Why passive bi amplifying exists???

[TLS Guy]

Yes. The math is easy for them. The increase is not just "more": it's a substantial "2X," or "double". Who wouldn't want "double" the power of their existing amp? Them:"100w+100w=200w, right?" LOL

The math is also easy for the dealers pushing the myth but in this case their math is actually quite correct: Bi-amping/wiring = Bi-profitability.

Because that only increases the output by 3db, which is barely significant. To do what you want means an amp of 10 times the power.

That is why I have 3,200 watts available on my main system, which is what is required to really improve over 320 watts of power.

Buddy, you nead to study the difference between linear and log scaling. Do your math.

 

[highfigh]

Yes. The math is easy for them. The increase is not just "more": it's a substantial "2X," or "double". Who wouldn't want "double" the power of their existing amp? Them:"100w+100w=200w, right?" LOL

The math is also easy for the dealers pushing the myth but in this case their math is actually quite correct: Bi-amping/wiring = Bi-profitability.

But bi-wiring is the byproduct of manufacturers not wanting to lose market share- few dealers had the clout to make that happen by themselves, it was reviewers who BSed the need for it and as soon as dealers on the wider market started asking for it because THEIR brands didn't have this, manufacturers added it to their speakers. At the manufacturing end, it doesn't cost much but if someone did this to their own speakers, it voided the warranty. Very few were going to use a separate amp for HP and LP, but the other culprit in this was Munster Cable, who IIRC, was the first cable seller to push "High and low frequencies travel at different speeds" crap, which we had to deal with. The fact that the cables might have been 25' long didn't seem to matter to people who asked for this, although some understood it after we explained that at that distance, it doesn't matter.

This was also at a time when magazine reviews were adding words like 'Current' and 'Amps (Amperes)' to the vocabulary, so some would come in and ask (often, in a way for them to challenge our knowledge) "How many amps does this put out?". That caused a bit of confusion when I would actually calculate that, showing that the number wasn't very large.

 

[m. zillch]

Because that only increases the output by 3db, which is barely significant. To do what you want means an amp of 10 times the power.

That is why I have 3,200 watts available on my main system, which is what is required to really improve over 320 watts of power.

Buddy, you nead to study the difference between linear and log scaling. Do your math.

You need to re-read my post. Everything in it was actually accurate and you seem to have overlooked the party stating "double the power" was:
- "THEM", not me
- I laughed at their statement with an "LOL"
- and immediately characterized their assessment as being incorrect compared to the dealers' math which is correct, in my very next sentence.

And by the way, when measuring two different amps' power in watts I have no problem with people describing a 200w/ch amp as being "double" that of a 100w/ch. amp. In terms of watts that claim is true, not that passive bi-amping gets you to "200w/ch.".

 

[m. zillch]

But bi-wiring is the byproduct of manufacturers not wanting to lose market share

Providing worthless features is one thing but lying to consumers (interestingly often using nearly the exact same wording) is another.
In that linked to post I said those were "some more" because I had already listed these earlier, by the way:

Polk: "Bi-Wiring can provide noticeable improvements in the overall transparency . . . "
Definitive Technology: "The result is an improvement in the midrange that many enthusiasts believe is significant "
Crutchfield: "A bi-wire cable. . . can improve treble and bass performance. "
Fluance: "How do I use the bi-wiring connections to increase the performance of my system?"
Denon: "Bi-wiring’s advantages are generally considered to be more subtle than bi-amping and center around better control of back EMF (electromotive force) from the speaker drivers and increased definition."
AudioMaxx/Monitor Audio: "Bi-wiring can provide noticeable improvements in the overall transparency"
SVS: "Bi-wiring can provide noticeable improvements in the overall transparency"
B&W, Bower and Wilkins: "Bi-wiring can provide noticeable improvements in the overall transparency"
ELAC: "Bi-wiring can provide noticeable improvements in the overall transparency "

 

[Kingnoob]

Uneducated consumers- marketing departments absolutely depend on them. If they don't buy because of marketing claims, they buy because of the confusion that comes from reading or hearing something that seems plausible. They weren't particularly good in Science classes, don't understand the concepts that we harp on when someone presents BS as fact and they have the money to spend. When Sansui was harping on their amplifiers having higher Slew Rate during the late-'70s/early-'80s, Consumer reports and a few other magazines repeated it, confusing many people who would go to the local stereo stores and have another spec to throw at us, so they could act likee 'experts'. Many brought their own experts, too. They would ask about slew rate, we would answer and it proved that they were interested in hearing that tehy wanted specs that showed more, not better. Reliability was a huge thing for us at that store and we saw all kinds of failures in various brands because we had service techs repairing the equipment that was supposedly better, but not reliable.

Why would you use a 606 on a tweeter that won't present a difficult load to it? SHow the Gallo tweeter and explain why it should be used if it actually presents a 1.6 Ohm load. While you're at it, I would like to know why Gallo can't be bothered to design their CDT tweeter to have a voice coil that doesn't present a difficult load.

BTW- the passive crossover on a tweeter should be able to remove the frequenies that cause the difficult load and when did woofer loads become "relatively ordinary"? Of course, the standard response will be "Because passive crossovers cause phase shift and takes away the best parts of the sound....."- good, reliable speaker design should include components that won't cause amplifiers to puke, not force the users to search high & low for an amplifier that will survive being connected to them.

Gallo is an expensive brand too , but is this typical of pricey brands to make 3-4 ohm or even lower models?

Yes. The math is easy for them. The increase is not just "more": it's a substantial "2X," or "double". Who wouldn't want "double" the power of their existing amp? Them:"100w+100w=200w, right?" LOL

The math is also easy for the dealers pushing the myth but in this case their math is actually quite correct: Bi-amping/wiring = Bi-profitability.

huge profit for high end cables .$$
yeah unless you use cheap cables you already have , but it’s not unusual to see threads were it goes wrong and people cook an amp. I recently saw one on another site but didn’t save it as an example. I’d expect it to be rare …

 

[m. zillch]

Bi-amplifying = Bi-probability one of the connections will fail or be inadvertently wired out of correct polarity.

Wiring one of the drivers with reversed polarity does indeed have audible consequences. Makes we wonder if that's what some people claiming they hear a distinction are actually hearing. DOH!

 

[dlaloum]

Why would you use the more powerful Quad 606 for the tweeter which only needs a couple of watts, while a woofer needs a lot more power? By the way, the 606 has a higher power rating than any of an AVR amps, and surely is more stable as well. If only 2-3 watts of power are needed, an AVR amp should be able to handle a low impedance tweeter. Otherwise, a 4 ohm 10 watt resistor could be added in series with the tweeter.

Let me repeat what I said before - the AVR involved was unstable into the tweeter load - the Quad 606 is stable into ANY load (as per its spec sheet)

So it is NOT an issue of available power, but available stability and low distortion performance.

Many amp designs do not have linear low distortion behaviour into low impedance and/or reactive loads... they typically don't advertise this, but amps that support low impedances are stable into those loads and typically behave well with reactive loads.

As I stated before power in my environment is really not an issue - for my desired SPL at MLP I run at between 1W and 3W (closer to 1W!) - with peak never exceeeding 16W.... which means the AVR or any of my amps can do the job (and they will all provide a number of db of additional headroom beyond that, obviously)

It is NOT about power.

 

[dlaloum]

What utter nonsense, absolute bilge from start to finish. What an absolute waste to have a Quad 606 powering a tweeter! The 606 and 909 series Quad amps are among the finest power amps that have ever been produced. If you have one, just use it to power the whole speaker.

I have... and I have experimented with using a pair of them to biamp (with passive inline crossover) - concluding that no benefit was gained from the biamping!

After purchasing a Denon X4800 early this year, I found it to be adequate to the task, and am currently running without external power amps.... removed a layer of complexity.

And I don't disagree with you, with regards to the Quad power amps. - But they don't exactly compete (on power) with the 440W@8ohm 1200W@2ohm output of something like the Crown XLS2500...

 

[dlaloum]

Uneducated consumers- marketing departments absolutely depend on them. If they don't buy because of marketing claims, they buy because of the confusion that comes from reading or hearing something that seems plausible. They weren't particularly good in Science classes, don't understand the concepts that we harp on when someone presents BS as fact and they have the money to spend. When Sansui was harping on their amplifiers having higher Slew Rate during the late-'70s/early-'80s, Consumer reports and a few other magazines repeated it, confusing many people who would go to the local stereo stores and have another spec to throw at us, so they could act likee 'experts'. Many brought their own experts, too. They would ask about slew rate, we would answer and it proved that they were interested in hearing that tehy wanted specs that showed more, not better. Reliability was a huge thing for us at that store and we saw all kinds of failures in various brands because we had service techs repairing the equipment that was supposedly better, but not reliable.

Why would you use a 606 on a tweeter that won't present a difficult load to it? SHow the Gallo tweeter and explain why it should be used if it actually presents a 1.6 Ohm load. While you're at it, I would like to know why Gallo can't be bothered to design their CDT tweeter to have a voice coil that doesn't present a difficult load.

BTW- the passive crossover on a tweeter should be able to remove the frequenies that cause the difficult load and when did woofer loads become "relatively ordinary"? Of course, the standard response will be "Because passive crossovers cause phase shift and takes away the best parts of the sound....."- good, reliable speaker design should include components that won't cause amplifiers to puke, not force the users to search high & low for an amplifier that will survive being connected to them.

Take a look online at the CDT tweeter - it broadcasts like a semi-omni design covering around 270 degree horizontal arc...

Every designer balances various competing priorities - Gallo designed intentionally for a wide dispersion design, producing a very unique tweeter - and a very specific set of challenges in terms of the right amps to drive it.

 

[dlaloum]

Gallo is an expensive brand too , but is this typical of pricey brands to make 3-4 ohm or even lower models?
huge profit for high end cables .$$
yeah unless you use cheap cables you already have , but it’s not unusual to see threads were it goes wrong and people cook an amp. I recently saw one on another site but didn’t save it as an example. I’d expect it to be rare …

Gallo when still run by Anthony Gallo (10 years ago?) - was building very high value high end speakers - the reference series competed with speakers substantially beyond its price point... plenty of reviews online..

My own observation, is that they are one of the few reasonably priced (at the time!) speakers, which had a midrange transparency approaching what I could achieve with my previous Quad Electrostatics. (which were disapproved of by my partner due to their "overwhelming" presence in the living space...)

Subsequently (starting with the reference 3.5, and then the Strada models) - the pricing of the Gallo speakers rose substantially, more in line with their competitors, and the company was sold by Anthony Gallo....

There has been no subsequent R&D by the Gallo brand in speakers - they have continued with the existing Strada design, discontinued the Reference floor standers and the reference AV series, and focused on "lifestyle" speakers.... .

So they are a slightly exotic speaker - with specific requirements, but one who's sound I particularly like, and the wide dispersion suits the room they are in, and our listening preferences.

And I have learnt to feed them with appropriate amps!! I already had Quad 606 amps at the time, and subsequently tried higher power Crown XLS2500... with no real additional benefit from the power - but connecting them to an Integra DRX3.4 immediately showed what an amp that really cannot handle that type of load sounds like... not good! - using the DRX3.4 as a pre feeding into the Quads or Crowns completely fixed that issue.

And yes some of us like what can be categorised as "left field" speaker designs with atypical requirements...

I also have more "traditional" speakers, and prefer the Gallo's in my main setup.

 

[Kingnoob]

Providing worthless features is one thing but lying to consumers (interestingly often using nearly the exact same wording) is another.
In that linked to post I said those were "some more" because I had already listed these earlier, by the way:

Polk: "Bi-Wiring can provide noticeable improvements in the overall transparency . . . "
Definitive Technology: "The result is an improvement in the midrange that many enthusiasts believe is significant "
Crutchfield: "A bi-wire cable. . . can improve treble and bass performance. "
Fluance: "How do I use the bi-wiring connections to increase the performance of my system?"
Denon: "Bi-wiring’s advantages are generally considered to be more subtle than bi-amping and center around better control of back EMF (electromotive force) from the speaker drivers and increased definition."
AudioMaxx/Monitor Audio: "Bi-wiring can provide noticeable improvements in the overall transparency"
SVS: "Bi-wiring can provide noticeable improvements in the overall transparency"
B&W, Bower and Wilkins: "Bi-wiring can provide noticeable improvements in the overall transparency"
ELAC: "Bi-wiring can provide noticeable improvements in the overall transparency "

They profit a lot ? Or just the cable selling brands like svs ??there cables do look well built.

Gallo when still run by Anthony Gallo (10 years ago?) - was building very high value high end speakers - the reference series competed with speakers substantially beyond its price point... plenty of reviews online..

My own observation, is that they are one of the few reasonably priced (at the time!) speakers, which had a midrange transparency approaching what I could achieve with my previous Quad Electrostatics. (which were disapproved of by my partner due to their "overwhelming" presence in the living space...)

Subsequently (starting with the reference 3.5, and then the Strada models) - the pricing of the Gallo speakers rose substantially, more in line with their competitors, and the company was sold by Anthony Gallo....

There has been no subsequent R&D by the Gallo brand in speakers - they have continued with the existing Strada design, discontinued the Reference floor standers and the reference AV series, and focused on "lifestyle" speakers.... .

So they are a slightly exotic speaker - with specific requirements, but one who's sound I particularly like, and the wide dispersion suits the room they are in, and our listening preferences.

And I have learnt to feed them with appropriate amps!! I already had Quad 606 amps at the time, and subsequently tried higher power Crown XLS2500... with no real additional benefit from the power - but connecting them to an Integra DRX3.4 immediately showed what an amp that really cannot handle that type of load sounds like... not good! - using the DRX3.4 as a pre feeding into the Quads or Crowns completely fixed that issue.

And yes some of us like what can be categorised as "left field" speaker designs with atypical requirements...

I also have more "traditional" speakers, and prefer the Gallo's in my main setup.

I considered a Crown for my diy sub but I got a bash500 and it’s actually 100 rms short of max driver power so not sure if that is good or bad ? But it’s 2ohm per voice coil if I recal wired for 4.
Well Atleast you got some before the company got sold and took a Bose move to whatever mass market wants . I guess all that cash and money no profit in hifi speakers?

 

[TLS Guy]

I have... and I have experimented with using a pair of them to biamp (with passive inline crossover) - concluding that no benefit was gained from the biamping!

After purchasing a Denon X4800 early this year, I found it to be adequate to the task, and am currently running without external power amps.... removed a layer of complexity.

And I don't disagree with you, with regards to the Quad power amps. - But they don't exactly compete (on power) with the 440W@8ohm 1200W@2ohm output of something like the Crown XLS2500...

The difference between the Quad and the Crown is only 3 db. The Quad is a much better design and very stable. If you use enough amps you can get all the power you want. My Quad amps provide 3,200 watts to my rig.

 

[m. zillch]

They profit a lot ? Or just the cable selling brands like svs ??

Manufacturers make their designs for two different demands: consumers but don't forget the other one, dealers. Wires and accessories have a much larger profit margin than the electronics themselves. In some instances the dealer makes as much if not more on the various accessories than they do the main box they are selling you! So if a dealer has a choice of selling two different speakers and only one has bi-wiring binding posts, which do you think he'll push?

Also some makers feel pressured to "fit in" or "not rock the boat". For example, I know of one vendor who refused to wire his speakers with, say, Monstrosity Cable at his trade show exhibits and somehow his invite to attend future trade shows got, um, "lost in the mail".

If you don't play ball and support the various industry myths then you also stop ever getting your wares reviewed in stereofool magazines. Reviews are a major driving force behind sales so no reviews means poorer sales.

When Stereo Review magazine came out with their original speaker wire blind test exposing that for common short distances that even basic wire (of an adequate thickness) works fine, this of course infuriated the Monstrosity cable folks so they yanked all their ads and never advertised in that magazine ever again.

Only a few people knew about this and we all got a chuckle when years later they published an article similarly talking about a blind test showing no audible differences being found in some other category—I forget which—and they titled that section: "There goes the advertising [dollars]!"

Mark Waldrep of AIX records, if I recall, tells of getting a threatening "cease and desist" type letter for exposing a snake oil scammer from some trade show people too. They said he was, if I recall correctly: "Harming commerce".

So my overall point is people in the audio industry make decisions which are sometimes influence by other factors than, "Will this directly make our customers happy and/or make us money?".