Receiver Bi-amp feature worth it?

ssjLancer

Im getting conflicting opinions on this. Most people saying its pointless without getting a seperate amp.

But Onkyo says otherwise? (RC260 manual)

Bi-amping the Front Speakers

The FRONT L/R and SURR BACK OR FRONT HIGH OR FRONT WIDE L/R terminal posts can be used with front speakers and surround back speakers respectively, or bi-amped to provide separate tweeter and woofer feeds for a pair of front speakers that sup- port bi-amping, providing improved bass and treble per- formance.

Once you’ve completed the bi-amping connections shown below and turned on the AV receiver, you must set the “Speakers Type” setting to “Bi-Amp” to enable bi-amping (➔ 35).

Now my second question. Im looking at the pioneer VSX920 manual and I cant seem to find any specific mention of a bi-amp setting. Is this something the onkyo will accel in?

I'll be using them on Monitor 70s btw. Right now its hooked up to a Sony STRDG720. The onkyo seems to have everything I want but the styling just look so old fashioned.

Glowrdr

There "may" (I use that word lightly) be some advantage in SQ by seperating the high frequencies from the lows. But what people seem to miss is that the amp output lowers when you add more channels. Here is a good example from a previous thread on the 807:

Five channels driven continuously into 8-ohm loads:
0.1% distortion at 105.5 watts

Seven channels driven continuously into 8-ohm loads:
0.1% distortion at 29.9 watts


So what would happen in that case, you would take 105 watts, and bi-amp them down to 60. Granted, some receivers don't see that much degradation, but the same theory would apply. Generally, the people that have the quality of power needed for bi-amping, have no interest in doing so. It's usually the beginners looking to get more bang for his buck when the system can't support it.

nguyendot

There is no benefit.
Please do a search, this topic has been discussed many times and does not need to be discussed again.

comfortablycurt

No benefits.

If you want more info, search. I've probably posted my personal thoughts on this at least 100 times...lol

kuntasensei

It's like drinking the same amount of water through 2 straws instead of 1. No benefit.

comfortablycurt

kuntasensei wrote: »

It's like drinking the same amount of water through 2 straws instead of 1. No benefit.

I've never really thought about it that way...

That pretty much sums it all up though!

MADGSF

First welcome to the club!

Second, I agree with all that has been said above. I tried it back when I was only using a receiver and did not notice a difference.

s0n1c

kuntasensei wrote: »

It's like drinking the same amount of water through 2 straws instead of 1. No benefit.

well the benefit in your example is that you may drink that same amount of water faster with 2 straws instead of 1. :biggrin:

DON73

Welcome to the forum! Using the search doesn't always get you the info you need. I spent over an hr. last week searching and still didn't find what I needed. Just try it but keep on asking questions.......that's what the forum is for

mdaudioguy

Isn't it strange that virtually every mainstream AVR manufacturer includes this option on their 7.1 channel equipment, but it's almost universally agreed that any benefits are negligible? The funny thing is, is that none of them can eliminate this feature, because it would then appear as if they were lacking a feature that other brands have...

nedh84

My NAD T765 HD is rated at a continuous 80W per channel based on 7 channels running. With a powerful power supply like NAD's conservative T765 would you still say the audible results are negligible?

nguyendot

It might be better, but still you're using the passive crossovers.

nedh84

I also worry about whether this affect holds true for my scenario as well

Five channels driven continuously into 8-ohm loads:
0.1% distortion at 105.5 watts

Seven channels driven continuously into 8-ohm loads:
0.1% distortion at 29.9 watts

Distorts the audio at a lower volume?

F1nut

nedh84 wrote: »

My NAD T765 HD is rated at a continuous 80W per channel based on 7 channels running. With a powerful power supply like NAD's conservative T765 would you still say the audible results are negligible?

It's still sharing the same power supply and therefore is not bi-amping.

ssjLancer

mdaudioguy wrote: »

Isn't it strange that virtually every mainstream AVR manufacturer includes this option on their 7.1 channel equipment, but it's almost universally agreed that any benefits are negligible? The funny thing is, is that none of them can eliminate this feature, because it would then appear as if they were lacking a feature that other brands have...

This seems like the reasonable explanation. Another odd thing looking in the polk manual theres even a diagram on biwiring.

A couple nights ago I did do a search on bi-amping(on same receiver) and there was actually at least one user on this forum that said it made a `significant`difference.
Guess theres only one way to find out.

tonyb

ssjLancer wrote: »

This seems like the reasonable explanation. Another odd thing looking in the polk manual theres even a diagram on biwiring.

A couple nights ago I did do a search on bi-amping(on same receiver) and there was actually at least one user on this forum that said it made a `significant`difference.
Guess theres only one way to find out.

Try it, knock yourself out. Who knows maybe you will hear a difference.

stangjason

I just bought an Pioneer 1120 and I had the front speakers bi-amped and just swapped back to single mode. As of now I can't really say if I noticed a difference because I didn't watch the same movie both ways. What I can say is that while biamped I watched Hellboy 2 and I was taken back by how the sound of the weapons wooshed past my face. After I switched back to non-biamp mode I haven't been as impressed by it as much but that's probably because I was watching Fight Club.

I think I'm going to play with it this weekend and see which one I can get better sound from. I do think you'll have more power in non-biamped mode but I'm not sold on better sound imaging until I get to test it some more but I would think bi-amped mode with less power would equal less SQ .

Glowrdr

I read this earlier and it makes a little more sense (was researching the difference between Bi-amping and Bridging since I came from a car audio background):

With active biamping, you use electronic (active crossovers,) and apply them BEFORE the power amp stage. That way the amplifier only amplifies the signal needed by it's destination driver. With the kind of biamping used in receivers, both amplifiers are amplifying the same signal even though that's a waste as part of each signal will be attenuated by the passive crossover. And, there's not more power available to each amplifier, as the total system power is being supplied by a single power supply.

Nothing here is new, but it's the first time it's all been put together where it really made the most sense.

B Run

I think the only benefit most people hear has more to do with them bypassing the stock jumpers. I use star quad cables that I bi-wired and think they sound better, but I don't believe bi-amping is worth it at all.

djseafood

kuntasensei wrote: »

It's like drinking the same amount of water through 2 straws instead of 1. No benefit.

+1 ! That's the best way I've ever heard it explained. Thank you!

stangjason

Glowrdr wrote: »

I read this earlier and it makes a little more sense (was researching the difference between Bi-amping and Bridging since I came from a car audio background):

With active biamping, you use electronic (active crossovers,) and apply them BEFORE the power amp stage. That way the amplifier only amplifies the signal needed by it's destination driver. With the kind of biamping used in receivers, both amplifiers are amplifying the same signal even though that's a waste as part of each signal will be attenuated by the passive crossover. And, there's not more power available to each amplifier, as the total system power is being supplied by a single power supply.

Nothing here is new, but it's the first time it's all been put together where it really made the most sense.

http://www.theaudiocritic.com/downloads/article_1.pdf

The short google search I did ensured me bi-wiring was useless but also made believe there was some benefit in bi-amping if you had enough power and/or really sensitive speakers.

ssjLancer

tonyb wrote: »

Try it, knock yourself out. Who knows maybe you will hear a difference.

Dont have the receiver yet. The reason I asked was cause I was choosing between a 5.1 Denon/HK vs a 7.1 Onkyo or Pioneer. Both similarly priced at least at my local store.

tonyb

Having a receiver with preouts to actualy add an amp is way more important than one without and extra channels. If advice is what you seek for bi-amping from a receiver, everyone pretty much stated what thats all about.

nedh84

After a couple hours of switching between receiver bi-amp and back off ( and as much as it pains me to say this ) I still feel like hear some improvement with the bi-amp option.

I'd rather not use that bi-amp option because I feel its a larger strain on the power supply (not sure if this is true or not) and less wires in my entertainment area. After those couple hours I really think that i hear an improvement with the bi-amping. The general feeling is that it all sounds more "life like". Not sure what to think anymore

If any other T 765 users have tried this feature I'd love to hear their input.

Glowrdr

That very well may be - without ever trying it myself, I'd say the general concensious doesn't specifically say that there is no change at all. It is more that by bi-amping a 100wpc receiver, you don't magically get 200 watts.

There could definately be an audible difference, as you are physically making a change to the system. I'd say maybe you could see a 5-15% difference? But, again, I have not done this, so my observation is strictly one of "it sounds believable, and can't harm anything"

newrival

To everyone that has said bi-amping makes no difference, are your aversions specifcally related to bi-amping in general or just as it applies to using the AVR's ability to bi-amp?

Glowrdr

Just bi-amping AVR's. True Bi-amping (with multiple amps) has been proven to be the best thing out there.

F1nut

It's the AVR's inability to bi-amp.

stangjason

I bought some banana plugs today so I'm going to play around with bi-amping my 1120 some more because when I had it bi-amped earlier this week I was quite impressed with the sound when watching Hellboy 2 on DirecTV and now that I switched back to non-biamped mode I've yet to be as impressed but I also haven't had Hellboy or any other good action flick on.

F1nut

This bears repeating.

I think the only benefit most people hear has more to do with them bypassing the stock jumpers.

nedh84

F1nut you are probably right. Maybe sometime I'll check to see if the wires were plugged into the woofers or were plugged into the tweeters. The Bass and Mid frequencies sounded great but there was something missing on the highs in my non bi-amp tests.

If my cables were directly connected to the tweeter plugs then I'm not so sure.