Same. An updated Dynaco 70 for the top and whatever beast is on hand for the bottom. This, in my estimation is also where crossover component quality will give the best performance value. Open to debate as all things in audio.
There is another way, called "vertical bi-amping" as advicated by Cary Audio, like using a stereo amp as a "monoblock", one channel driving bass, & the other driving the treble.
@@Gary_Hunit's not any more difficult than what Paul suggests. There are pros and cons to either setup. With vertical biamping channel separation can be better, and there's more power for each woofer since one amp is only driving one speakers woofers. Horizontal biamping is best done with a line level crossover and two different amps, one that sounds better for the tweeters and one that sounds better for the woofers. You can also use 4 monoblocks to biamp.
Paul, use I 2 quad 405’s (405- 405-2 with dual power supplies and modern burrBrown Op amps. I had it your way for awhile until I saw an article on vertical bi amping. So as much fiddling around I took the 405-2 board out of the 405-2 amp and put it in the 405 - one amp and connect to that board to the bass of one channel. I did the same with the other ramp so both 405-2 boards are connected to bass speakers. Same with the 405 - one boards they are connected to left and right mid range and highs. The thinking being that one power supply gets to handle the bass and mid and highs and the other power supply does the same therefore not overwhelming the bandwidth for one power supply having to run 2 bass channels. The sound is simply stupendous It sounds beautifully warm I would say the speaker B&W matrix 3’s disappear, disappear. (they were designed to be transparent in the first place). Its non-fatiguing and I listen to for hours and . I like the idea of a really high-quality valve to handle the mid and highs and leave the QUAD to handle the bass
Paul I agree as I run the configuration you suggest and got fantastic results, also there are some other benefits like having adjustment of the level of high and low frequencies independently, and being able to use solid core cable on the highs and multi strand on the lows. A lot of tweak ability 4:18
I bi-amp vertically my speakers with two stereo Luxman M-900u amps (exactly like the person that asked Paul does), and it sounds fantastic! I’ve tried bi-amping horizontally (in the way that Paul suggested), and the sound got a little bit worse than vertical bi-amping
Agree. I got my MC75 tubed monoblocks on the tweeters and a beefy Class D stereo Amp on the "woofers" and also two Rythmik subs. All ran through a C2500 pre and a Marchand active crossover. Without---meh---the MC75s just did not play well with my Sonusfaber standmounts. All is golden now. Dr Phil Marchand himself and that crazy Mikey taught me exactly what to do for my setup.
Yes it is named horizontal or vertical bi amping. And now you can ALSO test your new more powerful amp in the horizontal case (no way to do that test in vertical bi-amping). So there is several things to test : 1. Your current vertical setup VS connecting it horizontal. What sounds best to you? 2. Now in your horizontal configuration try first to swap out your amp that drives the woofers to your new more powerful amp. Does that sounds better in any way? In test nr 2 (with your new amp inserted) try and pay attention to at low level listening and high level listening volumes. Is there any change in character. Like more or less base in one end of the volume levels. That can indicate that there is to big difference in the gain that the two different amplifier construction use between your old and new amp. Ideal is that they should be the same (gain).😅 Good luck with your testing!😅
Using a simple 6 db passive crossover in the amps inputs set below the mid/ tweeter x over will give you much more headroom in the bass. Keeping separate amps for each channel also helps in stereo separation, basically you have mono blocks. This is work for me, your mileage may vary😊 Note, you need to use extremely high quality parts and making sure that the crossover slope does not interfere with the speakers designed passive crossover.
The traditional "bi-amping" scheme still relies upon the superposition of the amplitude/impedance and phase response of the passive crossover elements in series with the individual speaker's complex impedance. So the amp channels for the "highs" still has to replicate the typically higher voltage swings of the lower frequencies. This is an advantage if the 'highs" amplifier is current limited, but does not gain much if it is voltage limited (pun intended). In layman's terms, the amplifier channel driving the 'highs' is still being fed the low/bass signals and will amplify the voltage waveform accordingly. In contrast, the amplifier channel driving the 'lows' still requires the higher slew rates sufficient for the amplitude of the 'highs" or transients. It would be better to implement a system with a phase coherent active crossover to reduce the performance burdens of both the lower frequency amplifier channels and transducer, and the higher frequencies. If the passive crossover elements are still retained in the circuit, the requirements of the active crossover are rather benign and very realizable both in the analog or digital domain.
I would also be concerned about the top end with 2 different amps possibly sounding a tiny bit different. If the 2 amps have slight differences in sound you then have 2 different sounding tweeters.
Best is active cross-over allowing individual amps to power individual drivers, assuming the source is digital and you can do the filtering in DSP. Andrew Jones agreed with me on this recently btw.
Yep... remove the internal crossover entirely. One of my current projects is a basic op-amp crossover feeding a TPA3255 based class D mini-amp mounted to the back of a pair of tower speakers, directly wired to the drivers. Gotta say it sounds pretty good for a first generation design.
i have been trying fully active crossover with plate amps. i realise i hate plate amps and hiss noise. but i do want to get into it again in the future. someone have to make the plate amps into a normal hifi chassis, so the speakers are just drivers in boxes with each driver got induvial binding posts. and it is a bit annoying active amps does need a dsp, because i also want a another dsp in the "preamp" or volume control unit, for Realtime dsp and parametric equalization.
@sudd3660 There's no fixed relationship between plate amps and hiss ... it's just bad amplifier design. Some plate amps are dead silent with no input. The idea of externally mounting the amp and crossover is a good one. Makes service a whole lot easier. In the power amp, where you're only concerned with frequency steering and level control you can probably get away with a relatively simple, and inexpensive OP-Amp design. Save the DSP for your pre-amp and EQ functions.
I tried bi amping in the past. A solid state Samson servo 120a on the woofers and a class a-b arcam on the tweeters. I enjoyed the setup but beware to all you then need to match the tweeter and woofer levels to your liking but preferably with a measurement mic. Nowadays I use two monoblocks. Imo modern high quality amps really should see no benefit with biamping. However as Paul mentioned if you want to run tubes I see it as a good solution still. Using a cheaper class d tpa3255 amp on the woofers and a tube on the tweeter.
I currently use a couple of Class D amps each with separate PSUs, one amp per channel. I use a miniDSP FLEX as active crossover and for room DSP. The speakers are DIY 15" open baffle bass / distributed mode panel hybrids. The XO point is 400hz, mainly due to poor panel performance below this. The 15" Monacor PA drivers can run flat well into upper midrange territory. I have indeed pondered going with Paul's recommended approach. My only question mark would be whether any small reduction (if indeed any) in channel separation would be outweighed by superior mid/treble performance. I guess there's only one way to know!
Back in the days when I experimented with biamping. I had a pair of 305w monoblocks driving the mid-high frequency drivers and a 220w stereo power amp driving the bass. I know that sounds arse backwards, but it worked. The monoblocks were powered by 880v/a transformers, whilst the power amp was powered by a 2220v/a transformer. I guess that additional current reserve was the game changer on the bass. I wasn’t brave enough to experiment with active crossovers, so I wasn’t overly impressed with the results and no longer biamp.
Is there better channel separation when using one amp for left channel highs and lows and one for right highs and lows? At least that was my thought when I set my system up.
@@moviespizzaand They are the same amps, Emotiva Bas-x. I might try Pauls suggestion and see if I hear a difference. That is trying both high channels on one amp and both low channels on the other amp.
I have no idea what that guy who wrote you is doing. It's always been an amp for the woofers and an amp on the tweeters. The whole point is to take the strain of the woofers off the amp powering the tweeters.
Either way is basically a waste of time if a line level crossover is not used. The way he is doing it actually makes more sense if the signal isn't split at line level and the speakers passive crossover is being used.
@@mitchtaylor6512 Even with a passive crossover, the point (strain) mentioned, will of course have been realized, since an amp loaded with a high impedance at a specific frequency range, will simply not deliver much current in that very range.
I did it Paul’s suggested method, except I am driving a sub 800 hz pair of subwoofers with a solid state 60w/ch, and my speakers with a 60w/ch tube amp as a split signal directly from my DAC. To me the result is perfect, but hey… what do I know?
I passive bi-amped my Infinity RS IIIa's. I use a 4 channel, 250 watts per channel @ 4ohms amps. The speakers killed every amp they came in touch with over the years. Setting it up this way the amp works but its not over loaded being I left lots of headroom, something Infinity's crave.
That's how I always did it with pro systems. Enough amplifier power for the highs but super clear and articulate. Then for the woofers stable power and plenty of it. The woofer amp is often much larger.
Makes sense to me. The alternate method seems almost certain to produce unbalanced results due to the different characteristics of the 2 amps, unless they are identical. For the record, I have never bi-amped. But I am more likely to do so following this provocation.
Usually, we have Speaker A (pair) with L and R channels and Speaker B (pair) with L and R channels. I guess we can think of Speaker A as one amp and Speaker B as the other amp. If we connect the left channels of Speaker A and Speaker B only to the tweeters, and the right channels of Speaker A and Speaker B only to the bass, I don't think we would achieve stereo sound. Connecting the left and right channels of Speaker A to the tweeters and the left and right channels of Speaker B to the bass is the obvious way to do it, as Paul mentioned. Did I miss something?
Yes, you did. Speaker pair A & B are connected to the same exact channels of a stereo amplifier inside. Moreover, for the vast majority of amps on the market, all so called negative terminals are in fact ground, while so called positive terminals are in fact just as often positive as negative, referenced to ground, with music playing.
@@paulb4661 Makes sense, thanks for clarifying. However, pure Active Bi-Amping (as you described in clip) and so-called 'Passive' Bi-Amping are identical when it comes to external wiring, as far as I understand. The key difference, is that in pure Active Bi-Amping, we use two separate amplifiers, each directly driving specific frequency ranges (HF or LF) via an external active crossover that splits the signal before amplification. In Passive Bi-Amping, the amplifier, with Speaker A/B terminals and A+B capabilities, sends a full-range signal to the speakers with HF/LF terminals (bridge removed), and the internal passive crossover networks in the speakers handle the frequency splitting internally. The wiring diagram is the same: Speaker A or Amp 1 terminals, L/R channels to HF speakers terminals, and Speaker B or Amp 2 terminals, L/R channels to LF speakers terminals. At least that's how I've learned it-no smoke from the speakers yet! :) Are there any limitations or red flags from your point of view? imgur.com/a/ma0ciNp imgur.com/a/YgUkofq
@@mobileuser2923 There's no such thing as passive and active bi-amping- what you refer to as passive is called bi-wiring in fact. Bi-amping= two amps & two sets of cables, bi-wiring= one amp & two sets of cables. In both cases however, the amp, or amps do not send the full range signal to the speakers on either of the cable sets! The current is a function of impedance, V²/R=I. In short: high impedance equals little current. High impedance is what the tweeter presents to the amp below its crossover frequency, and what the low-midrange driver presents to the amp above its crossover frequency.
I bi amp with 4 mono amps,dsp driven...5200watts rms. Into legacy which are 4 15 inch woofers each side. Van alstine and legacy. Control,no such thing g as too many watts,it's control...
My experience is entirely different. In my 45 years of being an audiophile, I have bi-amped vertically and horizontally as well as not bi-amped at all, and I have NEVER heard a difference no matter the configuration. And that goes for Magnepan, Acoustat and Revel full range speakers which I have owned, so my systems have been plenty resolving to be able to hear differences that exist. Sorry, but bi-amping means nothing other than "buy amping". Don't waste your money or your time. And "buy wiring" is even more ridiculous.
@@anonimushboshExcept we use dedicated monoblock for each driver, ideally wherein the amp is specifically suited to that driver. I have 3-way horns with x-over points @ 450Hz and 10khz. I use Wavac 805 monos for bass, Berning ZOTL 300B for mid horn and a custom RCA 50 SET DHT for super tweeter. I’ve owned a lot of systems the last 45 years but this is the best I’ve ever had and best I’ve heard anywhere so far.
@@anonimushbosh Yes that is one way think about it that it is a active speaker.. but if we look at it little bit closer? The true benefits to tap into of going active or let say more precise "one amp for each driver". Is that NOW you can do the crossover BEFORE the power amplifiers! There is where we can harvest a lot of sound quality! By NOT doing that is leaving a lot of performance on the table. It is just stupid to first of let all the monoblocks amplify the whole frequency range.😢 And then after the POWERamplifiers has amplified the low level signal to higher levels of current and voltage. And then AFTER that we let the signal go through large caps/indicator/resistors that the passive crossover is made of (so they can handle the higher voltage and current they need to be bigger). Even the cheapest and shitiest DSP that act as just a crossover AND the power Amps directly connected to the speaker drivers (bypassing the speaker internal passive crossover) will sound better any day of the week. That is the core benefit and true meaning of ACTIVE speaker (to remove the PASSIVE crossover) in my book anyway.😅 You have other benefits is that the power amplifier is acting directly on the driver and controlling it much better with its damping factor when there is no huge caps/indicator/resistor in between the power amp and the driver! (More often than not those parts is bad quality and you can go high end on just passive caps/indicator/resistor that will cost you a fortune! And it is on the other hand much cheaper and cost effective if you want to do the SAME job of active crossover in the low voltage domain instead before the power amplifier with high end caps/indicator/resistors when they are much smaller in the ~2 voltage domain 🎉🎉 (if you dont want to use a DSP). A purist dont want a passive crossover in a speaker. The "only" thing a passive crossover solve is spelled CONVENIENCE. The convenience to just hook up a amp to speaker terminals. And you dont need to know crossover points, slopes between the different drivers and those values will be different from speaker to speaker..😢😮 But that (huge) convenience is coming with a huge cost also.. (there is no free lunch) So a real purist will be more DIY oriented and toss out the bad passive crossover and tap into the true performance of the speakers that NO OTHER OWNER have ever been able to tap into sound performance wise even if they have the same speakers!😮😅
@@AmazonasBiotopmost people who try going active don't really have enough knowledge on the subject to actually get the speaker to perform better than the passive crossover, especially if it's a complex crossover.
If passive biamping makes a difference, then you have a shitty amp. Let's say for the sake of argument that no one in a normal listening situation uses more than 50 watts of actual power into 8 ohms (mind you that most people only listen to their speakers at less than 8 watts of power). 50 watts rms is about 10 amps peak. That's nothing. If your amp can't swing 10 amps at 30khz without lagging or sagging then you need to realize that your power supply is worse than a modern chinese switch mode psu. It certainly isn't better than the power supply inside your microwave oven : P
That sounds definitive, but I wonder if power is the only consideration, as your response seems to suggest. I ask only in the interest of possibly learning something. I am by no means an expert in these matters. In fact, I admit to never having bi-amped. Thanks.
@@moviespizzaandyou are correct it's not just about power, but it's a waste of time without a line level crossover and quite a bit of knowledge on how to setup properly.
Toroidal transformer regulation is about 10% on avarage, which obviously has implications for (mostly) unregulated current stage DC rails in class AB amplifiers.There are however other considerations, such as IM distortion and peak dissipation related to the phase/impedance relationship at the lower end of the spectrum, especially in vented speakers and Vbe multiplier/bias stability in bipolar transistor output stages to name but a few.
Wait what? I never thought of bi-amping other ways than what Paul described.
Same. An updated Dynaco 70 for the top and whatever beast is on hand for the bottom. This, in my estimation is also where crossover component quality will give the best performance value. Open to debate as all things in audio.
There is another way, called "vertical bi-amping" as advicated by Cary Audio, like using a stereo amp as a "monoblock", one channel driving bass, & the other driving the treble.
Yeah i don't even understand how that other way would be someone's immediate choice, it sounds like a technical challenge compared to ""Paul's"" way.
@@Gary_Hunit's not any more difficult than what Paul suggests. There are pros and cons to either setup. With vertical biamping channel separation can be better, and there's more power for each woofer since one amp is only driving one speakers woofers. Horizontal biamping is best done with a line level crossover and two different amps, one that sounds better for the tweeters and one that sounds better for the woofers. You can also use 4 monoblocks to biamp.
According to Schiit Audio vertical biamping can increase intermodulating distortion.
The largest ever improvement I made with my late 80s Linn system was active tri amping. It transformed the system. The bass became musical.
My relative used this one from 1980-2000, he has now gone to the other extreme with ATC.
Paul, use I 2 quad 405’s (405- 405-2 with dual power supplies and modern burrBrown Op amps. I had it your way for awhile until I saw an article on vertical bi amping. So as much fiddling around I took the 405-2 board out of the 405-2 amp and put it in the 405 - one amp and connect to that board to the bass of one channel. I did the same with the other ramp so both 405-2 boards are connected to bass speakers. Same with the 405 - one boards they are connected to left and right mid range and highs. The thinking being that one power supply gets to handle the bass and mid and highs and the other power supply does the same therefore not overwhelming the bandwidth for one power supply having to run 2 bass channels. The sound is simply stupendous It sounds beautifully warm I would say the speaker B&W matrix 3’s disappear, disappear. (they were designed to be transparent in the first place). Its non-fatiguing and I listen to for hours and . I like the idea of a really high-quality valve to handle the mid and highs and leave the QUAD to handle the bass
Paul I agree as I run the configuration you suggest and got fantastic results, also there are some other benefits like having adjustment of the level of high and low frequencies independently, and being able to use solid core cable on the highs and multi strand on the lows. A lot of tweak ability 4:18
I bi-amp vertically my speakers with two stereo Luxman M-900u amps (exactly like the person that asked Paul does), and it sounds fantastic! I’ve tried bi-amping horizontally (in the way that Paul suggested), and the sound got a little bit worse than vertical bi-amping
Agree. I got my MC75 tubed monoblocks on the tweeters and a beefy Class D stereo Amp on the "woofers" and also two Rythmik subs. All ran through a C2500 pre and a Marchand active crossover. Without---meh---the MC75s just did not play well with my Sonusfaber standmounts. All is golden now. Dr Phil Marchand himself and that crazy Mikey taught me exactly what to do for my setup.
The inclusion of a pre-amplifier signal-level crossover (aka, active) is the salient difference from a general "Bi-Amp" configuration.
Paul, You didn't do anything for the PS Audio 50th anniversary as you said you were going to. Can't you show some old pictures or something?
Yes it is named horizontal or vertical bi amping.
And now you can ALSO test your new more powerful amp in the horizontal case (no way to do that test in vertical bi-amping).
So there is several things to test :
1. Your current vertical setup VS connecting it horizontal.
What sounds best to you?
2. Now in your horizontal configuration try first to swap out your amp that drives the woofers to your new more powerful amp.
Does that sounds better in any way?
In test nr 2 (with your new amp inserted) try and pay attention to at low level listening and high level listening volumes. Is there any change in character. Like more or less base in one end of the volume levels.
That can indicate that there is to big difference in the gain that the two different amplifier construction use between your old and new amp.
Ideal is that they should be the same (gain).😅
Good luck with your testing!😅
Using a simple 6 db passive crossover in the amps inputs set below the mid/ tweeter x over will give you much more headroom in the bass. Keeping separate amps for each channel also helps in stereo separation, basically you have mono blocks. This is work for me, your mileage may vary😊 Note, you need to use extremely high quality parts and making sure that the crossover slope does not interfere with the speakers designed passive crossover.
I agree with 1 amp for Subs and 1 for mids and highs or an amp for each style of speaker tweeter, midrange, subwoofer
The traditional "bi-amping" scheme still relies upon the superposition of the amplitude/impedance and phase response of the passive crossover elements in series with the individual speaker's complex impedance. So the amp channels for the "highs" still has to replicate the typically higher voltage swings of the lower frequencies. This is an advantage if the 'highs" amplifier is current limited, but does not gain much if it is voltage limited (pun intended). In layman's terms, the amplifier channel driving the 'highs' is still being fed the low/bass signals and will amplify the voltage waveform accordingly. In contrast, the amplifier channel driving the 'lows' still requires the higher slew rates sufficient for the amplitude of the 'highs" or transients. It would be better to implement a system with a phase coherent active crossover to reduce the performance burdens of both the lower frequency amplifier channels and transducer, and the higher frequencies.
If the passive crossover elements are still retained in the circuit, the requirements of the active crossover are rather benign and very realizable both in the analog or digital domain.
I would also be concerned about the top end with 2 different amps possibly sounding a tiny bit different. If the 2 amps have slight differences in sound you then have 2 different sounding tweeters.
You use identical amps when vertical biamping, it's like a monoblock setup then.
Best is active cross-over allowing individual amps to power individual drivers, assuming the source is digital and you can do the filtering in DSP. Andrew Jones agreed with me on this recently btw.
Yep... remove the internal crossover entirely.
One of my current projects is a basic op-amp crossover feeding a TPA3255 based class D mini-amp mounted to the back of a pair of tower speakers, directly wired to the drivers. Gotta say it sounds pretty good for a first generation design.
@@Douglas_Blake 🖤of course it would Doug.. everything you touch turns to gold! ..except that one time on Audio Science Review🤭
i have been trying fully active crossover with plate amps. i realise i hate plate amps and hiss noise.
but i do want to get into it again in the future. someone have to make the plate amps into a normal hifi chassis, so the speakers are just drivers in boxes with each driver got induvial binding posts.
and it is a bit annoying active amps does need a dsp, because i also want a another dsp in the "preamp" or volume control unit, for Realtime dsp and parametric equalization.
@@clickbeetle2720
Please ... try not to be such an ass.
@sudd3660
There's no fixed relationship between plate amps and hiss ... it's just bad amplifier design. Some plate amps are dead silent with no input.
The idea of externally mounting the amp and crossover is a good one. Makes service a whole lot easier.
In the power amp, where you're only concerned with frequency steering and level control you can probably get away with a relatively simple, and inexpensive OP-Amp design. Save the DSP for your pre-amp and EQ functions.
I tried bi amping in the past. A solid state Samson servo 120a on the woofers and a class a-b arcam on the tweeters. I enjoyed the setup but beware to all you then need to match the tweeter and woofer levels to your liking but preferably with a measurement mic. Nowadays I use two monoblocks. Imo modern high quality amps really should see no benefit with biamping. However as Paul mentioned if you want to run tubes I see it as a good solution still. Using a cheaper class d tpa3255 amp on the woofers and a tube on the tweeter.
I currently use a couple of Class D amps each with separate PSUs, one amp per channel. I use a miniDSP FLEX as active crossover and for room DSP. The speakers are DIY 15" open baffle bass / distributed mode panel hybrids. The XO point is 400hz, mainly due to poor panel performance below this. The 15" Monacor PA drivers can run flat well into upper midrange territory.
I have indeed pondered going with Paul's recommended approach. My only question mark would be whether any small reduction (if indeed any) in channel separation would be outweighed by superior mid/treble performance. I guess there's only one way to know!
Back in the days when I experimented with biamping. I had a pair of 305w monoblocks driving the mid-high frequency drivers and a 220w stereo power amp driving the bass. I know that sounds arse backwards, but it worked. The monoblocks were powered by 880v/a transformers, whilst the power amp was powered by a 2220v/a transformer. I guess that additional current reserve was the game changer on the bass. I wasn’t brave enough to experiment with active crossovers, so I wasn’t overly impressed with the results and no longer biamp.
The "wattage" rating of an amp is mostly immaterial without specifying the load impedance.
Is there better channel separation when using one amp for left channel highs and lows and one for right highs and lows? At least that was my thought when I set my system up.
That makes sense to me. Are they identical amps? Or at least similar? I ask because I have heard quite a lot of difference in the performance of amps.
@@moviespizzaand They are the same amps, Emotiva Bas-x. I might try Pauls suggestion and see if I hear a difference. That is trying both high channels on one amp and both low channels on the other amp.
I do it the same as Paul said.
I have no idea what that guy who wrote you is doing. It's always been an amp for the woofers and an amp on the tweeters. The whole point is to take the strain of the woofers off the amp powering the tweeters.
Either way is basically a waste of time if a line level crossover is not used. The way he is doing it actually makes more sense if the signal isn't split at line level and the speakers passive crossover is being used.
@@mitchtaylor6512 Even with a passive crossover, the point (strain) mentioned, will of course have been realized, since an amp loaded with a high impedance at a specific frequency range, will simply not deliver much current in that very range.
I did it Paul’s suggested method, except I am driving a sub 800 hz pair of subwoofers with a solid state 60w/ch, and my speakers with a 60w/ch tube amp as a split signal directly from my DAC. To me the result is perfect, but hey… what do I know?
I passive bi-amped my Infinity RS IIIa's. I use a 4 channel, 250 watts per channel @ 4ohms amps. The speakers killed every amp they came in touch with over the years. Setting it up this way the amp works but its not over loaded being I left lots of headroom, something Infinity's crave.
You can have shorter speaker cables by having one amplifier at each speaker.
I thought having a left amp, and a right amp, would reduce cross talk?
What do you do about the current crossover in the speaker?
he's talking passive not active bi-amping. The crossovers do what they always do.
That's how I always did it with pro systems. Enough amplifier power for the highs but super clear and articulate. Then for the woofers stable power and plenty of it. The woofer amp is often much larger.
Makes sense to me. The alternate method seems almost certain to produce unbalanced results due to the different characteristics of the 2 amps, unless they are identical. For the record, I have never bi-amped. But I am more likely to do so following this provocation.
what active crossover are you using ....I mean ..you do have one don't you?
FIRST! Good video!
Seems like one would get some phase issues with that L/R setup.
i always wondered how an amp without eqing could sound that bright like the phase linear
I would need an XLR splitter to bi-amp.
I’m not bi. I run one heterosexual amplifier and I’m pleased.
🤣🤣 Same here
A hand-made DIY hybrid one
I'm not bi, but I occasionally listen to AC/DC.
Usually, we have Speaker A (pair) with L and R channels and Speaker B (pair) with L and R channels. I guess we can think of Speaker A as one amp and Speaker B as the other amp. If we connect the left channels of Speaker A and Speaker B only to the tweeters, and the right channels of Speaker A and Speaker B only to the bass, I don't think we would achieve stereo sound. Connecting the left and right channels of Speaker A to the tweeters and the left and right channels of Speaker B to the bass is the obvious way to do it, as Paul mentioned. Did I miss something?
Yes, you did. Speaker pair A & B are connected to the same exact channels of a stereo amplifier inside. Moreover, for the vast majority of amps on the market, all so called negative terminals are in fact ground, while so called positive terminals are in fact just as often positive as negative, referenced to ground, with music playing.
@@paulb4661 Makes sense, thanks for clarifying. However, pure Active Bi-Amping (as you described in clip) and so-called 'Passive' Bi-Amping are identical when it comes to external wiring, as far as I understand. The key difference, is that in pure Active Bi-Amping, we use two separate amplifiers, each directly driving specific frequency ranges (HF or LF) via an external active crossover that splits the signal before amplification. In Passive Bi-Amping, the amplifier, with Speaker A/B terminals and A+B capabilities, sends a full-range signal to the speakers with HF/LF terminals (bridge removed), and the internal passive crossover networks in the speakers handle the frequency splitting internally. The wiring diagram is the same: Speaker A or Amp 1 terminals, L/R channels to HF speakers terminals, and Speaker B or Amp 2 terminals, L/R channels to LF speakers terminals. At least that's how I've learned it-no smoke from the speakers yet! :) Are there any limitations or red flags from your point of view?
imgur.com/a/ma0ciNp
imgur.com/a/YgUkofq
@@mobileuser2923 There's no such thing as passive and active bi-amping- what you refer to as passive is called bi-wiring in fact. Bi-amping= two amps & two sets of cables, bi-wiring= one amp & two sets of cables. In both cases however, the amp, or amps do not send the full range signal to the speakers on either of the cable sets! The current is a function of impedance, V²/R=I. In short: high impedance equals little current. High impedance is what the tweeter presents to the amp below its crossover frequency, and what the low-midrange driver presents to the amp above its crossover frequency.
@@paulb4661two stereo amps and two sets of cables isn't biwiring, it's passive biamping.
I see the sign behind you that says trash, exactly right!
I bi amp with 4 mono amps,dsp driven...5200watts rms. Into legacy which are 4 15 inch woofers each side. Van alstine and legacy. Control,no such thing g as too many watts,it's control...
My experience is entirely different. In my 45 years of being an audiophile, I have bi-amped vertically and horizontally as well as not bi-amped at all, and I have NEVER heard a difference no matter the configuration. And that goes for Magnepan, Acoustat and Revel full range speakers which I have owned, so my systems have been plenty resolving to be able to hear differences that exist. Sorry, but bi-amping means nothing other than "buy amping". Don't waste your money or your time. And "buy wiring" is even more ridiculous.
Did you use a line level crossover that was designed for the speakers you were using?
🖤Paul.. master of the gentle slap..😂
♠although, I suspect you were vastly exiguous with the sub eta.. 😪maybe next year..
Purists would want four monoblocks.
[I am Not a purist.]
That’s effectively an active speaker, which could be PS Audio’s next speaker project after the sub.
@@anonimushboshExcept we use dedicated monoblock for each driver, ideally wherein the amp is specifically suited to that driver. I have 3-way horns with x-over points @ 450Hz and 10khz. I use Wavac 805 monos for bass, Berning ZOTL 300B for mid horn and a custom RCA 50 SET DHT for super tweeter. I’ve owned a lot of systems the last 45 years but this is the best I’ve ever had and best I’ve heard anywhere so far.
@@anonimushbosh
Yes that is one way think about it that it is a active speaker.. but if we look at it little bit closer?
The true benefits to tap into of going active or let say more precise "one amp for each driver".
Is that NOW you can do the crossover BEFORE the power amplifiers!
There is where we can harvest a lot of sound quality!
By NOT doing that is leaving a lot of performance on the table.
It is just stupid to first of let all the monoblocks amplify the whole frequency range.😢
And then after the POWERamplifiers has amplified the low level signal to higher levels of current and voltage. And then AFTER that we let the signal go through large caps/indicator/resistors that the passive crossover is made of (so they can handle the higher voltage and current they need to be bigger).
Even the cheapest and shitiest DSP that act as just a crossover AND the power Amps directly connected to the speaker drivers (bypassing the speaker internal passive crossover) will sound better any day of the week.
That is the core benefit and true meaning of ACTIVE speaker (to remove the PASSIVE crossover) in my book anyway.😅
You have other benefits is that the power amplifier is acting directly on the driver and controlling it much better with its damping factor when there is no huge caps/indicator/resistor in between the power amp and the driver! (More often than not those parts is bad quality and you can go high end on just passive caps/indicator/resistor that will cost you a fortune! And it is on the other hand much cheaper and cost effective if you want to do the SAME job of active crossover in the low voltage domain instead before the power amplifier with high end caps/indicator/resistors when they are much smaller in the ~2 voltage domain 🎉🎉 (if you dont want to use a DSP).
A purist dont want a passive crossover in a speaker. The "only" thing a passive crossover solve is spelled CONVENIENCE.
The convenience to just hook up a amp to speaker terminals.
And you dont need to know crossover points, slopes between the different drivers and those values will be different from speaker to speaker..😢😮
But that (huge) convenience is coming with a huge cost also.. (there is no free lunch)
So a real purist will be more DIY oriented and toss out the bad passive crossover and tap into the true performance of the speakers that NO OTHER OWNER have ever been able to tap into sound performance wise even if they have the same speakers!😮😅
@@MichaelM-to4sg You sir deserve a hearty WOW! Consider me inspired. Thanks for your comment.
@@AmazonasBiotopmost people who try going active don't really have enough knowledge on the subject to actually get the speaker to perform better than the passive crossover, especially if it's a complex crossover.
Would be nice to see Paul repost Mend It Mike....😂
If passive biamping makes a difference, then you have a shitty amp. Let's say for the sake of argument that no one in a normal listening situation uses more than 50 watts of actual power into 8 ohms (mind you that most people only listen to their speakers at less than 8 watts of power). 50 watts rms is about 10 amps peak. That's nothing. If your amp can't swing 10 amps at 30khz without lagging or sagging then you need to realize that your power supply is worse than a modern chinese switch mode psu. It certainly isn't better than the power supply inside your microwave oven : P
That sounds definitive, but I wonder if power is the only consideration, as your response seems to suggest. I ask only in the interest of possibly learning something. I am by no means an expert in these matters. In fact, I admit to never having bi-amped. Thanks.
@@moviespizzaandyou are correct it's not just about power, but it's a waste of time without a line level crossover and quite a bit of knowledge on how to setup properly.
Toroidal transformer regulation is about 10% on avarage, which obviously has implications for (mostly) unregulated current stage DC rails in class AB amplifiers.There are however other considerations, such as IM distortion and peak dissipation related to the phase/impedance relationship at the lower end of the spectrum, especially in vented speakers and Vbe multiplier/bias stability in bipolar transistor output stages to name but a few.
Thanks Paul, Just watched an old Video By UK Tech @menditmark repair a 20+ year old Power Plant 300