot article in the past, and I re-read parts of it this morning to refresh my memory. (I am not formally trained in electronics or physics, but I am trained in a different branch of science, molecular biology. Unlike other sciences, it is entirely experimental and many of us actually look down on arguments based on theories alone. We usually bring out stories about well known scientists who talked themselves out of doing experiments that might have won them fame & fortune if they had ignored their doubts and pushed ahead. I've known two such people.) Anyway, my own bias is to get all the data and info you can, and then try and explain the results. And you should never ever fall in love with your own ideas. Instead you should try to prove them wrong. I doubt if RichB sees it the same way.
If I may speak for RichB :D, you are incorrect sir. In the past, I found no benefit what-so-ever to passive bi-amping, yet now I have (an observation and not scientific proof). Since this is strange, I come to forums to discuss these observations. Science can sometime begin with an observation and then the curious explore the potential causes:

Has anyone else found this to be true?
Is it something about the Salon2s, the Parasound amp, a combination of the two?

I am not an advocate, I am curious.

All observation should not dismissed as expectation bias. Individual experiences are data points. They may prove to be bad data points :D Experments can fail, why did they fail?

My background is in hardware/software product development. I can't tell you how many times products that cannot fail, fail. Engineers will tell me this. To which, I respond: It just failed, there is no denying it. Now, let's figure out why ;)

Back to Rod Elliot. His article provides in my opinion largely theoretical reasons why passive crossovers are a poor idea in audio. When I first read it, I took his conclusion, as gospel, that all speakers should have active crossovers upstream from amplification. I now think that is overstating things. He shows reasons how some passive crossovers create problems that can and should be avoided. Certainly the home audio industry has largely ignored his opinions. I think the practical & economic arguments against active crossovers carry equal weight to his electronic arguments for them. In the future, as prices and fashions change, that balance might shift.
There is Active Crossover advocacy and the rational seems sound (I am not a EE). Meridian has been doing this for years. Praticallity is the issue. The best is to remain digital and perform only one D/A to an amplifier tuned to the speaker. Another, other option for an A/D/A withing the speaker. Each speaker has a DAC an amp and must be powered. That's can be difficult for 5.1 systems, and now we have ceiling channels to contend with. Perhaps, digital wireless transition will be the game-changer.

If this entire brouhaha has only resulted in Alex improving his system, that’s good enough for me :D

- Rich
 
KEW

KEW

Audioholic Overlord
Even with active bi-amp, the only thing useful to me is control of the bass (help room modes).
How do you use active bi-amping to help with room modes?
Controlling the amount of the bass level.
How is that any different from controlling the subwoofer level using a typical AVR (aside from not having a RC for your amp)?
Regarding room modes, that is an awfully broad brush! It seems you are sacrificing a broad band to tame narrow band problems.
 
Irvrobinson

Irvrobinson

Audioholic Spartan
How is that any different from controlling the subwoofer level using a typical AVR (aside from not having a RC for your amp)?
Regarding room modes, that is an awfully broad brush! It seems you are sacrificing a broad band to tame narrow band problems.
Kurt, don't waste the key strokes. Andy and I have discussed this in the past, and he is resolute against in-room measurements and against tuning to mitigate room modes. He likes what he likes. ;)
 
Last edited:
AcuDefTechGuy

AcuDefTechGuy

Audioholic Jedi
How is that any different from controlling the subwoofer level using a typical AVR (aside from not having a RC for your amp)?
Regarding room modes, that is an awfully broad brush! It seems you are sacrificing a broad band to tame narrow band problems.
I never said it was better than using a dedicated subwoofer.

The only thing I care to tame is the bass from 200Hz down, not the entire 20Hz-20kHz.

If you like messing with the frequencies from 200Hz-20kHz, that's your choice.

I am 100% happy with my sound so there is exactly 0% sacrifice.
 
Last edited:
Swerd

Swerd

Audioholic Warlord
@RichB – OK, I withdraw the troll comment :). You've made enough effort to satisfy me that you are not deliberately trying to stir up argument. I still may disagree with you, but I'll make a better effort not to let my anti-science button get so easily pushed.

@fmw – Come back anytime. I welcome your experience & comments, even if you seem occasionally thin skinned :).

@PENG – Thanks for being an effective mediator :).
 
RichB

RichB

Audioholic Field Marshall
@RichB – OK, I withdraw the troll comment :). You've made enough effort to satisfy me that you are not deliberately trying to stir up argument. I still may disagree with you, but I'll make a better effort not to let my anti-science button get so easily pushed.
Thank you.

- Rich
 
KEW

KEW

Audioholic Overlord
He likes what he likes. ;)
Yeah, well, I was hoping he might expand. After all, there are plenty of people who think their HTiB is great sound quality - and, if they don't listen to anything else, they will never know better. The crime is he has decent speakers. I was willing to assume he had a good room for sound, but if he turns down the separate amp to control room modes, he is giving away the SQ he has paid for.
 
KEW

KEW

Audioholic Overlord
The only thing I care to tame is the bass from 200Hz down, not the entire 20Hz-20kHz.

If you like messing with the frequencies from 200Hz-20kHz, that's your choice.
What? Did you read my post?
How is that any different from controlling the subwoofer level using a typical AVR (aside from not having a RC for your amp)?
Regarding room modes, that is an awfully broad brush! It seems you are sacrificing a broad band to tame narrow band problems.
How is adjusting sub level supposed to affect frequencies from 200Hz to 20kHz?
My sub is crossed somewhere between 60 and 120Hz (depending on speakers) which is the upper frequency affected by this adjustment.
 
RichB

RichB

Audioholic Field Marshall
What? Did you read my post?
How is adjusting sub level supposed to affect frequencies from 200Hz to 20kHz?
My sub is crossed somewhere between 60 and 120Hz (depending on speakers) which is the upper frequency affected by this adjustment.
Its not, but like a main speakers that can be separately bi-amped a sub without built-in PEQ can be used with a miniDSP to provide it.

My speakers are crossed at 150Hz. So, in theory, a device like the miniDSP could be used to handle room mode issues. If you have a PrePro with suitable PEQ, it can be handled by that device but any analog source would have to be A/D converted.

There are folks using MiniDSP Dirac REQ in conjunction with MiniDSP PEQ to equalize multiple subs. Dirac is then used normally viewing all equalized subs as a single mono-sub. The MiniDSP 88A (I think) adds 20-40 MS delay so that has to delay the entire frequency range to keep it coherent.

Some folks, feel that subs cannot be put even a few feet in back of their main speakers because the timing would be off. I am not sure how that works since bass reflections create room modes and humans don't seem to perceive multiple arrivals (bass is not easily localized). So, how could bass be so time-sensitive?

- Rich
 

Latest posts

newsletter

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