Am I wasting money on the theory of Bi-amping?

@knotscott 

Well thanks for taking a stab- I was thinking more of @unsound than you, as he made the comment about passive crossovers compensating for drier irregularities. But regarding youor comment, yes-its hard to not agree with you!  I agree it is IS difficult to come up with a good clean electronic crossover that's not digital, and then most of those are low end pro units (Behringer, etc) that i wouldnt put in any hi fi rig. I think we'll see more of them in the future though.   .  

@lonemountain, Perhaps you might want to reread my posts.Typical off the shelf active crossovers traditionally have not offered such compensation. The active crossover manufacturers would have had to know in advance what specific speaker parameters were to be considered. The possible variables would be nigh well infinite. As I previously posted; with DSP (and with appropriate measurements) post corrections become a much more practical proposition.

Bi-amping can be a bit complex, but let me explain it in a simple way for you:

Think of your speakers like a team of players in a sports game, and each player has a specific role to play. The internal crossover in your speakers acts like a coach, telling each player what they should do.

Now, in a regular setup (single-amp), one coach is in charge of both teams (high and low frequencies). But in bi-amping, you have two coaches, each specializing in their own team. Here's why people do it:

1. Better Control: With two coaches, you can give more specific instructions to each player. This can make the players (your speakers) perform better because they're not confused by mixed signals.

2. Less Interference: Sometimes, when both teams are listening to the same coach, they might argue or interfere with each other. Having separate coaches can reduce this interference.

3. Power Distribution: If one team needs more power (let's say the low frequencies), you can give them a stronger coach (amp) to handle it, while the other team gets a different coach for their needs.

However, the naysayers have a point too:

1. Speaker Design: Some speakers are designed with internal crossovers that work really well. In such cases, adding external crossovers and extra amps might not make a big difference, and it could even be a waste of resources.

2. Complexity: Bi-amping can be tricky to set up correctly. If you're not careful, you might not get the expected benefits, and it can get expensive with extra amps and cables.

So, it's like having two coaches for your team – it can be beneficial if done right, but not always necessary. It depends on your speakers and your preferences. If you're unsure, you can start with a regular setup and see if you're happy with the sound. If you feel something is missing, then you can explore bi-amping later.

@unsound - You have a point there about active outboard crossovers, and there are very few available. Most active loudspeakers have a purpose built electronic crossover designed specifically for their speaker within their internal or external amps just like passive ones do. Outboard is not where you find most active loudspeaker’s crossover. It’s usually built into the same circuit board as the amps themselves. Its easy to implement the same level of quality throughout the entire signal path.

I think my point was you presented this as "passive crossover advantage is compensation built in" while that is certainly not what I have seen across a long period of time. Im not saying it doesn’t exist, but the typical passive crossover is a simple, passive device that cannot be adjusted and has no "processing". Maybe EQ? Is that what you mean by compensation?

Active is much more likely to include additional controls such as phase controls and individual [band specific] level controls to calibrate the drive units to work as seamlessly together as possible. This is the case with the brand I work with, ATC, and multiple other studio/home speaker companies. I have seen some companies offer full-on EQ within some of their control sets, in both analog and digital form, so a user can tailor a speaker to their liking. Now we are seeing a new wave of loudspeakers with room correction and/or adjustment software within their internal crossovers. Such companies are Genelec, Kii and Dutch and Dutch. This level of control or adjustment is not available in a passive crossover. This means that some common issues a designer chooses to address cannot be accounted for in passive crossover.

By the way, I am NOT advocating that passive speakers should be torn apart and modified- this is far too difficult for most of us to actually pull off without a lot of information that tells us exactly what to do. I am speaking about an active system designed as active by the manufacturer from the beginning with all the parts supplied vs a passive system of the same type designed as passive with all its needed parts. ATC does both active and passive so perhaps I am able to contrast these two ideas without getting lost in gear/brand/type differences.

Probably been mentioned, I didn’t read, too many replies.

Bi-amping with matching amps is of no audible value.

You could Bi-Wire (if that is what the speakers are designed for), that is a different concept: use 1 cable construction for mids and highs; use different cable construction for lows.

Bi-amp is to use what you think is a better sounding amp for mids and highs, needing less power than bass. And use a different amp, perhaps less delicate, but more powerful for the power hungry bass.

You could even mix tubes for the mids and highs and a SS brute for the woofers. Think of self-powered sub-woofers, they typically use SS brutes, perhaps class D to avoid heat while delivering substantial power, while the primary speakers are driven by a ’better’ amp, often tubes.

@lonemoutain, I think we are seeing the same thing from a different angle. The OP seeemed to suggest that he was considering biamping his speakers that have passive cross-overs already included, not active loudspeakers, as that would probably be moot.

 Acitve loudspeakers have existed for some time now, though they seem to be more prevalent in the pro sound market than in the home audiophile market. Though there has been more recent growth in available active speakers geared towards the home market, What you have stated regarding active speakers and true DIY projects are certainly true. But I think that for the home market, speakers with passive crossovers have traditionally domiinated the market place.

Passive speakers can be designed with equaization and/or with compensation for driver irregularities, impedance smoothing, containment rolloff, time and phase corrections with traditional passive parts. I'm not suggesting that this built in compensation is typically user adjustable. Most traditional off the shelf active crossovers only give a number frequency bands for drivers and slope options. Newer digital crossovers offer much more customization.

@elliottbnewcombjr , I had the courtsey of reading the other posts, including yours before jumping in with mine.

Experience has led many away from mixing amplifiers as the passive crossovers will still allow bleed from the amplifers into the other side of the crossover region. The effect of which will vary with the slope of the crossovers used. I think most have concluded that using identical amps advantageous. Most of the modern active loudspeakers are not using tubes in the mix.

Though biwiring typically shouldn't be confused with biamping, mixing cables might have similar effects.

Erratum :  …”containment rolloff,…” would be most typically done with equalization rather than the suggested …”with passive parts.”… 

unsound

my words were dumb, I had 3 dr appts, wife was waiting, usually I have too much time, read all responses to learn stuff. This time, I wanted to send a quickie idea.

I don't understand the crossover stuff, however, MANY add self-powered sub-woofers to their existing systems. Existing system might be tubes, self-powered sub probably class D, that was what I was thinking about.

OP (explain to a 3rd grader) some of these responses are for physics majors)

I was ASSUMING your speakers had a removable jumper, AND their internal crossover was designed for OPTIONAL Bi-Amping (or bi-wiring).

EITHER

leave jumper installed: internal crossover performs as standard: full division of the signal input: resulting, after internal crossover: separate signals for each driver in the system (2 way/3 way)

OR, remove the Jumper, which then uses the internal wiring of the crossover differently: part of the crossover drives only the woofer; the other part drives only the mids and highs.

My AR-2ax crossover is designed for either bi-wire or biamp.

common ground: remove jumper, now crossover portion for the woofer becomes separate from the crossover parts for the mids and highs

NOTE: the circuit includes subsequent in-line connections for level controls to balance the volume of the mid and tweet relative to each driver. This allows you to adjust for a dead space or a live space, or your personal tastes. Many vintage speakers provided level controls, which is separate from removable jumpers.

Jumper removed, bi-wire is possible: choose a cable construction you believe is best for mid/high signals from the amp; and use a separate cable, it’s construction you believe is best for bass notes.

Jumper removed: bi-amp is also possible: one amp in/out of internal crossover feeds the woofer only. other amp in/out of the crossover feeds mid/high drivers only.

Using an external crossover is relative to the removable jumper/internal crossover design.

Bi-Amp ASSUMES, because the bass needs much more power than the mids/highs: use one amp (less power needed) for the mid/high side of the speakers to the external terminals that feed the mid/high side of the internal crossover

and

use a separate amp, more powerful for the bass hungry notes.

Thus, using 2 identical amps is providing the same max power to the crossover, which is why I said no real advantage.

..............................

thus my example: one amp (tube amp perhaps), less powerful for the mids/highs which need less power; and a separate more powerful amp for the power hungry bass, perhaps SS to get more power/less heat/smaller body than a big hot tube amp.

Affordability is also involved, large powerful tube amp for woofer is much more expensive than an equal powered SS amp.

@elliottbnewcombjr : You are using the word Bi amp in such a way as to cconfuse us more.

There is only one explanation for biamp.  Bi-amp requires an external [line level] crossover BEFORE the amplifiers.  The example above is a bi wire set up, with or without jumpers, as a passive [speaker level] crossover is AFTER the amplifiers.  One of the side effects in the bi wire set up is the amps are still running full range and do not specialize in one band: the crossover after them is filtering part of the full range amplfier output out.   Electronic crossover bi-amp divides the preamp output into two, LF and HF, sending only HF to one amp, only LF to the other amp per the instructions from the crossover.  Now you can have the large amp for bass and it will pay off. 

Brad      

lonemountain

"Passive Bi-Amping

Passive bi-amping is what you typically see when bi-amping is discussed. It’s the most common. With Passive bi-amping, you are still using the crossover parts of your speaker to send the correct frequencies to each speaker driver."

this is for speakers whose crossover is designed to alternately accept bi-amp via a removable jumper, as the AR-2ax crossover is. 

"Bi-Amping with an Active System

You can also bi-amp with an active system. This is not very common and only available with a limited number of brands. With an active system, you actually have a separate electronic crossover in front of your two or three amps. It gives each amp the correct set of frequencies and you remove the crossover from the speakers."

My system-

Opera turntable with RS Labs RS-A1 tonearm and Miyajima Shilabe cartridge

Wright Sound Silver Top phono stage

47 labs Shigaraki cd transport

Hagerman Chime DAC

Supratek Cabernet Dual with 6h30 outputs and 101d outputs

tweeter amp Decware SE34I.2

bass amps two SE84CS series strapped into mono

speakers Sonist Concerto 4's

all wired up with mostly 1'st generation Stage III Concepts

Sounds really good to me with the EL34 tubes for the highs being pushed with a 101D

and EL84 tubes being pushed with a 6H30

I think it is system dependent and there are no fast and sure rules!

Bi-amping in a truly high-end system, that has already achieved the level of being highly resolving by virtue of the speakers, amps, and pre-amp is generally a waste of time and money in my experience. However, the one EXCEPTION I have experienced is when one particular amplification set-up may be great for the lows, but not so much for the mids and highs. Long story short, depending on the genres of music you listen to, and especially, if you listen to music with lots of acoustic instruments regardless of genre, you might find that a solid state amp is perfect for achieving tight, punchy low end, but not "gentle and sensitive" enough to correctly re-produce the subtle nuances of various acoustic instruments and vocals, where tube amp might do a better job. Of course there are other technical issues to be considered (ie, impedance mis-matches, etc), so the bottom line is, make certain you have a competent sales/technical rep who knows what they are doing....to go in the bi-amping direction creates issues that one generally never has to consider in a non-bi-amped set-up. Finally, this can become a frustrating (and expensive) situation if you fail to do adequate research concerning your existing system’s parameters.

It’s entirely system dependent , more often then nought by facing challenging speakers, 

I had TOTEM FORESTs in a prior system that are notorious hungrty power hogs .I drove them with a high-current 100 wpc integrated amplifier with mixed performance . WPC in isolation are meaningless , it’s grunt provided by amps that mattered,  

It was only when I introduced a matched stablemate 100 wpc high current power amp to drive the woofers, and designated the integrated amp on the mirsnge/ tweeters, did the FORESTs finally open up to their maximum.

Intuitively, the added costs of separate runsof quality speaker cables, another quslity build power cable, and quslity interconnects in addition to the power amp outlay itself, can be an influencing factor for some.fans, 

Experiment, yourself.is your clear pathway forward. 

I am considering bi-amping my apogee duetta 2 speakers, I think they are a good candidate for bi-amping. There is a lot of information on bi-amping apogee speakers, and they are set up for it also, with some changing of cables in the crossovers.

I guess since in this forum people want to call the bi wiring or some variation of that "biamping", we should at least call it "passive biamping" as per Elliots post. . BIamping - as taught in every audio book ever- is a term (like triamping) from years and years ago to describe an active crossover was in use and amps are driven [band limited] direct to the drivers. NO lossy passive elecronics between amp and driver. This is an important distinction as active biamping elevates performance radically. This slang term "passive baimping " I guess is in use but just confuses the issue needlessly, leading people astray in terms of understanding their own system and whats a worthwhile expense in upgrading it and what is not, The term used solo It implies that "passive biamping".achieves some of the same results as real [active] "biamping" and it doesn’t even come close. Talk to any competent transducer engineer and he or she will explain to you that passive biamping is a marketing term adapted to sell you more cable or more amplifiers.and offers questionable results. In passive biamping, you are throwing half the amp output away as the passive crossover filters that part of the amp output out. All the passive parts separating the driver from the amp remain. The inability to adjust driver phase remains. It improves nothing I can see, save the possibility that just more power could help some speakers sound better (as more power usually does that, most commonly improving bass dynamics). This more power benefit is the same when applied to a single amp system or a true active biamp system: more power usually = better low end.