Does Bi- or Triamping work?

I am modifying my Tannoys right now (more weight, better crossovers).

So I have the choice of drilling two more holes per speaker and making them ready for biamping.
I want to add a super tweeter (ESS Heil AMT), which could be driven by a third amp.
It would probably be a mix of tube- and solid state amps.

The amps would be different, so I would add a passive VolumePot in front of one amp (or two).

What is your experience? Is there an audible improvement?
Obviously my wife will NOT approve that haha ...

 

In my little experience with passive biamping, like you are considering, no improvement seen. But it is very limited, 2 tries. The right amps in the right positions though, maybe that's what I missed, dunno.

Active triamping I have had very good success with, and the best sounding system I've put together was with an active triamp setup.

 

i have used bi amping with excellent success on true 3 way speakers where the top amp feeds the midrange and tweeter as a passive unit.
the power requirements for a tweeter are so minimal compared to a woofer i do not see any value in driving a tweeter with its own amplifier
unless in active monitor format. active speakers carefully size the amplifier and usually have dsp crossovers to drive the tweeter.
feeding a tweeter with its own amp in passive format seems overkill.

 

If it were me, I'd go the active route. Never done it to a pair of speakers before, but it's on my to-do list - just for the heck of it.

Jeff

 

Opinion on the matter is polarized. Mine is that it carries little to no benefit in home audio. YMMV.

 

I went the active route (bi-amped) after years of passive with my Altec 604e's. I was very impressed with the cleanliness of the separation of highs and lows (you can turn down the hi-pass filter and hear just the lows and vice versa) and the control that affords. However, the time came when I had problem after problem with my active crossover (one channel cutting out until eventually an unidentified component starting sparking). At that point I decided to bite the bullet and assembled an SET amp from a kit. At the same time, I researched passive crossovers to find the best one for my speakers. As they are from the early 1960's, I couldn't find any. But I did find several schematics from which I could build my own. So I did. The clarity and definition of separation is now the best I have ever heard from my speakers (which I bought in 1976 and for which I built cabinets). So I agree with the previous poster. High quality passive or active crossovers can both produce excellent results.

 

There might not be as big an improvement as you hope by passively biamping or triamping for the money you would spend on more amps. You might be better off spending your money on one amp. One great amp will be better than 2 or 3 lesser amps in a passive setup. Going active is a whole different story as you are using external crossovers. I run an active set up in biamp mode triwired. Before going active I tried passive biamping with 2 of the same amps and there wasn't much difference at all (more headroom for volume but at normal listening levels not much difference if any). Plus you would have the problem of matching the gain on different amps.
Just my 2 cents.

 

You should notice more of an improvement with an active crossover/bi-amp. Have done it for my 2.1 setup for many years. Passive crossover/bi-amp not so much.

But besides getting a good active crossover (preferably analog), you'll need a way to measure your changes in crossover frequency, slope, Q, etc., to get the optimum setup. It will take some time to dial it in.

 

I've been bi-amping for quite awhile on my main system. Tube amp does everything above 180 hz.
SS fet power for the woofers. It sounds effortless at any volume and lets the tube amp do what it does best.

 

Active speakers and room correction.No drilling. No racks of gear. No drama. Job done.

 

So you have a suicide wish? Bi/tri-amping with ACTIVE crossovers can spread the power out between the amps, though maybe not increase headroom as I used to believe, and the active crossovers may not be able to shape the sound the same as the passive crossovers inside the speakers. Bi/tri-amping by merely separating the highpass and lowpass parts of the passive crossover to be fed by separate amps, eh, I wouldn't bother. Now as a scientist I have to admit I haven't bothered to try it, so that's just my opinion as a loudspeaker engineer, that there is no mechanism there to really make big differences.

I'm agreeing to just get more of an amp in the first place. Or add subwoofers. Room EQ, since unless you're incredibly lucky the Tannoys are probably not in the best spot for bass, and room treatments don't work down at the lowest frequencies. OR upgrade to an even better set of Tannoys, since speakers make by far the most difference.
...or you go proceed with your plan but plan on the necessity of upgrading your wife...

 

There is good and bad about it, the trick is getting a quality crossover, easier said than done.

If you go the active route you can play with the crossover parameters at the touch of a button and select what suits your speakers best. If you have a quality set up for home use I wouldn't do it, just use a very powerful amp instead and it will iron out the main reason to do bi-amping.

 

For extra clarity at louder volumes and to play louder period try a high pass right around the lower reaches of your mains. (Source>Creek OBH-12 passive pre>NHT SA-2 used only for 50 Hz high pass>Forte Model 3(200W, doubles down)>B&W CDM-1SE(120W, 58Hz low end)=

 

Blindly modifying a multi-way speaker with passive crossover is making the assumption that the designer got it wrong, and you can do better. Perhaps, but not likely. And you're probably doing all of this by ear, tossing in random active crossovers without any concern for phasing, timing, etc. You know, you can (gasp!) measure this stuff and get it right. If you do a DSP crossover, you can actually even time the drivers better, but you ain't doing it by just throwing active crossovers and amps into a pile.

 

Uh, these are Tannoy Monitor Golds. No modern active speakers for me please ... that’s not the real deal, having SS amps in it.

There are indeed old Klein&Hummel O92 Studio Monitors, but the have too much stuff in it which can break. Better not

 

Thank you, guys.
Will probably stay then with one amp (just have so many here, maybe the super tweeter gets my 1950 Telefunken then,
better than damping with resistors).
It’s true, I never heard any improvements with biwiring, and the cable salad isn’t too great (see wife factor).

When old Tannoy stand at the wall (they are made for that - see also corner units) the bass is really good.
My frequency read out is just so even ... no real need for room correction