Biamping is good ONLY in the case of a speaker manufacturer purposefully including an electronic crossover as part of the integral design of the loudspeaker. A case in point is the Waveform Mach 17: John Otvös includes a Bryston electronic crossover in the price of the speakers specifically for biamplification. The crossover point and the slope of the signal are carefully controlled, the only variable being a shelving control to balance the relative level of the driver units. After having had tri-amplified systems with electronic crossovers, my current speakers also are adaptable, via passive crossovers, to bi- or tri-amplification. This system is NOT run biamplified, seeing no advantage with passive crossovers to biamplify (or triamplify) the system. The subwoofer has its own electronic crossover and integral amplifier, so technically this is a biamplified system, but not in the sense of driving a full-range speaker system with more than one amplifier per channel. So if your speakers do not come with an electronic crossover, then it is senseless to biamplify them, your sound will be no better.
Biamping -- any good?
Recently, I read a speaker review in which the reviewer indicated that biamplification (versus use of the conventional single-amp configuration) had noticeably improved the sound quality of his speakers. I find this to be very interesting; however, having no experience in this area, I was wondering if anyone would care to share their good/bad experiences? The info you provide will assist me in determining whether I should pursue this aspect of audio or not.
- ...
- 9 posts total
- 9 posts total