Thoughts on bi-amping ?

[Herbonbay]

For the last few weeks I've been researching amps to give my recently purchased B&W 804's more juice. I'm using a Pioneer Elite 56Txi that allows me to bi-amp the 804's by using the 2 front channels and the 2 back channels. IMO the difference between 2 and 4 channels is substantial. I've been reading bi-amping threads on various forums here and find myself surprised that there is very little enthusiasm on the subject. For the most part, it seems as the consensus on bi-amping is that it's a waste of money. I'm not looking for volume, I'm looking for the detail, seperation and crispness that normally kicks in when a certain volume is reached, but at lower sound levels. So here is a question, and for simplicity lets use a Rotel 1080 (200 x2) and 1095 (200x5).
If you had the option, would you use the 1095 to bi-amp the 804's or simply wire it straight with the 1080? I have a feeling that bi-amping in this case might win out. What if we added the 1090 (2x380) to the mix? Would the straight wired 1090 be a no brainer?

[mluding]

Hi,

good question !

I can only tell you about my experience with my Isophon Speakers and my Classé amps: Last October I decided to get one of the last CA-101 of the now old Classé-Series for a later 7.1 upgrade (currently I don't have enough space for 7 speakers) of my current 5.0 system. For not "wasting" 2 channels in the meanwhile I decided to go for a biamping of my font speakers (by the way: very recommended by the mastermind and owner of my speaker company) with my main amp CAV-180.

After receiving the necessary custom cables I connected all the suff and.... I got a much more precise and controlled bass and a much better soundstage even at lower volume!!

So it will be very hard for me to go back to single wiring when I'll upgrade to 7.1!! I think I'll have to get another CA-101 sooner or later....

I'd go for the RMB-1095 fro the front speakers and the center and a smaller Rotel for the rears!

Greetings from Rome!
Martin

[soundhound]

I 2nd Martin's suggestion, and if you want to make them really sing add an active crossover , wich will let the 1095 concetrate on a tighter frequency range. To take it a step further (being biased) I would replace the Pioneer w/ a Rotel 10XX, Bob

[denverdoc]

On the right track IMO

I as many others are at a loss to explain the lack of enthusiasm for biamping. Relieving the HF amp of the bass load will almost always result in considerably cleaner sound. This is typically a win-win situation, only downside is need for another stereo amp and a way to match sensitivities--if more amps had attenuators, I think it would be a very common practice as many speakers offer external terminals for driving bass and mid/tweets separately. And more and more multichannel amps on the scene makes the cost/complexity tradeoff easier to swallow.

Better still is using active XO's for which there is even less enthusiasm--but perhaps understandable in terms of reluctance to insert additional layer of electronics/complexity in chain. As we move to more digital products where XO's can be done in digital domain. I suspect this approach will prevail as XO's can be steeper while maintaining linear phase. Witness the new NHT Xd design. Drivers which previously were very difficult to implement successfully like the SEAS Mag excel drivers can be fully exploited w/o compromise. Even amp op based analog active XO's can be very transparent--I have yet to hear anyone advance the argument that digital crossovers have any sonic drawbacks, but I am sure there are such detractors out there.
John

[Chuck G]

I biamp my NHT VT2's with a Sherbourn 5/1500a (5th channel goes to the center VS2a) and use a B&K ST1400 2 channel amp for the rear VT1.2's. Once you experience biamping it is hard to go back. The Sherbourn also is a mono block design which I like as well. Two channel music is most important to me so that is where the majority of my power goes. I believe those 804's are at least as tough to drive as the NHT's.

I don't think biamping is necessary in a lot of cases (maybe I have overkill as well) but if you have the resources and hard to drive speakers it can be great. Once you start talking about a 1090 though, you shouldn't need but one channel.

[soundhound]

I had tried a Peavy active x for a weekend, scabbed together some adaptors as it was all 1/4" for pro use, and even @ that it added to the bottom end of my Klipsch RF's, not "boosted" their gain, they just seemed to have a little more punch, like my Rotel amp was saying, "c'mon, this is easy". The top end possibly opened up a little, but the biggy was in the bottom. I am shopping for a "consumer" shot version as my speaks are set up for it, may as well spend another $$$ and take advantage. Some of the posts that are out there may refer to "passive" bi-amping and people tend to get mixed results, alot based upon their gear. I guess ultimately its in the ears of the beholder, but given what you allready have herbonbay, whats a few more $$$ to make it all it can be.

[Herbonbay]

Interesting thoughts, and thanks for the responses. The responses regarding external XOers has sent me back to the owners manual and setup menu for the 56Txi. Pioneer has a setup option for bi-amping. As I mentioned in my original post, selecting bi-amp allows the use of the back channels to bi-amp the fronts, sending the same signal over each channel. However, in non bi-amp mode, I have the ability to adjust the frequency range of every channel. I'm thinking that it would make more sense to leave the back channels as true seperate channels and tailor the frequency range sent to the high and low terminals of the 804's. Yes? :roll:
Regards Herb

[hidefdvd]

For the last few weeks I've been researching amps to give my recently purchased B&W 804's more juice. I'm using a Pioneer Elite 56Txi that allows me to bi-amp the 804's by using the 2 front channels and the 2 back channels. IMO the difference between 2 and 4 channels is substantial. I've been reading bi-amping threads on various forums here and find myself surprised that there is very little enthusiasm on the subject. For the most part, it seems as the consensus on bi-amping is that it's a waste of money. I'm not looking for volume, I'm looking for the detail, seperation and crispness that normally kicks in when a certain volume is reached, but at lower sound levels. So here is a question, and for simplicity lets use a Rotel 1080 (200 x2) and 1095 (200x5).
If you had the option, would you use the 1095 to bi-amp the 804's or simply wire it straight with the 1080? I have a feeling that bi-amping in this case might win out. What if we added the 1090 (2x380) to the mix? Would the straight wired 1090 be a no brainer?

Personally I would go with the bi-amping with a 1095. Currently I have my 56TXi paired with a NAD S250(5x125w). I bi-amp my front left/right Paradigm Studio(v3) 40's with 4 of the 5 channels of the NAD. The 5th channel powers the CC570. My ADP470's are powered by the 56TXi. Sound is :T

[Herbonbay]

hidefdvd
Did you read my post regarding the possibility of not bi-amping via bi-amp mode? In other words, leave the back channels as backs and adjust the frequency range to optimize the signal too the high end. Then do the same thing with the front 2 channels, but optimized for the low end. It makes sense to me. Since you have a 56Txi and are already doing what I'm planning, I'd be interested in your thoughts.

Herb

[Herbonbay]

hidefdvd

Oh! High Def DVD! It took me a second. I thought you were Hiding From VD :rofl:

[vaa]

What are you using to connect the amps to the pre/pro? Just regular generic splitters? If you are getting good quality splitters, where are you geting them from?

Thanks

[hidefdvd]

What are you using to connect the amps to the pre/pro? Just regular generic splitters? If you are getting good quality splitters, where are you geting them from?

Thanks

RadioShack!

[mitch57]

I am also considering Bi-amping my front and center speakers but don't know how to go about doing it.

I have the RMB-1095 and am using the Denon 3805 as my pre/pro. I have Def Tech BP 7002s for my mains and a Def Tech CLR 2500 for my center and BP 2Xs for my surrounds. The CLR 2500 is Tri-Wireable but my BP7002s only have one set of speaker connections.

Can I Bi-Amp my speakers? How should I go about doing it? Currently my receiver isn't providing power to anything so I think I am wasting that additional 120 Watts per channel power.

Any suggestions?

[OakIris]

I guess I'll be doing what is considered passive bi-amping with my Rotel RSX1055 and RMB1075, plus bi-wiring my B&W front speakers. It sounds as though this won't add much to my system, but I'm going to try it anyway. :roll:


How do you add an active crossover to the mix? I take it this is several steps above passive bi-amping? ops:

[hidefdvd]

I guess I'll be doing what is considered passive bi-amping with my Rotel RSX1055 and RMB1075, plus bi-wiring my B&W front speakers. It sounds as though this won't add much to my system, but I'm going to try it anyway. :roll:


How do you add an active crossover to the mix? I take it this is several steps above passive bi-amping? ops:

You open up the back of your speakers and disconnect the internal crossovers to the speakers and then wire the binding post directly to the drivers. Then you put an active crossover between the pre/pro and amp and with the right equipment to insure slope/linearity/etc/etc you setup the speaker.

[Chuck G]

Mitch, you can not biamp your speakers. I would NOT try the above without someone who is very knowlegeable about this process. The 1095 should have more than enough power with 1 channel with the 92db efficiency.

[TimRawson]

Also on higher end speakers, the crossover design is important to the sound of a speaker.

I don't think biamping is worth while unless using separate amps or monoblock design (like sherbourn, bryston 9b etc.). I'd tried biamping out of curiousity with my Halo A52, when I had it, and noticed no significant difference. That was a single xfmr design. I'd thought on the Sherbourn, depending on model, one would be better off bridging.

I've gone through some of the obsessions of trying to make things better. Found it just made me crazy and waste a lot of time. Tend to like keeping things simple. It's funny how one in at certain price point will spend $500 on tweeks when that $500 on a component or speakers would make much more difference.

I'd say just try it and see if if sounds better or not.

[Chuck G]

Bridging is not optimal IMO. Most amps will be noisier when bridged. The main thing with bi-amping is using identical amp channels and mono block designed amps are hard to beat (less crosstalk).

If you think you need to biamp 92db efficiency speakers (using a Rotel 1095 amp), something else is amiss.

[OakIris]

I certainly have no desire to open up my speakers to disconnect the internal crossover. I can't afford new speakers should I foul up the mod, so I'll stick with passive bi-amping after all.