"headroom" for LSiM?

Emlyn

The ironic thing in this discussion is the LSiM 705s are not notoriously power hungry and they do not even appear to be powered by the receiver. Having the receiver set up internally to "biamp" the mains doesn't appear to be doing anything since it is the external amp that is powering them. Biwiring main speakers may or may not make an audible improvement but that's up to the owner to decide for himself.

The original question appears to have been about headroom, of which there is plenty with the external amp, and the user error was only in not turning up the volume control high enough.

Emotiva amps used to be notorious for boosting the output gain so they would sound more powerful (louder) in comparison to the output of a receiver. They did that at the expense of creating a grainy, or noisy, sound quality compared to better quality external amps. Not sure if that is the case since I have not owned a second or third generation Emotiva product, but it is not a trick Marantz or other similar companies play with their amps.

sponger

Emlyn wrote: »

Having the receiver set up internally to "biamp" the mains doesn't appear to be doing anything since it is the external amp that is powering them.

It sounds like what you're saying is that there is a difference in end results between avr "bi-amping" using the avr amp and doing the same through an outboard amp with the avr in "bi-amping" mode. Effectively, I'm not sure there would be a difference. That is, whether it is the avr or the outboard amp that is doing the powering, the end result of the "bi-amping" is the same.

I agree with your other points, however. It was wrong of me to say LSiM speakers are "power-hungry." Certainly they are going to need more power than his budget floorstanders, but that doesn't meant they're power-hungry. For all intents and purposes, my co-worker does not have "headroom" issues; he just needs to turn up the volume knob. Absolutely in agreement about that.

Emlyn

Right. You are doing a good thing by advising your co-worker. There are lots of options and myths in the home theater hobby. You should invite your co-worker to join this forum since he is running Polks.

For what it's worth, I drive my LSiM707s with a Parasound A23 stereo amp rated at "only" 125 watts. Using biwired or single wired speaker cables with them makes no difference I can hear for home theater use. Perfectly fine amount of power too.

sponger

Again, I am not taking a position on the merits of bi-wiring vs avr "bi-amping." My concern was that my co-worker's set-up was being hurt by his avr "bi-amping" arrangement. I think we can say that is not the case.

But, here is some food for thought. I don't know anything about audioholics. They could be industry shills for all I know. But, what they are saying in this vid is that my co-worker's set-up "provides more bass control that helps sonically" for the following reasons:

1.) "Passive bi-amping, which is when it relies on the speaker's passive xovers, provides more bass control when the speakers are towers that have dedicated subs."

2.) "Bi-amping from a single amp is still bi-amping; it's just known as vertical bi-amping."

3.) "Bi-amping from the avr helps sonically if the avr is, for example, a flagship avr that has a beefy power supply."

If this vid is correct, then I learned something as well. I've always thought avr "bi-amping" was gimmicky. On the same token, however, I did not think it did any harm. In fact, I likened it to bi-wiring, which Polk says may "improve transparency."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mzTV_vABhSQ

Viking64

I wouldn't trust anyone that owns a life-size cardboard cut-out of ANY science-fiction character except for maybe Barbarella.

F1nut

My concern was that my co-worker's set-up was being hurt by his avr "bi-amping" arrangement. I think we can say that is not the case.

You haven't understood a damn thing people here have taken the time to explain in great detail over and over again. Yes, it is hurting the performance. End of discussion.

You would be wise to forget anything you heard in that Audioholics bozo video.

txcoastal1

pitdogg2

And yet at the end of that video they are saying the same thing many here have said over and over and over.......

sponger

F1nut wrote: »

My concern was that my co-worker's set-up was being hurt by his avr "bi-amping" arrangement. I think we can say that is not the case.

You haven't understood a damn thing people here have taken the time to explain in great detail over and over again. Yes, it is hurting the performance. End of discussion.

So far, the only argument in support of avr "bi-amping" hurting performance is that the sum power of "bi-amped" channels to a given speaker from the same amp is smaller than amp output without "bi-amping." As I stated previously, that's assuming full bandwidth output from each "bi-amped" channel, which is a false assumption. All channels driven power output is generally measured from 20hz-20khz, which why aggregate output decreases. If there is room for interpretation on that, then you are welcome to share it.


"And yet at the end of that video they are saying the same thing many here have said over and over and over......."

He frames that in best case scenario terms when the passives are near perfection and power is derived from "2kw monos." In statistics, those conditions would be called an outlier, thus irrelevant for purposes of general analysis.

nooshinjohn

Jinjuku... is that you?

sponger

nooshinjohn wrote: »

Jinjuku... is that you?

No idea who that is, but I did some quick research on why he was banned. Can you specifically point out where I have been discourteous, antagonistic, and egregiously misleading? That appears to sum that person up from what I read. In revisiting this thread from the beginning, I see that there were instances when other members and I reached common ground. If you find examples pointing in the other direction as a result of poor communication skills on my part, please indicate. I will be happy to directly address them and respond accordingly. Thank you.

Viking64

nooshinjohn wrote: »

Jinjuku... is that you?

Former/banned member? That may explain the "co-worker" scenario.

Viking64

sponger wrote: »

No idea who that is, but I did some quick research on why he was banned. Can you specifically point out where I have been discourteous, antagonistic, and egregiously misleading? That appears to sum that person up from what I read. In revisiting this thread from the beginning, I see that there were instances when other members and I reached common ground. If you find examples pointing in the other direction as a result of poor communication skills on my part, please indicate. I will be happy to directly address them and respond accordingly. Thank you.

Alright, I'm gonna guess: "That snotty dude on 'Magnum, P.I.'?"

sponger

OK...now I'm being called "snotty." That might be the case. I might be a "snotty" person. But, I came to this forum because I am a happy Polk customer who has a lot good things to say about the company and its products. I also have questions. I created this thread to address one of those questions. I read each response carefully, acknowledged what I believed was helpful, and tried to find common ground when I happened to disagree with certain responses. What happened next was that was I being told I didn't understand "a damn thing" about what was being told me. Another person stated that I needed to go read a book or something. Now I'm "snotty." I could be wrong, but I am hard pressed to understand that this is what Polk customers coming to this forum should expect to experience.

Viking64

Don't forget that most of us are also Polk customers.

I never said you were "snotty". I was making a joke as to how you were coming across like a certain character on a TV show. That guy was ALSO snotty. If I said someone reminded me of Jethro Bodine on "The Beverly Hillbillies", does this mean that they are stupid? That they are strong? That they have dark hair? That they have a rich uncle?That their mother gave yodeling lessons?

Many people here tried to help you and you came across as argumentative. At least that was my impression. Perhaps your excuse for your responses being the need to explain to someone else why they are doing something wrong is valid. After a while, people felt they were wasting their time. The things that offended you were mostly in response to that frustration.

tonyb

After re-reading this thread, I can sum it up in 2 words....

abandon
ship

txcoastal1

tonyb wrote: »

After re-reading this thread, I can sum it up in 2 words....

abandon
ship

I was thinking we could start over from the beginning

sponger

Viking64 wrote: »

Don't forget that most of us are also Polk customers.

I never said you were "snotty". I was making a joke as to how you were coming across like a certain character on a TV show. That guy was ALSO snotty. If I said someone reminded me of Jethro Bodine on "The Beverly Hillbillies", does this mean that they are stupid? That they are strong? That they have dark hair? That they have a rich uncle?That their mother gave yodeling lessons?

Many people here tried to help you and you came across as argumentative. At least that was my impression. Perhaps your excuse for your responses being the need to explain to someone else why they are doing something wrong is valid. After a while, people felt they were wasting their time. The things that offended you were mostly in response to that frustration.

I see. So I'm not snotty. I just act snotty. There's a difference. I understand now. So, if I say someone is acting like Glenn from the Wedding Singer. It's not that he's pompous. It's that he's acting like the guy from the Wedding Singer. That makes perfect sense.

Please provide an example of where I was being argumentative. That is, at which point did I refuse to acknowledge the validity of another person's viewpoint before responding with my own? I will be happy to address it if that is the case. Also, please show where I did not give due courtesy to others on the basis that they are also Polk customers. Thank you.

Viking64

The idea for "The Wedding Singer" was stolen from Martin Guigui's screenplay entitled "Wedding Band". Although I am quite familiar with the chain of events related to that, I have never seen that movie. Adam Sandler stopped being funny when he left Saturday Night Live and started making movies.

Anyway, I said you reminded me of that guy on "Magnum P.I." I don't know what his name was, but he was played by an actor whom I believe is named "John Hillerman", or something similar to that.

I never said you were snotty. I never said you acted snotty. I do find it amusing how hung-up you are on that one word I used to describe a character, though.

Actually, I found your repeated "acknowledgement of the validity of other's viewpoints" while surreptitiously scoffing at them to be quite passive/aggressive in behavior. I am sure you would classify me as behind the same.

Does Vanilla allow us to use the phrase "donkey dink"?

sponger

Viking64 wrote: »

I never said you were snotty. I never said you acted snotty. I do find it amusing how hung-up you are on that one word I used to describe a character, though.

Actually, I found your repeated "acknowledgement of the validity of other's viewpoints" while surreptitiously scoffing at them to be quite passive/aggressive in behavior. I am sure you would classify me as behind the same.

I see. So when someone reminds you of someone else, it is not because that person is acting that like other person from your point of view. In which case, what is the similarity? Appearance? I look like the guy from Magnum PI? It's not that I'm 'hung-up' on it. I just want to make sure I understand you correctly.

Please find an example of surreptitious scoffing on my part. I really do want to address it if that genuinely took place. Thank you.

F1nut

I just want to make sure I understand you correctly.

Understanding seems to be a problem for you judging by your posts here.

If I may.....your questions have been answered. At this point whether you understood the answers or not is no longer relevant as you have taken this thread on a completely different path. Therefore, it would be best if you took your understandings or lack thereof to your co-worker and stopped making yourself look anymore foolish here than you already have.

sponger

F1nut wrote: »

I just want to make sure I understand you correctly.

Understanding seems to be a problem for you judging by your posts here.

If I may.....your questions have been answered. At this point whether you understood the answers or not is no longer relevant as you have taken this thread on a completely different path. Therefore, it would be best if you took your understandings or lack thereof to your co-worker and stopped making yourself look anymore foolish here than you already have.

You've called my understanding into question previously. I responded accordingly with facts that most on this forum tend to agree with. That is, advertised all channels driven output is based on full bandwidth conditions. I kindly asked you to respond. So far you have not. Am I being unreasonable by wanting to address that detail in this thread since it had been stated that performance is sapped by avr "bi-amping" conditions?

So, all I'm asking for is a little bit of due process here for the sake of moving the discussion forward:

1.) where did I fail to understand another person's input?
2.) where did I initiate a digression?

Specific examples is all I have asked for, and I am still waiting.

nooshinjohn

sponger wrote: »

I see. So when someone reminds you of someone else, it is not because that person is acting that like other person from your point of view. In which case, what is the similarity? Appearance? I look like the guy from Magnum PI? It's not that I'm 'hung-up' on it. I just want to make sure I understand you correctly.

Please find an example of surreptitious scoffing on my part. I really do want to address it if that genuinely took place. Thank you.

Viking64

With all of this talk of "my co-worker" and "head room" and "bi" this and "bi" that, I'm not even sure what this thread is about anymore.

F1nut

Viking64

sponger

So, all that being said, it's safe to say that avr "bi-amping" does not sap system performance. Whether or not it has a beneficial impact is another topic on which I did not take a stance. But, one thing is certain, which is that it isn't "bad." I just wanted to make sure of that before making that recommendation to another person. Thank you all who contributed.

Viking64

txcoastal1

And AVR biamping will not improve headroom

Viking64

txcoastal1 wrote: »

And AVR biamping will not improve headroom

What about moving the seat back and tilting the steering-wheel up?