hobie1dog
500 Club - QQ All-Star
So did you use the surround back amplifier channels and re-assign them up to your front mains?
List the speakers you have
- Thread starter hobie1dog
- Start date
Help Support QuadraphonicQuad:
I think Yamaha uses the channels for the front "presence" speakers when you bi-amp... I'd have to check the manual to be sure.
Thank you for taking some of your valuable time to give me your views and provide what appears to be constructive feedback. A few of your comments make me question if I had failed to communicate my thoughts effectively. It made me think that I should stop, go back and re-evaluate my whole system. You clearly have knowledge of some of the things I own and use. If I spent a good measure of time walking in your shoes I might have insights quite different than those I presently possess.
If you are a master of digital technologies, then I certainly must give credit to where credit is due.
I was just describing some things in my main sound system. I never thought by stating what I had in this room that it might give anyone the impression that I thought they should also have any of it, or even like it.
The thread only asks people what they have for speakers and I took the liberty to describe what speakers I have, how I have them hooked up and why.
The whole point of my lengthy post was simple in my mind.
I sometimes like to have the option of hearing music convincingly clear, and as loud as a live band at times, perhaps because it's a soundscape that I'm used to and comfortable in.
It never has to be louder than my acoustic drums, but having plenty of headroom never hurts, but not having enough headroom is always a problem when it starts clipping. Just because it CAN be turned up, as you say "ridiculously loud", that surely does not mean I have to.
Also, I have no intentions of compressing my music down into mixes that sound good enough for someone else's severely headroom handicapped sound playback systems.
In some sound engineer's process, it is required that there be a clock radio and an iPhone to be checked to make sure the mix sounds good enough there too before it gets sent out.
I am not a pro, and what I record, it only has to sound good in my room, I don't care if it can not be played to its best effect on a 1980s mid-level portable boom box.
Having exactly and perfectly the right amount of headroom is fine .... until you want to turn it up ... just a wee bit more. That's human nature.
I'd rather have complete freedom to decide for myself when it's appropriately loud enough, preferably before it distorts.
It'd be much more rewarding to take a daylong trip in a new Vette Z06 than in a weazing old Yugo. The extra HP is always available, but not mandatory.
As a lifelong committed 'tapehead', I choose tape because I'm used to it, and when it's done well, sounds pretty damn good.
I'm not reading constant complaints about the deficiencies of professional grade recording tape from the QQ's membership, despite the fact that the overwhelming lion's share of classic music we discuss here was originally recorded on it, we proclaim our love for this old music and in some cases it was recorded on the very same class of machines sitting in my music room.
If you want the truth, the real reason I don't do digital is because of incompetence, and I am not a pro, but more because I would have no idea how to do it well, I'll leave that to the industry's professionals, they know what equipment to invest in, and how to get the most out of it.
Most likely I'd make a right mess out of it. At my age I just want to enjoy doing something at home that's fun for me to tinker with and easy for me to understand. There would be no fun in spending any money on modern digital equipment and not be able to use it properly.
8 years ago, I actually took classes on going digital, bought a big iMac, pro-tools 10, an interface, but doing all that just never felt fun.
I was advised early in life, chose something to do in your life that you love, and you'll never work a day.
If I had to do it digital, it'd be too much like work, and with regards to work?, I do enough of that already, but at an hourly rate.
Turning down the volume is not “compression”.
Why do you say this? Who said music recorded to tape was deficient? You’re arguing with yourself it seems.
I have two pair of binding posts behind each of my 45 year old Allison Eights. Link bars were made removable for "bi-amping", may I assume your speakers also have these?
I did some homework on this feature and determined it was functionally meaningless.
I have heard of modern AV type system speakers having the same bi-amping option.
So, this is what I suspect, it turns out there are basically these three choices, and this first one amounts to basically bi-wiring, which accomplishes nothing.
Then there is passive bi-amping as implemented with the standard hook ups on a modern AV receiver, but that still does not achieve the main benefit from why it's done.
There are folks who claim that this bi-amp feature in AVRs is nothing more than a marketing ploy foisted upon the consumer to trick them into believing that it's the 'real deal', I don't know the whole story on these devices, so maybe someone knows the facts regarding which bi-amp featured AV receivers are legit and why.
Then there is Active bi-amping which requires several things, and I strongly suspect that none are being done here.
The primary purpose of true bi-amping is to deliver a dedicated channel (both pre & main) to a speaker or speakers in a narrowed frequency range, like having subs limited to 30-100 Hz and another channel to take up where that one leaves off, say 100-19 kHz.
This can be done two ways, the first way is by arranging the crossover points passively in a manually adjustable crossover, or with an active powered electronic speaker management processor, like the dbx driverack series.
A major benefit is that the incoming signal from the source is naturally full range, 20Hz-20kHz, and optionally, with an RTA microphone, the room can also be 'EQ-balanced' and then you program the bi-amping crossover parameters in.
Doing this allows the line level preamp outputs to be tightly limited to an intended frequency range, like for a subwoofer, 25-90Hz, in this case the sub does not even need a protective crossover, so you can wire the amp's output power leads directly to the raw speaker terminals. (no wasted power!)
The top speaker boxes are usually two or three way, so they would need to have their own dedicated internal crossovers to handle the full power of nearly full range music, delivered and separated, to be sent selectively to the three drivers inside that one box.
The result is that all the amps can be sized specifically for the limited job they must now perform.
In a normal (non) bi-amped setup, the full range of music is always being delivered at full listening power to all driver crossovers which effectively protect the drivers downstream by getting filtered down to the limited range each individual driver in that box can handle.
The result of true bi-amping is a lot less wasted amplifier energy, and minimizing the likelihood of robbing the system of better musical clarity.
Amps will not have to deliver all that extra energy that simply gets turned into heat at the filtering capacitors and crossovers anyway, the x-overs are there to protect the narrow range of vulnerable speaker components.
Yes my speakers had the bars between the two sets of binding posts, which I removed when I set them up as bi-amped.
I see now that I am actually fairly terrible at describing what’s in my mind, because so much of what I have posted here you have uncovered as nonsense.
It seems as though each time I attempt to explain what I thought was reasonably expressed, I find my statements are exhaustively and systematically dismantled in search of falsehoods nestled between hidden implied positions, which I can’t seem to find so easily as you.
We both know very well what compression is, but I thought I made it clear that compressed music, which poorly done can ruin it, but even done properly is a good fit for playback systems with very limited dynamic range, and still be heard, whereas a powerful system that can easily handle natural, full spectrum, real-world, live dynamic range, there is no need for deep compression, perhaps only peak limiting in sound reinforcement situations in order to protect the listeners ears and the vulnerable high frequency drivers during a performance.
I apologize for making the false inference concerning your comment about my choosing tape despite its deficiencies. You never said that.
Are we cool?
Please do some careful homework on that feature, if it’s anything like my Allison’s, then it’s a waste of time.
I looked up several places regarding that functionality on your amp and speakers (using the model numbers you provided) and found plenty of heated controversy over whether it’s BS or a worthwhile improvement.
I wouldn’t take what’s been written in the add brochures, reviews or even the blurbs contained in the operating manuals.
That is why I won’t take a position pro or con until I hear rational argument from a component level repair tech who knows amplifier design intimately to explain whether it’s bunk or funk.
I've done plenty of homework on it, for years. And I heard an immediate noticeable difference.
We're totally cool. We are just having a friendly conversation about gear and how we use it. I'm just asking some questions to clarify what are, for me anyway, somewhat confusing statements. I just may not be very good at reading what you're trying to convey. When I see someone using gear in a manner I'm either unfamiliar with, or in a manner I wouldn't choose personally, I simply ask for more detail because maybe I can learn something or am missing something.
As far as compression goes, I got confused I guess because since no one else had yet brought it up, I assumed you must have meant you thought turning up music really loud somehow relieved it of any compression that might exist, or that compression might be applied by turning the volume down. Otherwise, it was just a random statement thrown into the conversation. Which is fine to throw in random statements, but when I'm caught unprepared for them, my brain will try to make sense of the randomness and apply them to the discussion.
As I said at the outset, I think it's fine to use whatever gear you use in any manner you use it as long as it enhances YOUR listening experience. That's the only reason any of us here buy and use any gear. It's all good. I was just questioning some of the hows-and-whys of using certain components you mentioned in the manner you suggested is all.
We're totally cool.
Last edited:
I am very interested in knowing what that improvement is to your ear, and especially how it is done.
Please understand that I am not doubting you, I genuinely want to learn about things which I currently do not fully comprehend.
Old school bi-amping always meant that there is no connection between the woofer and the mid/high drivers because the crossover function must be done before the speaker, otherwise it’s not considered conventional bi-amping.
Maybe there is a great benefit to be enjoyed in modern home consumer type AVR implemented bi-amping, even if done in a very different scheme.
Maybe I’m slow, but no one has been able to describe how it is done as clearly and as simply as old school bi-amping is done.
How can you get past the requirement that the x-over points and curves have to be compatible with the particular needs of the speaker’s drivers individually when there are two crossovers stumbling over each other.
Even if separating the link bar actually does disconnect the woofer from the other drivers, the receiver would still have to be programmed for the narrow needs of a certain speaker, and I’ve noticed that many people have used very different bi-amp ready speakers like this.
Did you have to program the receiver to do this?
Maybe the best answer to my question is simply that it really is not bi-amping at all - that it’s something totally different, and the term was appropriated without sufficient explanation.
With most such speakers, removing the bar to facilitate bi-amping does not bypass the speaker's internal crossover. You are still utilizing that when bi-amping to the separate speakers. It's still crossing-over BEFORE the speakers, it's just taking place inside the speakers' enclosure.
Debate probably exists as to whether using the internal crossover is as good as using an external crossover, but it's the same crossover that is utilized when running the speaker in full-range. So it obviously won't be any WORSE.
I had a set of speakers that I bi-amped in this manner. I couldn't hear any difference, but my ears are fairly shot after so many years of being on stage with loud amplifiers.
My understanding is that the primary advantage to bi-amping is that you will get a bit more efficiency out of the amp and it will be a little cleaner when pushing the amp to the limit. Few people run their home systems at such levels anyway, unless it's a really low-powered receiver. Which few are anymore these days.But if one runs it and such as hears a difference, then that's all the matters!
Last edited:
Very good!
The main reason I go into such detail, while staying as honest as possible, is because the open scrutiny from someone else with fresh eyes and ears can often reveal the silly, subtle or glaring mistakes I may have made, or better yet deliver certain opportunities I might have missed.
I’d love to hear your sound system, I can’t imagine that it wouldn’t sound awesome!!
Please feel free to seek out any posts by me and search for them hidden nonsense, it’ll help save me from myself perhaps.
Each day when wake up, I make a solemn wish,
I sincerely hope that before I go to sleep, I will discover and learn something/s which I had previously held as a profound truth, but that belief turns out dead wrong.
If I fail to invite in these precious moments, then I shall cease to grow, and be doomed to suffer the burdens of my own willful ignorance.
It's all good. I'm here to learn as well. I don't pretend to be enough of an expert on very much to convey much in the manner of wisdom on any topic. I just hope I don't muck things up for others too much!
My system sound good for me, but it's what I would consider a mid-fi system at best. If I had all the money in the world (or was more inclined to spend what I do have on my home-audio gear) I'd no-doubt have some of the types of systems mentioned by others here. I just have a fairly basic home theater set up with slightly better-than-average speakers for the job. It serves a dual purpose of also being in the family living area and the same system we watch all of TV and movies on. I find I have to tweak certain settings when switching between the two uses for optimal listening enjoyment.
My goal is to one day have an at-least-as-nice (or even better) system in my music studio which will dedicated solely for listening to recorded music. But it may take me a bit to decide I want to commit those sorts of funds to such a speaker upgrade.
Energy Connoisseur C-3 bookshelf speakers
Energy Connoisseur C-1 bookshelf speakers
Monitor Audio Bronze B2 bookshelf speakers
Radio Shack/Realistic Minimus 7 (black metal enclosure)
and my "go to" speakers.....
NHT SuperOnes v2.1
Energy Connoisseur C-1 bookshelf speakers
Monitor Audio Bronze B2 bookshelf speakers
Radio Shack/Realistic Minimus 7 (black metal enclosure)
and my "go to" speakers.....
NHT SuperOnes v2.1
Music is clearer and crisper with richer and deeper bass than before. More detail overall.
Yes they do. Or at least that's the configuration on my 7.2 Yamaha amp. You can set it to "bi-amp" and it will move the amps used for those two channels to the bi-amp channels. Might be something different with the 9.2 and 11.2 amps?
What amp are you using?
Yamaha RX-V 1700
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!
Last edited:
Similar threads
