biwireing or bi amping

[Don Richard]

If you don't have a dividing network ahead of the amplifiers, you're using the fools bi-amping method.

Absolutely correct. One of the many advantages of true biamping is removing the coils and caps from the signal path. Adding another amp isn't the best way to solve a problem of insufficient power. Just buy a bigger amp if you need more power and hook the speaker up normally.

[vnzbd]

Don, interesting stuff. My foggy memory of electronics class, I somewhat remember the ac power being figured a couple of different ways, maybe ins[]tant and average power. Somewhere in there was phase angles and maybe polar rectangular conversions. Anyway, it has been years!

As far as electroshock therapy........

In the car audio enviorment I have used electronic x-overs before the amps, x-overs built into the amps, and back in the day x-overs after the amps. I can say that for simplicity sake I prefer the second method. The first and second method do preserve power that otherwise would be lost in the passive. What the passive did allow you to do was take an amp like an old Rockford Fosgate 45(22.5 wpc into 4 ohms) and run it at a much lower load where it could output 3-4 times the power. Many of sound offs where won with those configurations in a 50 watt or less class. Not just volume but SQ was good also. I have seen such a system with 2-15s and a decent set of components that would hang with most systems today.

Well I do think the term "fools bi-amping" sounds a little degrading but If thats what I have done I still like it. Hopefully my ears have not deceived me!

[IB Slammin]

If you don't have a dividing network ahead of the amplifiers, you're using the fools bi-amping method.

Absolutely correct. One of the many advantages of true biamping is removing the coils and caps from the signal path. Adding another amp isn't the best way to solve a problem of insufficient power. Just buy a bigger amp if you need more power and hook the speaker up normally.

I am the fool that you speak of.

I run two bridged Luxman M-117's into ESN LF boards crossed at 450hz and two MC-100 mono blocks into the mid boards. (that are jumpered to the HF board) Tube buffered CDP & tube preamp.

I have great respect for both of you guys, so call me what you will. But do call me happy with it.[]

regards

tc

[Don Richard]

Here's a passive line level solution that can be built for $20 or so:

http://www.t-linespeakers.org/tech/filters/passiveHLxo.html

For a 2 way speaker disconnect the passive speaker crossover and hook the amp directly to the drivers. For a three way design it will be necessary to leave the MF to HF passive speaker crossover connected. This article has info about this and bi-amping in general:

http://sound.westhost.com/bi-amp.htm

Have fun and good listening.

[vnzbd]

Thanks for the additional good reading Don. I do find it interesting that in the bi-amp example of the 3 way speaker the mid/high x-over is still used. I can obviously see the need for it but then it does appear to go against the "pureist" bi-amp examples and would then double filter the highs and mids. To the best of my limited knowledge this is frowned upon when using a sub with a internal non bypassable x-over and an avr. I do feel that we are well beyond that but is it the same principle?

Also to restate my inital reason for "fool's" bi-amping of my system was not to gain more power or clarity, but to attempt to rebalance the output of the speaker at my typical(90% or the time) listening levels. I did place a 3db attenuator in front of the amp for the high section so not to mess with the internal x-over and cut the mid/highs across their freq range vs. using the tone controls and having it cut at their center freqs and having it bleed off octave by octave. Again I will try not to speak beyond my knowledge but I did measure the reistance of the lowpass circuit at 4.2 ohms after the seperation of the x-over and by the apparent fourmula for power, the low cuiruit of the amp should now be in the 300 vs 200 wpc rating. Maybe yes. maybe no but the result was exactly what I was trying to achieve, mission accomplised!