Bi-Amping advice

[Josh-S]

ok, I understand the concept, but how does it work? If my RTi4's are rated at 120W RMS and that power is being split into 2 drivers then the total of both combined is rated at a maximume of 120W RMS right? SO I cant give each conection a 120W feed on the RTi4's right?


:confused:

[BIZILL]

right. and you wouldn't need to. but if you had a cheap receiver putting out only 60 watts rms, and you had another 60-75 watts rms, you could bi-amp. but 60 watts should make them sing as it is.

[Josh-S]

:eek: what the heck... I duble posted this!

Sorry about that, I posted this question in about 5 other forums so its hard to keep track. I have a HK AVR 630 and a VSX-1015TX right now. The VSX-1015TX
is the Bi amping one I am refering to. It will give each chanel 120W RMS suposidly so I dont wish to push them too much. So I'll just stay away from bi amping.

[BIZILL]

if you use your avr 630, it'll push the rti4's with plenty of power.

[Josh-S]

if you use your avr 630, it'll push the rti4's with plenty of power.


Yea, just wanted to try bi amping out :p

[McLoki]

If you push your amp to the limit or your amp struggles with your speakers bi-amping can make sense.

If you are going to try and bi-amp from an AVR I doubt it will be able to provide any benefit (since you will still have a limited current supply). If you have to purchase another amp to try it, it is usually a better deal to just get a more powerful amp and sell your current amp to offset the costs.

Michael

[Josh-S]

I read that bi amping provides its own benifets. such as brighter highs and tighter mids... Thats the only reason I wished to try it... :o

[McLoki]

I read that bi amping provides its own benifets. such as brighter highs and tighter mids... Thats the only reason I wished to try it... :oThat is true, but only if your amp cannot provide it by itself. (i.e. for the levels you are running at, the highs start to sound strained and the mids start to get mushy.)

I typically prefer a larger single amp, but for every problem there are multiple solutions and larger is not always (but often) the best solution.

Michael

[BobMcG]

I read that bi amping provides its own benifets. such as brighter highs and tighter mids... Thats the only reason I wished to try it... :o


Hi Josh,

Bi-amping can provide you with the power to better reproduce the bass region, clearing up and defining the mids giving a more detailed soundstage, but I don't think you really want brighter highs for any reason. Just my opinion. I can't credit that result due to bi-amping though either. ;)

[dholmes]

Wouldnt you need a external crossover for bi-amping?

[reeltrouble1]

No you would not. When you bi-amp you must remove the jumpers on the speaker posts though.

RT1

[BrentMcGhee]

You dont see the true advantages of bi amping unless you are using external crossovers placed before the power amps themselves. That way each amp is only responsible for one half of the frequency range. Plus doing it this way also makes it so the two speaker cables that you use are only responsible for one half of the frequency range as well, i.e. bass does interfere with the treble or midrange because they are being amped in different housings and running down to completely different cables.

[reeltrouble1]

Brent,

Seems like alot of extra connections and signal path filtering to consider. I tried it once with the B&K, really did not blow my skirt up.

But hey, if it floats someone's boat, go for it.

RT1

[Tour2ma]

Brent, dh,
Have been a couple good discussions on your exernal x-over point 'round here. One such example around mid-page is here:
http://www.polkaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=7872&highlight=biamp+OR+biamp

As in most cases audio, no universal view, just good discussion/ debate.

If my RTi4's are rated at 120W RMS and that power is being split into 2 drivers then the total of both combined is rated at a maximume of 120W RMS right? SO I cant give each conection a 120W feed on the RTi4's right?Not completely sure what you mean by "feed", but if you're thinking you cannot hook a speaker up to an amp with a power rating that exceeds that of the speaker... well, that's not true. Whether your amp is above or below the continuous rating of your speakers, their survival still depends upon you.

[audiocrzy25]

hello, new to the ht. Have onkyo tx-sr702 7.1 reciever 100 watts hooked up to rti 12's.
Also have onkyo m 282 amp. Should i bi amp them? also have cs 400 center, rt55i surrounds, fx30 rear surrounds, and a psw450 sub.

[McLoki]

hello, new to the ht. Have onkyo tx-sr702 7.1 reciever 100 watts hooked up to rti 12's.
Also have onkyo m 282 amp. Should i bi amp them? also have cs 400 center, rt55i surrounds, fx30 rear surrounds, and a psw450 sub.
No. If your AVR has pre-outs, you should run your rti12's off your 282 amp and run your center and surrounds off of your AVR.

Let your amp run your largest speakers and let your AVR handle what is left. Your overall sound should be much improved. Not only will the fronts sound better with an actual amp, but the center and surrounds will have more power available to them without the 12's taking the lions share of the current available.

Michael

[Tour2ma]

I dunno 'bout that... especially if there's some 2 ch listening as well here.

Using the 282 in a bi-amp scheme could yield some bene's. And assigning the 282 the LF duties still removes about 85% of the main's demands when in HT mode...

Why not try it and see?

[reeltrouble1]

Why not try it and see?

best advice right there.

Bruce--so good to have you back, bi-guy ;).

RT1

[millerman 3732]

This may be a DUMD question , but can you Bi-amp with two avr's and not just amps

[millerman 3732]

sorry about the big blank spot, got carried away hitting buttons

[audiocrzy25]

I dunno 'bout that... especially if there's some 2 ch listening as well here.

Using the 282 in a bi-amp scheme could yield some bene's. And assigning the 282 the LF duties still removes about 85% of the main's demands when in HT mode...

Why not try it and see?


Tried both ways. sounds better bi amped. do listen to some 2 ch, but more movies. thanks guys. oh yeah it sounds great.

[Tour2ma]

Glad you gave it a whirl and like the results.

Millerman,
Hit the "Edit" button and you can clean up your "space-a-thon"...

As to your question... I guess it's possible assuming one AVR has Pre-Outs and the 2nd has the appropriate Amp in inputs. You could go Pre-Outs to a line input, e.g., Tape-in, but that brings the second AVR's pre-amp section into play with all its controls and now you've got to balance volumes...

If you looking to use two AVR's you have laying around just to try it... go for it. But I doubt it's a set up you'd want to live with...

[millerman 3732]

Glad you gave it a whirl and like the results.

Millerman,
Hit the "Edit" button and you can clean up your "space-a-thon"...

As to your question... I guess it's possible assuming one AVR has Pre-Outs and the 2nd has the appropriate Amp in inputs. You could go Pre-Outs to a line input, e.g., Tape-in, but that brings the second AVR's pre-amp section into play with all its controls and now you've got to balance volumes...

If you looking to use two AVR's you have laying around just to try it... go for it. But I doubt it's a set up you'd want to live with...
Tour2ma, thanks for the edit tip, but about the bi amp thing I was thinking more like say splitting a digital coax signal from a dvd or cd player in to two recivers and using one avr to drive the mids and one for highs, and nope I don't have an extra avr i'am not using just wondering if it where possiable

[Tour2ma]

First.... Happy 100th post.

Second... again you could do what you are suggesting. Primary issue that springs to mind is an audible delay emerging due to differences in processor speeds of the two AVR's.

[millerman 3732]

frist......thank you very much sir
second ...... and not to just keep beating a dead horse ,what about identical avr's

[Tour2ma]

1. You're welcome...

2. Should eliminate any potential delay issues.

[Fallen Kell]

You dont see the true advantages of bi amping unless you are using external crossovers placed before the power amps themselves. That way each amp is only responsible for one half of the frequency range. Plus doing it this way also makes it so the two speaker cables that you use are only responsible for one half of the frequency range as well, i.e. bass does interfere with the treble or midrange because they are being amped in different housings and running down to completely different cables.

I'm trying to figure this one out in my head... Sorry if I make a mistake, but to me this just doesn't add up properly (but as I said I might have a fatal flaw in my understanding of a speaker designed to be bi-amped).

Wait, never mind, I think I got it. There is basically a first or second (etc) order crossover on the feed to the amps, which splits the signal down to the two different amps and then when they connect back up into the speaker, the crossover matrix in the speaker sees the two seperate feeds and merges the back together and then splits them back out according to its own crossover network.

But wouldn't doing this cause issues with phase because of the introduction of the external crossover? I am also trying to figure out what would in theory be the best crossover frequency to use, since the lower frequencies require exponentially more power to drive then the higher frequencies, you wouldn't want to simply use a crossover frequency that is exactly 1/2 the operating range of the speakers themselves, but probably something that is only 2-3 octives above the lowest frequency that the speaker reproduces...

[Tour2ma]

... and then when they connect back up into the speaker, the crossover matrix in the speaker sees the two seperate feeds and merges the back together and then splits them back out according to its own crossover network.With dual binding posts the signals will not recombine. The external jumpers (which you remove in a bi-amp scheme) are the only link between the LF anf HF drivers.