What can(should) I expect from bi-amping?

I bi-amped Spendors and they sounded better.

I bi-amped Harbeths and they sounded worse.

It's a game of craps.

 

I agree. I have Von Schweikerts and according to Albert Von the real benefit is from using tubes on the mid and tweeter and a SS on the bass module. I have that configuration and it sounds wonderful. No crossover but both the tube a SS amps have similar input sensitivity.

 

Out of interest, how did the Spendors and Harbeths respond to single wiring / bi-wiring? I was led to believe by a couple of (good) speaker designers, that the improvement or not, came down to how the crossover, and possibly it's complexity, had been laid out. This from the era when bi-wiring was all the rage, and certainly some designers didn't believe that bi-wiring had merit.

Robin Marshall of Epos and ex-BBC designer, redesigned the ES14 to allow for bi-wiring. Got the impression from him, that this was as much for marketing, as the ES14, has a very simple crossover. Hi-Fi mags at the time, were generally enthusiastic about the merits, or at least explaining the benefits gave them cheap copy to pad out the magazine!

As others have noted, bi-wiring / bi-amping, doesn't give consistent results from speaker to speaker, but keeps the speaker cable manufacturer happy!

Linn's tri-wired K600 speaker cable has to be one of the stand out designs, seeing as it looked like scalextric track - it was also time consuming, and a real pain, often literally, to strip back and terminate.

5 way designs, when you would run K600 and K400 to each speaker, was really good for domestic harmony!

 

Buy amping also keeps the cable mfgs happy - all the way to the bank.

 

Are they ecstatic with regard to sub woofer owners, and in cloud nine with 5:1 surround system owners?

 

They don't call passive biamping (what you're doing) "fool's biamping" for nothing.

Active biamping with crossovers before the amps is an entirely different story.

 

Active crossover bi-amping has advantages. Tri amping also if you have three ways. High signal to the tweeters with individual amps, Mid and bass respevtively. The deal is that when either of the frequency ranges is call for the power is there regardless of whether the other frequency ranges are draining power. Basically keeps each driver's independent power requirements from being compromised due to having to supply another driver during peak power consumption by that driver.
However, to get coherence it's recommended that the amps be identical due to phase variations induced by unmatched amps. There is a benefit and one that MAY be realized using different amps, however using different amps GREATLY increases the chances that the resulting sound will be less coherent. For instance, each different circuit will process the signal at a different speed, as well, different circuits will always have slightly different sensitivity. The list actually goes on and on.
The Design of Active Crossovers by Douglas Self is an excellent reference. All that being said, the use of active crossovers with identical amps, the crossovers being outside the speaker box can yield substantially better results than the active/passive crossovers contained within speakers. And the big culprit within the speakers is generally the crossover between the bass and midrange due to it's high power handling needs. All those internal crossovers have to deal with vibration, heat variations during extended playback and phase anomalies. All these distortions add up to "why doesn't the sound remain true to the source"? The simpler the better!
If you want to delve into the separate amp per speaker notion you would do well to look at the Linkwitz Orion speaker setup for conformation of the above info. It's a speaker system that given the room to set the speakers well off the front wall, gives an unbelievable sound stage and realization of the full benefits of biamping/triamping.

 

Oh, yes!

However, the system doesn't work very well without all those profit making cables!

In regards to your original question, I'm sorry but I missed the part when you said you've already sourced the amp, and have spare cables, so why not simply give it a go, and report back with your findings?

Having now read your equipment, the other thing to try, is compare the power amp section of the integrated, directly to the power amp - again this may give a small improvement. It is around 25 years since I've tried this sort of experiment, which is the sort of test I would do in between dems / customers, working in Hi-Fi shops. I honestly cannot remember the outcome, but you've got a lot of combinations you could try!

This is similar to the Linn Intek / Pretek / Powertek flexibility, which I am far more familiar with. Linn's budget Aktiv (active!) systems, became far more feasible, flexible and cheaper, with the next generation, Majik integrated, LK100 power amp and Keilidh speakers. This is because you could drop active cards into the Majik / LK100, and fairly easily convert the speakers from passive to active.

I only mention this because some of the flexibility this system had, is similar to your Arcam.

Buy Majik, Keilidh (2 way, but with 2 matching mid / bass drivers) and use tri-wired. Tri-wiring did sound better, and put the cabling in place for any future, potential upgrades.

Add a LK100, as a power amp only, and passively tri-wire. This is where the comparison with your system comes into play, though from memory, the power amps in Arcam integrated and power amp, more similar than the Linn Majik, LK100.

This is why I suggested comparing bi-amping to using the 290P, only. You could also compare the power amp of your integrated to the 290P! So many options!

Or sell the integrated and power amp, and buy a better power amp. With your Graham Slee pre-amp, this is probably what I would do!! Then I would buy an active system and be skint, which is why I no longer own an active system!

Have fun with all your options, do what is right for you, and far more importantly, enjoy your music!

 

And now Linn are offering a 5 way active crossover / amplifier, with the opportunity to room correct, in one box! Add in the streamer / pre-amp with links, and you have a very elegant (and, yes, a system that costs a lot of money!), in two neat boxes. Not very impressive for those whose mono power amp is bigger than both!

 

I replaced three Aktiv Akurate 2200 power amplifiers with a single passive differential VK-55 and prefer the BAT amp. My current mishmash of equipment replaces an active system consisting of Unidisk 2.1 > Exotik > 3 x Akurate 2200 > Ninka, but just happens to homogenise so well in suiting my listening tastes I'm almost frightened to change anything. I wish I could claim some sort of skill, but it's a sheer fluke on my part. I just need to shed the Ninkas to be finally rid of Linn altogether.

John.

 

I've done it twice, both times with two identical amps. Both times I went back to a single amp as any sonic benefits weren't apparent to my ears. YMMV

edit: After posting the above I realized I'd done it three times. I must be a glutton for punishment.

 

This is really not an issue with modern digital crossovers. I use a MiniDSP 2x8 and each output has a level and delay control allowing me to time align the drivers and set the exact level for each driver. Any phase differences in amplifiers can be compensated for in the crossover.

Going active also lets you try different amps on the drivers and see if there is any difference, better or worse. When I originally put my tri-amped system together, I had my tube monoblocks on the tweeters. Later I tried a few other SS amps and finally decided on a 50 watt Class D that I thought had the smoothest sound. Next I plan to go back and rotate all the amps through the midrange driver and see what sounds the best.

 

I still do not understand why a power amp designed specifically to match an integrated amp will not "match".

 

It will.

 

A good few are suggesting otherwise...could it be that they have not actually researched the Delta range,and are just assuming any combination of power/integrated amps?

 

I'm not sure, and as you say, you certainly get a wide range of views. If you have the equipment, try it, as long as you connect it correctly, your certainly not going to do any harm.

I still believe that some speakers respond to bi-wiring (tri, quad etc.) and some don't. A speaker that resonds to an extra run of cable, MAY, respond better to bi-amping. Every amp / speaker combination is going to respond differently. Maybe same, maybe worse, and maybe better. If we all hear these changes the same, is another thing altogether! We are often using different criteria on what we believe to be better / worse.

 

That is some change! I've heard Ninkas passive on the end of LK140, through to Klimax monos and active LK140s to active 2250. They always sounded good, and on the end of a Klimax DS, with both the Klimax passive and 2250 active, sounded stunning.

The interesting part of this, is that a friend preferred the passive set up, and I the active! We both could understand the others point of view, and could live with either of the systems.

My main point, is that you can now have 10 channels of amplification, DACs and crossover, with the ability to time align and room horrors, plus a streamer and a phono stage, in two (2250), size boxes. Whatever people's views on the sonics of the system, it is an amazing piece of electronic engineering, made possible because of 15 years development into smps technology.

 

I have my main system usually set up as passive bi power amped and I can tell a fairly big difference from single amped with the Adcom 5800's. It sounds a bit tizzy on the high end and a bit flabby on the bass when single amped.

Would it sound better had all the money for the 2 amps been spent just on one better amp?
Possibly, but I got a killer price on a used, matched pair of 5800's, so for me it's not a question to really be asking.

My usual setup for running my Pioneer Elite TZ9 speakers is:
Pre amp:
Adcom GFP 565 Walt Jung Modded, & has 3 sets of outputs.
Amplification:
When Bi amped, 2 modded Adcom GFA 5800 power amps.

Once in a blue moon I'll decide to listen to my older Dynaco ST 416 or my Pioneer Elite M91 power amps, so I'll switch over to single power amp mode then.

 

I am not experienced with tinkering with bi-amping, so I am not much help in the practical application of bi-amping. (in the recommendation of amplifier makes and models and electronic crossover products etc)

Bi-amping reduces IM distortion by removing part of the workload off of one amplifier. A simpler waveform is easier to amplify, the amp produces cleaner sound. You also have the benefit of an electronic crossover, which introduces far less phase shift and distortion artifacts. This is a game changer too, as the speaker manufacturer has taken phase and time into account, most likely in the design of the existing passive crossover. So a time aligned electronic crossover may, or may not produce better sound from a speaker originally designed with a passive crossover. (some speakers may have a physical offset for the tweeter, or a phase inverted tweeter)

Secondly, a two way speaker benefits more with the bi-amp setup. A three way speaker will still have one section of the passive crossover in the signal path. The benefit of bi-amping with a three way may be noticed, but more of an improvement would be noticed by employment of bi-amping a two way speaker.

The amplifiers need not be necessarily the same. More power is required for the low pass amplifier, a lot more. If both amplifiers are high quality, then you'd be ok with that. As a rule, the high pass amp power rating (tweeter) can be about a third of the bass section, ie: 300 wpc for the woofer, 100wpc for the tweeter, and the tweeter would never pull more than a few watts anyway.

rock on,
Steve VK

 

less speaker cable results in less resistance and more power without clipping and thermal shutdown. as a result, you get better dynamics.

you get better imaging and soundstaging since there's greater channel separation and less crosstalk.

and yes, you get better results with active than you do passive. greater control and flexability for 1 thing.

 

You've left something out. I assume that you assume the audience knows the difference between 290 and 290P. I don't but probably everyone else does. If they are different, is it in input sensitivity & gain? Is that the reason for your initial hint?

 

They will match (except possibly for very small variations if they are different ages or if the P you acquired happened to have been used a lot more or a lot less than your 290).

But the fact that they will match also is the main reason you are unlikely to get much out of biamping. Theoretically you will get a bit more power, but it's very uncertain as to whether you will hear any difference in the quality of the sound - it might simply result in a change in your preamp's volume control setting, with otherwise the same sound quality.

The reason is that you're still depending on your speakers' internal passive crossovers to divide the high and low frequencies. Passive crossovers are very power-inefficient and can add coloration and phase shifts into the signal. So the crossovers probably are coloring the sound that comes out of your speakers a lot more than the amp is.

An active crossover is a separate unit that sits between your preamp and your power amps. It pre-filters the frequencies so that only higher frequencies go to the high-frequency power amp and binding posts on yours speakers, and only lower frequencies go to the low-frequency power amp and binding posts. Even with that, you will still get some small negative sonic impact from the speakers' internal crossovers, unless you open up your speakers and disconnect/bypass them.

 

I think that frimleygreener has bought an active system, gone back to passive, and is now listening to an iPod - still unclear about the benefits, or not of bi-amping!

 

I'm hoping the whole thread is just a complete wind-up. There are way too many suspicious posts for my liking. If not, we're in serious trouble!

John.

 

Yeah, I guess I just had to work my way through an active system. At the time, Linn just happened to be cheaper and offer a more integrated solution compared to Naim. Ultimately, there's no escaping that thin and tinny sound from either company. Since I can remember, I've always preferred the more overblown sound of a North American system. Had a Bryston 4B-ST power amp in there for a while; that was something else!

I think it's great how we can all experience things differently. All of the Linn systems I've owned have sounded better to me when configured to be active.

Wow! I've been out of touch with Linn components for a couple of years now, and didn't realise you could get all that in a couple of AV-sized boxes. Give them their due, they've always provided tidy solutions for setting up their gear.