View Full Version : To biamp or not
Currently my Onkyo 875 (av amp) is set to bi-amp. This was using it with Ruark Talisman 11 speakers which were hard to drive. I changed the Ruarks for Rx6's and they are far more efficient. I am now looking at upgrading my current speaker cable having rediscovered my collection all over again.
A recent post suggested Black Mamba cables which look amazing(reviews were positive as well) for the money but are single run only and two would look ott in my living room. There is also the small matter of another £85. I'm wondering if one run not biamped might sound better than current setup.
Im just looking for folks thoughts.
The Grand Wazoo
22-02-2010, 21:21
I'd find it hard to believe that any differences you might find by changing a speaker cable will bring you a bigger change than going from a single amp to a properly bi-amped configuration. Note that I don't use the word better.
When you have your amps sorted you should think about the cables - not before. The amps show you the picture. The cables focus it.
hifinutt
22-02-2010, 22:20
http://www.colloms.com/pages/exerpts.aspx
I'd find it hard to believe that any differences you might find by changing a speaker cable will bring you a bigger change than going from a single amp to a properly bi-amped configuration. Note that I don't use the word better.
When you have your amps sorted you should think about the cables - not before. The amps show you the picture. The cables focus it.
Bare in mind I'm using an AV Amp which can use the 7.1 channel to biamp when using the setup in 5.1 config which is what I do. The fact its all from the same power supply is partly the reason I posted. Years ago had an Arcam AV 50 and bought a matching Arcam 8p power amp the difference was very obvious and for the better.
http://www.colloms.com/pages/exerpts.aspx
Good job I'm on days off with all that reading you have supplied me with:youtheman: Cheers
The Grand Wazoo
23-02-2010, 00:20
My point is, Paul, that if you can hear an improvement from bi-amping with any type of cable, then that's unlikely to be bettered through a switch back to single amping with a change of cables (unless the ones you use are severely strangling things through a massive mismatch).
If you can't hear a difference, then why bi-amp?
Rare Bird
23-02-2010, 00:51
Hands up fro me, i don't believe in Bi-Amping
My point is, Paul, that if you can hear an improvement from bi-amping with any type of cable, then that's unlikely to be bettered through a switch back to single amping with a change of cables (unless the ones you use are severely strangling things through a massive mismatch).
If you can't hear a difference, then why bi-amp?
The problem is re-terminating the cable to try both settings. Looks like its to be cold tomorrow and i have the day off so I'll have a play tomorrow.
Hands up fro me, i don't believe in Bi-Amping
I would like to hear your thoughts in a tad more detail on why you dont believe in bi-amping when you get a few minutes.
Steve Toy
23-02-2010, 02:16
I'll add to what Andre is hinting at: biamping losing some coherence - the the thing that makes recorded music sound emotionally involving. Active biamping is another matter though but this is very costly and involves ripping out your crossovers on your speakers and placing a crossover circuit ahead of the power amps do the crossover work.
I would simply upgrade your power amp to a better one than use two inferior ones to do the same job.
Remember also that better power amplification reveals potential shortcomings at source (including preamp.) The end result can thus be worse.
If you want balls and control, often you'll get this from looking towards the source more than maxing out on the power.
I can't even bi-wire my Sonus Fabers.... ;)
So, yes, a single run can sound better. :)
The Grand Wazoo
23-02-2010, 07:57
I'll add to what Andre is hinting at: biamping losing some coherence - the the thing that makes recorded music sound emotionally involving.
I'd think that would be better put as biamping can lose some coherence, there Steve. When it works, it works very well indeed. The trouble is that some folks do it & take for granted that it will be better without confirming it with their own ears that it's working properly throughout the whole signal (present company excepted, I'm sure).
Bi-amping was siezed upon by manufacturers like Arcam as a way to sell another low quality amp to someone who aspired to monoblocks but couldn't afford them in one purchase.
The trouble is, that the tendency for anyone trying it out is to concentrate on what is happening at the bass end because that's where they're told the biggest improvement will be. True enough, bi-amping usually gives you more grip in the bass & is often impressive at first listen. But it's the whole thing that you have to listen to, not just the bass end.
If it's not done well it can be a retrograde step and a complete waste of money, but when done right, it's a very effective method of amplification.
StanleyB
23-02-2010, 08:49
Hands up fro me, i don't believe in Bi-Amping
It depends on what sort of bi-amping configuration is used. If it is based on individual amps for each section of the speaker, then bi-amping sounds far better.
But if it is based on running extra cables from the same amp then it is a waste of money with no audible benefits.
Haselsh1
23-02-2010, 09:26
Quite a few years ago I bi-amped my Castle Harlech speakers with a pair of monster American power amps and a valve preamp. The difference, if indeed there was one, was extremely subtle and really not worth the extra expense. More recently I have experienced a much bigger change in sound by spending seventy quid on a pair of NVA LS5 speaker cables. Now this really was dramatic.
Just out of interest, one of the finest systems I have ever heard was a Crimson Electric bi-amped and active Mission 720 setup using my own Logic DM101 as the front end. Phenomenal transients.
BTW; I use a single run of cables. I do not waste money bi-wiring.
I think it depends on the particular system and the inherent quality of the amps used.
Back in the days when I sold Rega and Arcam, Both the Mira and Diva amps sounded better when their respective matching power amps were added in a bi-amp'd fashion. The whole soundstage seemed to open up and become much bigger with greater "ease" when pushed.. We were using a top quality budget speaker cable (Cable Talk 4.1 IIRC). The results were infinitely better than any attempt at bi-wiring IMO.
The noted improvements above may have had something to do with inadequacies in the passive crossovers the amps were driving of course.
Many of the better designed passive speakers about appear to have returned to single wiring, as the crossovers have lost much of their problems.
Ultimately, a well designed and implented active system is best IMO, the active crossover much more potentially accurate and far less invasive *if designed competently.* Trouble is, the best of these rather negate the need for twiddlers like me, as it's all done for you.......
Rare Bird
23-02-2010, 10:07
I don't believe in two runs of cable for bi-wiring either. One run of cable, scrap the speakers links & replace with high quality jumpers.I've tried all ways this was the best for me for passive speakers.
Ultimately, a well designed and implented active system is best IMO, the active crossover much more potentially accurate and far less invasive *if designed competently.* Trouble is, the best of these rather negate the need for twiddlers like me, as it's all done for you.......
Had great sucess with active systems dave.
The Grand Wazoo
23-02-2010, 10:47
As is common in hi-fi, the sweeping statements usually refer only to one's limited personal experience.
Let's try & set the record straight with bi-wiring. Dave's comments about bi-amping apply equally to bi-wiring.
….it depends on the particular system…..
Some speakers respond very well to bi-wiring – these same speakers are often also very responsive to bi-amping. However, I'd say that of all the bi-wirable designs out there, far more will sound better with a single cable costing 2x£ than a pair of cables costing 1x£. And probably no different with a pair of cables costing 2X£.
There was a bandwagon for manufacturers adding another set of terminals for no reason other than that was what the competition were doing. The most responsive to multiple wiring speakers I've ever come across were Steen Doessing's SD Acoustics designs and there could be no argument that there was an improvement once you compared them with the right cable (the one he wired the drive units with).
Like Dave, I see the trend drifting back a little towards single wiring but, being a cynic, I see this as a cost cutting exercise more than for sound quality or marketing reasons.
If you have bi-wirable speakers but want to use single wiring, don't buy expensive jumpers – use the speaker cable you've got.
Ultimately, a well designed and implented active system is best IMO, the active crossover much more potentially accurate and far less invasive *if designed competently.*
Too true.
Good feedback there. My experience of bi-amping is with Arcam products. when Dolby pro-logic arrived I was smitten and both myself and relative bought AV50's. Going from a Linn Majik to the AV 50 was not subtle initiallly the amount of extra bass was impressive. I then realized the drive and pace to the stereo sound was missing. An 8P was bought and this tightened up the bass considerably (as Chris mentioned above focus was on the bass). The image scale seemed better as well. I then borrowed another 8p and mono-blocked the system and that was a further improvement albeit not one I could afford at the time. Latterly a relative bought an Arcam AVR300 and when its set to bi-amp its far better in bass control and image depth again not subtle.
When i changed to Onkyo 875 from Denon 3802 I noted it could be set to Bi so that was dualy done as I assumed it would be better given my past experience. When time permits I'm going to rewire the Ecosse cable and try it BI-amped, Bi-wired and single wired. I'll have to use the supplied jumper bars with the Rx6's though so will have to try and allow for that. This time Coherence will be the priority as in the past bass was my main fixation but with RX6's I no longer crave more bass as they are brilliant in that dept:)
Steve Toy
23-02-2010, 11:58
If you are now listening out for coherence and your system's ability to reproduce rhythm and timing we can basically leave you to it until you come back with your findings.
This is basically what it's all about - don't take our word for it, find out for yourself where practical and have a good idea what you're listening for.
Linn were the company that popularised bi-wiring in the UK with the godawful nexus thingy - a two-way with a 32 element (or thereabouts) crossover - ugghh!
The Kaber also had a crossover problem where if one bass unit was gently pushed in and out, the mid driver moved in sympathy despite no physical coupling between them - bi-wiring cured this...
In my experience, a badly designed crossover which is then bi-amped will cause the integrity to fall apart, as phase problems in this region may well be magnified.
Haselsh1
23-02-2010, 13:08
Hmmm... SD Acoustics speakers were sensitive to bi-wiring...??? Surely that proves that these speakers were inferior to others that were not sensitive to bi-wiring. My logic certainly sees it that way. If SD Acoustics speakers were vastly improved by bi-wiring they were obviously inferior initially...?? Other speakers that are not improved by bi-wiring are obviously superior initially...???
My Castle Harlech speakers were not changed one little bit by bi-wiring and were therefore superior.;)
The Grand Wazoo
23-02-2010, 13:23
.......errrr, no.
It suggests that they may have been specifically designed to be bi-wired or bi-amped (or tri-wired depending on the model). And if you dig around a little you'll discover that this is in fact exactly the case - they were not meant to be improved by multiple wiring - that was intended to be the norm.
They were never speakers with an extra set (or two) of terminals stuck on for marketing purposes.
The Grand Wazoo
23-02-2010, 13:37
My Castle Harlech speakers were not changed one little bit by bi-wiring and were therefore superior.;)
Sean, I notice you no longer use your 'superior' speakers - I'll just say that I've been using SD's continuously in one form or another since 1991 and in fact, they replaced a pair of Castle Pembrokes!
..........there's nothing wrong with a good pair of Castles!
If you are now listening out for coherence and your system's ability to reproduce rhythm and timing we can basically leave you to it until you come back with your findings.
This is basically what it's all about - don't take our word for it, find out for yourself where practical and have a good idea what you're listening for.
First off I set amp to normal (turned it off first :eek:) and removed one set of the K400 and added the jumper bars . Using John Mayer's Heavy Things turned amp back on. What I perceived was that the central vocal image was more out in the room and better centralized which is something that has been bugging me for some time as before it seemed to pull to the left or was more L&R for want of a better description. I connected it back to bi-amp and my observation seemed correct. I changed it back and it just sounded more listenable more enveloping.
I then tried the solid core section of the Ecosse cable single wired and found as expected a rather different presentation. That annoying central image smear was evident again. I would describe the overall sound as dry and not as listenable as before albeit there was less sibilance to John's voice. I was tempted to rewire the Ecosse ES4.45 back to its original bi-wire config but dont see the point as the solid end will feed the tweeter and mid anyway.
I dont know much about the engineering side of amps/cables but it would seem my amp prefers things simple and multistranded from the above experiment.
Just remembered that when I demoed the RX6's at James Morrow in Edinburgh they were using a single run of Chord Rumor.
Also if it helps I am using 2m of cable.
Rare Bird
23-02-2010, 14:23
Paul:
Jumper bars sound shit you want to try Jumper cables before judging. Steve Toy has some Chords for sale don't know if he still has them.
My relative has RA Kimber ones that he is not using but cant find them in the house:doh: Yet.
Using the K400 bi-wired is one option I have not tried but getting two lots of cable into the plugs I have was really difficult if memory serves me. I know the argument is usually use a better cable than two lesser ones but surely the using the same doubled cant produce an inferior sound and it would bypass the jumpers. I'm probably about to be corrected on that last statement but if I'm wrong I'm wrong.
Rare Bird
23-02-2010, 14:33
Dunno about K400, but try a single run from amp replacing those jumper bars with proper cable jumpers, see what you think against twin runs & bars
Haselsh1
23-02-2010, 15:14
Sean, I notice you no longer use your 'superior' speakers - I'll just say that I've been using SD's continuously in one form or another since 1991 and in fact, they replaced a pair of Castle Pembrokes!
..........there's nothing wrong with a good pair of Castles!
The Harlech's were made inferior by my then new valve amp which just didn't have the guts to drive them properly. I kept those speakers longer than any pair I have ever owned, they really were THAT good. The valve amp in question was a WAD 300B PP built by WAD themselves at tremendous expense to me.
The Castle's had the most amazing stereo imaging which was positioned all over the place but they didn't like to go very loud. I thought they were fine speakers. They never benefitted from bi-wiring or bi-amping but I guess from your opinion that equates to them never being designed that way. I do not have sufficient knowledge to say one way or the other. One thing I do know from experience is that the cabinets were like no other speaker I have ever seen or felt. They were made to last.
Rare Bird
23-02-2010, 15:31
They still had the prober cabinet makers Shaun.The only newer ones i had were the 'Chesters', i think they were designed by Colin Walker (CJ Walker turntable fame) but don't hold me on that.
Same as these but mine were oak
http://www.zenn.com.sg/castle1.jpg
I dont know much about the engineering side of amps/cables but it would seem my amp prefers things simple and multistranded from the above experiment.
My 6 last amps (NAD, Cyrus, Denon, Croft) and speakers react the same way. Perhaps it's not just your amp. ;)
twelvebears
23-02-2010, 15:55
It depends on what sort of bi-amping configuration is used. If it is based on individual amps for each section of the speaker, then bi-amping sounds far better.
But if it is based on running extra cables from the same amp then it is a waste of money with no audible benefits.
If you mean bi-amping by using individual channels of a multi-channel amp, then I disagree. This can be every bit as effective as using dedecated amps (which each channel is effectively) and definnately avoids and issues caused by differences of sensitivity, amps susceptability to different loads etc.
One of the most simple and effective bi-amping set-ups I've heard was using four of the five channels in a Primare 30.3 to drive a pair of Proacs....
My 6 last amps (NAD, Cyrus, Denon, Croft) and speakers react the same way. Perhaps it's not just your amp. ;)
True speakers - cable - Amp are all connected so one affects the other I suppose.
The only thing worrying me is I have fooled my ears somehow as lets face it i can get higher quality cables now and only spend half as much...I wonder if the tight Scot part of ma heed is playing tricks :lol:
I wonder if the tight Scot part of ma heed is playing tricks :lol:
:lolsign:
Mike Reed
24-02-2010, 17:06
One of the most simple and effective bi-amping set-ups I've heard was using four of the five channels in a Primare 30.3 to drive a pair of Proacs....
I've only bi-amped ProAcs (with 4 x Naim 135s), and found improvements over the passive. Maybe some ProAcs respond to bi-amping, as I think it's the crossover that has a bearing on success.
Certainly some moving coil speakers do not give the benefits commensurate with the extra outlay and complexity.
Mike, if you really want to hear what ATC drivers can really do, buy some active ones... I believe they make a version with two 9" bass drivers (SL mods which are far superior to the older ones everyone else used) only one mid and tweeter to aid dispersion. I don't think they're quite as tall as yours either. Far better than asking one pair of amps to drive the load you're presenting them with. I think there's a dealer in Norwich which sells and recommends active ATC's, or at least, there was.......
Mike Reed
24-02-2010, 21:56
Nice thought, Dave. I heard quite a few ATC active (and passive) dem's at the shows in the nineties and was impressed.
However, I've speakered my way into a corner, as it were, as 300 pounds apiece is too heavy to contemplate any change in the future except a sea-change to a totally different type (e.g. panels).
And I'm not getting another pair of 509s........!
Aw shucks, you know you want to really..... ;) :lol:
Bi-amping and Bi-wiring
There seems to be a little confusion between bi-wiring and bi-amplification. The following notes might be of interest, as the range of options available are wider than might be thought, and the efficacy of bi-wiring/bi-amping does very much depend on the specific speaker design and is not the universal panacea that is often quoted.
I apologise ‘up front’ if this post comes across as an essay and as being unnecessarily technical, but it is important to make clear exactly what techniques are involved and how they might explain what some listeners hear, having implemented these changes. First, let us consider bi-wiring.
Bi-wiring, what is it?
In most two-way speakers (note: the following arguments can apply to a three way system either by replacing the prefix ‘bi-‘ with ‘tri-‘, or by including the mid-range driver in with the high frequency driver), the two drive units (high frequency HF and low frequency LF), being designed to handle separate frequency ranges, are supplemented by frequency selective circuitry as part of the crossover. In a conventional speaker, the input to the two frequency selective circuits are connected together and brought out to a single pair of speaker terminals. The speaker is then connected to one channel of the power amplifier by a single pair of wires.
In a bi-wired system, the crossover network is split; the two frequency selective circuits are brought out to separate terminal pairs on the back of the cabinet. Two lengths of twin cable are used to connect the speaker to the output terminals of the power amplifier, and it is only at this point that the HF and LF paths connect together.
So how and why does bi-wiring work?
A very good article on this appeared in Hi-Fi News magazine in October 2005. Written by Keith Howard under the title ‘Double Take’, it describes what bi-wiring is supposed to do and describes attempts to measure the differences between single and bi-wiring. For those who cannot access a copy, the following is a synopsis of the theories about bi-wiring. (Incidentally, Keith Howard starts his piece by stating that his first recollections of the improvement brought about by bi-wiring were using SD Acoustics SD2 speakers.) The first theory, proposed by Risch (www.geocities.com/jonrisch/bi-wiring.htm), make the perfectly understandable observation that as well as acting as radiators of sound, drive units also act as microphones and therefore as signal sources. That is, the pressure differential created by, say, the bass unit will act on the tweeter and vice versa. Such signal sources will inject voltages back into their respective parts of the crossover network. If the speaker, or rather the crossover network, was connected to a power amplifier having an ideal output impedance of near zero, then the generated signals would be shorted out. However all power amplifiers have a finite impedance and worse, so too does the single speaker cable pair used to connect the speaker to the amp. The presence of a finite, non zero impedance upstream of the microphonic drivers means that the shared common input allows an attenuated version of the signals generated by one driver to affect another.
An alternative theory, suggested by John Wilkinson, is that loudspeaker drive units are inherently non-linear, and as a result, the current drawn from the power amplifier contains harmonic and intermodulation products not present at the amplifier’s output terminals. If the speaker were directly connected to the amplifier and the amplifier had a near zero output impedance, the non-harmonic motion of the drive unit would be heavily damped. The presence of finite amplifier and finite speaker cable impedance means that the distorted driver currents set up a distorted voltage across the speaker terminals. Thus the non-linearity of one drive unit would modify the signal reaching the second, if both are fed through their crossover filters from the same input terminals.
What bi-wiring does is to increase the path length, and because the cable has finite resistance, to dampen the interfering signals as they travel away from the speaker towards the amplifier and then back again along the separate second cable path. This is similar to the damping of mains noise in a spur wired mains system: noise generated and injected into one mains socket is damped out by the finite resistance of the cable (voltage drop) run back to the meter then out again to a socket supplying the audio system. In the case of a bi-wired loudspeaker, using two cables of the same gauge will not degrade the effective damping factor of the amplifier; the amplifier’s control of the speaker is unaffected.
An additional advantage offered by the option of bi-wiring is that the user can select different gauge and styles of wire according to the frequency path. Thus the LF bass driver/ filter might use a heavy cable of larger cross section, whereas the HF tweeter might use a smaller gauge, and even use a different conductor altogether. There is thus ample scope for experimentation and hair-tearing indecision given the range of options!
Many speaker manufactures offer the facility to bi-wire their speakers. In some, this is because it is genuinely though that bi-wiring can accrue audible advantages, for others it is simply there because the market expects it; and simply panders to fashion. In all cases speakers with multiple terminals are supplied with bridging links or bus bars for those users who do not want to try bi-wiring. It has been claimed by some that there is audible improvement if these links are replaced with jumper leads made of the same kind of wire used to connect the speaker to the amplifier. Unless the bridging links are made of (gold plated) brass rather than copper, it is hard to understand how a couple of inches of multi-stranded wire can better a solid metal strip.
Bi-amping, what is it?
To complicate matters, there is both active and passive bi-amping, and for each kind there is the choice of either ‘horizontal’ or ‘vertical’ bi-amping. Confused? – All should become clear.
Simply put, bi-amping is the technique whereby each drive unit within the loudspeaker is driven by a separate amplifier. In passive bi-amping the frequency selective circuits are situated between the amplifier output and the drive unit, whereas in active bi-amplification the amplifier’s output is directly connected to the drive unit; the frequency selection is made using an active electronic crossover placed between the preamplifier and the power amplifier. In active bi-amplification the amplifier has the greatest control over the drive unit. Active bi-amplification is a complex, sophisticated and expensive option, but one that offers the greatest versatility. It is thought by some to be the much-preferred option.
Regardless of whether the bi-amplification is active or passive, there are two arrangements that can be used. These are referred to as ‘horizontal’ or ‘vertical’ bi-amping and each has its advantages and disadvantages.
Horizontal Bi-amping
In horizontal bi-amping, a single two-channel power amplifier is used to feed either the LF or HF drivers of both speakers. That is, one two-channel amp is used to drive both LF bass drivers and a second two-channel amplifier is used to drive both HF drivers.
Advantages
· Can use amplifiers whose design compliments the frequency response of the drivers, that is, one can use different design amplifiers: say, a solid-state design for the LF and a valve design for the HF. Through the choice of dedicated amplifiers the bass response, dynamics and isolation between the HF and LF are all improved.
· The amplifiers can be of different design, manufacture and power
Disadvantages
· Power capability might be wasted if a high power amplifier is used to drive the HF tweeters.
· Reliance on inter-channel separation within each two-channel amplifier to achieve and maintain left/right separation
· Increased demands on the power supply, if shared between the two channels. This is especially true of bass transients and notes
Vertical Bi-amping
In vertical bi-amping, a single two-channel power amplifier is used for each speaker. On channel feeds the LF bass unit, the other channel the HF unit. In some professional speakers the amplifiers are incorporated within the enclosure and the speaker is referred to as being an active speaker. In these cases, the bi-amplification is active as the frequency selective circuits precede the amplifiers and are connected to the amplifiers’ inputs. Some BBC designs are of this type; specifically the LS3/7 that used the Quad frequency splitting amplifier, the 303/A2 (BBC designation AM8/15), and the LS5/8 using the Rogers-Swisstone modified Quad 405 (BBC designation AM8/16).
Advantages
· No dependence on inter-channel separation
· Less demands on power supplies
Disadvantages
· Need to use identical amplifiers on both left and right speakers
· Power capability wasted on driving the tweeter
· Separate channel amplifier’s bandwidth not fully utilised
The benefits of bi-amping cannot be fully realised through the passive crossover network of the speakers. For maximum benefit, the crossover networks are replaced by active networks, allowing each amplifier to have it’s input bandwidth limited. Some have commented that such complex arrangements can cause a loss of coherence. Certainly these systems are the antithesis of the Mies van der Rohe dictum “the less is more”, however I cannot see that they are inherently worse than bi-wired systems.
So is bi-wiring a ‘poor mans’ bi-amplification?
Quite simply yes it can be. If you cannot afford the expense or are unwilling to consider the complication of multiple amplifiers, then bi-wiring can get you some of the way there. Depending on the skill of the speaker designer, especially that of the crossover, there may be no advantage in bi-wiring. In these cases it is probably best to retain the bridging links and optimise the single speaker cable (that is use one of low resistance and inductance per unit length).
So once again, I apologise for the pedagogical approach. I have no axe to grind; my own speakers are incapable of bi-wiring or bi-amping (well not without serious invasive modification), nor do I have experience of bi-wired systems. I do have access to a friends tri-wired system, however I cannot compare this with the same speakers single-wired.
Trust the above has been useful and informative.
Regards
Very instructive Barry ! Cheers !!! :cool:
Nevertheless, I doubt engineers do *any* optimizations that could benefit from bi-wiring in low-mid priced speakers...
Barry thanks for taking the time to post that. The part about extra strain on the power supply may well explain my finding regards the Onkyo given its one single unit making use of the unused 7.1 channel.
One thing has occurred to me that my Ruarks may well have improved bi-amped as they are a 2 way design so the demand made on the amps power supply by the HF part would i expect be minimal. The RX6's are 3 way with the crossover split between the tweeter /mid driver and the single bass unit which would put more of a strain on the amps power supply.
Sometimes one of the reasons why people hear improvements is that is the poor jumper cables used Just using the same cable you using as a jumper lead can often make a big difference
My findings with my setup were using the MA RX supplied jumper bars (dont know what they are made of) and it still sounded better with my amp set to normal. Once I decide on what speaker cable I would like to upgrade to I'll get some jumpers made of that. Do Sterling make ones for the Black mamba cable as its a nice price that cable.
I am very surprised by my findings in my system. Pleasantly so :)
I may try the Linn K400 biwired just to see if its an improvement but will need to work up to that as fitting 2 x K400 into the plugs is a hassle from memory.
monstermoo
26-02-2010, 12:47
Well, in my particular system there is definitely a very clear improvment when bi-amping.
I've got a pair of Linn Isobariks which have been modified to allow them to be operated in active or passive mode. (passive for me I'm afraid :( )
Each speaker has 6 drivers, bass drivers are front facing in an isobarik fashion (obviously), then there's a mid and HF unit to the front and then upwardly facing is another mid and HF unit.
Each speaker has 2 external crossover boxes (1 for front drivers the other for the top and rear bass).
I use the L/R channels of a Linn LK280/spark to power the front drivers on both speakers and the L/R channels of a Linn LK2 for the top and rear bass.
When using a single amp to run the whole lot it sounds horribly squeezed - no breathing space. All linked with Linn K20 cable.
Steve
Several days later and for sure my Onkyo 875 with my Rx6's sounds better set to normal with pure audio engaged, single wired using my first cable upgrade Linn K400. Standard jumpers in use btw.
My conclusions (mind I am no electrical engineer) are that the image projection for voices especially is more focused and the sound more 3d than before (bi amped K400 or Ecosse bi amped) when it was bi-amped using the 7.1 channel. I can only assume that bi amping using internal 7.1 section caused problems with the power supply or the amps are not as matched as well as you would expect within this integrated av receiver.
The Grand Wazoo
02-03-2010, 17:41
Paul,
It's good to hear you found the best sounding method of using the amp. Always best to try, & test things out for yourself.
Paul,
It's good to hear you found the best sounding method of using the amp. Always best to try, & test things out for yourself.
I'm looking forward to hearing it with Sterling Black Mamba's which should be on their way shortly. :)
The Sterlings have improved things even more. I have added a review here (http://theartofsound.net/forum/showthread.php?t=5709) Time to let things settle now methinks...:)
ONIX Addict
16-03-2010, 20:39
Hi guys!!!
My experience in bi-amping has been my real first in Hifi... When I built up my first system ten years ago, I bought a set (full ONIX) as follows:
1 OA24 (+SOAP) and 2 OA401 (2x50 stereo amps)... As I was far ahaed what I intend to spend then, I decided to "bridge" the input of the amps to have a "vertical" amping (see Barry's comment above) which allow me to use only one cable (on each side) between the pre and the amps...
My speaker cables were (and still are) AUDIOQUEST INDIGO, which offer 8 wires of different size (4 by 4)... My retailer suggested me to use the 4 bigger for bass/medium and the 4 thinner for trebbles...
I've listen music for ten years with this configuration... Never tried horizontal bi-amping, as I was satisfied with it, and, to cut a long story short, had many other points of interest...
Untill.... last december when, a few days after Christmas, arrived at home the batch of ONIX bought in SARAJEVO (Yes! this guy is a bit nuts!!! I fully agree!!! lol) in which was an ONIX OA601 (2x70w stereo amp)...
I switched the two OA401 with the OA601, kept the bi-wiring mode (one size of wires for trebble the other for bass/medium), WAOOOOW! the shock was so huge!!! Everything has been improved as well bass restitution, medium "clarity", and trebble definition... The sound stage had great improvement too...
So, at this point, I agree that a good single stereo amp, is better than two of lower quality/capability...
But, as I'm looking for a second OA601 to get back into bi-amping, I guess that two good amps are far better than only one good! ;)
O.A. ;)
The Fount Master
20-03-2010, 20:43
For anyone still bewildered by the subject there is now a technical article on bi-amping and bi-wiring in The Art of Sound library.
This is based on Barry's descriptive post in this thread and supported by diagrams. http://theartofsound.net/forum/showthread.php?p=110565#post110565
ONIX Addict
05-03-2011, 20:06
Hello everybody!!!
As already stated in my introducing thread, I've found and put in operation a second OA601 power block...
OMG!!! :D
There was an incredible improvement with the first 601, compared to the bi-amping with 2 OA401, but 2 OA601 is far, far better!!!
As the two amps are not the same generation, I've chosen horizontal bi-amping...
Incredible, amazing, wonderful, MAGIC is the result!!!
Try it!!!
OA ;)
Reid Malenfant
05-03-2011, 20:12
If you happen to have two way loudspeakers you might think about taking the next logical step & do away with the passive crossovers altogether & go active :)
You think it's good now do you :eyebrows:
Admittedly if the standard passive crossovers alter the driver response around the crossover point it might be problematic, what you need are drivers that act as pistons with no resonances well outside of the bandwidth they are subjected to.
Then you'll see nirvana ;)
ONIX Addict
05-03-2011, 20:36
Mark,
My speakers are PEL MODENA, three way, four loudspeakers: 1 trebble, 1 medium, 2 bass: 1 is enclosed in the box, horizontaly behind the other facing outside... The two woofers work together simultaneously... It allows a frequency range from 23 to 20000Hz!!!!
The crossover has been specifically built for passive bi-amping, and believe me: you can hear it!!!
These speakers are a real masterpiece, and were compared, when launched, to 3 or 4 times more expansive boxes... At this time, they were sold, new, around 4000/4500€...
Switching to active bi amping would mean thinking a completely new speakers system, and it's not in short term plan!!! ;)
OA;)
Reid Malenfant
05-03-2011, 20:41
Ah well, can but try i say. I'm now listening to a 4 way active system & there is no way on this earth i'll go back to passive crossovers in my main system :eyebrows: Just as soon as it was fired up i was taken back to my only other fully active system sound wise but better.
Just as long as you are enjoying it is all that matters at the end of the day, you sound pretty happy - long may this stay the same!
ATB chap :)
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2026 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.