1067 w/ 1077 Bi Amp?

[Nolan B]

At present I have a 1067 powering my B&W FPMs. Id like to make a change but need to understand bi amping first.

Would it be better to sell the 1067 and buy a 1068 (or equivilant when new format comes) and 1077?

Would it be better to keep the 1067 and some how Bi amp my speakers with a 1077 and 1067? is that even possible?

[foeth]

BI-amping is nothing more than adding twice the power to your speaker, unless you remove the cross-over filters from your loudspeakers and do your own frequency filtering.

If you have sufficient power to your speaker, you may not need to bi-amp at all. Better to have a single powerful amp, probably cheaper. Bi amping without your own frequency filter is just as useless as bi-wiring.

bi amping article

[Clepto]

At present I have a 1067 powering my B&W FPMs. Id like to make a change but need to understand bi amping first.

Would it be better to sell the 1067 and buy a 1068 (or equivilant when new format comes) and 1077?

Would it be better to keep the 1067 and some how Bi amp my speakers with a 1077 and 1067? is that even possible?

Well, maybe you could get a demo unit and test the 1077's amplification and use your RSX as a pre. If you like the improvements, keep the amp, and then you'll be able to get a pre/pro later down the road.

You could also go with a 2 channel amp for your fronts, and continue to power the rest of your speakers with the receiver's amps...

[htsteve]

Bi-Amp 1077

Vancouver,

I did bi-amp Nautilus B&W's with a 1077. My review is below. I would tend to agree with clepto. The 1077 bi-amped should be a bigger jump than going form a 1067 to a 1068 pre-pro. I think waiting on a pre/pro is not a bad idea. Let the formats settle themselves out.

If you are into music more than HT, you might consider a powerful 2 channel amp. Rotels 1092 is 2x500 :E and would be very good with the FPM's (maybe even overkill), but it would set you up nicely if you upgraded speakers down the road. The 1092 is the same price as the 1077. Having said that, I like the flexibility of the 1077. You can bi-amp your mains for music and run the center/rears off the remaining 3 channels. All in a 3 inch package. :T

My opinion of bi-amping is that dedicated channels allows the drivers more freedom to perform at their best. They are not 'competing' over the same current with the other drivers.

http://www.htguide.com/forum/showthread.php4?t=20480&highlight=1077+owner

Hope this helps.

[Nolan B]

Vancouver,

I did bi-amp Nautilus B&W's with a 1077. My review is below. I would tend to agree with clepto. The 1077 bi-amped should be a bigger jump than going form a 1067 to a 1068 pre-pro. I think waiting on a pre/pro is not a bad idea. Let the formats settle themselves out.

If you are into music more than HT, you might consider a powerful 2 channel amp. Rotels 1092 is 2x500 :E and would be very good with the FPM's (maybe even overkill), but it would set you up nicely if you upgraded speakers down the road. The 1092 is the same price as the 1077. Having said that, I like the flexibility of the 1077. You can bi-amp your mains for music and run the center/rears off the remaining 3 channels. All in a 3 inch package. :T

My opinion of bi-amping is that dedicated channels allows the drivers more freedom to perform at their best. They are not 'competing' over the same current with the other drivers.

http://www.htguide.com/forum/showthread.php4?t=20480&highlight=1077+owner

Hope this helps.

ok, so going with a 1077 and keeping my 1067 until a new Pre amp comes out is the best option? the 1092 is the same price as the 1077 but wont make the speakers sound "better" then having a 1077?

I am 50 HT 50 Music (50 CD / 50 DVD A)

Can yo explain how I would Bi amp my mains using a 1077 with 1067? Would I just my Mains to both the 1067 and 1077?

[foeth]

My opinion of bi-amping is that dedicated channels allows the drivers more freedom to perform at their best.

If you have say 100 Watts for 2 drivers compared to 100 Watts for each driver: yes. But if you have 200 Watt for both drivers versus 100 Watt for each driver, the single 200 Watt offers a better solution. There is no "competition" to speak of. If there is any, both drivers are underpowered!

A single 1077 should suffice, unless you have some weird requirements! Although differences in sound from amp to amp are reported, I doubt you can hear the difference. Perhaps you can try both at the dealer and try to spot any difference. If you do not need the power of the RMB 1092, the RMB 1077 is a better choice, especially a black one

[nikos]

Can yo explain how I would Bi amp my mains using a 1077 with 1067? Would I just my Mains to both the 1067 and 1077?

You wouldn't be using the 1067 to power anything!!!
You'd be using it as a pre and sending the signal to the 1077.
The 1077 would use 3 of the channels to power your center and surrounds speakers and send 2 channels to each of your speakers.

Basically from the 1067 out for the front speakers you will you use a Y connector that would take the single L (speaker) feed for example and split it into 2 of the 1077 inputs. You do the same for R.

From the 1077 you run 2 speaker wire runs to your dual binding post of each speaker...

------
The 1092 option...would mean you use it as the only source to power your fronts and leave the rest as they are.

Hope this helps.

Nikos

[htsteve]

Vancouver,

As nikos described, bi-amping is relatively simple, a y connector on the 1067 and a extra pair of pre-out cables is all that is needed. That is what I did from my 1068 to the 1077. Audioquest has some quality y connectors, I'm sure there are others. Based on your HT/music split, I would tend to recommend the 1077 for your needs. You do enough HT and multi-channel music to warrant this. A 1092 may make the main speakers sound 'better', but it is just two speakers. Contrast this to making all of the speakers better with a 1077. The 1077 seems to be the best fit.


foeth,

Prior to listening to the 1077, I would tend to agree with your assessment (200 watts of one channel vs. 100 watts of two). However, my own ears say that the bi-amped 1077 on the 804's is better than the 200 watts of the 1080. The 1077 is a different type of amp that I'm used to (small, cool temp and excellent performance). But to me, the performance speaks for itself. Also, I had my rear channels (705's) driven by one channel of a 1095 (200w). I now have them bi-amped with a 1066 (2 x 60w per speaker). There was less overall volume (fixed in the 1068). I was surprised that the midrange and high end seem to open up more with the bi-amp (even my wife noticed :E ). Didn't really expect it, but a pleasant surprise anyway.


Hope this helps.

[foeth]

However, my own ears say that the bi-amped 1077 on the 804's is better than the 200 watts of the 1080. The 1077 is a different type of amp that I'm used to (small, cool temp and excellent performance). But to me, the performance speaks for itself.

Ah ok! I haven't done any amp-changing with the 1077 mainly because I err.. dont have any other amps I still have to find out if bi-amping makes any difference for my mains, jsut for the fun of it

[Kevin D]

Prior to listening to the 1077, I would tend to agree with your assessment (200 watts of one channel vs. 100 watts of two). However, my own ears say that the bi-amped 1077 on the 804's is better than the 200 watts of the 1080.

Hope this helps.

In my experience, the 100 watts from a 1077 is just about equal to the 200 watts from a 1080. A better comparison would be 2 1080's vs 4 channels of a 1077.

Kevin D.