Bi-Amp Questions

[rplace]

Yea in the example  #1 above. But if the XO is in the HF section only and I run a + and - wire to the bass bin from my other amp's channel how dose the XO cut or not have any impact? The full signal is going directly to the bass bin, no?

 

Pre>>Amp>>Bass Bin's red/black terminals with +/- wires from amp. I must be missing something incredibly simple here.

 

Do I perhaps still run the wires (now both sets) to the HF section but the amp for HF to the top part of the top section and the amp for LF to the bottom of the top section and still use the short thing with bananas to the LF section? If so that might make sense. I was envisioning wires from amp's output directly to the bass bin and skipping the wires from top to bottom.

[LarryC]

What benefit do you expect from bi-amping?  It's such an efficient speaker, I didn't think there would be much power or efficiency advantage, and there might be increased noise because of the efficiency from adding electronics in a chain.  As I recall, PWK didn't think much of bi-amping K-horns.

 

I believe Roy Delgado has had a lot of experience with electronic X-overs and bi- and tri-amping.

 

[rplace]

Hey Larry, noting ventured nothing gained, right? I really don't know what, if anything to expect. I have the equipment laying around, so why not? If we never swapped out a cartridge for a different one or tried a different tube or preamp we would all still be listening to what we were 30-40 years ago.

 

Right now my garage systems consists of an old iPod a 50 watt super T-amp and the LSI speakers. I don't think I'd be adding much to the electronics chain by having iPod to 110 WPC AVR to the same LSI. I'd just be replacing the digital T-amp for the AVR iPod and speakers still the same. Only the middle component would change.

 

 

[CECAA850]

I'd put the T-amp on the highs and receiver on the bass bins then.

[wvu80]

1 hour ago, rplace said:

I've used them as is for a while and like all of us from time to time we just can't resist the urge to fiddle around with things. Again they are not may main source of music so no real worries about making them worse in the sort term.

I am with you on this!  I too like to fiddle and experiment, not because I need that extra 1% of performance, but because I like to hear for myself what kind of changes make what kind of performance gains.

 

In your case, I would really recommend caution.  After reviewing the manual your receiver does look like it supports bi-amping, although it is an early implementation and the verbiage is not the same as is commonly used today.

 

My other reason for caution is because your speakers do not directly support bi-amping or bi-wiring, ie, a factory supported separation of the HF and LF sections.

 

My Marantz SR-6011 AVR is of recent vintage and bi-amping is selectable, directly supported in the setup.  My RF-83's have two sets of terminals with a removable jumper piece, again directly engineered and provided by Klipsch for just that purpose.  

 

I would worry that if some wires got crossed or not setup properly that some weird impedance mis-match might blow the amp, or the speakers.

[rplace]

35 minutes ago, CECAA850 said:

I'd put the T-amp on the highs and receiver on the bass bins then.

 

How? Please reread my post at the top of page #2. I'm really not trying to be difficult. I thought I'd go directly to the bass bin from whatever the power was. I'm thinking now maybe that is not the case. Do I still go to the HF section but the 2nd set of posts that say LF out or something similar? Once we answer where the LF wires go, we will figure out what the power source for each is.

 

@wvu80 Thanks, it really is for me just part of the hobby. I like to mess with things and see/hear them for myself. My wife says I should have been named Thomas because I doubt just about anything anyone says. I appreciate everyone's help so far and the various inputs on what I may expect or should not expect. I really just want to do it for myself and see. And hopefully not ruin anything in the process. I'd guess when its all said and done I'll be right back where I started. Heck, the iPod is the weak link in all this. I'll probably drag some other stuff out during my experiments to at least feed them FLAC files with a decent DAC.

[CECAA850]

Let's take the left channel for example.  Take the left channel at the source and split the signal.  Run one RCA to the L side of one amp and one RCA to the L side of another amp.  Take one amps L output and send it to the HF input of the L speaker and take the other amps L output and send it to the LF input of the L speaker.  This is done AFTER you cut the jumpers in the speaker.  It's helpful if both amps have gain controls.

[rplace]

8 minutes ago, CECAA850 said:

Let's take the left channel for example.  Take the left channel at the source and split the signal.  Run one RCA to the L side of one amp and one RCA to the L side of another amp.  Take one amps L output and send it to the HF input of the L speaker and take the other amps L output and send it to the LF input of the L speaker.  This is done AFTER you cut the jumpers in the speaker.  It's helpful if both amps have gain controls.

 

Cool, starting to make sense to me. For some reason I originally thought the LF portion from the amp would go directly to the big, bottom, bass bin of the LSI completely skipping the trapezoidal top sections. That was my confusion as to how the crossover would be involved. Thanks!

[CECAA850]

If you were to run wires directly to the bass bin and bypass the crossover you would be sending them a full signal.

.

[rplace]

12 minutes ago, CECAA850 said:

If you were to run wires directly to the bass bin and bypass the crossover you would be sending them a full signal.

.

 

Exactly what I was trying to articulate (obviously not very successfully ) several posts back.

 

I don't know how I got it in my head, but I thought the idea was to run the high/mid to the top part and the LF to the bottom part. No matter where the XO was located one portion was going to be missing something. We have cleared two things up. The XO is on the top section and you still run both sets of wires to the top section. Attaching the Amp's HF to what is labeled "Input" and the Amp's LF to what is labeled LF Out.

[CECAA850]

OK, let's start over as I may not have been clear.  Let's start stock and go from there.  You run 2 wires to the HF bin input and then run 2 wires from the output to the bass bins correct?

[rplace]

6 minutes ago, CECAA850 said:

OK, let's start over as I may not have been clear.  Let's start stock and go from there.  You run 2 wires to the HF bin input and then run 2 wires from the output to the bass bins correct?

 

Correct, currently I have the Red + Black - going from left channel of amp to left speaker like every other "normal" speaker in the world. Same with the right. The only difference with the LSI is that there is a second set of binding posts below where you hook up the typical Red/Black that feeds the LF info to the Bass Bin It came with a 2-foot or so set of wires with bananas to go form top to bottom. See pix below. Hard to read but to the right of the red binding post the top set is says "Input" the bottom set says "LF Out"

 

 

Not my speakers I lifted these from the Internet but same idea.

 

 

[CECAA850]

Like I said, I wanted to start over. 

 

The LF out on the top bin goes through the crossover.  If you cut the jumpers you will have no signal to the LF bins so you'll need to run the amp wires directly to the LF bin where you will not have the benefit of the crossovers filter anymore.  You WILL need to run wires to both sets of boxes to get sound out of both boxes but there will be no filter anymore for the LF bin.

[wvu80]

9 minutes ago, CECAA850 said:

The LF out on the top bin goes through the crossover.  If you cut the jumpers you will have no signal to the LF bins so you'll need to run the amp wires directly to the LF bin where you will not have the benefit of the crossovers filter anymore. 

I didn't realize there were two sets of inputs on the LSI.  I didn't see where the terminals were connected.

 

By default, doesn't that make running bi-amp a necessity?  Or at least, running a dedicated output to both HF and LF sections?

[CECAA850]

3 minutes ago, wvu80 said:

I didn't realize there were two sets of inputs on the LSI.  I didn't see where the terminals were connected.

 

By default, doesn't that make running bi-amp a necessity?  Or at least, running a dedicated output to both HF and LF sections?

There's inputs on the top hat as well as inputs on the bass bin.  I've never bi amped a pair as I see no benefit.

[CECAA850]

6 minutes ago, wvu80 said:

I didn't realize there were two sets of inputs on the LSI.  I didn't see where the terminals were connected.

 

By default, doesn't that make running bi-amp a necessity?  Or at least, running a dedicated output to both HF and LF sections?

Not necessaryto bi amp as you run jumpers from the top bin to the bottom.

[CECAA850]

Really the only reason they're set up that way is for ease of transportation.  Jumpers allow you to move the bins separately and keep a crossover.

[wvu80]

Just now, CECAA850 said:

There's inputs on the top hat as well as inputs on the bass bin.  I've never bi amped a pair as I see no benefit.

I'm sure I didn't put that very well.  What confuses me is how to input a source from the (for instance) AVR.  If a simple L/R signal was sent via stereo cables let's say to the tophat, how does the signal get to the LF?  

 

If the HF and LF are connected, then why is there a separate input for the LF, and how would one separate the signal from HF to LF?  The typical way on consumer gear is to remove the solid metal jumper, but I don't see how that would be done on the LSI.

[CECAA850]

The jumper wire is similar to the metal straps 

[CECAA850]

Dave, in the picture above there are 2 sets of posts on the top hat.  One is in and one is out.  The amp wires go to the input and the output is jumper wired to the bass bin input.