weak bass in RTi10

Tour2ma

cc,
I'd only say that in 2-ch mode, photo should not be running into current limitations at his AVR's transformer...

bmor,
Welcome to the discussion. I take the 1325’s main’s output continues even if the you tap its pre-outs for an external amp…. Yes?

photo,
Good to read that you are making progress... and good to see someone with your AVR and mains come along, bmor. He should be able to help you to maximize what you have... As for next the step...

IF you are truly satisfied with the HT experience you are getting (and it should be improving as well), and bmor’s answer to my question is “yes”, bi-amping to improve the 2-ch makes sense... and, again, the HT should improve.

On the other hand, IF you aspire to gut rumbling HT or bmor’s answer to my question is “no”, I think a sub is your next step... and in a room your size not just any old, entry level sub will fill the bill. A good sub will relieve the 10's of some duty and some 2-ch improvement will be noted.

Which you do first depends only to your immediate goal and your budget... can always do the other down the road...

I'm out for now, but will monitor and offer other suggestions when you pick a path.

mdaudioguy

Tour2ma wrote: »

On the other hand, IF you aspire to gut rumbling HT or bmor’s answer to my question is “no”, I think a sub is your next step... and in a room your size not just any old, entry level sub will fill the bill. A good sub will relieve the 10's of some duty and some 2-ch improvement will be noted.

A good sub is absolutely essential for HT with these speakers. If you want rumble that you can feel, a decent sub is a must.

For 2-channel, I disagree somewhat, but it might depend on how your AVR functions. In my case, I cannot get my sub to integrate seamlessly in 2-channel mode. You see, the sub output is disabled in Direct mode. If I change the settings to enable the sub output (normal Stereo mode and no longer Direct), the signal sent to my RTi10s becomes sufficiently degraded so as to lose midrange (at least I think that's the effect I hear), and there is an obvious "gap" between the speakers and the sub - and it doesn't improve no matter where I set my crossover. This integration issues also exist even if I set my mains to large and enable double bass (full signal sent to speakers with signal below crossover point sent to sub). My bottom line is that I think it's possible that a sub can help in 2-channel, but I think it's going to be difficult to integrate. YMMV

For HT use, 5.1 or 7.1, I can't notice any integration issues. Everything has been calibrated and functions as expected.

Right now, I'm listening to this:

2-channel Direct mode... This album has lots of low end, and the RTi10s seem to handle it all just fine.

bmor

Hi Tour, thanks for the welcome. I'm not sure if this the answer to your question. The 1325 allows bi-amping using the front amplifiers for the high freq. and the surround back amplifiers for the low. No external amp (at the moment).
These are the specs:
Amplifier Section
Continuous average power output of 110 watts* per
channel, min., at 8 ohms, from 20 Hz to 20 000 Hz
with no more than 0.08 %** total harmonic
distortion.
Continuous Power Output (20 Hz to 20 kHz, 8 Ω, 0.08 %)
Front . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110 W + 110 W
Center . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110 W
Surround . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110 W + 110 W
Surround back (Front height/wide). . . . . . 110 W + 110 W
Continuous Power Output (1 kHz, 6 Ω, 1.0 %)
Front . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150 W + 150 W
Center . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150 W
Surround . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150 W + 150 W
Surround back (Front height/wide). . . . . . 150 W + 150 W
Total Harmonic Distortion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.06 %
(20 Hz to 20 kHz, 8 Ω, 100 W + 100 W)
Guaranteed speaker impedance
. . . . . . 16 Ω to 8 Ω, less than 8 Ω to 6 Ω (setting required)
* Measured pursuant to the Federal Trade Commission’s
Trade Regulation rule on Power Output Claims for Amplifiers
** Measured by Audio Spectrum Analyzer

I bought this equipment wanting a decent system for two channel music. It was all on sale up here so I couldn't resist. I'll add a centre and rears for HT when I see a deal, but I don't want a sub if I can avoid it.

My room size is 14 x 20 x 7, fully carpeted. One sofa facing the fronts at about 12', another sofa on the side with the end about four feet from the right channel. The effect of this sofa can be seen in the reverb graph from the MCACC measurement. The speakers are about 6" from rear and 18" from the side wall. I still have a lot of tweaking to do to get the setup to my liking.

Erik Tracy

mdaudioguy wrote: »

A good sub is absolutely essential for HT with these speakers. If you want rumble that you can feel, a decent sub is a must.

For 2-channel, I disagree somewhat, but it might depend on how your AVR functions. In my case, I cannot get my sub to integrate seamlessly in 2-channel mode. You see, the sub output is disabled in Direct mode. If I change the settings to enable the sub output (normal Stereo mode and no longer Direct), the signal sent to my RTi10s becomes sufficiently degraded so as to lose midrange (at least I think that's the effect I hear), and there is an obvious "gap" between the speakers and the sub - and it doesn't improve no matter where I set my crossover. This integration issues also exist even if I set my mains to large and enable double bass (full signal sent to speakers with signal below crossover point sent to sub). My bottom line is that I think it's possible that a sub can help in 2-channel, but I think it's going to be difficult to integrate. YMMV

For HT use, 5.1 or 7.1, I can't notice any integration issues. Everything has been calibrated and functions as expected.

Right now, I'm listening to this:

2-channel Direct mode... This album has lots of low end, and the RTi10s seem to handle it all just fine.

I was also disappointed that when using Direct there is no signal out from the AVR Sub output when I wanted to do 2-channel listening.

An intermediate solution is to run a cable via the Sub out to the LFE input on the sub, AND L/R Preouts from the AVR to the L/R line level inputs.

Of course, you can't have both connected at the sub at the same time - so it is a manual swapping of cables on the back of the sub if you are in "HT" or "Direct".

I got better integration of my sub to my mains when using Direct and the L/R preouts to my sub and used the xover control on the back of the sub for music.

But what is even BETTER is to get an integrated amp that has an HT Bypass input and preouts.

I now have my AVR hooked up with a Sub out to the LFE input on my sub, preouts from the AVR to my integrated amp, and then L/R preouts from the integrated amp to the L/R line level of the sub. Both sets of cables remain connected to the sub - no more swapping of cables.

Music sources are connected to the integrated instead of the AVR for MUCH better musicality for 2-channel.

When watching movies the AVR is set with the xover to 80Hz for Fronts and Sub, the sub gets its LFE input from the AVR for all that scary dangerous LFE stuff, but for music, the sub gets inputs from the integrated and I can use the sub xover control to seamlessly integrate the sub with my mains for 2-channel.

Just tossing that out.....

mdaudioguy

^^^ Now that's a good way to optimize a HT rig for 2-channel!

Erik Tracy

mdaudioguy wrote: »

^^^ Now that's a good way to optimize a HT rig for 2-channel!

Here's a diagram of the setup
http://www.polkaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?t=103777&highlight=bypass

If you don't have the luxury of space or budget for two separate systems, a hybrid setup of HT/Music using a pre/pro with bypass or integrated with bypass is a nice option.

photocrazy

bmor wrote: »

The 1325 allows bi-amping using the front amplifiers for the high freq. and the surround back amplifiers for the low.

Does Pio has internal cross overs for bi-amping highs and lows ?

tonyb

photocrazy wrote: »

Does Pio has internal cross overs for bi-amping highs and lows ?

No, not in the sense you mean it. A external active crossover is used for true bi-amping. The bi-amp option on receivers is more marketing gimmick than anything of actual use.

bmor

My limited understanding of the subject is that bi-amping with an A/V receiver can possibly give you more headroom. Separating the crossovers at the speaker may limit the frequencies each amp is required to produce, so less load on the individual amps and more reserve when needed for peak demands.

tonyb

bmor wrote: »

My limited understanding of the subject is that bi-amping with an A/V receiver can possibly give you more headroom. Separating the crossovers at the speaker may limit the frequencies each amp is required to produce, so less load on the individual amps and more reserve when needed for peak demands.

How would it give you more headroom when using the same amp in an avr ? Most AVR's have one amp to power 2-5,or 7 channels. Is the amp in an avr taxed more in 7 channels than 2 ? Of coarse it is.

gp4jesus

tonyb wrote: »

...Most AVR's have one amp to power 2-5,or 7 channels. Is the amp in an avr taxed more in 7 channels than 2 ?

tonyb: I trust you meant power supply. Its true.

Most AVRs & lower market amps regardless of the number of channels have shared PSs. That said, companies will often hawk 2 ch specs to get your attention. The "all channels driven from 20hz-20K, etc" then is the spec you use to help make your decision. IMHO an "all channels driven" 4 ohm spec is equally important.

In my system, only the L&R share a PS. My center has its own as do my rears*. When I'm finished, each DRIVER(s) in my LC&R speakers will have its own PS.
* sides will too when I add them

Also I KNOW the RTi A7 mids do not have HP filters. Yup you read that right-below 125hz mids & subs are in parallel, 4 ohms at best. I'm confident the RTi10 are the same. So If your amp(s) is/are a "little thin" in current department, that could be why your bottom is a "little thin."

I can PM you how you test for that w/out looking inside.

Cheers Tony

gp4jesus

gp4jesus wrote: »

In my system, ...as do my rears (share a PS)

Currently my rear channels share a transformer, but have separate BR & capacitor banks.

gp4jesus wrote: »

When I'm finished, each DRIVER(s) in my LC&R speakers will have its own PS.

When I'm finished, each DRIVER(s) in my SYSTEM will have its own PS; sides & rears - separate BR & capacitor banks.

Cheers

gp4jesus

Another RTi10/Rti A7 note: A7 specific-right out of the box they're a bit bright & hard. This fooled me in believing A7s sounded lean in the bass. During an early* listening session*, I went into the next room to discover the bottom was quite full and extended.

A7s for sure need 200-300 hours break-in. They'll soften over time and, especially w/a decent amp, the bottom "will come out to play."

http://www.polkaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?t=99538
http://www.polkaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?t=100364
http://www.polkaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?t=100120

One other thing and some will find this suprising: the A7 mid and subs share the same closure; NO divider between them!

bmor

I have some noob questions for you guys to help me understand this stuff better.

Is "all channels driven" the same as "continuous power output" as Pioneer puts it, in the specs I posted above for the 1325 (VSX 33)?

I understand there's only one power supply, but doesn't each channel have it's own amplifier section?

tonyb

bmor wrote: »

I have some noob questions for you guys to help me understand this stuff better.

Is "all channels driven" the same as "continuous power output" as Pioneer puts it, in the specs I posted above for the 1325 (VSX 33)?

I understand there's only one power supply, but doesn't each channel have it's own amplifier section?

No, each channel does not have it's own power supply. One for all channels.
"continuous power output" is usually followed by how many channels at what percent distortion into 8 ohm,or 6 or even 4 ohm. This is why most receiver power rateings are dubious at best. Let me also add, that the power ratings on receivers are more marketing than any real use. Current is what drives speakers, not so much watt ratings. Most lower to midline receivers will power any speaker in an 8 ohm class, it's when you start getting into multiple drivers,big bass drivers, that speakers need more current to shine. This is why we always recommend preouts when looking at receivers. Eventually the upgrade bug bites us all, you have your eye on those nice new big floorstanders like the A9's but your receiver won't be able to make them shine. So with preouts,you have the option of adding an amp, without preouts,your stuck in your upgrade path. Make any sense ?

Tour2ma

1 PS, but individual amp circuits for each channel is what he stated, tony...

As I said way above, still agree on the pre-out value... so long as internal amp continues to get the pre-out signal as well... (bmor, this is what I was asking about, not the front-ch/ surround-ch bi-amp capability).

Carry on...

bmor

Tour, this is from the manual, is this what you were referring to?

To hear sound only from the pre-outs, switch the
speaker system to OFF, or simply disconnect any
speakers that are connected directly to the receiver.

I think this means a yes to the internal amp still getting the pre-out signal?

Sooo...if I decided to try an amp for the rti10's, not that I have the spare cash at the moment, what kind of wpc rating should I be looking at? Is it a case of as much as you can afford up to the max rating of the speakers? Is there a point of diminishing returns in this game?

mdaudioguy

I've used a 200 wpc amp, but my current amp is 150 wpc and sounds great. I'm sure any decent amp in that range would make a noticeable difference.

Tour2ma

bmor wrote: »

I think this means a yes to the internal amp still getting the pre-out signal?

Sounds like that's what it is saying to me as well.

Sooo...if I decided to try an amp for the rti10's, not that I have the spare cash at the moment, what kind of wpc rating should I be looking at? Is it a case of as much as you can afford up to the max rating of the speakers? Is there a point of diminishing returns in this game?

First, in the hands of anyone "with the sense that God gave a goose" (as my Grandmother used to say), the max speaker rating is immaterial. If I had a dime for every time it's been posted around here that underpowered amps have damaged more speakers than overpowered, I could have my choice of any dollar menu item I craved...

Second, 150 wpc and up seems to me like the right neighborhood. However, as I think mrag was suggesting, wpc ratings are not the end all be all of selection criteria. Look at the wpc, sure, but additional specs such as headroom/ transient power and current capability are as or more important... especially current capability (and even more especially when supplying low impedance speakers, which your 10's are not).

But regardless of which spec you emphasize, specs are really only useful in narrowing the field. They are not a substitute for getting your ears on the gear. When dollars and/ or availability of gear, e.g., shopping the used market, limit your ability to compare, then a forum can be right handy…. confusing, but handy.

tonyb

Tour2ma wrote: »

"with the sense that God gave a goose" .

LOL !! Didn't know you had a sense of humor Bruce.

comfortablycurt

bmor wrote: »

My limited understanding of the subject is that bi-amping with an A/V receiver can possibly give you more headroom. Separating the crossovers at the speaker may limit the frequencies each amp is required to produce, so less load on the individual amps and more reserve when needed for peak demands.

I think you've got that kinda confused. Bi-amping with an AVR doesn't put any less strain on the amps. The crossover is still taking place after the amplifiers, so each amp channel is still reproducing the whole frequency spectrum. With true bi-amping, external crossovers are put in place before the amps, so that the amps are only required to drive the frequencies needed for the individual drivers that they're powering.

Bi-amping with an AVR won't give you any more headroom. As someone put it the other day, it's like drinking the same amount of water through two straws, instead of one straw. All the amp channels on your AVR are still deriving their power from one common power supply...thus, connecting a speaker to multiple pairs of outputs is NOT going to increase the speaker output. It's still drawing the exact same amount of power that it would be with a single wiring connection method.

Look at it this way...Supposing that your AVR is "rated" at 100 wpc. Bi-amping the speakers is not going to give you 100 watts for the highs and 100 watts for the lows. You'll still only be driving 100 watts to the speaker...but it will be 50 watts on the highs and 50 watts on the lows. Thus, there will be no improvement whatsoever as far as overall volume and dynamics go.

In my experience, along with the experience of MANY others...bi-amping with an AVR provides absolutely no benefits whatsoever. It's basically a cheap advertising gimmick. It costs them nothing to say that you can "bi-amp" with their receiver...and some people have found improvements that simply aren't there, because the manual tells them that there should be an improvement. Many people probably just "bi-amp" them right off the bat, and never even use a single wiring method...thus, they simply assume that they're getting better sound...when in reality they're getting the exact same sound, but they had to spend some more of their money on a second run of speaker cables.

Tour2ma

Thanks, tb... I have my moments... mostly senior ones...

comfortablycurt wrote: »

The crossover is still taking place after the amplifiers, so each amp channel is still reproducing the whole frequency spectrum.

Yes, but please continue. Tell us, poor confused people what happens to the unused portions of the signals in an "unreal" bi-amping...

Cmiller

comfortablycurt wrote: »

I think you've got that kinda confused. Bi-amping with an AVR doesn't put any less strain on the amps. The crossover is still taking place after the amplifiers, so each amp channel is still reproducing the whole frequency spectrum. With true bi-amping, external crossovers are put in place before the amps, so that the amps are only required to drive the frequencies needed for the individual drivers that they're powering.

Bi-amping with an AVR won't give you any more headroom. As someone put it the other day, it's like drinking the same amount of water through two straws, instead of one straw. All the amp channels on your AVR are still deriving their power from one common power supply...thus, connecting a speaker to multiple pairs of outputs is NOT going to increase the speaker output. It's still drawing the exact same amount of power that it would be with a single wiring connection method.

Look at it this way...Supposing that your AVR is "rated" at 100 wpc. Bi-amping the speakers is nSo ifot going to give you 100 watts for the highs and 100 watts for the lows. You'll still only be driving 100 watts to the speaker...but it will be 50 watts on the highs and 50 watts on the lows. Thus, there will be no improvement whatsoever as far as overall volume and dynamics go.

In my experience, along with the experience of MANY others...bi-amping with an AVR provides absolutely no benefits whatsoever. It's basically a cheap advertising gimmick. It costs them nothing to say that you can "bi-amp" with their receiver...and some people have found improvements that simply aren't there, because the manual tells them that there should be an improvement. Many people probably just "bi-amp" them right off the bat, and never even use a single wiring method...thus, they simply assume that they're getting better sound...when in reality they're getting the exact same sound, but they had to spend some more of their money on a second run of speaker cables.

So if there are 7 Channels @ 100W each,and you use two channels on 1 speaker,why isnt it 100W for the seperate highs and lows? "minus of course what each channel really puts out" compared to using one channel@ 100W on the speaker?

tonyb

Cmiller wrote: »

So if there are 7 Channels @ 100W each,and you use two channels on 1 speaker,why isnt it 100W for the seperate highs and lows? "minus of course what each channel really puts out" compared to using one channel@ 100W on the speaker?

Seems your a perfect example since you are so called bi-amping from your 608. Ok, follow me here. In 2 channel mode, if not bi-amped, your somewhere near the rated 100 watts per channel going to the RTI10's. In bi-amp mode,your useing all seven channels,which in your case is a tad under 31 watts per channel. So you think it's better to feed them 31 watts,twice, or 100 watts,once ? My math tells me 100 is more than 62.

Tour2ma

tb, I thought the bi-amp mode involved only 4-ch's... not 7...

Not aimed at you, tony, but I find it curious that in the AVR bi-amp case a person that hears an improvement is ridiculed, whereas in most any other discussion, e.g., wire, tubes, etc., they are criticized if they don't acknowledge an improvement.

mdaudioguy

Tour2ma wrote: »

Not aimed at you, tony, but I find it curious that in the AVR bi-amp case a person that hears an improvement is ridiculed, whereas in most any other discussion, e.g., wire, tubes, etc., they are criticized if they don't acknowledge an improvement.

Sometimes we imagine things, and other times, we imagine that we are imagining things.

tonyb

Tour2ma wrote: »

tb, I thought the bi-amp mode involved only 4-ch's... not 7...

Not aimed at you, tony, but I find it curious that in the AVR bi-amp case a person that hears an improvement is ridiculed, whereas in most any other discussion, e.g., wire, tubes, etc., they are criticized if they don't acknowledge an improvement.

I'm talking HT verse 2 channel big guy. If your running a 5 channel surround system,your using the 6th and 7th channel to bi-amp. The 608 drops to 31 watts in 7 channels,so really,are you any better off ? Maybe in 4 channel, you might get some benefit but not much. Most I see asking about bi-amping are from receivers in a HT/music system. I'm not ridiculing anyone here, just trying to show the logic in what some may think is beneficial,may not be. If they hear something good from bi-amping off a receiver, rock out and enjoy, who am I to tell someone what they hear is good or bad. Just trying to get some to think things through, thats all, anybody wants to give it a whirl,knock your socks off.
I know your comments weren't aimed at me Bruce, but people ask us for our opinions,and thats all they are,opinions, we give them the benefit of our collective experiences,opinions, so they can make an informed decision. Nothing more,nothing less, if I at times come off as ridiculing anyone, I appologize. I do however,agree with your statement Bruce, some get ridiculed for hearing a difference,and in other areas,ridiculed for not hearing anything. One can only experiment themselves to know for sure in this hobby of ours. Thats the fun part, trying new stuff, kinda like when you got a new girlfriend in high school.

comfortablycurt

Cmiller wrote: »

So if there are 7 Channels @ 100W each,and you use two channels on 1 speaker,why isnt it 100W for the seperate highs and lows? "minus of course what each channel really puts out" compared to using one channel@ 100W on the speaker?

One thing to keep in mind, is that a receivers power rating isn't generally tested with all channels driven simultaneously. Most of the time, an AVR's power output is rated with two channels being driven, or even a single channel at a time. The specs can be kind of deceiving sometimes...the way they read can make it sound as if the AVR is putting out XXXwpc with all 7 channels driven simultaneously, when in reality, it's usually only a pair or a single channel at a time.

The power for every channel is derived from one common power supply. Let's suppose that your AVR is rated at 100 wpc with 2 channels driven. That is it's MAX output. Knowing that it's maximum power output is 100 wpc with 2 channels driven, how is it going to drive 4 channels with 100 wpc? Connecting a speaker to multiple pairs of outputs doesn't instantly enable the power supply to generate twice as much power as it's capable of delivering. You'll still be getting the exact same amount of wattage to your speakers, just through four cables instead of two. It's essentially halving the power output that's going through each channel, so you're driving the speakers with 50+50 wpc, rather than 100 wpc.

Some people have reported hearing improvements after bi-amping with an AVR...so give it a try. My opinion is that the improvements these people have heard are completely imaginary, but if they perceive an improvement and they're happier with it...then by all means leave it that way.

A more proper term for "bi-amping" with an AVR would be "bi-wiring", since there aren't actually multiple amps to bi-amp them with. Bi-wiring is different, in that it simply separates the high frequencies from the low frequencies by connecting multiple pairs of wires to the speakers. There's a lot of debate as to whether or not there are any real improvements to be had by bi-wiring. Again, plenty of people have reported improvements, but most people have reported that there were no improvements, and it wasn't worth the time or the extra cost of the wire.

No matter how you look at it, bi-amping with an AVR isn't supplying your speakers with any extra power. There are exceptions to this, in the case of AVR's that have separate mono-blocks on each channel, but this is far from the norm. Generally speaking, only the ultra high end AVR's have separate mono-blocks on each channel.

gp4jesus

Like others said, the unlikely mini-scule improvement from AVR "bi-amping" is not worth the effort. What Polk calls bi-amping is glorified bi-wiring.

comfortablycurt wrote: »

True bi-amping, external crossovers are BEFORE THE AMPS [w/their dedicated power supplies (PS)] so that they are [fed] only required [signal] to amplify for individual drivers that they're powering.

This is a fact and the overwhelming difference. If your AVR has pre-amp outs & power amp inputs & you insert an EXO between them, AND remove the passive filters, you could bi-amp w/your AVR. Read on for AVR pit falls.

comfortablycurt wrote: »

...suppose your AVR is "rated" at 100 wpc...

..."all channels driven," the following will apply w/the shared PS THE limiting factor. You may experience different, possibly improved SQ.
You WILL have:
1. more wire carrying signal
2. separate finals connected to the different filters/drivers.
3. up to 100wpc*!
Unfortunately when bass-heavy, PS taxing, material** comes along, the rest of the spectrum suffers.
* when bass demands 100 watts, the highs will ask for only 5... ...from the same PS
** especially w/out a sub

I said all that to say this: the above discussion is biggest reason for powered subs w/their dedicated, sub specific, amps & POWER SUPPLYs. The sub can, and by design, does, handle "all the heavy stuff." In every system I've seen on this forum and several others, that is the case.

To further that if some very loud extreme low bass comes along and maxes the sub, the rest of the spectrum (channels) is unaffected. Therefore in effect any system w/a powered sub is bi-amped. No flame-outs please!

From here you could connect the LR pre-outs to EXOs set at the mid/tweet frequency; the HP to a class A or tube amp; the LP to a dual mono. Of course no passive filtering. Regardless of which of the 3 amps got taxed, the others would remain unaffected. W/HT you could then and only then honestly say part of your system is tri-amped; 2 ch - your whole system is tri-amped.

I think some very high-end AVRs may have 2 or more PS and/or multiple capacitor banks; some high-end, multi-channel HT power amps may have several internal PSs possibly w/dedicated capacitor banks for each channel.

comfortablycurt wrote: »

...a cheap advertising gimmick... ...costs them nothing to say that you can "bi-amp"... ...found improvements... ...because the manual tells them...

By & large, as I have alluded, true.

Anyone serious about bi/tri-amping, should read anything available on the subject. The link below has some comprehensive info on the topic.

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

Then do your homework* on the amps* you plan to use.

I don't claim to be a bi/tri/quad-amp expert. I do have about 28 years experience successfully messing w/this stuff in the house & car. I ask you to carefully re-read the last line in post #74.

I welcome PMs w/your questions.

Cheers Tony

gp4jesus

comfortablycurt wrote: »

Bi-wiring is different, in that it simply separates the high frequencies from the low frequencies by connecting multiple pairs of wires to the speakers. There's a lot of debate as to whether or not there are any real improvements to be had by bi-wiring.

I bi-wired a pair subs each w/2 12s. Originally one driver was daisy-chained from the other. Finished product: each driver had its own 10 ga connection. Also these "new" connections were half the length of the single they shared.

EVERYTHING sounded fat; had to turn down the sub amp's input from the EXO. In this case the "improvement" was unmistakenly real, however isolated.

cheers