On Feb 29, 10:58*pm, MiNe 109 wrote:
In article
,
*"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote:
On Feb 29, 8:14*pm, UnsteadyKen wrote:
says...
This site may be helpful to you
http://sound.westhost.com/bi-amp.htm
Thank you an excellent site. I note he says...
Passive biamping (where two amplifiers are
used in a bi-wiring
connection) is, IMHO, a waste of money.
Although there may be some
moderate sonic benefits, they are not
worth the expense of the extra amplifier.
Is this born out in practise can anyone say?
Well, we would differ on terminology. He calls that setup "passive
biamping". I'd call it "active biwiring". :-)
In that setup you're still using the speaker's passive crossover with
its inherent problems. IMO you lose some of the main benefits of
biamping, like tailoring the crossover and thereby using power more
efficiently, and increasing linearity. I'm biased. I'm not an advocate
of biwiring. I'd be surprised if there is any sonic benefit at all.
"May be some moderate sonic benefits" is hardly a ringing endorsement
of "passive biamping".
If you want to try that route and you're going to buy or you already
have a second amplifier, give it a shot. If it doesn't dazzle you the
only major thing you'd really need at that point to go over to true
biamping is the electronic crossover. My bet would be that you'd end
up buying it.
I ran my Kabers in passive biamping mode for a few months until I bought
an active crossover, and went from one amp to two, then to three. The
one amp was better than the previous amp, but I didn't hear real
improvement beyond that until the crossover was in place. Of course, I
had a small room at that time. YMMV.
You're totally wrong, of course.
I'd explain why, but I've "been there, done that". You can search
Google as proof.
So you triamp now?