Why the biamping at Abbey Roads?

[Jesse111]

Curious. Why does Abbey Roads passive biamp their 800D's if there is little to know benefit?

The vast majority of experienced folks as well as the data seems to support little to know benefit. Does Abbey just like to promote the B&W network of gear or is the 800D ohm'd out and designed to benefit from biamping perhaps more than other speakers that have typically failed with any biamping improvement?

[NMG]

Just a thought (since I have NO experience with this particular issue), but maybe it's a case of setting things up so that there can be no doubt as to whether the configuration is "ideal"?

Maybe it's the same logic behind using expensive cables, speaker wire, etc. Even if there is no measured benefit, it can be nice to have that perceived benefit that you are elimiating any "possible" weak spots in the system.

Just a thought and I certainly don't want to turn this into a debate as to whether the said components can make a big difference on the sound.

[beden1]

Curious. Why does Abbey Roads passive biamp their 800D's if there is little to know benefit?

The vast majority of experienced folks as well as the data seems to support little to know benefit. Does Abbey just like to promote the B&W network of gear or is the 800D ohm'd out and designed to benefit from biamping perhaps more than other speakers that have typically failed with any biamping improvement?

Where did you read, or experience there is no benefit from bi-amping? B&W even says their speakers benefit from Bi-amping. I bi-amped my 703s and experienced a measureable improvement in a smoother/richer sound.

[Andrew M Ward]

Curious. Why does Abbey Roads passive biamp their 800D's if there is little to know benefit?

The vast majority of experienced folks as well as the data seems to support little to know benefit. Does Abbey just like to promote the B&W network of gear or is the 800D ohm'd out and designed to benefit from biamping perhaps more than other speakers that have typically failed with any biamping improvement?

No big deal but:
The purpose of vertical biamping is to reduce the current demand on an amp.
(They play sh%t really loud at Abbey Road)

Given the opportunity to have two CA-M400's on each speaker I couldn't say no!
(Could you?) Just because the vast majority of experienced folks find it "not that important"

It is a world class recording studio (right!) I mean really, there are a huge percentage of professionals who claim that amplifiers (in general) don't sound any different... How far should we go on this?

[Jesse111]

No big deal but:
How far should we go on this?

I'm struggling with this option right now. biamping my 800D with a pair of McIntosh 501's. I can use the feed back. Isn't that what these forums are for?
If you don't want to help that's ok.

Where did you read, or experience there is no benefit from bi-amping? B&W even says their speakers benefit from Bi-amping. I bi-amped my 703s and experienced a measureable improvement in a smoother/richer sound.

http://www.gcaudio.com/resources/howtos/biamping.html

Beden1, tell me about your biamping equipment and perhaps a link to info you read on B&W biamping benefits.

Thanks.

[Aldo]

The B&W top of the line Nautilus not only takes advantage of a biamplificated system it uses quadamplification! So I' shure B&W have a messured benefit for does configurations!

[Jesse111]

The B&W top of the line Nautilus not only takes advantage of a biamplificated system it uses quadamplification! So I' shure B&W have a messured benefit for does configurations!

You are correct Aldo. But the Snail use active biamping (quadamping). The frequencies are crossed before the amp not after. Thus, the amps see only the frequencies for the speaker that they will amplify. The benefit in that is without question. However in passive biamping the amps see the full range of frequencies and the signal is not crossed until after, which is much less advantages. But I'm just trying to determine how much less.

[Blindamood]

Curious. Why does Abbey Roads passive biamp their 800D's if there is little to know benefit?

I'd have to guess, because they can!

What do you want to bet that B&W/Classe provides the speakers and amps to Abbey Roads free of charge? It's probably worth it, for the marketing value they get from it. So, why not go all out?

[Kal Rubinson]

Where did you read, or experience there is no benefit from bi-amping? B&W even says their speakers benefit from Bi-amping. I bi-amped my 703s and experienced a measureable improvement in a smoother/richer sound.

While there may be some power/headroom advantages to passive biamping, I really doubt you can measure "a smoother/richer sound." What's your unit of measurement?

Kal

[beden1]

My measurement is purely listening through my ears that have over 45 years of playing instruments, extensive listening to live music in many venues, and listening to recorded music. But, I also did an internet search and came up with numerous sites that go into details about the benefits of bi-amping. I have included these in following postings. The technical ones show the charts/graphs, etc. Do some home work and find out if it is right for you. I clearly heard the difference on my own system.

Pioneer Elite VSX-82TXS 7 X 130 watts receiver, B&W 703(s) main, HTM7 center channel, ASW 750 sub woofer.

[beden1]

here's one of the articles about bi-wiring, bi-amping, and vertical amping

http://www.soundstage.com/synergize/synergize031998.htm

[beden1]

here's a more detailed/scientific article about bi-amping

http://sound.westhost.com/bi-amp.htm

[beden1]

here's another comprehensive, but straight forward article on b-wiring and bi-amping.
http://www.whathifi.com/newsMainTemp...ewssectionID=3

[Andrew M Ward]

What do you want to bet that B&W/Classe provides the speakers and amps to Abbey Roads free of charge?

This is not correct
but it is what the other 600 speaker companies in the world like to imply...

[Andrew M Ward]

[QUOTE=Jesse111]I'm struggling with this option right now. biamping my 800D with a pair of McIntosh 501's. I can use the feed back. Isn't that what these forums are for?
If you don't want to help that's ok.


My pleasure to help,
but if you re-read your question it seems rather like a statement that Abbey Road Bi-Amps as a favor to B&W....

My mistake (sorry)

[beden1]

B&W's brief discussion on bi-wiring/bi-amping.

http://www.bwspeakers.com/index.cfm/fuseaction/local.faq/ObjectID/F5CA2E9F-3D20-11D4-A67F00D0B7473B37

[Kal Rubinson]

here's a more detailed/scientific article about bi-amping
http://sound.westhost.com/bi-amp.htm

OK. I have read all these and, aside from this one, they are all the standard unscientific nonsense. You should note that this reference states

The most common question I get is ...
"Do I need to disconnect the passive crossover in my speakers?"
The answer is ... Yes, otherwise you are not really biamping at all.
.............snip...........................
Passive biamping (where two amplifiers are used in a bi-wiring connection) is, IMHO, a waste of money. Although there may be some moderate sonic benefits, they are not worth the expense of the extra amplifier.

Note also that most people who speak about bi-amping, including the other refs, are discussing the relatively useless passive bi-amping setup.

Kal

[Kal Rubinson]

B&W's brief discussion on bi-wiring/bi-amping.
http://www.bwspeakers.com/index.cfm/...7F00D0B7473B37

Yadda, yadda. Just like the other refs despite the verbiage. Probably written by the marketing staff, not the engineering staff.

Kal

[Andrew M Ward]

Yadda, yadda. Just like the other refs despite the verbiage. Probably written by the marketing staff, not the engineering staff.

Kal

Wow,
Your tone is kind of "know it all" so everybody quit being stupid and do what I say!

8) And frankly, I'm okay with that...

I'll ask the marketing department and the engineering department and find out who takes responsibility for what... although current demands on the amp seem to be what it all distills down to, I’m not sure if the marketing department really cares about that? I know the engineering department does.... let's see

(Stay tuned)

[Kal Rubinson]

Wow,
Your tone is kind of "know it all" so everybody quit being stupid and do what I say!

8) And frankly, I'm okay with that...

Sorry if I get huffy about this (and some other things). It is one of the topics that comes up repeatedly with the same arguments and issues which have been thoroughly discussed before.

I'll ask the marketing department and the engineering department and find out who takes responsibility for what... although current demands on the amp seem to be what it all distills down to, I’m not sure if the marketing department really cares about that? I know the engineering department does.... let's see(Stay tuned)

OK. I have no problem with the issue of current demands although I think that such is more relevant to studios/large spaces than to most domestic situations. My personal objection is to the concept of it improving overall sound quality, given two identical amps in a passive bi-amping situation.

Kal

[Race Car Driver]

Kal, I have to agree.

Maybe most don't realize what they are stating or maybe the term bi-amping is being used to loosely and people are looking at anything with "bi-amp" in it as the same.

As Kal has mentioned, and quoted, passive bi-amping pretty much is at the end of diminishing returns spectrum. (key word PASSIVE)

Why? The REAL benefit of bi-amping comes from an active crossover network. Cross over your frequencies on the low level signal.... BEFORE the amp. This allows each of the amps to be used to their full potential. The amps are amplifying ONLY the frequencies fed INTO the amp. And by only amplifying those frequencies, they are not "wasting" power on frequencies that don’t even make it to the speaker because of the passive crossovers

Think of it this way.... You have two amps driving your favorite Nautilus series speaker. You are running the full spectrum into the amps, and then those amps are providing power of all frequencies. Now one amp sends the full range to your mid and tweet while the other sends the full range to your woofers... Each amp just worked hard to amplify the full range fed into it to send it into your bi wire posts. But what happens when that signal gets to the passive crossover network in the base of your speaker? Those highs are dropped off from amplifier A and the lows are sent to the woofers.
Then the lows are cut off from amplifier B and sent to the mid and tweeter.
Along with those frequencies those crossovers just took away, went power along them.

No imagine if amp A only had to amplify from 500 hz and below and amp B didn’t have to worry about anything below 500hz and only had to work to amplify from 500 and up because of that neat-o active crossover your using
(also note, the passive crossover on the mid/tweet is retained unless you feel like tri-amping)

Maybe this is common knowledge to everyone here, maybe not. I just hope this helps clear it up a bit.

[wolfgang]

OK. I have read all these and, aside from this one, they are all the standard unscientific nonsense. You should note that this reference states

Note also that most people who speak about bi-amping, including the other refs, are discussing the relatively useless passive bi-amping setup.

Kal

Yeap. That Rod Elliott website have a lot of interesting articles. Much better read then a lot of audiophile magazines isn't it?

[beden1]

Why? The REAL benefit of bi-amping comes from an active crossover network. Cross over your frequencies on the low level signal.... BEFORE the amp. This allows each of the amps to be used to their full potential. The amps are amplifying ONLY the frequencies fed INTO the amp. And by only amplifying those frequencies, they are not "wasting" power on frequencies that don’t even make it to the speaker because of the passive crossovers

I guess I'm kind of confused, and need further clarification. If the real benefit comes from an active crossover network, then . . . is my receiver that offers a bi-amp option (using the main channel and the rear channel, and "select bi-amp option" in the menu . . . acting as an active crossover, before the amp?

I just played with my set-up and defeated my "bi-amp" option in the menu, along with eliminating the second speaker(s) wires, and listened to a CD. I then reversed the set-up, back to the bi-amp connections, etc. I have to say that something is happening, and I will stand by my first statement that the music is measureably/audible smoother and more full bodied/dynamic with the "bi-amp" setting than without. Particularly with the 703s, it is very noticeable that they are not so much in your face, and tending to be harsh in the highs with the bi-amping.

The improvement may be able to be heard more acutely, as my room has a 24 foot ceilng, and is 32' by 18 feet. I really have no clue, and would appreciate clarification.

I am also not one to try and fool myself into thinking something is, or is not (just in case that is what you were thinking) LOL!

[Kal Rubinson]

I guess I'm kind of confused, and need further clarification. If the real benefit comes from an active crossover network, then . . . is my receiver that offers a bi-amp option (using the main channel and the rear channel, and "select bi-amp option" in the menu . . . acting as an active crossover, before the amp? and tending to be harsh in the highs with the bi-amping.

First, I doubt it. Second, you would also have to remove the built-in crossover to avoid the conflicts.

Kal

[Race Car Driver]

Kal is exactly right. The bi-amp option may be acting as simply a bi amp option, not a crossover. I believe my Yamaha offers this also. You may be using this and hearing a different sound, i wont argue with you there, but the true benefit of using two amps on one speaker is brought to light when you remove the passive crossovers in the speaker and use an active crossover before the amp.

And for anyone who cares, not that it matters, my Aragon 4004 is bi-amped to my Nautilus HTM1. No I didn't remove the passive crossovers in the speaker. Why did I do it? Why not, it was my older amp that I had for the 802s that got moved to the center channel amp when I bought the Brystons. The Aragon has two channels, so one would have sat unused, the only thing it "cost" me to do this was twice as much speaker cable that I already had laying around. Does it sound better? I don't really know, I didnt do much comparison, but I suppose I could if I got bored. But everything I "know" would leave me to belive it definatly doesn't hurt. If I had a decent active crossover and felt like doing some research I would consider removing the crossover. But then again, why bother on a center channel? Other then the fact that one can, thats usually the driving factor in alot of the decisions people like us make

[Andrew M Ward]

Sorry if I get huffy about this (and some other things). It is one of the topics that comes up repeatedly with the same arguments and issues which have been thoroughly discussed before.

OK. I have no problem with the issue of current demands although I think that such is more relevant to studios/large spaces than to most domestic situations. My personal objection is to the concept of it improving overall sound quality, given two identical amps in a passive bi-amping situation.

Kal

Man,
These strings do tend to "go-on-and-on" if I weren't adding to the total length of this conflagration myself; I might quickly take your position...

But I'm an unmitigated ass, so I feel compelled to carry on.

I have a friend at REVEL Kevin who seems to feel (however a bit less staunch) very much like you do... this should be fun research plus I'll add my other Harman buddies and maybe a few Russound and Control 4 guys I’ll ping...

They’re all ego-maniacal engineer types with decades of audio experience so they will feel that their own opinion is superior (and so forth)

It’ll be good reading I'm sure of that!!!

I'm on the road till Monday so stay tuned!

There are days when I do love this forum (There are other days as well)

[Kal Rubinson]

Man,
These strings do tend to "go-on-and-on" if I weren't adding to the total length of this conflagration myself; I might quickly take your position...

But I'm an unmitigated ass, so I feel compelled to carry on.

That's what we do.

I have a friend at REVEL Kevin who seems to feel (however a bit less staunch) very much like you do... this should be fun research plus I'll add my other Harman buddies and maybe a few Russound and Control 4 guys I’ll ping...

They’re all ego-maniacal engineer types with decades of audio experience so they will feel that their own opinion is superior (and so forth)

If your friend Kevin is the same as my friend Kevin (Voecks), I am not surprised.

Kal

[Tweir]

Abbey Road paid for every piece in their studio. Why would B&W just give over 30 amps and 15+ speakers for free. Think!

I'd have to guess, because they can!

What do you want to bet that B&W/Classe provides the speakers and amps to Abbey Roads free of charge? It's probably worth it, for the marketing value they get from it. So, why not go all out?

[dyazdani]

I guess I'm kind of confused, and need further clarification. If the real benefit comes from an active crossover network, then . . . is my receiver that offers a bi-amp option (using the main channel and the rear channel, and "select bi-amp option" in the menu . . . acting as an active crossover, before the amp?

The only thing your receiver is doing is passing a parallel signal to both the main and rear speaker outputs, it would not be an active X-over.

As far as you hearing an improvement using the bi-amp option, assuming it is a real improvement and not simply perceived; I would think gaining some power advantage would help a receiver in a room as large as yours.

[Blindamood]

Abbey Road paid for every piece in their studio. Why would B&W just give over 30 amps and 15+ speakers for free. Think!

It's called Marketing cachet! How many speakers do you think B&W sells based on their reputation of being installed there? Just MHO.