If bi-amping is so great, why do some high end speakers not support it?
I’m sure a number of you have much more technical knowledge
than I. so I’m wondering: a lot of people stress the value of bi-amping. My
speakers (B&W CM9, and Monitor Audio PL100II) both offer the option. I use
it on the Monitors, and I think it helps.
But I’ve noticed many speakers upward of $5k, and some more
than $50k (e.g., some of Magico) aren’t set up for it.
Am I missing something? Or is this just one of the issues on
which there are very different opinions with no way to settle the disagreement?
Pretty obvious that some folks like it one way and some the other. As Tomic posted above, the bass and can affect the HF, so it helps to separate them. I have heard my Quatro's wired both ways now as I had some Kimber around that allowed a true bi wire. I personally don't like the Kimber cables and that's why they were in my trunk. The point is that when bi wired, it was much better. The bass was tighter and the HF's were much more coherent. My wife agreed as did the rest of my family that was visiting. I don't think they will forgive me for subjecting them to this unscientific observation, lol....
Bi-amping makes an audible difference in for me. My Carver AL III+ are bi-amped with 375W p/c to the ribbons and 150W p/c to the woofers. Noticeable difference in airiness. My Klipsch's are bi-amped with 100W p/c to the tweeter and 200W p/c to the midrange (+ powered subs). I can hear a distinct difference with bi-amping with the Klipsch also. Tried A/B comparisons and bi-amping won out.
I submitted an email question on the subject to Richard Vandersteen and he kindly responded. My question was specific to my 2Ci speakers and his response was he no longer recommends bi-amping for model 2s, including new models. No additional explanation was provided.
if a renowned audio engineer and speaker designer has designed their speakers to be bi wired and or bi amped, then it is very wise for a consumer to follow their directions
Dick V. is highly respected and has been working towards maximizing SQ in his given designs for decades - it took me months of careful listening for hours every day to decide to move from Vandies to Maggies (and I understand if others make the opposite move)
Bi-amping with tone controls using vintage amps, that is where it is at. For around 800USD one can have two Ymaha Class A amps or Luxman Class A running their system. You can adjust treble, mids and bass to get the best out of recording. My speakers are always lacking in bass on Jazz or Hard Rock. One touch of tone control and the bass comes out... I recently bought wide buffle speakers from Pioneer that are capable of tri-amping (not that I am gonna do it) but just to show that the ideas are very old as Pioneers are from 1970s. I'm lately became drawn to wide baffle sound (JBL, Wilson, Devore) and really come to dislike thin sound of the narrow baffle speakers.
Yes, Vandersteen has a white paper. He was sharing at Audio Connections during one of his visits. I've spoken very recently with him about bi wiring and I can't share what he said, because I honestly don't remember it, lol. I do however remember his saying something about the powered speakers don't benefit quite as much as the non powered speakers. Something about the bass. I'll try to find out what I can when I'm able to.
It's a very interesting debate, but honestly, if a designer has designed their speakers to be bi wired and or bi amped, then I don't see how we can say they are wrong. The bi amping basically is to help with the bass control and that in turn will also free up the upper amp to deal with the speed and control of the mid and lower any problems you may have with dynamics. It would make sense that is what he's doing with using powered subs in the Quatro on up. I just switched from Treo to Quatro and it's not just the bass that is better (especially with the 11 band room eq), but everything is so much better. JMHO
ctsooner, the only scientific logic I can intuitively understand about the benefits of bi-wiring is the reduction in the cable resistance by doubling the length of the cables. The downside being the proportional increase in the cable capacitance, inductance, etc. The net effect could of course yield improvement in the SQ. Do you know what other design considerations might be in play that could further strengthen the argument for bi-wiring?
Have you ever heard Vandersteen speakers (any of them from 2's up) played in both bi wired and then in non bi wired? I only bring them up, because I have done this many times with many of their speakers. There are plenty of other manufacturer's who you can say the same about. Some folks just put the option in as a marketing ploy, but many do design their speakers to be bi wired and there is solid engineering behind it. Just youtube some of the designers as they have addressed this often on panels at show's.
That's fine that you feel the way you do, but you may want to go listen before saying it's for the birds. lol.
My first foray into bi-amping around 1987 was a total disaster: I tried bi-amping my Magnepan MG 3A using an ARC D115 mkII on the Treble/Midrange and a very powerful (400W) solid state amp on the bass that I had on loan from a dealer. The Magnepan passive XO-1 was used to split the signal. I was unable to adjust the volume level of the solid state amp so the sound was unbalanced and distorted (too much bass). Fast forward to 2005: I was now using an ARC VT100 mkII to drive my Magnepan MG 3.5. The sound was good but was limited in ultimate dynamics, bass impact and occasionally experienced clipping on crescendos. I had a pair of Kenwood L07 monobocks for several years in my closet. So I decided to biamp my Maggies using the L07s on the bass and the VT100 on the treble/midrange. However, this time, I purchased an active electronic x-over from Marchand (XM126). After much experimentation with slopes and levels the resulting sound was completely transformed. Dynamics, bass impact and control and overall sound were significantly improved.
With the experience gleaned from biamping my MG3.5, I was able to bi-amp my Magnepan 20.1 with excellent results. Bi-amping allowed me to keep my VT100 mkII to drive the treble/midrange, with the L07s driving the bass. Otherwise I would have to purchase a more powerful and expensive amp to drive the 20.1 full range.
In theory, the insertion of an active x-over devise in the signal path between the preamp and amp has deleterious effect on the transparency of the system. However, this was ameliorated to some extent by my selection of a tube x-over. Additionally, I built my own x-over modules using top grade caps and TX-2575 low noise film resistors. Thus the loss of transparency was virtually unnoticeable. In summary, biamping can be beneficial to the sound of your system, but careful matching of amplifiers is imperative and requires a quality active electronic x-over.
Another bit of a news from bi-amping experiments. Have you ever tried to run tweeter only and listen to the quality of your treble/tweeter alone? Holly cats, I tried that on a several recordings considered to be really well mastered and I came to unfortunate conclusion that my tweeters are compressed hot mess. I know to some this might sound like revelations of an audio-novice, but I never considered testing any speakers by listening to transducers separately just to see the quality of the sound they are capable. Try it with your speakers, but don't say I did not warn you.
my comments are limited to biwiring of which there is science ar work the case can be made that a bass cable in close proximity to midrange cable WILL modulate the HF signal by changing magnetic field. hence Vandersteen staking out a strong scientific and listening based preference for external biwiring... download one of his manuals for a nuanced approah to getting more out of your system ( speaker placement in the room using,,,,eek math !!!) as well and bi-amp, vertical bi-amp, biwire, etc
Sorry I caused some confusion by writing bi-wire where I meant (vertical) bi-amping. I asked a more specific question in a Vandersteen thread I had already started.
dkzzzz, tone controls are one of those things that purists as you say, don't like. I agree with you and I know many designers who also do. That said, I've never heard digital EQ that didn't somehow change the sound of the spectrum elsewhere in the speaker. Many of you will disagree and that's fine, but I've heard a lot of digital EQ done with very high end system and or speakers that have it built in and I haven't felt the results were worth it as you help alleviate one problem, while cause another one.
I've heard a system using a parametric EQ that, to my ears, did a really good job, but you really have to know what you are doing when using one. Many of us love 70/80 rock and could really use a pre that offered it in somehow. Most of the recordings are really hot on top and they mess with the rest of the spectrum also. I have been in a few studios back in the day and saw engineers making tiny adjustments, but it was always riding a gain pot and it almost seemed that they wanted to justify their jobs and validate what they do, lol. Not taking shot's at the engineers, but we hear what we hear on the recordings and most will agree that they aren't usually the best sounding. Great music though and that's what it's about.
Level matching amps from the same manufacturer.... No that is completely contrary to what I am trying to achieve. I want to have control of the treble and bass separate from each other. I don’t always agree with mastering engineer decisions on how the record should sound. In those cases where I feel treble is out of control or bass is severely lacking , I want to be able to use tone control and volume separately for Treble and Bass. So when particular recording or my own speakers don’t deliver desired tonal balance to my ear I will intervene and adjust to my liking. On a side note; I have heard that tone controls are frown upon by purists, but to my logic : why spend thousands upon thousands on your gear and listen to someone else idea of the music instead of adjusting it every time to your particular liking?
@kalali The benefit of doing that is the speaker cables are kept shortest, while one channel will be a lot more demanded that the other one just because of power draw for each band.
Alternatively, using the same two stereo amps, one for L and R bass and the other for the top will give a balanced draw for both channels at each amp at the expense of longer speaker cables.
Kalali, You can go to the Ask Ricard part of their site and ask your question there. I have heard it set up this way with NAD amps as well as Belles amps and boy does it make a nice difference. You can really get a lot of high end sound out of those 2Ci's. I've heard them run with my Ayre AX5/20 integrated and it really showed off what they can do. There is a reason it's the best selling speaker of all time for the high end. Fanboy here, lol.
In the manual for my new (to me) Vandersteen 2Ci speakers, their recommended version of (vertical) bi-amping is using two stereo amplifiers each driving one speaker with the left output driving the tweeter/midrange and the right connected to the bass. Maybe this is common but I'd not seen this sort of configuration before.
My one experience was positive but perhaps not that common. Many years ago I had a pair of Brian Cheney's VMPS Supertowers, a fairly ambitious 5(?)-way design where the bi-amp option allowed for a 2nd amp to drive the woofers separate from the mids and tweeter array. This worked quite well as it allowed dialing in a better balanced bass in room.
Imagine if you did it with two amps of the same make/sound. That's where the true magic is. I have heard a few speakers bi and even tri amped with NAD amps. Just takes some systems to a new level. As was stated above, no feedback messing with other drivers and each amp is freed up to only worry about a segment of the market if you would. Makes a huge difference, but in the US, most want so much control over their systems, they won't even look at semi or fully active speakers which is too bad. At least with fully active you hear them the way the designer built them and if you don't like them, move onto other's you do like.
I had my first bi-amping epiphany today. I never believed it is useful to do with just two dumb power amps. I was bored today and connected two integrated amps with tone controls to my speakers. I let Ayre run my treble and then vintage Marantz to run my mids and bass. I adjusted tone controls for more bass, adjusted balance since LP was playing uneven in volume. I was shocked how much more decent bass I have extracted from my speakers that were always light in that department. The difference is HUGE. So if you want to play around with bi-amping try two integrated amps with at least VOLUME control, so that you can adjust the sound for the type of music you are playing. My speakers came alive after 8 years for the first time. I listened to some classic jazz and
Leonard Cohen, it sounded so, so good.... I am going to do the same to Wilsons when my Luxman returns from recap service.
bi-amping can be great but it depends on the application. there really are not many disadvantages for speaker makers except the slight expense to add the additional wiring, binding posts and jumpers. the advantages are the ability to have a more dynamic presentation through increased amplifier power, the ability to isolate the tweeters and midrange drivers from the woofer amplifier which may clip at higher volumes. the clipping of the woofer amp basically becomes inaudible because it is subject to the woofer's crossover. The midrange / tweeter amp will never clip because of the reduced demand on the amplifier to play those frequencies. the ampfliers need to have the same gain or the ability to be level matched. doing so will not affect the voicing of the crossovers. i had an incredibly dynamic powerful sounding system with PSB tower speakers seeing 150 watts on the woofers and 100 watts at the tweeter / midrange, amplifier gain was identical. the system was able to play much louder and had no audible sense of strain, compression or distortion.
My current speakers, Sonist Recital 3s, sound MUCH better biwired, my previous speakers, Silverline Preludes, did not. I discovered this (with the Preludes anyway) after talking to the designer, Alan Yun, who said the Preludes would be "more coherant" single wired…he was right. Biamped (or even tramped) "active" speakers can sound astonishingly good if well designed, and I've used various forms of those in pro audio and studio work, but prefer (for live sound anyway) passive speakers when I have the choice due to field problem solving ease if something goes out. Note that not only are RCAs used in pro stuff, but 1/4" phone plugs are everywhere…strange but true…although I prefer XLRs and Neutrik Speakon plugs whenever appropriate.
Adding (a) powered sub(s) with built-in x/o filters IS a form of bi-amping, but doing so does NOT replace the speaker-level x/o, which is left in place to divide the signal for the speakers’ (not the subs’) woofers vs. tweeters.
There has been mention here of digital active x/o’s, but there are still analog x/o’s available, for anyone not wishing to turn his LP’s, 78’s, 45’s, tapes, and FM signal into digits. Two reasonably-priced good ones are made by Marchand and First Watt (Nelson Pass), both around a grand. Bi-amping works only with speakers designed to be so used---Maggie 20.1’s, for example, are, 20.7’s are not (just as 3.6’s are and 3.7’s are not, same with 1.6’s vs. 1.7’s).
The pre-.7 Maggies can be bi-amped using an active electronic x/o because their stock speaker-level x/o's are textbook parallel designs, easily duplicated by an outboard x/o. The .7 speakers have series x/o, not so easily duplicated. Any speaker having corrective filters (Zobel networks, to correct for any driver misbehavior) also make bi-amping complicated.
One reason bi-amping can improve the sound of a speaker that has not been mentioned here (I don't believe), is that powering each driver with a separate, dedicated amp prevents the back-emf (electro-magnetic force) that a woofer sends back to the amp powering it can not reach the tweeter (in a 2-way loudspeaker). The advantage of that arrangement should be obvious!
I use an Ayre amp and DAC run only in balanced mode. I use Vandersteen Quatro's that are a semi active speaker (active subs built in). Richard has been at this as long as nearly any other designer and knows what he's doing. He measures, builds and listens. He takes into account everything a designer needs to.
I personally love the idea of a full y active system. That's the way a designer wants it to sound. Now if you don't like how it sounds, move on. My favorite system of all time, regardless of cost is the Vandersteen 7 mk2 with his own amp (speaker cable included as is the passive crossover that's built into the amp. The amp also has the DBS unit that Audioquest uses (Richard I believe is a co inventor) as well as the well received HRS systems vibration control system and to top it all off, his amp as well as the amps in the 7's has the Audioquest Niagara technology built in.
Folks don't often realize what's inside a speaker or amp etc... To me, it's a fully active system as it was designed that way. Add a pre and run a source into it and then add a top end pair of AQ balanced interconnect and you have a GREAT system, that's simple and sounds outstanding to most of us.
Everyone talks about synergy and often forget about it when assembling their systems.
Bi amp? if the speaker allows, it can sound so much better than not going it. I do feel strongly that you shouldn't go with two lesser amps as I've never heard system sound better with lesser electronics. Again, that's just me. Bi wire, as I said earlier, yes if it's designed that way as Vandersteen and some others are. It's all in the implementation.
Isn’t the use of active sub-woofers bi-amping? (Yes) I have tube amps, are people still using passive sub-woofers vs. powered ones, e.g. class-d? (I have 2 passive subwoofers with my mains with a Pass x250 powering and 2 high quality class d active subwoofers in room) No one mentioned the quality of the active X-over. There has to be a wide range in quality. (Yes, I recommend that it operate at least 24bit/96kHz which resolves the range of human hearing) Like wise there was no mention of tri-amping. Wouldn’t leaving a passive X-over between the mid and high drivers and actively feeding the bass really be a hybrid? (Yes, Ex my 20.1 Maggies, there is an undefeatable crossover for the high/mid so one is really biamping mid/high and low) It can be done to defeat this crossover and add an additional channel and stereo amp but the slopes and volume better be right or the tweeter will blow)
I agree, true balanced XLR are the best connections to reject all noise from the line. I use it in all but one (optical) connection. A high quality RCA can be used for short distances but one has to be careful to keep any noise inducing things away such as power supplies, cords, chargers, etc. Use balanced whenever possible. :)
No not deaf. However for those few seeking audiophile high quality sound (through biamping and all manner of extra tweaks and high end gear) might simply consider the hypocracy of using 2nd rate cheap RCA interconnect approach for line level when a superior method is available and in wide use by professionals.
I don’t see a value in biwiring or biamping unless you have an active crossover. It does offer the possibility of using less expensive high quality amps to achieve a higher total power output to drive your speakers than the cost of a high powered amp with comparable stats of the two combined. . . Like others here I think that most manufacturers don’t want people to get into speaker design (building crossover networks) as most implementations will not deliver as good a final product as all of their research has shown. To implement a crossover, measurement software and hardware needs to be used. When executed properly the results can be stunning but often fall short due to the experience of the person trying to build it. I personally opted for the older 20.1 Magnepans exactly for the ability to build a crossover network and actively biamp the mains with matching amps. I played around with the slopes and type of crossover and found that their factory suggestions were best to start with. Custom crossovers have been implemented using REW and MSO but most affected is the bass region, little was corrected on the mains.
Folks can say what they want about bi wiring, but Vandersteen designs all his speakers to be bi wired and they do sound better doing it. I trust my ears. I know what engineers may say, but again, the ears don't lie. There are plenty of things that can't always be explained in audio and that could be because we don't have the measurements for them yet.
Since Richard has no skin in the wire business, there is no way he'd espouse this if it didn't make a difference for the positive in his speakers.
I've also heard them bi amp'd. Once in a store, I didn't like it. He used less than stellar amps doing this. Another time when I heard at a friends house, it sounded the best I've heard the Treo's sound. He was using all Audio Research amps and I think keeping in the same company made the world of difference. JMHO
For for those engineers who dispute what I am hearing, the fact is that you can't because you aren't in my head, lol. All of audio is subjective. The first time I heard bi wiring of the Vandersteen's, I had no idea that he was changing anything in the system. I was listening to a track and then he took a few minutes and unhooked the second run, but I didn't know it. It was pretty easy to tell which was which. I know many who feel the same way and some, who have never heard the Vandy's both ways, make statements about how they sound....even though they have never heard them. Just saying.
For you who are not aware, biwiring does not exist electrically. Use a 20 amp capacity wire vs. 2 tens. There is no difference. You might say use 2 20's? Then use one 40.
Theoretically, biamping can be better due to bypassing crossovers. I have found that my pair of Audire Forte amps are less fatiguing when biamping my 803's, but my slightless less powerful class A Audire amp does not need to be paired to maintain the best sound. Of course, subs are required either way, and the Forte's excell with them.
Multiamping needs active filters to start making sense (today mostly with DSP). Speaker passive crossovers should be removed. Whether such configuration can sound better is a matter of implementation. With very good amplifiers and passive crossovers speakers can sound excellent. IMHO digital filters need to be done with at least 172 kHz sampling
Wilson and Magico can't be bi amped as those companies put a great deal of time and money into the design of their crossovers and how they work with their drivers. In their case much of the money your spending is for that resulting sound. So maybe bi amping improves the sound for some less expensive brands.
So, shardorne, are you saying those of us who've been listening and continue to listen to gear with (only) single ended connections, been hearing crappy sound with ground loop hiss mixed with RF noise all this time? We must be deaf... for sure. Sorry, completely off topic.
Regarding biwire and speaker manufacturers. Jim Salk of Salk Sound doesn't think that it matters for sound but he advises his buyers to allow for that capability as it can help resale value.
sorry to break any sacred cows but RCA uses ground as a wire - so no shield
you obviously have not used a multitude of equipment as you would have observed first hand that XLR always has less hum or RF noise or ground loop hiss.
RCA is just cheap crap and obviously very popular for that reason
A further note. The speaker crossovers should be disconnected before the bi-amped signal is delivered. If you don't, nothing will explode, but the clean bi-amped signal will have to drive the speaker crossover, which, being made of inferior parts, will eliminate much of the benefit of bi-amping.
High priced speaker is not necessarily high fidelity. RCA is a crap connection but you find it everywhere because it is cheap and convenient even if it is inferior to XLR
I believe the answer is in how well either alternative is implemented, like so many things in audio. I have tried it multiple ways and success was directly related to my skill level at the time.
From a speaker manufacturer standpoint, providing just 2 binding posts and preventing the inexperienced user from biamping insures the user won't mess up and their carefully deigned passive crossover will be used as intended. Then some speaker builders I think include two sets of binding posts because their marketing department tells them this is what customers want to see...I believe this is the case for B&W. I own their 804S speaker and like it a lot.
About 5 years ago I tried with my current speakers, my McIntosh MC275 for mids/treble, and a 200W SS for the woofers, both fed from the preamp. The MC275 have gain adjustment so I could level match both amps. Both amps were receibing the full bandwidth from the preamp. I didn't like it vs. only using the MC275 to feed the whole 804S.
A number of things I've learnt over these years and my system front end migrated to a highly optimized computer. Again, it's about how these are implemented. But part of the goal of using a computer was to allow me to use digital crossovers in there and have an active system, so a system where the DAC processes mids/treble, midbass, bass in a separate channel, feeds that to a dedicated amp, and the amp straight to a driver. So now the amp only receives the bandwidth it's supposed to play. I still have the 804S and the MC275 driving the midrange/treble (still using that passive xo until I get another amp), have class D amps driving the bottom of the 804S, and have powered subs. This is A LOT better than with the 275 driving all.
Performance now is much better than single amping. The regular argument then goes "but your amp section is now much more expensive". This is true, but when thinking the system as a whole I am doing without my beloved Lamm preamp, and using a more expensive DAC than I used to. All in all, my system now adds up to the same it used to - actually even less.
Still there is a hidden cost: I consciously gave up analog sources (even CD players from their analog outputs). By doing this I could focus on digital and optimize it. But my system has never sounded better. No going back for me. In fact, I'm moving forward yet: get another amp, and remove the passive crossover between tweeter and midrange.
You must have a verified phone number and physical address in order to post in the Audiogon Forums. Please return to Audiogon.com and complete this step. If you have any questions please contact Support.
