Whistle! Right here folks.
You can also warp gold around the speaker wires and proclaim a reduction in distortion. The reduction is, if at all, hard to measure and will not pass a single blind listening test. Therefore bi-amp with passive crossover is voodoo at it's best.
You may go look at thd+n chart with 4 ohm and 8 ohms.
Genuine question - perhaps for @amirm - via teardowns, have we seen actual optimization of amps in active speakers, or have they been just standard chips or modules inserted unaltered?
Any half decent amplifier provides significantly less thd than the best speakers. And some not so good amps get problems with high rising uneven impedance, which you will definitely get by splitting up the crossover. Therefore there is almost no real case where it makes any sense at all.
Fascinating!
You did say hard to measure. I mention it is measurable.
Come on, it is true that there can be differences in distortion, but there is only one good use-case for it. If you are designing an active speaker and are on a tight budget this might be of interesst.
Q acoustically are right in some ways. Biwiring causes less IMD distortion which is easy to hear with music where a lot of things are happening at the same time, in the whole frequency spectra. Biwiring also causes some phase shifts thats gonna be variable depending on the music content . These phase shifts can be considered as a dissadvantage with biwiring , where single-wire, if the passive crossover is really well done, can present a more pin-point exact location of the sound.
That seems remarkably nonsensical. I would normally ask for controlled listening data to back up this remarkable claim, but I know that's a useless request.
Very true !
The two cables still source from the same output terminal on the amp, right? So the electrical circuit is unchanged, just more gauge (in total).Q acoustically are right in some ways. Biwiring causes less IMD distortion which is easy to hear with music where a lot of things are happening at the same time, in the whole frequency spectra. Biwiring also causes some phase shifts thats gonna be variable depending on the music content . These phase shifts can be considered as a dissadvantage with biwiring , where single-wire, if the passive crossover is really well done, can present a more pin-point exact location of the sound.
Is biwiring a better choice then, than single wiring ? - in many cases, the perceived pitch of the music will be slightly better with biwiring - in my experience. Listening to music will be slightly more fun. This is audible even with only one amplifier using separate cables for tweeter and bass. Using two amplifiers with biamping and a passive crossover is slightly better still. But one must remember that spending the same amount of money on two amplifiers instead of one, gives you a better amplifier if you buy only one.
Going fully active with separate amplifiers and an active crossover is a much better choice though.
A fully active approach with optimal dsp active crossovers gives much less EMK problems and reduced IMD distortion.
The perceived pitch will be better. The sound will be clearly better playing at a high volume.
All of those things I have described here can very easily be demonstrated with real music. Linn products did those tests 30 years ago. Below, Q acoustics measurements.
View attachment 198465View attachment 198466
If you connect your amp with a solid metal bar, it will help the speaker stay upright by coupling it physically as well as electrically. That's why hifi racks are so overengineered.
This is a question I ask constantly. I can't think of a single advantage other except for installation sound.
( more robust mechanical design , not the typical plastic cup insert )Because most home audio buyers don't want active speakers. As a speaker designer, I'm not going to try and market speakers that no one will buy. Jim Salk offered an active version of a 2-way passive I designed, and he sold exactly one--the one he "bought" for his own HT. I know it may be irrational, but the market is the market.
