Bi-amp front speakers with receiver (internal) and external integrated amp?

[MaxwellsEq]

Whatever you say, I am doing it Triangle way and that is not a snake oil company, not by far

Many high quality manufacturers who are not snake oil companies make it possible for customers to bi-wire their speakers. They are not leading consumers astray. They probably make no more money from doing so. It might even cost them more - more binding posts and links between them.

The reason they do it is to avoid driving away potential purchasers. If 50% of potential clients don't believe and 50% of potential clients do believe in bi-wiring, not adding the extra binding posts cuts your potential income in half. If I made speakers, I would make them bi-wire-able, even though I know it makes no difference.

The other potential advantage is bi-amping which, in the right circumstances, make a difference.

 

[Chrispy]

Triangle "way"? Triangle is subject to their marketing department as much as many other brands....but passive bi-amping is of little value in general.

 

[pogo]

The other potential advantage is bi-amping which, in the right circumstances, make a difference.

It is not only bi-amping, but also bi-wiring on a potent amplifier, see also chapter 2.3.2: Link

 

[Beave]

It is not only bi-amping, but also bi-wiring on a potent amplifier, see also chapter 2.3.2: Link

I think we're gonna ask for more evidence than that in order to agree that bi-wiring makes an audible improvement.

 

[MaxwellsEq]

It is not only bi-amping, but also bi-wiring on a potent amplifier, see also chapter 2.3.2: Link

Interesting. I don't think "potency" is their justification, but very low output impedance. Their argument would have equal weight if a 3W amplifier had an output impedance of 0.0001 Ohms across the audio range. Conversely, a 3000W amplifier with 4 Ohm output impedance would be out of scope.

Certainly, if an amplifier output impedance is, say 0.00001 Ohms, then a circuit analysis would demonstrate that what they write is potentially true - that bass-only currents could circulate through treble-only circuits at low levels and vice versa. I'd certainly be interested in seeing this measured and the audibility tested.

 

[Mnyb]

Many high quality manufacturers who are not snake oil companies make it possible for customers to bi-wire their speakers. They are not leading consumers astray. They probably make no more money from doing so. It might even cost them more - more binding posts and links between them.

The reason they do it is to avoid driving away potential purchasers. If 50% of potential clients don't believe and 50% of potential clients do believe in bi-wiring, not adding the extra binding posts cuts your potential income in half. If I made speakers, I would make them bi-wire-able, even though I know it makes no difference.

The other potential advantage is bi-amping which, in the right circumstances, make a difference.

I'm not sure about passive bi-amping with passive filters intact ? you might just buy a more powerful amp and the gain matching between even two similar amps of the same make and model are not always spot on , so its also potential problem .

And I also think people actually are using dissimilar amps , and botching the response . And of course it sounds different when you do that says captain obvious .

I do whish we could be educated enough to make biwire terminals go away , they are even on budget oriented speakers of quality makers . With their scale of manufacturing I speculate that they could have put the money on improving something in a driver and made the speaker perform better for real .
They could be there on the high end offerings as their impact o BOM would be neglectable .

But as you say the situation is sub optimized in the way that end users wants this and the stores also wants this so the can sell you more expensive cables with high mark up ?
If some stores i walked into get their wishes we would have 5 wire terminals and at least three IEC inlets on every component for power so they can sell those cables too .

 

[hwest]

Nothing to do with "cheaper speakers" and everything to do with whether you can replace your passive crossovers ... in this case, you can't so there is absolutely no point.
Even then, benefits are debatable.

On my speakers as some of the better speakers have you remove the wire or bar between the top and bottom crossovers and they will take separate power inputs from different amps or the same AMP. I believe that's what you're referring to.

 

[pogo]

I don't think "potency" is their justification, but very low output impedance.

What's the difference

 

[antcollinet]

On my speakers as some of the better speakers have you remove the wire or bar between the top and bottom crossovers and they will take separate power inputs from different amps or the same AMP. I believe that's what you're referring to.

No, the crossover is the internal passive circuit consisting of inductors capacitors and resistors used to separate the frequencies between tweeter and woofer (and midrange if 3 way.

If you cannot remove that circuit, and replace it with an active crossover upstream of the amps, then there is no benefit to be had from bi-amping.

 

[hwest]

It looks like the LOW's have one connection and the MID's & highs have another separate connection. Correct me if I'm wrong.

 

[antcollinet]

It looks like the LOW's have one connection and the MID's & highs have another separate connection. Correct me if I'm wrong.

It's not about separating the different crossovers from each other, it is about removing them completely. Connecting the amps directly to the drivers with no crossover in the way, and doing the crossover with active DSP upstream of the amps.

For a 3 way speaker, you would need three amps.

 

[JeremyFife]

On my speakers as some of the better speakers have you remove the wire or bar between the top and bottom crossovers and they will take separate power inputs from different amps or the same AMP. I believe that's what you're referring to.

Do you mean the jumper bars (or wires) between binding posts? No, that's not what I'm talking about at all. That doesn't do anything to the crossover - the electrical components that split frequencies - and there's no advantage in bi-amping speakers like that.

In order to get any benefit from bi-amping (or multi-amping if you have multiple drivers) you have to replace the crossover. You have to split the frequencies and then amplify them.

 

[MaxwellsEq]

What's the difference

A dictionary?

 

[Sokel]

Interesting. I don't think "potency" is their justification, but very low output impedance. Their argument would have equal weight if a 3W amplifier had an output impedance of 0.0001 Ohms across the audio range. Conversely, a 3000W amplifier with 4 Ohm output impedance would be out of scope.

Certainly, if an amplifier output impedance is, say 0.00001 Ohms, then a circuit analysis would demonstrate that what they write is potentially true - that bass-only currents could circulate through treble-only circuits at low levels and vice versa. I'd certainly be interested in seeing this measured and the audibility tested.

The wording is a little vague but I assume they're talking about active bi-amping at the last sentence.
However they clearly talk about biwiring,that's strange from a company like Purifi.
Icepower modules also uses double posts and I (wrongly) assumed that it was about the high power.
Someone must ask them officially.

 

[MaxwellsEq]

The wording is a little vague but I assume they're talking about active bi-amping at the last sentence.
However they clearly talk about biwiring,that's strange from a company like Purifi.
Icepower modules also uses double posts and I (wrongly) assumed that it was about the high power.
Someone must ask them officially.

I was surprised and have been wondering about this. I can imagine that it is possible to design a crossover PCB layout where different amplifier output impedances have a measurable impact on current flow. I can't think of a reason to do this, though. And if the PCB is split for bi-wiring, the current would surely see a lower impedance via the bars joining the terminals than via the speaker cable and amplifier output impedance.

 

[Mnyb]

We have several old treads of nitpicking .

Just one in the bunch .

On Bi-Wiring

In principle, what is the difference between the two? Can the second method reduce the intermodulation distortion between high and low frequencies?

www.audiosciencereview.com

Also there is also a drawback seldom mentioned . no speaker designer can use any kind of series filter due to this fad .

 

[hwest]

It's not about separating the different crossovers from each other, it is about removing them completely. Connecting the amps directly to the drivers with no crossover in the way, and doing the crossover with active DSP upstream of the amps.

For a 3 way speaker, you would need three amps.

I see a benefit in being able to adjust just in the frequency range of concern for the lows vs the highs.

 

[antcollinet]

I see a benefit in being able to adjust just in the frequency range of concern for the lows vs the highs.

You can’t do that if the speaker crossovers are still in circuit.

 

[hwest]

You can’t do that if the speaker crossovers are still in circuit.

You can. For instance. I can breakout the lows with a separate connection and only tune for those on a independent channel using ARC Genesis. Then I can focus on just the highs and mids making those individual speakers sound as good as possible by listening to them independently and not together when running just one set of speaker cables to them all. This helps the overall sound if you can analyze each speaker independently which you can do in the configuration I explained. Make sense? In other words it's much hard to hear what my highs or lows are doing if I'm measuring them all together on one channel, it's just reality.

 

[Audiofire]

Make sense?

Well, it's not something most people care about doing