Hi,
I'm electronically challenged, so I don't know how to just do this myself, and this looks like a pretty savvy crowd! Very cool site, btw, as I am spending time here learning about digital amps - very exciting!
On my two-ways, there is a cap and coil on each pass, and a 4 ohm resistor on the high pass (but it all looks like its connected together to me!)
I need to try my speakers Bi-Amped to try out this multi-channel receiver I'm playing with, which I believe means that I need to put half on each? (high pass on one, low pass on the other) By any chance, can someone help me with this? (This receiver cannot be bridged, but it can be used for bi-amping) Does this mean just separating the high/low pass circuits?
How much of a difference can bi-amping make? It appears I am running short on dynamics, and this was the idea suggeted to me. The binding posts will be interesting, but I can hang something off the back, or fasten it to the back with more binding posts on it. (for now)
TIA -
Mark
I'm electronically challenged, so I don't know how to just do this myself, and this looks like a pretty savvy crowd! Very cool site, btw, as I am spending time here learning about digital amps - very exciting!
On my two-ways, there is a cap and coil on each pass, and a 4 ohm resistor on the high pass (but it all looks like its connected together to me!)
I need to try my speakers Bi-Amped to try out this multi-channel receiver I'm playing with, which I believe means that I need to put half on each? (high pass on one, low pass on the other) By any chance, can someone help me with this? (This receiver cannot be bridged, but it can be used for bi-amping) Does this mean just separating the high/low pass circuits?
How much of a difference can bi-amping make? It appears I am running short on dynamics, and this was the idea suggeted to me. The binding posts will be interesting, but I can hang something off the back, or fasten it to the back with more binding posts on it. (for now)
TIA -
Mark
Many do not believe me but I am an advocate for bi-wiring and bi-amplifying.
I have a pair of Tannoy HPDs. They were terminated for single wiring only.
I used them for some years with a single stereo Crimson 1704.
I opened up the passive crossover and added a wire to allow twin sets of terminals to be fitted.
Listen now with bi-wiring. Small but easily perceptible improvements to bass and to stereo image location.
Later I built a second stereo Crimson 1704.
Now I could bi-amplify, with shorter cables.
The change was much bigger than the change brought about by bi-wiring. It was almost like a new pair of speakers. Tremendous bass extension, better treble detail, better image location. Everything seemed better, except the cost.
I have never gone back to single amplifiers on long term solution. All my 2way and 3way speakers perform better when bi or tri-amplified.
I have tried active speakers on one occasion. I could never get them to sound as good as with passive bi-amping. It's a project on long term hold, until I find the time to develop an active crossover that at least matches the standard passive 2way crossover.
By the way,
the Tannoys are 8ohm and the amplifiers are supposedly built to drive 4ohm speakers and self protect at 2r7 loading.
I have a pair of Tannoy HPDs. They were terminated for single wiring only.
I used them for some years with a single stereo Crimson 1704.
I opened up the passive crossover and added a wire to allow twin sets of terminals to be fitted.
Listen now with bi-wiring. Small but easily perceptible improvements to bass and to stereo image location.
Later I built a second stereo Crimson 1704.
Now I could bi-amplify, with shorter cables.
The change was much bigger than the change brought about by bi-wiring. It was almost like a new pair of speakers. Tremendous bass extension, better treble detail, better image location. Everything seemed better, except the cost.
I have never gone back to single amplifiers on long term solution. All my 2way and 3way speakers perform better when bi or tri-amplified.
I have tried active speakers on one occasion. I could never get them to sound as good as with passive bi-amping. It's a project on long term hold, until I find the time to develop an active crossover that at least matches the standard passive 2way crossover.
By the way,
the Tannoys are 8ohm and the amplifiers are supposedly built to drive 4ohm speakers and self protect at 2r7 loading.
Last edited:
Do you have 2 seperate sets binding posts on the back of your speaker? Do you have 4 total?
If you don't, you'll have to seperate the high pass (HP) filter from the low pass (LP)filter wiring inside the speakers and add another set of binding posts to the speakers. Shouldn't be too hard. Just keep all LP seperate from HP connections.
There is an audible difference.
If you don't, you'll have to seperate the high pass (HP) filter from the low pass (LP)filter wiring inside the speakers and add another set of binding posts to the speakers. Shouldn't be too hard. Just keep all LP seperate from HP connections.
There is an audible difference.
1. I don't know of ANY receiver that does bi-amping (what is the make and model?) as that would require a consumer to have an in depth knowledge of frequency cutoff's, filter slopes, filter types and such.
2. More likely you mean bi-WIRING were you have full-range signals run through separate parallel paths to the speakers using the passive XO in the speakers to filter the frequencies.
If no. 2 is correct then your speakers need bi-wire binding posts (2 stereo pairs for 4 total).
More than likely you are using it with a HT processor and if you require more dynamic range you can set the main spkrs to "small" and add stereo powered subs to increase SPL.
Good luck.. (I SAID GOOD LUCK...) 😀
Last edited:
Some loudspeaker crossover networks are easy to split for bi-amping. Other networks use shared PC traces and/or components and will require some knowledge and skill to separate.
I don't know of ANY that don't do it. All you need are two of them assuming they are stereo. And one if it is multichannel. Using a recievers A/B section doesn't work though because most likely A and B are just connected to the same amps.
A common misconception that seems to be floating around. You can in fact Bi-amp with a passive crossover. You just need the HP and LP connected to it's own respective binding post. It is true that you do not gain all of the benefits of using an active crossover but it does alleviate what possibly is the worst deficiency of a tradition passive crossover with monoamping - intermodulation of the mid and/or bass driver with the tweeter.
And yes it is true that some audiophiles Bi-wire without Bi-amping but this is not the same thing. In that case I doubt there is much of an effect if any.
Using a NAD (or the like) with internal amp powering top end, and RCA outs to an external amp (usually larger) to power the low end is bi-amping. And it is an incremental improvement over single amping or bi-wiring. You can even do it with identical amps providing the same pwr to all drivers.
That is..... Not the smartest move.
If you are going to make the effort to bi-amp, use an electronic xo and use the amps more efficiently.
That is..... Not the smartest move.
If you are going to make the effort to bi-amp, use an electronic xo and use the amps more efficiently.
Some home theater receivers support sending the same source channel to multiple amplifiers for what audiophiles would call passive bi-amping and I'd refer to as active bi-wiring.
this is bad advice when bi-amping guarantees results whereas active crossover into power amp direct to drivers is virtually guaranteed failure if one does not have the skills to complete the driver/amp EQ that the standard passive crossover was designed to achieve.1. I don't know of ANY receiver that does bi-amping (what is the make and model?) as that would require a consumer to have an in depth knowledge of frequency cutoff's, filter slopes, filter types and such.
2. More likely you mean bi-WIRING were you have full-range signals run through separate parallel paths to the speakers using the passive XO in the speakers to filter the frequencies.
If no. 2 is correct then your speakers need bi-wire binding posts (2 stereo pairs for 4 total).
More than likely you are using it with a HT processor and if you require more dynamic range you can set the main spkrs to "small" and add stereo powered subs to increase SPL.
Good luck.. (I SAID GOOD LUCK...) 😀
I have already failed to reach the same standard as the passive crossover using the active approach.
My "advice" for more dynamics, as Mark requested, was to set the receiver to "small speakers mode" (active high-pass) and get stereo powered subs...
I do not think he is ready for an all electronic xo/eq/** system. <funny, it removed "b" and "s" for baffle step as a bad word>
Mark-
If you post a picture of your speaker XO I am positive we can advise on whether it is single wire or bi-wire capable and how "easy" it may be to set it up for bi-wire / amp operation. However I don't think that will get the end results you are looking for.
Last edited:
Page 46...
http://www.pioneerelectronics.com/p...1/218219130VSX1015TXOperatingInstructions.pdf
I will read more of the manual tonight to see if the active filters are usable in the bi-amp mode or if it is just parallel full range amp channels.
I am running my Tannoys active (incl. two bands of parametric eq per channel). The process was fairly easy and the improvement nothing short of dramatic. The Tannoys were not the first speakers I activated, implementation of active xovers is a LOT easier than designing passive ones and the results substantially superior to passives in every case I witnessed. Especially the bass response of passives tends to be very mushy indeed when compared to actives.
Thanks to a number of posters here for the help. I was wondering about the possibility of screwing up the existing x/o's characteristics by separating it into LP and HP.
Troy, I think you've got a real good response to the original desire, to set to small and go with a sub, and that would free up some power, but, I have to add a sub, and I have to x/o it pretty low or lose directionality to as low as 40 Hz, which won't save as much power, and I have no intention of taking the good, two-channel base response I presently have and making it monophonic - paradoxically for improvement.
Who am I kidding? I can't make the amp have a more dynamic character than it does, can I? We'll see, because this doesn't sound hard to try.
I don't have a diagram for the x/os but I soon will. I recall one cap and one coil on each pass, and a resistor on the HP, 1st-order. And one set of binding posts on the back. And so I am going to have to separate the LP and HP, but keep them as their own circuits, and friggle in another set of binding posts, maybe hanging on wire off the back? I'm not sure exactly how I would want to do that. I'm not one to get cosmetically hung up, but I was imagining maybe hanging connectors sticking out of a hole in the existing cup? Any ideas?
TIA!
- Mark
Troy, I think you've got a real good response to the original desire, to set to small and go with a sub, and that would free up some power, but, I have to add a sub, and I have to x/o it pretty low or lose directionality to as low as 40 Hz, which won't save as much power, and I have no intention of taking the good, two-channel base response I presently have and making it monophonic - paradoxically for improvement.
Who am I kidding? I can't make the amp have a more dynamic character than it does, can I? We'll see, because this doesn't sound hard to try.
I don't have a diagram for the x/os but I soon will. I recall one cap and one coil on each pass, and a resistor on the HP, 1st-order. And one set of binding posts on the back. And so I am going to have to separate the LP and HP, but keep them as their own circuits, and friggle in another set of binding posts, maybe hanging on wire off the back? I'm not sure exactly how I would want to do that. I'm not one to get cosmetically hung up, but I was imagining maybe hanging connectors sticking out of a hole in the existing cup? Any ideas?
TIA!
- Mark
Troysg,
This is a Marantz sr7002, and it supports using two back channels for bi-amping with the front left-right channels. There are, in this case, one amplifier driving each set of binding posts of the front left/right speakers. This is what Marantz tells me is "bi-amping", and it agrees with whatever I've heard it called before. Two amplifiers are being used to drive one passive speaker system, which has double the binding posts on the back, and which presumably divides the total passive system up amongst the two amplifiers.
This thread is the first time I have ever heard of "bi-wiring", which sounds to me like perhaps an effective equivalent of bridging (are two amps used to drive one thing?) The sr7002 is not bridgable, but it is biampable. Bridging, as I understand it, is when you can combine two amplifiers, where something like the output capacity of the two together can be handled by one of them, which will happen, because they are being combined to support a single channel - not bi-amped, but bridged.
Ok, so those are the things I have heard of.
This is a Marantz sr7002, and it supports using two back channels for bi-amping with the front left-right channels. There are, in this case, one amplifier driving each set of binding posts of the front left/right speakers. This is what Marantz tells me is "bi-amping", and it agrees with whatever I've heard it called before. Two amplifiers are being used to drive one passive speaker system, which has double the binding posts on the back, and which presumably divides the total passive system up amongst the two amplifiers.
This thread is the first time I have ever heard of "bi-wiring", which sounds to me like perhaps an effective equivalent of bridging (are two amps used to drive one thing?) The sr7002 is not bridgable, but it is biampable. Bridging, as I understand it, is when you can combine two amplifiers, where something like the output capacity of the two together can be handled by one of them, which will happen, because they are being combined to support a single channel - not bi-amped, but bridged.
Ok, so those are the things I have heard of.
Markgm,
If you want to find out more about b-amplification and it great benefits, have a look at Rod Elliott's website, Elliott Sound Products - The Audio Pages (Main Index), and specifically, this page, BiAmp (Bi-Amplification - Not Quite Magic, But Close) - Part 1.
Copy and paste links into a browser address line.
I 'activated' a pair of reasonable quality two ways with great results, and it isn't as hard as you might think.
Frank
If you want to find out more about b-amplification and it great benefits, have a look at Rod Elliott's website, Elliott Sound Products - The Audio Pages (Main Index), and specifically, this page, BiAmp (Bi-Amplification - Not Quite Magic, But Close) - Part 1.
Copy and paste links into a browser address line.
I 'activated' a pair of reasonable quality two ways with great results, and it isn't as hard as you might think.
Frank
Page 59 explains the bi-amp operation in this unit and it sure does perform 4 channel independent <edit (FULL RANGE) > amplification. I guess the next step for the mass market rx'er manufacturers will be to add active filters and equalization to the bi-amp option and let consumers customize a front main speaker setup.
Mark-
Bi-wiring does not require bridging and with the right equipment can make an audible improvement. It is simple and inexpensive. A simple digital photo of the spkr xo will get you tons of information about the network from fellow readers. It sounds like a simple 6db 2way w/ tweeter attenuation on single binging posts from your description but that is a guess. If that is the case, get a set of the Parts Express binding posts, and mount them on the cabinet.
Parts-Express.com:*Dayton BPA-38SN HD Binding Post Pair Satin Nickel | Post binding posts binding post binding air dayBinding123008
Parts-Express.com:*Dayton BPGS-25G Binding Post with 1" Thread 2 Pair | bpgs-25G binding post speaker connector speaker terminal gold speaker connector audio connector
Parts-Express.com:*Dayton BPT-38G Binding Post Pair w/Tab | BPT-38G binding post speaker connector speaker terminal gold speaker connector
I use both bi-wiring and bi-amping in my system which requires 3 sets of cables to my speakers. Kimber 4TC (x 2) on the tops and 8PR on the bottoms. I use stereo woofers (not subs) crossed over at 125Hz and they are servo controlled. That is why I recommended the receiver setting of small speaker and adding STEREO (2, two) subs. That way you can cross them over higher than 40Hz (although 80Hz is the generally agreed upon standard for directionality).
I have heard some of the more recent receivers actively crossed with powered woofer systems and they do sound remarkably good for the money. The technology has come a long way so I wouldn't count your receiver out, but rather would look at adding to it.
Last edited:
Ok, thanks for all the inputs. This should turn out to be a good bi-amping experiment. I suppose, since the coils are positioned perp to each other (on the board) and not too far apart, that I could keep them that way, while in separate circuits - which way would you go - keep them sitting as they are, or move them farther apart?
And in the back of the speaker, those are real nice looking binding posts. I am curious as to what effect I should be concerned about drilling holes into the back of the speaker. What if I wanted to remove them later?
TIA -
Mark
And in the back of the speaker, those are real nice looking binding posts. I am curious as to what effect I should be concerned about drilling holes into the back of the speaker. What if I wanted to remove them later?
TIA -
Mark
- Status
- Not open for further replies.