[UnsteadyKen]

Hi, a question about biamping theoretical only but has been puzzling me
for a while.

If i had a pair of speakers rated at 500w power handling then i assume
it would be ok to use a stereo amp rated at 250w per channel. but it
seems to me that the bass unit takes the most power and there would be a
danger of damaging the tweeter & midrange by feeding that section 250w
on there own. I expect that it depends on how the specific crossover
works, or have i got it all wrong (as usual)?

--

Ken

[Clyde Slick]

On 11 Feb, 19:05, UnsteadyKen wrote:
Hi, a question about biamping theoretical only but has been puzzling me
for a while.

If i had a pair of speakers rated at 500w power handling then i assume
it would be ok to use a stereo amp rated at 250w per channel. but it
seems to me that the bass unit takes the most power and there would be a
danger of damaging the tweeter & midrange by feeding that section 250w
on there own. I expect that it depends on how the specific crossover
works, or have i got it all wrong (as usual)?


Why in the worlld would you want a 250 watt amp to power your high
frequencies.

[UnsteadyKen]

On Feb 12, 12:59*am, Clyde Slick wrote:

Why in the worlld would you want a 250 watt amp to power your high
frequencies.

Perhaps the question should have been=Does a speakers power handling
rating apply only when single or biwired. is there a danger of
overloading the HF section when bi amping?

--
Ken

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Feb 11, 9:42 pm, Unsteadyken wrote:

is there a danger of
overloading the HF section when bi amping?

Yes.

We had a crappy sound tech in a band I was in. He constantly blew out
the tweeter diaphragms. Everybody else thought he was great though, I
and couldn't get a consensus to fire him.

If your speakers are set up for biamping follow the manufacturer's
recommendations. If there are no recommendations then I'd ask them for
some.

This may help:

Bi-amping, or biamplification, is used mainly in professional sound
reinforcement applications, where extremely high levels of loudness
are required. Here big, separate amplifiers powering the low
frequencies, and smaller amps for the midrange will increase overall
output. Sometimes they will use a separate outboard electronic
crossover (the speaker's internal crossover is disabled or bypassed
entirely) so the operator can vary and adjust individual crossover
frequencies, tailor the "slope" of the crossover to match the
strengths of each set of drivers, and also adjust the relative sonic
balance of bass, midrange and treble to suit the environment. This is
important for huge auditoriums or outdoor events where separate arrays
of treble and midrange horns are operating with big "bass bins," but
such systems have no place in domestic home theater systems in normal
rooms. Additionally, it puts control of the relative smoothness and
tonal balance into the hands of the sound system operator, a dangerous
tool for all but the most experienced sound reinforcement experts. It
also partly explains why the live sound at so many concert events (not
all, mind you) is so awful.

(i.e. and also why we blew so many diaphragms.)

http://www.axiomaudio.com/tips_biwir..._biamping.html

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Feb 11, 11:20*pm, Bret Ludwig wrote:
Bi-amping, or biamplification, is used mainly in professional sound
reinforcement applications, where extremely high levels of loudness
are required. Here big, separate amplifiers powering the low
frequencies, and smaller amps for the midrange will increase overall
output. Sometimes they will use a separate outboard electronic
crossover (the speaker's internal crossover is disabled or bypassed
entirely) so the operator can vary and adjust individual crossover
frequencies, tailor the "slope" of the crossover to match the
strengths of each set of drivers, and also adjust the relative sonic
balance of bass, midrange and treble to suit the environment. This is
important for huge auditoriums or outdoor events where separate arrays
of treble and midrange horns are operating with big "bass bins," but
such systems have no place in domestic home theater systems in normal
rooms. Additionally, it puts control of the relative smoothness and
tonal balance into the hands of the sound system operator, a dangerous
tool for all but the most experienced sound reinforcement experts. It
also partly explains why the live sound at so many concert events (not
all, mind you) is so awful.

(i.e. and also why we blew so many diaphragms.)

http://www.axiomaudio.com/tips_biwir..._biamping.html

*It's horse**** from a technical standpoint because CORRECTLY DONE
biamping, or tri-amping, or as needed (can we say "multi-amping"?) can
yield superior results to passive crossovers.

If you're arguing that most bi-or-tri-amped systems are not "mainly
used" in SR vs. the home market, or if you're arguing that there isn't
a very real danger of damaging HF speakers when biamping, then you're
on crack (which I suspect anyway, but for different reasons).

I fail to see how these statements are in conflict:

"This is important for huge auditoriums or outdoor events where
separate arrays of treble and midrange horns are operating with big
"bass bins," but such systems have no place in domestic home theater
systems in normal rooms. Additionally, it puts control of the relative
smoothness and tonal balance into the hands of the sound system
operator, a dangerous tool for all but the most experienced sound
reinforcement experts. It also partly explains why the live sound at
so many concert events (not all, mind you) is so awful."

"It's horse**** from a technical standpoint because CORRECTLY DONE
biamping, or tri-amping, or as needed (can we say "multi-amping"?) can
yield superior results to passive crossovers."

If you don't know what you are doing (i.e. "the most experienced" or
"CORRECTLY DONE") the results may sound far worse than a passive
crossover designed for that speaker system *and* you may/will damage
your speakers. The fact that someone was asking about damaging HF
speakers doing this leads me to believe they may not have much
experience.

BTW, we were blowing HF diaphragms with a 35 wpc amp, no doubt due to
clipping.

Your qualifier of "as needed" also does not conflict with the other
statement. So where's the problem?

[Arny Krueger]

"Unsteadyken" wrote in message

On Feb 12, 12:59 am, Clyde Slick
wrote:

Why in the worlld would you want a 250 watt amp to power
your high frequencies.

Perhaps the question should have been=Does a speakers
power handling rating apply only when single or biwired.

You seem confused. Biwiring is not the same as biamping.

is there a danger of overloading the HF section when bi amping?

Yes, and there is a danger of overloading the HF section whether you are
biamping, biwiring or whatever.

A proper set of specifications gives the power rating for the speaker in all
of its available modes.

Failing that, you use common sense.

[Arny Krueger]

"Bret Ludwig" wrote in message

Bi-amping, or biamplification, is used mainly in
professional sound reinforcement applications, where
extremely high levels of loudness are required. Here
big, separate amplifiers powering the low frequencies,
and smaller amps for the midrange will increase overall
output. Sometimes they will use a separate outboard
electronic crossover (the speaker's internal crossover
is disabled or bypassed entirely) so the operator can
vary and adjust individual crossover frequencies, tailor
the "slope" of the crossover to match the strengths of
each set of drivers, and also adjust the relative sonic
balance of bass, midrange and treble to suit the
environment. This is important for huge auditoriums or
outdoor events where separate arrays of treble and
midrange horns are operating with big "bass bins," but
such systems have no place in domestic home theater
systems in normal rooms. Additionally, it puts control
of the relative smoothness and tonal balance into the
hands of the sound system operator, a dangerous tool for
all but the most experienced sound reinforcement
experts. It also partly explains why the live sound at
so many concert events (not all, mind you) is so awful.

(i.e. and also why we blew so many diaphragms.)

http://www.axiomaudio.com/tips_biwir..._biamping.html

It's horse**** from a technical standpoint because
CORRECTLY DONE biamping, or tri-amping, or as needed (can
we say "multi-amping"?) can yield superior results to
passive crossovers. Additionally, it is the only kind of
multiple amplification that makes any technical sense
whatever.

Agreed, with the caveat given below.

Just yesterday I spoke of an excellent-sounding speaker system that did just
about everything wrong according to the reference, above. However, this
system worked as well as it did, because it was assembled and adjusted by
people with technical and artistic skills, not your average home audiophile.


The caveat is that it has to be done correctly and this
is not a simple task for the majority of users.

Right. The person who owned the system in question engineered the drivers,
crossovers, equalizers and amplifiers in several million audio systems that
are being listened to by consumers right now. OK, those audio systems are in
cars, but to a great degree, car audio is audio just like home audio.
Premium sound systems in modern cars are implemented as 2 and 3 way
multi-amped systems with active crossovers and precisely tuned equalization.
Technology done right simply works.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Feb 12, 6:50*am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Unsteadyken" wrote in message

On Feb 12, 12:59 am, Clyde Slick
wrote:

Why in the worlld would you want a 250 watt amp to power
your high frequencies.

Perhaps the question should have been=Does a speakers
power handling rating apply only when single *or biwired.

You seem confused. Biwiring is not the same as biamping.

He doesn't seem confused, GOIA. The internal crossover would be used
whether single or biwired. The power-handling rating would not change.
The answer to his not-at-all confusing question would be "yes".

is there a danger of overloading the HF section when bi amping?

Yes, and there is a danger of overloading the HF section whether you are
biamping, biwiring or whatever.

But a far greater danger exists if bypassing the passive crossover
designed for that speaker and driving them directly.

A proper set of specifications gives the power rating for the speaker in all
of its available modes.

Agreed.

Failing that, you use common sense.

Failing that, I'd ask the manufacturer for their specs for whatever
application was not covered. I've seen a lot of blown speakers as a
result of "common sense".

[UnsteadyKen]

says...


Failing that, I'd ask the manufacturer for their specs for whatever
application was not covered. I've seen a lot of blown speakers as a
result of "common sense".


Thanks and to all who replied
--

Ken

[JBorg, Jr.[_2_]]

UnsteadyKen wrote:
artyguy04 says...


Failing that, I'd ask the manufacturer for their specs for whatever
application was not covered. I've seen a lot of blown speakers as a
result of "common sense".


Thanks and to all who replied

I cannot lend some thought about biamping since it's been years
since I research that option for my system. However, I recommend
that you try biwiring your system as I did provided that your
speakers are biwirable. The changes I noticed with mine as I
recall affected the upper midrange and treble mostly which
sounded spacious to the point were I thought it was unrealistic.
I noticed no sonic improvement whatsoever. I have ML Aeruis
electrostat.

So I opted to use single wire to and from the pwr amp to both
speakers, promptly returned the biwires, and save my money.

[Clyde Slick]

On 13 Feb, 01:35, "JBorg, Jr." wrote:
UnsteadyKen wrote:
artyguy04 says...

Failing that, I'd ask the manufacturer for their specs for whatever
application was not covered. I've seen a lot of blown speakers as a
result of "common sense".

Thanks and to all who replied

I cannot lend some thought about biamping since it's been years
since I research that option for my system. *However, I recommend
that you try biwiring your system as I did provided that your
speakers are biwirable. *The changes I noticed with mine as I
recall affected the upper midrange and treble mostly which
sounded spacious to the point were I thought it was unrealistic.
I noticed no sonic improvement whatsoever. *I have ML Aeruis
electrostat.

So I opted to use single wire to and from the pwr amp to both
speakers, promptly returned the biwires, and save my money.

Wierd!
complaining about ES being too spacious.
Why did you buy such speakers in the first place, if you do
not desire a big soundstage.

[UnsteadyKen]

says...

The changes I noticed with mine as I
recall affected the upper midrange and treble mostly which
sounded spacious to the point were I thought it was unrealistic.
I noticed no sonic improvement whatsoever. I have ML Aeruis
electrostat.

I wonder that if you had repositioned the Aeruisi after biwiring to
achieve your preferred balance whether any improvements in overall sound
quality would have been heard :-). I have B&W DM620 single wired with
twin core mains cord so have tried biwiring at litte expense but cannot
say I heard any difference not to mention improvement...
--

Ken

[JBorg, Jr.[_2_]]

Clyde Slick wrote:
JBorg, Jr.wrote:
UnsteadyKen wrote:
artyguy04 says...




Failing that, I'd ask the manufacturer for their specs for whatever
application was not covered. I've seen a lot of blown speakers as a
result of "common sense".

Thanks and to all who replied

I cannot lend some thought about biamping since it's been years
since I research that option for my system. However, I recommend
that you try biwiring your system as I did provided that your
speakers are biwirable. The changes I noticed with mine as I
recall affected the upper midrange and treble mostly which
sounded spacious to the point were I thought it was unrealistic.
I noticed no sonic improvement whatsoever. I have ML Aeruis
electrostat.

So I opted to use single wire to and from the pwr amp to both
speakers, promptly returned the biwires, and save my money.

Wierd!
complaining about ES being too spacious.

The sound in the upper ranges seems thinner and diffuse.
Listening to bass drums and electric bass sounded great but
once the cymbals struck ... it's thhwaannggg sshhiisshhhh!
It's all over the place.


Why did you buy such speakers in the first place, if you do
not desire a big soundstage.

I listen to lots of percussion ensemble on well recorded cds.
The sound were more diffuse and less easy to pinpoint as
above. That's not a desirable soundstage for me no matter
how big. Sorry.

[JBorg, Jr.[_2_]]

UnsteadyKen wrote:
EddieM says...




The changes I noticed with mine as I
recall affected the upper midrange and treble mostly which
sounded spacious to the point were I thought it was unrealistic.
I noticed no sonic improvement whatsoever. I have ML Aeruis
electrostat.

I wonder that if you had repositioned the Aeruisi after biwiring to
achieve your preferred balance whether any improvements in overall
sound quality would have been heard :-).


I spend four days doing that plus rearranging everything my eyes
could see.


I have B&W DM620 single
wired with twin core mains cord so have tried biwiring at litte
expense but cannot say I heard any difference not to mention
improvement...


At least you tried. I was thinking about biamping at the time
using tube amp for the stators at the time but put it off.
Too much for my budget. I opted for a tube preamp instead
along with the 250w pc solid state pwr amp.

[[email protected]]

Hi everybody,
I am a new member to this group.I have been intensely searching for
opinions regarding bi amping,since i was to do one myself.If I am
right,usual bi amping involves passive bi amping only and the results
are much limited improvement in sound.Active bi amping with active
cross overs is the true bi amping business,but tricky and risky.
(Please correct me,if i am wrong).I just tried my old Graphic
equalizer (Marantz CD PLAYER to NAD Preamp to Technics G.Equalizer ...
12 times 2 = 24 Band., to Rotel power amp 200w /channel to Wharfedale
Evo 8 ..150w rms.There seems improvement in sound in general.Moreover
you can adjust the more specific frequencies if you wish so and no
confusion in connections etc.Is not this a better and scientific
method.Can you please comment on this and point out the flaws if there
are any.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Feb 16, 3:18*pm, wrote:
Hi everybody,
I am a new member to this group.I have been intensely searching for
opinions regarding bi amping,since i was to do one myself.If I am
right,usual bi amping involves passive bi amping only and the results
are much limited improvement in sound.Active bi amping with active
cross overs is the true bi amping business,but tricky and risky.
(Please correct me,if i am wrong).I just tried my old Graphic
equalizer (Marantz CD PLAYER to NAD Preamp to Technics G.Equalizer ...
12 times 2 = 24 Band., to Rotel power amp 200w /channel to Wharfedale
Evo 8 ..150w rms.There seems improvement in sound in general.Moreover
you can adjust the more specific frequencies if you wish so and no
confusion in connections etc.Is not this a better and scientific
method.Can you please comment on this and point out the flaws if there
are any.

This site may be helpful to you in answering some of your questions:

http://sound.westhost.com/bi-amp.htm

[UnsteadyKen]

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?

--
Ken

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

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.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

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?

[Kalman Rubinson]

On Fri, 29 Feb 2008 20:09:44 -0800 (PST), "Shhhh! I'm Listening to
Reason!" wrote:

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 would state it differently. In that setup, you are using the
speaker's passive crossover with its inherent inefficiency but
retaining its custom tailoring to the needs of the speaker components.
Replacing it with an external crossover requires the user to develop a
custom device of some sophistication. This requires knowledge and
skills and cannot be accomplished with an off-the-shelf crossover.
(DSP-based devices are making it much easier.)

Kal

[Unsteady Ken]

Kalman Rubinson wrote:


This requires knowledge and
skills and cannot be accomplished with an off-the-shelf crossover.
(DSP-based devices are making it much easier.)

Kal

active bi-amping seems to me to involve reinventing the crossover
which one assumes the manufacturer took great pains to arrive at and
would in effect be revoicing the speaker whether for better or worse.

[George M. Middius]

Unsteady Ken said:

active bi-amping seems to me to involve reinventing the crossover
which one assumes the manufacturer took great pains to arrive at and
would in effect be revoicing the speaker whether for better or worse.

Unless you believe, as some do, that the sonically transparent Xover has
yet to be invented.

[Kalman Rubinson]

On Sun, 02 Mar 2008 21:28:14 +0000, Unsteady Ken
wrote:

Kalman Rubinson wrote:


This requires knowledge and
skills and cannot be accomplished with an off-the-shelf crossover.
(DSP-based devices are making it much easier.)

Kal

active bi-amping seems to me to involve reinventing the crossover
which one assumes the manufacturer took great pains to arrive at and
would in effect be revoicing the speaker whether for better or worse.

[Unsteady Ken]

George M. Middius wrote:


would in effect be revoicing the speaker whether for better or worse.

Unless you believe, as some do, that the sonically transparent Xover has
yet to be invented.



Hadn't even thought about crossover sound as such, I was assuming that the
designer would know his speaers best though i have read many reports where
sonic benefits have been noted after the Xover has been modified with
"improved" parts and changes to the component layout.

i'm beginning to think that there is a lot to be said for active
speakers but I'm not sure i like the thought of the amplification being
in the same box as the drive units and valves are out as well unless you
seperate the amps from the enclosure which is where we came in.