BI-Amping vs. 703 internal crossovers

[cal264]

Need info on Bi-amping vs 1 amp to run the 703's ... I am currently setup with 1 amp with the bridging bars and allowing the crossovers in the spekers to distribute the correct frequencies. I was told by a BandW head that he perferred to let the speaker do the work and not Bi-amp 703's specifically.

Anyone out there done it either way and have a preference?

I have an Rotel 1080 and a BandK 125Wx2. I was thinking about BI-Amping and running the HF on the BandK and the LF on the Rotel (or visa versa).

Any help would be appreciated .......

Thanks,

JV

[csuzor]

I have a 1075, and passive bi-amping the 703 helped improve the dynamics. However, many have found the 1080 good enough for the 703 without bi-amping. Why don't you try it, and let us know?

[lvhung]

You shoud buy better cables and forget the bi amp

[Ade]

Need info on Bi-amping vs 1 amp to run the 703's ... I am currently setup with 1 amp with the bridging bars and allowing the crossovers in the spekers to distribute the correct frequencies. I was told by a BandW head that he perferred to let the speaker do the work and not Bi-amp 703's specifically.

Anyone out there done it either way and have a preference?

I have an Rotel 1080 and a BandK 125Wx2. I was thinking about BI-Amping and running the HF on the BandK and the LF on the Rotel (or visa versa).

Any help would be appreciated .......

Thanks,

JV

Removing the bars and attaching two amps does not bypass the internal crossover - all frequencies are still sent to both sets of connectors and the internal filters do the necessary frequency filtering. It's possible to split the frequencies beforehand by using an external active crossover.

Ignore the comment about getting better cables - no such thing exists as they all sound the same.

A lot of the people that I've heard bi-amping say that they see an improvement; I think it'll probably depend very much on how much grunt your amps have.

[NonSense]

I have an Rotel 1080 and a BandK 125Wx2. I was thinking about BI-Amping and running the HF on the BandK and the LF on the Rotel (or visa versa).

Unless you are experienced with bi-amping, I would stay away from using two different amplifiers from different manufacturers. The input impedence of the units will likely differ along with the gain. This is where active cross-overs allow you to make the required compensation.

Ignore the comment about getting better cables - no such thing exists as they all sound the same.

I would agree that there are many areas of a system that can offer more dramatic improvement, but lets be a little open minded. (Speaker cable is not a lossless medium, therefore it exhibits properties that can interact with the system. Each system will differ)


JV - You should try removing the shorting bars as they are usually of poor quality. Try jumpering with a short piece of cable that matches your speaker cable. See what you think.

[Ade]

I would agree that there are many areas of a system that can offer more dramatic improvement, but lets be a little open minded. (Speaker cable is not a lossless medium, therefore it exhibits properties that can interact with the system. Each system will differ)

I've had this argument with the cable faithful on several forums already and I really don't want to repeat it as it gets to be rather repetitive.

What I will say is that if people do the necessary research using unbiased sources that use objective testing methods they will find that cables do not make a difference. If people want to waste ridiculous amounts of money though, well then, that's entirely their business. ~shrug~

[Guy]

Cables may or may not make a difference depends on who you talk to. What I believe is true is the fact that you need to buy cables that donot change or impair the sound in any way (ie cables that pass the signal without altering it)

I have found that certain manufacturers use technology/ materials in the design that actually changes the sound and in some cases makes the sound bad with certain equipment.

As for biamping - Well I am currently successfully biamping my musical fidelity A300 with a new MF A5 power amp with excelent results. I need the power of both to run my 802Ds. Your results will obviously be different. Best to try if you can and hear for yourself.

[georgev]

If you do not use an active external crossover and then disengage the internal crossover, then you are not reallt getting the benefits of biamping(this is active biamping).
What you are doing, Guy is "passive biamping" and all you are doing is feeding your speakers more power which is good. You may simply get a more powerful amp.
Cheers,
George.

[georgev]

Perhaps I should have added, the theory behind bi amping is to divide the sigmals from source into high and low frequencies. These frequencies are now amplified and fed directly into the drivers that are responsible for the various duties.
Done this way(Active Bi-amping), brings a majoe improvement to sound quality.
This is how the Nautilus(Snail) speaker is driven.
Enjoy.
George.

[NonSense]

I've had this argument with the cable faithful on several forums already and I really don't want to repeat it as it gets to be rather repetitive.

What I will say is that if people do the necessary research using unbiased sources that use objective testing methods they will find that cables do not make a difference. If people want to waste ridiculous amounts of money though, well then, that's entirely their business. ~shrug~

Let say this could be true.

Almost all amps sound identical at the same SPL. Given amps of differing output ratings the differences will only become apparent when you start to exceed one amps power ratings and it begins to clip.

Hmmmm. I'm seeing a trend.

A lot of the people that I've heard bi-amping say that they see an improvement; I think it'll probably depend very much on how much grunt your amps have.

Wait, now I'm confused?

[Ade]

Wait, now I'm confused?

There's no need to be.

I'm sure if you think a little about it you'll realize that there's a rather large difference between a difference of sound at the same SPL's and different upper SPL's and clipping limits.

[Guy]

If you do not use an active external crossover and then disengage the internal crossover, then you are not reallt getting the benefits of biamping(this is active biamping).
What you are doing, Guy is "passive biamping" and all you are doing is feeding your speakers more power which is good. You may simply get a more powerful amp.
Cheers,
George.

Yes you r right. I did not want to upgrade my integrated since I am happy with the sound so I just added a power amp. 400W per channel can get really loud :E

[georgev]

If you are going to biamp passively, then you really ought to try and do so with the same amplifier. As mentioned above, biamping with amps of different gain is not the best, but it beats inadequate power.
Cheers,
George.

[Guy]

If you are going to biamp passively, then you really ought to try and do so with the same amplifier. As mentioned above, biamping with amps of different gain is not the best, but it beats inadequate power.
Cheers,
George.

I know the input impedance matches on both amps but not sure about the gain. How would you be able to tell if the gain is the same or different on both amps?

There seems to be no audible mismatch

Cheers, Guy.

[NonSense]

This is tough as the MF A300 is an integrated amp and the A5cr is a power amp. From their web site, MF doesn't publish any info regarding the Pre-out peak voltage swing. (this maybe in your manual and would allow a more accurate calculation) Nor any info regarding the amp stage, and they don't need to with an integrated. If the A300 drive stage was similar to the A308cr then the gain of the amplifier stage would be close to 31.5. The gain of the A5 is 30.1. I would say this is reasonably close, and I'm sure MF has done this on purpose, as the A300 pre-output connections are mean for passive bi-amping. This is a good reason why it pays to stay with the same manufacturer when passivly bi-amping. Alot of manufacturers keep the same design philosophys through product lines, and product generations giving good results like you have been getting.

Hope this helped

[cal264]

Dang .... this topic is fairly controversial but .... who said I had bad cables to begin with ... Man mucho dialogue about cables being good or bad and my cables are very high end stuff ... specificity is very important with this stuff eh ? Well thanks for all the help ... Im leaving it be for now ...

Thanks again ..

JV

[Guy]

This is tough as the MF A300 is an integrated amp and the A5cr is a power amp. From their web site, MF doesn't publish any info regarding the Pre-out peak voltage swing. (this maybe in your manual and would allow a more accurate calculation) Nor any info regarding the amp stage, and they don't need to with an integrated. If the A300 drive stage was similar to the A308cr then the gain of the amplifier stage would be close to 31.5. The gain of the A5 is 30.1. I would say this is reasonably close, and I'm sure MF has done this on purpose, as the A300 pre-output connections are mean for passive bi-amping. This is a good reason why it pays to stay with the same manufacturer when passivly bi-amping. Alot of manufacturers keep the same design philosophys through product lines, and product generations giving good results like you have been getting.

Hope this helped

Thanks Bruce. Good info.