hwkn
1K Club - QQ Shooting Star
Advent Baby II's in the front......Boston Acoustic center channel.........Boston Acoustic A40 Series II'S in the rear and a Yamaha YST SW 60 subwoofer[i've had this same set up in one way shape or form since 1992]
List the speakers you have
- Thread starter hobie1dog
- Start date
Help Support QuadraphonicQuad:
Interesting you'd hear a difference. Let alone a significant one.
When you bi-amp into those speakers, you're still using the same internal crossover and (obviously) the same amp and speakers. The only thing that is different is now you are running a separate amp to the top and bottom portions of each speaker rather than just one for both. So the only advantage here is increased power to each speaker and therefore less load on your amp. But that amp of yours is rated at 130W per channel. I doubt you are driving it so hard that 'load' on the amp is an issue. There should have been no reason for it to be pushed to the point of where it was giving you a less clear and crisp sound with shallower and thinner bass. Those speakers of yours shouldn't really need but a fraction of 260W (or even 130W) in order to sound their best and I doubt you're cranking it up to '10' anyway? Odd.
unless perhaps there was something amiss with your speakers when running them in full-mode rather than bi-amp mode which was causing it to distort the sound?
In any case, the good news seems to be that whatever the problem was before, it's now rectified and your sound system is now more to your liking! More enjoyable listening is always the goal! Happy listening!
Well?, I’ve made some headway toward understanding the confusion around home theater bi-amping.
https://www.crutchfield.com/ISEO-rgbtcspd/learn/why-biamp-your-speakers.html
Read this article which, despite having some truthful facts explained, is sadly ‘up to its ears’ in worthless misinformation.
He says bi-wiring can be an improvement if you have a home speaker with bi-amp terminals.
He says remove the plate and send two pair of wires from the same stereo outputs on a regular two channel amplifier.
Really?!?!?
This guy can’t possibly know how to trouble shoot a blown light bulb with a test light and a basic volt ohm meter!
He has no working idea of what passive bi-amping is, and totally misses the point of active bi-amping.
Plus he is blissfully unaware of what features and hardware a bi-amping system would have to possess, why and how such a system would work.
If what Crutchfield says about bi-amping and bi-wiring is literally true in the AVR world, then it’s a sham, deception, mockery and a flimflam.
He makes it seem like true active bi-amping is far too complex and beyond the scope of home theater.
What I suspect is happening is that he may very well be on board with the scam to sell wire, dubious features on deliberately misleading features advertised about consumer products and selling false hopes to an unsuspecting public for profit.
True active bi-amping is a real thing with real advantages, even in a good mid-fi home theater situation, if done correctly, but of course it costs more money than selling the customer an extra pair of wires destined to delivering exactly the same full range program to the same speaker box that has the same internal X-over inside!
I wouldn’t be surprised to find speakers and amps that are advertised as ‘TURBO-ready’ or military aircraft certified, so c’mon and let’s get real.
They’d be better off calling it turbo charged sound than bi-amping anyway, because at least then it would be so blatantly clear that there are no exhaust driven impellers spinning mating impellers hurtling intake air through a centrifugal compressor housing before being forced through the charge air cooler.
True bi-amping is real, easily understandable and very beneficial for demonstrably improved audio performance.
This whole AV scheme is mostly a smoke and mirrors game.
I’m not saying that there is no difference or no improvement when you hook up these components the way they instruct you to, what I am saying is that if there is a real improvement in audio sound, then it’s something other than true bi-amping that’s giving you that.
Most people with home systems aren't going to use active crossovers. Most home speakers aren't equipped to do so. You'd have to open up the boxes and re-wire them to bypass the passive crossovers.
And is there a real advantage to active crossovers in a home system? There could be. Especially if the passive crossover in the speaker is crap. But I think you're maybe thinking too much about what works well in a live-audio situation and applying it to home audio. The main advantage to bi-amping is power consumption. One of the reasons it works well in live audio situations is you really only need a fraction of the power to adequately power the high-frequency speakers as you do for the lower-frequency speakers. So any sort of "full range system" with passive crossovers becomes a waste of power which is often very valuable in live audio situations. It's a reason why bi-amped active speakers usually have a much smaller amp to power the 'tweeter' than they do the 'woofer'.
With these home systems where you have 7 or more channels each putting out 130W of power? First of all, most people are never going to run such an amp more than half-way. So not having enough power is really not a concern. Second of all, the amp will send equal power to all channels, so it's not like you're distributing your power better by sending more to the lower-range speakers.
I won't doubt that a carefully designed and calibrated system with separate amps running through active crossovers sounds better than a common signal to a 'full range' speaker. But the difference between sending 130W from a "home theater" receiver and sending to a full range speaker which then splits the signal with the internal crossovers to the separate speakers and sending 130W each from two separate amps inside the same receiver to the same crossover and just giving each speaker in the enclosure more power?
I know I heard no difference at all when I tried that myself. And I see nothing on paper to think it would make a difference in the sound. But if others have done it and hear a difference on their systems? I certainly won't argue with them and say they didn't hear a difference.
No, that isn't what he is saying. He said nothing about a regular two channel amplifier. He is talking about multi-channel home theater amps. He is saying that on a 7 channel amplifier you can re-purpose two of the channels -- usually set up for the front 'presence' speakers---to be able to bi-amp your front speakers. I have a 7 channel Yamaha amp. As I only use 5 of them for my surround sound setup, those other 2 amplifiers aren't being used at all. A couple of hundred watts of power not being used for anything.
So, in that case, why NOT switch them to "bi-amp" mode and use them in that manner if your front speakers can be bi amped? That's what I did with a previous set of speakers I had (my current speakers can't be bi-amped) but, as I said before, I heard no difference. But it didn't hurt anything to do it, so why not?
It IS 'true' bi-amping. The only thing different from what (I think) you are talking about is that you still using the same internal passive crossover in the speaker rather than a separate, active crossover. Which is only going to work as well as that crossover works. Obviously some are better than others. But it's still "true" bi-amping.
I hope nobody here gets the impression that I have ever owned, hooked up or even listened to an AVR setup with or without any configuration of a bi-amping feature. I am only discussing it going by my seat-of-the-pants common sense, combined with actual experience in owning, setting up and listening to several versions of what I refer to as real and true bi-amp sound systems.
If there can be an improvement in sound that is beyond the placebo effect in compromised or even possibly falsely implemented bi-amp scenarios using home theater receivers, then you might concede that a pro-audio true active speaker management style bi-amp has to sound at least if not leaps and bounds better, why wouldn’t someone want to do that if they could afford it.
I have two totally independent rigs nestled together in my big room at home, wired for occasional A/B purposes but mostly for audio flexibility. As good as the non-bi-amped rig sounds, the true bi-amped one always sounds much better in every way, including at every volume setting down to a whisper.
Let me state that bi-amping is actually very simple, not at all complex or prohibitively expensive.
All you would need is one (or two) dedicated subwoofer/s, your existing favorite existing pair of top fullrange speakers, a decent, used (eBay, Craigslist, or Reverb sourced) dbx DriveRack unit, or even a simple passive X-over and one extra 2-channel amplifier and you are off and running!
This is how I did it at work, it’s a pretty noisy environment and a big-ish space.
All this stuff was sitting around unused at home anyway, so I decided to put it together and set it up at the shop.
Main piece: a spare Sanyo JCX2900K 125WPC home receiver with removable tie bars for separating the ‘Main-Ins’ from the ‘Pre-Outs’. $125. eBay
One used Microtech 1200 amp for subs, beat up old piece from a local pawn shop, $85.
BBE Sonic Maximizer crossover, used $75. from Reverb.
One single Harbinger 18” sub, $100. Guitar Center used.
Two used Yamaha S115IV speakers, $150./pr. Craig’s List.
Just add wire, 115V from the wall socket and an instant TRUE bi-amped system that never ceases to impress the continuous parade of foot traffic at my job. Eliminate the sub and the bi-amp feature and the whole system is immediately exposed for the superiority of bi-amping in those simple button press-A/B comparisons.
Other than the absolutely gorgeous Sanyo, the system is wholly unattractive, but my point was to illustrate that true bi-amping can be done fast, easy, simple, cheap, effectively and most importantly sonically superior.
Conserving amp power is not just an academically derived benefit for the efficient management of the limited availability of clean amplifier wattage, there really are several reasons why a true and even cheap simple bi-amped system will sound superior to a similar non- bi-amped sound setup.
I still can’t see why you would want to run two amplifiers delivering two identical full range speaker level signals to two pairs of binding posts on a speaker when it is unavoidable that it be wired back together inside the speaker at the crossover network! You can’t get around that on a speaker that can also operate while being powered from a single stereo amplifier.
Adding dedicated sub boxes to your existing fullrange towers has every right to sound better.
Having subs get their signal from their own amps can take the demanding low frequency content out of the smaller woofers found in the towers and let the dedicated subwoofers handle that range.
The sub-range high-passed lower frequencies being handled by the woofers in the towers are then not superimposed upon difficult content and must produce a much cleaner output while the 25-90Hz low-passed content gets handled easily and cleanly by the subs themselves. It has to have the potential to sound far better if done reasonably correctly.
Btw, I was referring to the Crutchfield guy talking about bi-wiring when I said they were connected together at the same post at the amp, I hope I wasn’t too unclear on that one.
Also ... I would like to see the wiring diagram on what’s below the binding post attachment plate to see what logic is hidden in the X-over network.
More on bi-amping.
I pulled out my Yamaha Sound Reinforcement Handbook (2nd edition) and re-read all the sections on the engineering science behind the advantages of passive and active bi-amping.
Let’s just say this, being simply a physical book sitting on my table, it is not an internet source which I can easily copy & paste or link to for you.
But after reading these sections, I understand much more clearly now as to why any form of actual bi-amping can be beneficial, if done properly.
After examining issues related to IMD (intermodulation distortion), Doppler distortion, damping factors, efficiency, over excursion issues, control in overcoming boundary conditions, there are a lot of aspects to be considered that can assist you toward making smart equipment and setup choices.
What I presently think follows along the lines of this old saying,
‘anything worth doing - is worth doing right”.
If a small system can not benefit from some form of bi-amping, at any budget, then don’t bother, if you do it and like the perceived improvement implementing an AVR bi-amp feature, it would be foolish not to utilize it.
For myself, after having been exposed to successful pro-level bi-amped systems, I decided to set up my home system in this way, it’s a choice I made that works toward fulfilling my sound system performance expectations.
It (bi-amping) is certainly not for most people, my motivation in all this posting here was simply to find and shed some light upon the real story behind the use of a term (bi-amping) that has been a very active subject of heated discussion amongst mostly home theater folks where there was also a ton of misunderstanding going around which was then compounded by so much, possibly well intentioned, misinformation being offered widely.
I highly recommend buying and reading this reference book, yes, it’s an old standard, but is still enormously informative, helpful and relavent today, even if at times in more like a foundational context.
https://www.guitarcenter.com/Hal-Leonard/Yamaha-Sound-Reinforcement-Handbook-Second-Edition.gc
I pulled out my Yamaha Sound Reinforcement Handbook (2nd edition) and re-read all the sections on the engineering science behind the advantages of passive and active bi-amping.
Let’s just say this, being simply a physical book sitting on my table, it is not an internet source which I can easily copy & paste or link to for you.
But after reading these sections, I understand much more clearly now as to why any form of actual bi-amping can be beneficial, if done properly.
After examining issues related to IMD (intermodulation distortion), Doppler distortion, damping factors, efficiency, over excursion issues, control in overcoming boundary conditions, there are a lot of aspects to be considered that can assist you toward making smart equipment and setup choices.
What I presently think follows along the lines of this old saying,
‘anything worth doing - is worth doing right”.
If a small system can not benefit from some form of bi-amping, at any budget, then don’t bother, if you do it and like the perceived improvement implementing an AVR bi-amp feature, it would be foolish not to utilize it.
For myself, after having been exposed to successful pro-level bi-amped systems, I decided to set up my home system in this way, it’s a choice I made that works toward fulfilling my sound system performance expectations.
It (bi-amping) is certainly not for most people, my motivation in all this posting here was simply to find and shed some light upon the real story behind the use of a term (bi-amping) that has been a very active subject of heated discussion amongst mostly home theater folks where there was also a ton of misunderstanding going around which was then compounded by so much, possibly well intentioned, misinformation being offered widely.
I highly recommend buying and reading this reference book, yes, it’s an old standard, but is still enormously informative, helpful and relavent today, even if at times in more like a foundational context.
https://www.guitarcenter.com/Hal-Leonard/Yamaha-Sound-Reinforcement-Handbook-Second-Edition.gc
Yes, it's becoming pretty clear that you're not really understanding how these AVRs operate.
No reason why anyone wouldn't want to use what system they think sounds best that they can afford. Nothing to "concede" there. Who would ever argue otherwise?
Yes. I understand how to bi-amp. Both with active and passive crossovers. I haven't been clear with that? Sorry if I was not. But no, one "extra 2-channel amplifier" is not going to work for most of us on this forum. This is a surround sound forum. Most of us are all dealing with 5-channel audio. 2-channel amplifiers aren't really even part of the discussion.
No one has ever talked about "bi-wiring". You're only arguing with yourself here. It's becoming clear that maybe you don't really understand how modern multi-channel audio receivers work. No one has brought up "bi-wiring" anything. Thanks for the links to the video explaining the difference between "bi-wiring" and "bi-amping" but since no one here has expressed any confusion about the two, I'm not sure who are you trying to help?
Yes. Most everyone using a modern surround system understands and uses a dedicated "sub box". Most are self-powered. While some people prefer to not use the LFE channel and just run their other speakers full range to cover the low end, most use the LFE channel for the sub signal. Which usually isn't powered coming out of the amplifier. Which is why the subs are almost always active.
You weren't unclear. The problem was the Crutchfield guy never said anything about connecting them together at the same post at the amp. There are 7 pairs of posts on a 7.1 surround amplifier. He was talking about using two of those pairs, generally reserved for a pair of speakers that sit above the mains,--the 'presence' speakers as they are most often called--and using them to bi-amp the front left and right speakers. There is a setting in the amp to switch these posts to be used for bi-amping the front L & R speakers rather than to be used for the "presence" speakers. That's what he was talking about doing. He said nothing about connecting them to the same posts.
There is no x-over network. The crossover is passive and is inside the speaker enclosure. There will be one crossover on a 2-way speaker and two crossovers on a 3-way speaker. Whether you bi-amp or not, you are still using the same crossovers inside the speaker enclosure.
To use an active crossover one would have to rewire the speaker cabinet to bypass the internal crossover. . Or use completely separate "top" and "Bottom" speakers as in the set up you described above. Which, I trust you understand, BTW that while you're using an active crossover between your sub and Yamaha 115Vs, that there is still another passive crossover inside that Yamaha cabinet to separate the signal between the two speakers inside, don't you?
And be able to insert the active crossover before the amp stage. which not all home theater receivers are equipped to do.
Last edited:
Yes, I'm very familiar with the Yamaha Sound Reinforcement Handbook. Most of us who have worked with pro-audio gear to any great extent are.
I understand your motivations are well-founded. I also whole-heartedly agree that anything worth doing is worth doing right. But that starts with understanding the very basics of the equipment you are working with and what you are trying to achieve. With all due respect, you are making something that isn't all that complicated much more so by confusing principles and gear best suited for live audio applications with home surround sound systems. When you don't even understand that an article is talking about repurposing two channels from a 7 channel amplifier for bi-amping purposes and then throwing in a bunch of references to gear that has no virtually no value whatsoever in a home surround sound setup then the entire conversation becomes very convoluted and near pointless.
Yes, there is a ton of misunderstanding going around. But frankly, you're only adding to it, not helping the matter.
Last edited:
.
Actually I understand very well what AVRs do, I simply have zero need for one, and even less interest in owning one. It is clear you do not understand the fuller breadth of technologies and advantages of honest bi-amping solutions that the AVRs seem to be half-step implementing.
Read the Yamaha book on these subjects, you will hopefully get my points with a greater appreciation.
AVR bi-amp options, I am not interested in those partial solutions designed to appeal to folks who already are committed to their home theaters, for whom pro grade bi-amping is not affordable or desirable.
There are many home theater system owners, perhaps at the higher end, who have discovered pro-level bi-amplification utilizing active speaker management processors, and would not compromise and actually do home theater exactly as I do quad audio in my home.
I really do understand multi channel.
There are several very good old school processors that I can loop in or out of in my setup that serve this multichannel mode of playback.
Sansui QSD-1, Proton 1000, Aphex ESP7000, Fosgate Audionics 3610, an OPPO UDP205, ~ soon to purchase the new upcoming Surround Master!, all of which handle four channels in and two channels out, 4 in / 4 out, 2 in / 4 out, 2 in / 2 out, ambiance, surround, discrete, with more control than modern AVRs, but less automation and ease of operation with a remote control.
I don’t want computer chips making pre-contoured alterations to my signal path.
Going into an AVR from my perspective would feel like getting out of a 1969 McLaren M8F to drive around in a four door Tesla. Great car! Just not for me.
Working professionally as a machinist, engineer, mechanic, welder, and fabricator for the last 50+ years, and having music as my most intensely involved hobbies, I can say with sober conviction that I at least know what I have, how to get the most out of it all, why I like it, and that I have no problem appreciating what the next person likes, and I love to hear folks explain their personal audio story to the same depth and intensity as I for mine.
There is not (in theory) a huge difference between setting up 8 discrete channels of pre-amps and power amplifiers for 4-channels (QUAD), actively bi-amped, and an AVR set to multichannel mode.
My dbx DriveRacks perform well in conjunction with the QSD-1, (or any of my multichannel units) in preparing the line level signals for delivery to the individual amps and speakers.
Reading your expansive dissections of my posts - I have to wonder where you find so many things I never thought I said, and things I’m sure I never meant! How do you think I don’t know anything about in-speaker X-overs - that’s why I included the PS-Audio YouTube so that other readers who may not understand how capacitor/inductor/resistor networks modify the incoming full range content arriving to the speaker box at operating amplified output voltages!
Are you actually reading and comprehending thoroughly and patiently any posts from me or the links I provide?
Btw, I’m sure you missed my point about the Crutchfield guys’ bi-wiring statement, I was strictly talking about the delusionally misguided practice of wiring any two wires to any single amp output point to be sent out to two separate posts on one speaker that already has a X-over network inside behind the posts. Obviously one needs to know what they are doing if they disable or remove the X-over inside the speaker box, and the Audioholics guys discuss that with pretty good clarity too.
Actually I understand very well what AVRs do, I simply have zero need for one, and even less interest in owning one. It is clear you do not understand the fuller breadth of technologies and advantages of honest bi-amping solutions that the AVRs seem to be half-step implementing.
Read the Yamaha book on these subjects, you will hopefully get my points with a greater appreciation.
AVR bi-amp options, I am not interested in those partial solutions designed to appeal to folks who already are committed to their home theaters, for whom pro grade bi-amping is not affordable or desirable.
There are many home theater system owners, perhaps at the higher end, who have discovered pro-level bi-amplification utilizing active speaker management processors, and would not compromise and actually do home theater exactly as I do quad audio in my home.
I really do understand multi channel.
There are several very good old school processors that I can loop in or out of in my setup that serve this multichannel mode of playback.
Sansui QSD-1, Proton 1000, Aphex ESP7000, Fosgate Audionics 3610, an OPPO UDP205, ~ soon to purchase the new upcoming Surround Master!, all of which handle four channels in and two channels out, 4 in / 4 out, 2 in / 4 out, 2 in / 2 out, ambiance, surround, discrete, with more control than modern AVRs, but less automation and ease of operation with a remote control.
I don’t want computer chips making pre-contoured alterations to my signal path.
Going into an AVR from my perspective would feel like getting out of a 1969 McLaren M8F to drive around in a four door Tesla. Great car! Just not for me.
Working professionally as a machinist, engineer, mechanic, welder, and fabricator for the last 50+ years, and having music as my most intensely involved hobbies, I can say with sober conviction that I at least know what I have, how to get the most out of it all, why I like it, and that I have no problem appreciating what the next person likes, and I love to hear folks explain their personal audio story to the same depth and intensity as I for mine.
There is not (in theory) a huge difference between setting up 8 discrete channels of pre-amps and power amplifiers for 4-channels (QUAD), actively bi-amped, and an AVR set to multichannel mode.
My dbx DriveRacks perform well in conjunction with the QSD-1, (or any of my multichannel units) in preparing the line level signals for delivery to the individual amps and speakers.
Reading your expansive dissections of my posts - I have to wonder where you find so many things I never thought I said, and things I’m sure I never meant! How do you think I don’t know anything about in-speaker X-overs - that’s why I included the PS-Audio YouTube so that other readers who may not understand how capacitor/inductor/resistor networks modify the incoming full range content arriving to the speaker box at operating amplified output voltages!
Are you actually reading and comprehending thoroughly and patiently any posts from me or the links I provide?
Btw, I’m sure you missed my point about the Crutchfield guys’ bi-wiring statement, I was strictly talking about the delusionally misguided practice of wiring any two wires to any single amp output point to be sent out to two separate posts on one speaker that already has a X-over network inside behind the posts. Obviously one needs to know what they are doing if they disable or remove the X-over inside the speaker box, and the Audioholics guys discuss that with pretty good clarity too.
If you no interest in owning an AVR than fine. But remember that this mostly began as a discussion with another poster who was interested in biamping his front speakers with with AVR. Your “honest biamping solutions” are not even “solutions” as they could not even be implemented on such a system. If you don’t care to own one yourself, then fine. But you obviously can not be listening to 5.1 surround music with the system you have so suggesting “solutions” that are not even applicable is pointless.
As I already told you, I know the book quite well. Why would you “suggest” I read it?
So your “solution” then is what? Tell someone who is using a AVR for a 5.1 system to throw it all out and use two stereos with active crossovers into twenty + year old pro audio speakers? How is this a “solution” to anything? What does he do about the center speaker? All for what? To achieve a bi-amping process you read about in a book?
That makes no sense.
No one at the higher end of home audio is using decades old pro audio gear that they have to turn up just to overcome the sound of the fans. That I can assure you.
For the love of Pete, it’s all I can do to keep track of what you are even talking about. You go off on pointless tangents and mention all sorts of gear that has no place at all in home audio. I “dissect” your posts only to try to and keep the conversation SOMEWHAT on topic.
As I’ve said many times, what you use is great as long as you enjoy it. But when you start putting down other people’s systems and applications and suggesting “solutions” that make no sense or for problems that don’t even exist, I feel someone should try to cut through the blather and confusion.
For the third time now, the Crutchfield guy said nothing about bi-wiring from a single amp output point. This is a perfect example of how you have added noise and distortion to this discussion that doesn’t have to exist. I agree it’s a misguided practice. But no one in this thread has said they do it and the Crutchfield article (which YOU introduced!) said nothing about it either. Yet you keep arguing about it anyway. Why? It makes no sense.
Ok. But again, completely inapplicable to the systems virtually everyone on this forum uses. So who are you talking to, anyway?
Last edited:
I see there are generally speaking, and of course where budgets permit, two directions upward from entry level home audio.
First there is the common route of increasingly, and at times, astonishingly so, higher and higher priced audiophile stuff that sounds incrementally better, usually, and these folks are totally committed to sonic excellence from builders of the most exotic designs, technologies, materials, and their sound systems are works of art and of uncompromising genius.
Then there are the folks who simply want to explore the highest range of better sound far above and beyond the best stuff ever found at their local Best Buy big box store. These people genuinely don’t give a hoot about speakers that look like they are on loan from the Museum of Modern Art, don’t believe that African Bubinga goes well aesthetically with Brazilian mahogany - they only care about audio performance excellence, and that alone.
.... You can guess which camp I’m in.
I don’t care who thinks an amp or speaker that is usually found in a recording studio has no rightful place in a home recording studi - - - oh wait , I did say it was a studio.
The absolute BEST sounding systems I have ever heard were located in professional sound environments, be that recording studios or clubs, with better, more modern equipment than what I presently own. My stuff is their old stuff that isn’t good enough for today’s competitive high tech digital reality.
I don’t know where you live, but I’m absolutely confident that if you came to my little home studio, heard this system, with you controlling the knobs any way you wish, you would have some idea how ridiculous your contention is, that as you put it - “gear that has no virtually no value whatsoever in a home surround sound setup” by listening to how it actually sounds.
My system is quite legitimately a surround system, and it is in a home, my home, no mistake about that. It may not have value to you as you sit there at your keyboard typing away, but you haven’t even heard how it sounds, and isn’t that the whole point.
Speaking about whole points, I haven’t forgotten that this thread is about “speakers we have”. These are speakers that I have, ok, so they cost $2500 apiece - times four for surround, I auditioned speakers for many years before I heard these, they are as Plain-Jane looking as any speaker you have ever seen, but you would miss the boat if you failed to judge them on their audio performance. That’s how I judged them, and there was no speaker found under $20K each that sounded better!
How do you think a recording engineer would test his final recorded music product after all channels are locked into a carefully balanced quad mix, or 5.1 or 7.2 or anything up to and including plain old stereo? It had better sound really really good!
I am very familiar with the speakers you have mentioned. I own, or have owned, many of them myself. They are very fine speakers for the applications for which they are designed.
Personally, I would not use live sound reinforcement equipment for home audio. Most of it is designed to operate optimally at SPLs that far exceed what is best for home environments. But as I have stated many times, whatever works for you is what you should be using. I’m glad that you enjoy it.
But I would recommend stopping short of offering it as a “solution” to problems people have for which your system and components do not match. For the person who said he bi-amped his Yamaha AVR into his BA speakers and heard better results? Nothing you have spoken about in your lengthy and voluminous posts has had any relevance that I have been able to denote.
So those Smith Audio 1230s you use. Those are a 3 way speaker, correct? I don't believe they are set up for active crossovers or individual speaker inputs. So how are you using active crossovers on those? Did you open up the cabinets, bypass the internal crossovers and install separate inputs to each speaker? So you now have a 4-way system including your JBL subs? Which crossover points do you use for these 4 speakers? Which 4-way crossover do you use? I don't believe BBE makes a 4 way. Nor DBX. (The two brands you mentioned. Although you could have mentioned others. You've named dropped a LOT of audio gear in this thread.)
Or maybe you continue to use the internal passive crossover inside the speaker? So are you really "bi-amping" at all? Or just at point of having a different amp for your subs?
"
My brother, you may want to re-read the actual title of this thread again, I rechecked several times,
“What speakers do you have”
Also, definitely take a 30 second break and re-read the first post by Hobie1dog
He absolutely makes his request so beautifully clear, and follows through with exactly what was asked for as a pleasant lighthearted template to follow.
Nowhere did he say, suggest, or imply that the silently accepted majority of secret club members were the only ones invited to the party! Excuse me if I’ve forgotten my station in this closed society.
I have strictly tried to list and describe exactly what was asked for, the ONLY time it’s gotten off track was with my tireless efforts to defend my statements against your relentless onslaught of second guessing my simple and plainly written attempts to share with the membership my unique approach to quad surround, unless you want to cast me out for not belonging to the 5.1 club.
Maybe this site should rename itself AVRs-R-US, because the unfortunate name, “QuadraphonicQuad” is SOOOOOO confusing and possibly even willfully misleading to a guy like me who somehow managed to assemble a damn good sounding discrete 4-channel quadraphonic sound system and blindly stumbled into this group of AVR aficionados, who by your logic, must run all the ‘quad-folk’ outta town on a rail!!! ... Git-chyer pitchforks townspeople!! ... Light the tourches!!! ... Let’s git’m ‘fore they multiply!!!
(Gittit??? ... Multiply???)
I’m having fun with this stuff, let’s keep this going!
The only thing that you said that I can not refute is that virtually every member here just might be an AVR centric surround guy that would never set foot in my studio for fear of becoming contaminated with a terminal case of bi-amped quad disease.
I envite all readers of this thread (if there are any left) to kindly vote or speak up, as to whether I should not have posted my oddball system in this thread, or details about my dangerously subversive sound system approach. I’ll leave this thread alone immediately if the moderator feels I have derailed it.
Btw, I really am having fun, and my comments are not intended to hurt your feelings, because we’ve agreed that we are cool. If you changed your mind and now don’t like my sense of humor, then I’ll respectfully & gladly readjust my approach more to your liking or go away.
I don’t know if the majority of readers here actually cares about the techno-babble aspects of our discussion, or they are just politely refraining from getting involved, possessing the good sense not to participate, only to be dragged into a litany of clearly fruitless and exhausting endeavors.
If you have not ever heard my model of loud speakers (Smith SPA-1230s) so categorically you can not accurately assess them and include them in your argument.
Btw, since your an expert, and you know the difference between Nearfield, mid and far field speakers, can you guess what mine are?
Then, The inclusion of my ‘Hoopdie’ Sanyo-Yammie system at work was only to illustrate how active bi-amping can make rather low grade stuff sound hugely better at ludicrously low cost outlay by careful selection of components combined with a good plan. There’s a good reason that equipment was in a closet at home, but serves astoundingly well at work with little risk of financial loss due to theft or vandalism.
If you can not see how any of my discussion about all the technical attributes and limitations about bi-amplification has no relevance, then clearly you do not comprehend the central importance of these concepts.
Try harder, read slower, do more research and show me - you may not see this in my reply’s, but I’m am hoping that someone with a better understanding of all of this can show me and teach me better ways to do what I’m doing within my budget.
Perhaps you can suggest what I might actually build, instead of simply and broadsword style demolishing every thing I say I am doing.
There's no point in discussing the technical attributes and limitations when you don't even seem to understand the simple differences between bi-amping and bi-wiring. Understanding concepts you read in a book is one thing. Actually utilizing them properly is something else. Before you begin to lecture me to "Try harder, read slower, do more research" I'd like to see some evidence that you actually DO understand any of these concepts and didn't simply just read somewhere about how important they are and now just preach the gospel without actually understanding the message.
Clearly you are very happy with your system so I'm not suggesting you use anything else, nor have I. I HAVE pointed out that while pro audio equipment can often reproduce recorded material very, very well, it is not designed for the small confines of the listening spaces of 99.9% of people. Audiophiles included. Such speakers may be designed for near, mid or far field. NONE of them are designed to sound best at the distance most people have between their stereo and their couch.
If you utilize a different sort of listening environment, or even just simply prefer such speakers regardless? I will never be one to tell you that you are 'wrong' or could do it 'better'. But I WILL be one to point that suggesting such esoteric preferences to other who have much more traditional listening environments and experiences probably isn't the best idea.
Beyond that, I've simply pointed out errors you've made in your dissertations that I thought should be corrected lest others make decisions based on the flawed information you have provided.
"Bi-amping" out of a 7-channel AVR is NOT the same as "bi-wiring". It IS 'true' bi-amping: Two separate amps to separate speakers with signals sent through a crossover so that each speaker deals with only a specific frequency range. There IS no other definition of "bi-amping"
I don't recall if the poster who first mentioned bi-amping out of AVR uses a subwoofer or not, but if he does, he then is, of course "tri-amping" his system as the subwoofer has it's own amp and is crossed-over usually inside the AVR or maybe at the sub itself.
Thank you, you are starting to see what I’m doing and ask legitimate questions.
These are simultaneously near and mid field speakers designed to be used in pro recording situations and small clubs where fidelity is paramount, and at the highest levels in the industry. But, they should still be affordable. John and partners with Eminance engineers worked at development on this project for many years, all American made, because as he says, there’s no logic to why a speaker can not do low and high SPLs, with ridiculous accuracy, plus midfield performance too at sane prices.
1230 means 12-3way 12”woofer, 8”mid & compression driver with horn for highs.
I have to run two dbx DriveRack pro+ processors because of the quad spkrs. I RTA mic the fronts with pink noise as per the dbx instructions, then do the back, the front DriveRack is set strictly for bi-amp both left and right channels first, and then do the rears.
The 1230s have ALL proprietary components and they are not bi-amped inside, so yes, they have their own fixed internal passive X-over and the bi-amping aspect comes from how the 3-way tops are integrated to the bottoms (JBL-SR4718X) where the crossover point is around 85Hz, I forgot which knee contour we chose, but it was the one that sounded best after trial and error.
None of the 20-85Hz content goes to the 12” driver inside the 1230, this alleviates the issues of IMD & Doppler distortions by not having too many stacked motions happening in the cone all at once, this allows each component to operate more cleanly and more efficiently. Without the sub and crossovers, the 1230s would do an admirable job with the low frequencies, but the sound is so much better with the dedicated active bi-amping. I know you could do the same thing in a home theater setup with the center channel and all, but still there would have to be an active crossover implementation to reap the full benefits, and that's where things get muddy or complicated with AVRs, because now you are trying to superimpose active selective bi-amping of high and low pass points and curves to a system that has been engineered to be simple enough that when in the hands of home owners, who generally won’t take the time to learn how to assemble and calibrate and integrate all these manually adjustable parameters could easily damage their expensive components.
You have a way with words for sure.
But the short version of everything you've said here is that you use an active crossover between the subs and the tops and the three speakers inside the top cabinet have their frequencies separated by the internal passive crossovers. One sentence instead of 12!
This is virtually no different than anyone with an AVR and a subwoofer is doing, except that their crossover exists either inside the AVR or in the powered sub. I suppose you can argue that the DriveRack (also a digital unit, so that kind of throws out at least some of your earlier ranting about the virtues of using analog amps) is a better crossover than what exists in anyone's AVR or powered sub, but you haven't yet done so and that's kind of a different argument anyway.
And as far as the arguments you have made about the superiority of active crossovers vs passive, that's now washed away by the fact that you rely on the passive crossovers inside your Smith speakers. Are they superior internal crossover than those found in any of the home speakers mentioned in this thread? Maybe, maybe not. I don't know the specifications that one would use to make that determination and I doubt you do either. But it seems all of us -- those who bi amp and those who do not -- are relying on internal passive crossovers nonetheless.
As far as the bi-amping process utilized by the poster and the one in the Crutchfield article you posted? Well, as I said long ago, I think there is definitely some debate as to whether it actually makes any difference in most cases--especially those cases where high-wattage amplification is in use. Even the Crutchfield guy at least hinted at the fact that it probably doesn't make a difference. But that having been said, separating and bi-amping the speakers within the cabinets is MORE "bi-amping" than you are doing. So as someone who believes that bi-amping is the be-all end-all of everything, I'm surprised you'd be so critical of those who engage in more of it than you do.
And here again we have another paragraph that both makes no sense and contradicts your own actions. If you believe that one needs "active crossover implementation to reap the full benefits" then why are you relying on the PASSIVE crossovers inside your own speaker?
And, I hate to break the news to you, but virtually all of the AVRs come with selection points for where you crossover to the sub. Just like you do with your digital DBX crossover. And get to use a mic and pink noise to set it up too if you want!
I like the Driveracks. I still have a bunch of them in my basement I probably should sell off before they have no longer have value whatsoever. (Let me know if you're interested!) I no longer use them because the internal crossover systems on my powered JBL speakers I now use for my live audio system are more designed to specifically match those amps and speakers. No need for a Driverack any longer. But as good as the digital Driverack crossover is, are you certain it does the crossover thing any better than the ones that comes with the good AVRs? Is DBXs RTA system any better than Yamaha's YPAO?
I never expect anyone to do anything, and I don’t know how you have come to accuse me of directing people to do something. You accuse me of doing something that makes no sense to you.
It doesn’t seem to be a possibility that in your mind you haven’t grasped what I was saying.
From your responses, there emerges one very prominent and possible explanation being revealed, it is that your knee-jerk short answer is;
anyone that takes up a position that you don’t agree with or grasp, then automatically they MUST be wrong.
I don’t mind being wrong in your estimation, I’ve been mistakenly thought of as being wrong in the past, and I’ve also been correctly assessed as wrong, but I’m still waiting for you to successfully show me where I’m wrong. No hurry, I have a lot of patience.
I will not kick the dead AVR bi-wiring & bi-amping horse again, I’ve made my position more than clear so many times, it can not made clearer, at least not until somebody, somewhere actually presents a valid counter argument that even loosely resembles in fair assessment of my point, I will not counter an argument based upon the gross misunderstanding of my position.
I will say this though, the nature of this discussion is ample enough proof, and quite painfully so to those who actually DO understand the principles and implementations of this topic, proving beyond any doubt how the AVR industry that builds these features into their products have inadvertently created a huge fog of flawed thinking into what was always a relatively simple procedure. I’m 68 yrs old, and I have never had a problem bi-amping speakers since before 1970, (oh, revelations! ~ bi-amping is not new!) nor have I EVER heard these types of discussions surrounding it, until when?! ....... when AVRs arrived with that feature advertised as being desirable in the marketplace.
Last edited:
Similar threads
