Is Bi - amping worth the trouble?

Markphd

Passive? Active? Mind clarifying the diffs from one to the other?

My VK5i preamp has two sets of active outs for amps... BAT probably figured on two same amps (bridged and/or unbridged) with gain controls for each ch./side... and that's it... oh, and a line out... all balanced. So same - same seems the least troublesome path... but I simply don't know. It's that darn tube sound that gets me to want to do this....

Ngjockey
.. Sorry, man, I don't get what you're saying. I need to change my amp? ... and I was just getting to like it... or maybe you meant don't bi amp as the amp is fine... sorry, that statement was too open ended for me.

Ngjockey
... got it. Thank you.

Markphd
Got it. As I was listening to the input you posted it started coming back to me... the vertical thing was the way I initially thought to go... with the same VK500 w/BP amps. Possibly bridged... though not at first. then I thought better of that deal and figured on the tube + SS. Given the refresher/reminder course you were so kind to post, I see a bit more clearly that 'dream' could well become the 'nightmare'... and pricey. Thanks for the reality check. Another thing VK had told me about was the 'gain' issues. Even two 500's wouldn't be entirely matched exactly... and it was very doubtful that BAT could match them perfectly.

Well, gee. that's a drag. Oh, well... it was a nice dream while it lasted. I'm still dead set on trying tubed amps though.

'preciate the input on using the Sony rec., I've already got one, yet never thought to use it that way... mine puts out a bit more power than the suggested one, but i'm too disappointed now to give it a shot.

Bi amping given the info posted here, at least for me, seems way more involved than I had thought. But being an audionut, I thought the "bi-amping path" to really be the 'end all be all' in audio.

I more than appreciate the efforts, knowledge and experiences you have provided me. Thank you very much.

Ozzy
Good question. Hope there is an answer forthcoming.

Gregm
Many thanks. ...well that's what he said to me on the phone, when we first spoke of the JRs set up. In fact he said the best two amp set up he had heard on them was with a vk60 & a vk solid state driving the lower unit. he did seem sincere enough that I believed him.

Having heard several medium eff speakers, (84 - 88db), I've haerd them with 200wpc - 600wpc... different spkrs, & different amps... the bigger the amps current supply, the better the sound. Everytime. IN both dynamics, and control. the quality however did not necessaryily improve. hence the desire to add a tube amp in conjunction with mine.

Undertow

Sage advice. Thanks.

Macrojack
thank you, you’ve been most helpful with your input and experience both here and elsewhere with my queries. Really, though, is bi-amping ever truly a 'need'? for that matter little of what we do with Hi Fi gear is ever a ‘need’ I suspect. Personally, I think it simple ‘ego’.

"Blindjim- Your interest in bi-amping seems to be driven by boredom or curiosity more than need."

...eg. above. But you are probably right.

"And, while bi-amping might be an available option, your speakers were not designed with that in mind."

... I beg to differ, the designer did say differently, and if optimum performance were to be achieved. As did at least one reviewer, who tried several combinations during his account of the JRs. Given the former's, more so than the latter's input, and the curiosity/.desire you hit upon, here we are.... for regardless their accounts, one personal, one public, I’ve thought for some time now, to have a system with two amps… and I sort of do now, yet not in the classical sense, as my amp (s) share a single chassis.

I'm fast approaching the culmination of this exercise. three or four grand more and I should be near complete. Awaiting only a DAC to integrate my carosel (s) & PC.

Thus I'm pondering with some Enthusiasm, the notion of bi amping... so as to eek out that last bit or simply for the experience... I've never had a tube/tube set up. As the best sound I've yet to hear came from an ALL tubes rig, on the JRs, in fact, I'd like very much to attain that presentation to the degree I can afford. Ultimately. Though afforability looms large in this venture, narrowing the paths, and casting a brighter light upon the intricacies of each avenue seems only prudent to me. I'm sort of a belt and suspenders type. Measure two or three times, cut once. Knowing in advance and settting down the plan provides direction, and sets goals. Remaining flexible along the way is a must too. ...but that's me. That's just what I do. Research, therefore, is quite important when doing a new thing.

Thus whatever input I can obtain, from other's experience is of great import though not solely to myself, given these threads that increase all who are 'curious'. It's curiosity, remember, that drove us to folow our dreams and schemes down the Hi Fi Highway. …and that’s one thoroughfare whose toll can weigh quite heavily if it is errantly pursued.

Which brings me to this.. a dealer once told me that bridging amps reduces headroom… and the deficits outweigh the advantages… were I to gain another vk500 and just go that way, though I know it not a prerequisite, would bridging both amps actually be a poor choice, given it a vertical biamping set up? (that’s one amp per speaker, right?) . ?? AND “What’s headroom, exactly?” AND “What’s headroom, exactly?”

Sweet jumpin' jellyfish! ...and all I thought I was going to need was another amp and a couple wires! Oh. My. God... or Gosh! for the more reserved among us.

I mean, really. that's a bunch. Can't just come out of the preamp to the X over and then to the amps and use the X over in the speakers, huh? Super. Just super. More than two amps just ain't happening sportsfans. Nope! Sorry. I'd not trust myself these days to do any fine electronical work. that's over with... I have the know how. I have the technology. but I can't rebuild the six million dollar man, eh, speaker.

If removing X overs in the speakers, is a 'MUST DO' with either method, passive, or active, I'd need farm that out.... and if THAT entailed more amps... well, see previous paragraph.

..and we're back to the "Is it worth the trouble?", thingy, once more. Sure sounds like a lot of trouble to me. Unless I can add another pair of ICs... another amp... maybe make a move in changing out my speaker cables... then I'll have to cry "Uncle!"... it's just beyond me... I'd even go so far as to add another device like an outboard X over... the consequential wires it would dictate, but then you all said that would mean gutting the present X overs in the speakers... and doing each driver in and of itself... Whoa Nelly! Sorry kids. That dog won't hunt. Unless!? well, there's that redneck retirement we got down here each week.... maybe then.

What an 'eye opener'. For real. Guess times and technology have changed greatly. I remember this aspiration as being far simpler. To wit, my aforementioned, and succintly now debunked plan. Well if two amps do wind up somehow driving my speakers, then super! If not, getting a tube abp will happen. Till then, I'm disappointed. yet in all glad to know the truth of things up front. The purist approach is out almost entirely. Gone. We'll see just how slam bang a tube amp I can come up with first... then refer to these notes one more time.

Ngjockey

“Did you expect a short story?”

uh, well, yeah, I did. At the onset. Not now, however.
Man! That’s a lot of doing… we can nix the soldering business right off.. I’m a plug and play sort these days… though not by choice. Thanks much.

Jsadurni
“I am sorry Blindjim to scare you like this, but this is what it means when somebody talks about using an active Xover to change slopes or Xover points, and bipassing the speakers XOver.”

…it will take a mite more than this info to scare me off… far more, for I’ve faced far worse.

“use a passive preamp like the EVS attenuators or the Luminous Audio preamp on the bass amp and let the tubed amp run free. The speaker xover will allow your speakers to do their job properly.”

…. So simply attenuate the bottom amp with one of these items? So come out of the preamp to “IT” AND then to the amp? OK… a gizmo and two more sets of ics…. Yikes! Though that’s the cheapest path thus far … I think.

“If you love this too much, in a couple of years you will be gutting your speakers to tear away the original Xover and hard wire....and maybe not, I wouldnt do it....I would get horns for that!!!”

…not bloody likely. Were I to survive this endeavor, you can stick a fork in me. . .. I’m done. Well save the tube rolling, isoing, and PCing…. And extra riders on the home owners.

I just got off the phone w/BAT. Had a short little chat with VK. He uses a lot of words like perhaps, maybe, it’s possible, and so forth…. Yet he is inclined to think my now ‘semi’ debunked (there’s been a spurious post mortem resurrection, albeit short lived or no), plan should either be a safe & secure one that remains bright and shiny still, or ‘perhaps’ not. Still in all, he did say just what you did apart from the passive X over makers name…. he seemed to think or indicated that an ‘inline’ (one for each outgoing IC to the SS amp), was available. Plug & play! But no idea of who made them… but thereby just pluggin into the preamp, and moving the dial… IF things weren’t homogenous. He also cast his vote for the VK 75/75SE, along the way. Naturally. I am inclined to go with BAT up top… or a VAC, or…, we’ll see., but at least 60wpc or above.

He also indicated some degree of flexibility with the use of the various speaker taps on the amp as some accommodation… but did say it would affect more than the ‘matching’ aspect, and affect the sonics to some degree.

Any hesitation I uttered was only due to expense. Not involvement. Given things always work out just the way they are supposed to…. One way or the other… I still remain 100% undaunted (almost). You might even say “I am entrenched with my upcoming effort to bi-amp”. I wouldn’t but you might.

Is there such a thing as an inline attenuator like what VK said? If so, are they worth having?

I remain deeply grateful for any and all input/experiences provided me and others herein…. Really.
Many thanks.

Well, I'm certainly impressed. haven't done anything yet, but still given the level of informative thoughts and experiences that have presented themselves herein... I am way impressed. As said above, and with no attrmpt to have the last word or bring a hlat to this strem of thought, formulating or making cohesive the question to the responses, the answer thus far needs be dependant upon waht a person views as "trouble". If I may be so bold... and I will.

Apparently one does not escape subjectivity. Be it in practice or methodology. Equating the value or difference between two parts derives the sum of it. What is the level achieved? What is the effort involved? Was there even one summary dismissal of the project? I don't recall it. I do recall some explicit recounts of knowledgeable folks, passionate about audio who were satisfied, ultimately, with the end product. I recall unselfishly how many told of the areas to be aware of, the pitfalls and prerequisites, and the proceedures to reach a proper end with either path, be it active, or passive bi-amplification.

I get the overall feeling at this 'juncture' (if I can quote a former chief of staff), that it's a viable task. One that the results have outweighed the sweat and expense along the way. For me I am sold on the notion to fulfill both a desire and a dream. Though formerly struck near dumb by the avalanche of steps, and the coincidental expense of them to boot, I have recovered sufficiently to grasp the reins and once more move towards that end. (…can’t you just hear Ray Charles in the background softly doing America The beautiful?).

So I’d say just now the posts here say resoundingly, “You bet cha!” But there’s more to it than just buying a second amp and some more wires…. Perhaps. The keys being as I understand them thus far:

Matching the gain of both amps
Limiting amplifier bandwidth for dynamic improvement in the loudspeakers performance… given their particular applications.
Addressing the networks of the loudspeaker dependant upon the choice of an active bi-amping application.
Buying more peripherals.
Buying lots more peripherals.

….not a problem. I thought I was seeing a light at the end of the tunnel… then I thought it was a train. The light is much dimmer now. This tunnel has a curve in it! Fine. I’m good. I’m also looking forward to the whole shooting match. Because from what I’ve seen here, bi-amping is worth it. For regardless the results, my inventory of equipment willhave increased and there will be lots more to play with from time to time. How can you not see that as a plus? (…well there’s that buying it all, part, I guess).

Jsadurni
...got it. thanks. Immense help. I am quite looking forward to it all.

Warjarrett

If I made a generalization about the tilt of the posts it seemed prudent to me to do so. Waht with the wealth of info being jotted down to further the effort of bi amping. I recall few, if any detractors. However, I understand your point, I believe.

I would think it a given regardless of amp design, a specific speaker may be better mated with a particular amp. I also know from previous experiences there are indeed good and less than good amps solid or holllow state.

I envision the prospect of having both designs at least once, working together in a system. though until recently, I think one can generalize as to the more often than not sonic differences... from Solid to tubes, as more the statement of design archtecture, than perhaps if it's primarily one that employs "no tubes" or one that employs "some tubes". I suspect the recent infusion and growing popularity of HT seems to have changed the voicing of tube amps to a more, if not spot on, neutral cast, by mere demand. What with brand loyalty, and mixing present two channel systems into it a more neutral, faster, more dynamic sonic character of recent tube designs allows for that integration to be one with less disparity which previously existed between SS & tubes.. IMO.

I am not of that ilk. I prefer a touch towards the darker side of neutrality… Not a lot but surely some. Certainly more than I am experiencing with my current amp. The vk500 doesn’t have a brittle bone in it’s body, sonically. Great ease and a wealth of power. Quick and solid. As best I can tell, from top to bottom. An amp one can listen to with great pleasure and endlessly if so desired. I merely wish to add to it. Though I did think to simply add another vk500 during my first thoughts about this endeavor.

Then, what true gain would I have? I’d still not have the experience of both… tube and/or solid amps, in concert., or singularly the tube amp. I'm of a mind that there is a difference between the character of tubes vs. solid state, given just my experiences.

I enjoy now the warmth of what the vk5i, and a goodly bit of tube rolling have provided, but I see it as only half the way there. I just want the other half of it… whatever that may well be. I’ve not heard a great sampling of tube amps as of late but of those I have heard that I consider special, the SS amps in the same price ranges could not compete with the luster or character of the sound furnished by an all tube system. .. but of course, that’s just my little slice of investigating the far greater world of audio.. and try as I might, I have been unable to recreate the sound of an all tube system, though I am close in a couple respects, I can’t quite get it there. Consequently, without making a complete change I’m figuring to just add on. A tube amp for me just seems right somehow. IMO.

Macrojack
that is funny. thanks. I have been giving a lot of thought to the chair lately. Just putting it off till I revamp the room. Making do with what's here, given the incredible prices of the furniture I have seen that I do like. You could get a nice amp for the price of the couch alone. so I've decided to settle for less costly a seating arragement. And rugs? My goodness!

For good or ill, my friend, this time next year ol' blindjim, is going to have two amps driving something. Probably be driving me nuts. A fella told me sometime back, as life improves, problems do not go away, all we can hope for is that the quality of them improves too.

Zormi

I'd say the 802D's eff is greater than the 803's eff... 92db vs. 89db (?)... so it would seem an easier load just by that account. I had several pairs of BW units and thought the Bi amp path with them a slam dunk. Seeing the above postings about the various paths to that end, tells me differently. I also spoke with the Tech support head honcho across the pond about impedances and such... BW does things a bit differently in how they measure things along those lines according to him. You may want to get in touch with him via the BW USA WEBSITE SUPPORT TAB. TO GET A BETTER UNDERSTANDING...

I do know of at least one tech rep for an entirely different company that was using a 60 wpc CJ tube amp to drive the 802N's, and he said he loved the sound.

Though what has been said about bi amping being a task to remedy a problem may well be sage advice... then directly afterwards is another take opposing the previous one. Finding out what one has first is a slam dunk common sense thing. Fashioning a system the way you want is your own choice. Always. In this thread alone, there is significant info for your task, and it's not the only resource. There are some quite worthy efforts posted here so I do hope you enjoy your pursuit!

Mfontana
Good to hear. those 5's are way more sensitive than the 4JR's though, aren't they? that following post makes sense too... eliminating some path and resultant obstacles should have provided for more gain... I'll keep those rothwell attenuators in mind too.

Hiend2
that's a good question. Actually i'd like to have an idea of just how much a signal is degraded period. by anything... and just how much can a signal be degraded before it is audible? ...and are we sure that a signal is being degraded, in the first place? or is only X overs the culprit for signal degredation?

Personally, i think otherwise. if this tact has worth... the signal begins at a source. let's say a digital source. let's say the signal is at it's best after all the D/A conversion is done... that's the output terminals. then would cables play a part in signal degredation too? oK, how much?

I hear that term bandied about frequently. From personal experience, in cable applications, everytime a connection is employed in the signal path a resultant loss of approximately 3db occurrs. Depending upon the initial signal level, 3 db isn't much at all. minimally in regular setups, given the above... 12 to 18db loss is occurring. Now if there is loss, then isn't the signal being degraded? Loss equates to degredation. Distortion, now, there is perhaps a more apt term. i believe many confuse the one with the other... and use them interchangeably. then it would stand to reason a one piece unit without additional peripherals and connections 'should' (if comparably build quality is incorporated), be best. integrated units should take the lead... I think 'separates' are in that position, however.

All in all, there is no such thing as a perfect system or plan, if humans are involved. As to the above poster, 'perfectionist', I too am a perfectionist... with a poor track record... so I gave up on that path and decided to be extremely good, and most often, 'just above average', I can live with that quite easily. there is more time for listening, and enjoyment, and oh, yeah, there's that 'fun' aspect of it all too.

sean
...from experience. the signal loss may well be less than -3db occassionally... but as a rule of thumb, it's a safe bet to figure on -3db.... and as I said, "... in cable installations" ... referring to loss, and equating it to degredation... you must have missed that bit... I try to stay on point to answer the question or make a point.

Gain or loss of signal "strength" is measured in decibels, Do not confuse signal strength with sound pressure levels. there is more than one way to look at things. I was talking about the post alluding to signal degredation... how one could confuse signal loss or distortion and see it as sound pressure level indications, is beyond me.

Don't worry, Sean, You can't pick on me... especially if you and I are not talking about the same thing... and little of this aside has anything to do with the thrust of the notion as to wether or not bi amping is worth it I would think. Decibels are used to measure more than simple sound levels. Just a reminder for the more pedantic.

All I said, in my previous follow up, was I do not believe the addition of more amplifiers and the required peripherals will degrade the sound, or the signal to the extent that it is diffused or distorted. were that the case, ONLY the shortest path for the signal should ever be pursued. hence, with that sort of thinking, 'seperates' would not truly the best approach.... this is not the apparent case however as the largest majority of systems are comprised of separates.

So, it should stand to reason, the addition of more than one amp to develop a signal, should not, in and of itself, be seen as detraction from the bi amping path, or in any fashion provide an inheirent issue for signal improprieities. there's bigger fish to fry with adding amps than the worry of signal loss.

Hope that helps.

Sean.
"We are done here" ??

I was done some time ago. In fact, I believe anything of note was entered way back and certainly before your posts to the thread. I am relieved however, that you have taken it upon yourself to culminate things so cavileir like, though...

it's a sure bet you can not read minds. had you been able to you would have realized my choice of words was not pointed at yourself. Merely a generic and I thought, somewhat humorous ment regarding the more nit pickyish of us. If you feel it pertains to yourself, then, perhaps it does... though it was unintentionally and ambiguously aimed, and truth be told, of all the Audio nuts out there, (myself included), it is apt in any case.

You take things to much to heart Sean... get some thicker skin, friend. I bear you no ill will. Reading my follow up I thought would have been explanation enough... Whomever it was that asked about the SPL meter I used... THAT was to whom I was relating. I saw no need to clarify further, I should have. My PC wasn’t reading the page properly. I’ll be more careful next time. It’s not my desire to be consciously injurious.