Receiver Bi-amp feature worth it?

mdaudioguy

B Run wrote: »

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

F1nut wrote: »

This bears repeating.

Agreed. I don't bi-amp, but I did make my own jumpers that HAVE to be better than the flat metal plates. At the very least, I'm positive there's more metal-to-metal contact.

stangjason

B Run wrote: »

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.

So would you get more benefit from running speaker wire from one terminal to the other than you would get from using the stock jumpers? My stock jumpers look to be solid and gold plated so I'm skeptical I'd ever notice a difference.


It seems to me that if you get any noticeable difference from bi-amping from a stock receiver (no external amps) it would be at lower volumes if you got any at all.

tonyb

stangjason wrote: »

So would you get more benefit from running speaker wire from one terminal to the other than you would get from using the stock jumpers? My stock jumpers look to be solid and gold plated so I'm skeptical I'd ever notice a difference.


It seems to me that if you get any noticeable difference from bi-amping from a stock receiver (no external amps) it would be at lower volumes if you got any at all.

Useing anything other than those brass jumpers would yield better sound,even if it was a small improvment.

Actually, most tweeters draw very little power, when you have multiple mids and big bass woofers, thats what draws the power. At lower volumes, the speaker isn't asking the amp for more juice.

Tour2ma

tonyb wrote: »

Having a receiver with preouts to actualy add an amp is way more important than one without and extra channels.

tonyb wrote: »

Useing anything other than those brass jumpers would yield better sound,even if it was a small improvment.
Actually, most tweeters draw very little power, when you have multiple mids and big bass woofers, thats what draws the power. At lower volumes, the speaker isn't asking the amp for more juice.

+1 and +1 (does that = +2) Watch out tony, you’re gaining a fan here… The nature of the speaker (2-way vs. 3+way) is a big factor in determining the potential gains from bi-amping.

Receiver "bi-amping" and multi-ch HT are mutually exclusive setups... swapping back and forth is doable, but not very practical. I would neither include for nor exclude from consideration an AVR based upon its self-contained, bi-amp feature. On the other hand, an AVR feature that is a deal breaker IMO is when you tap a ch’s pre-out signal for external amplification that ch’s signal to the AVR’s internal amp is lost. This is all too common and a totally nonsensical waste of potential.

As for the sonic value of AVR “bi-amping” I think the naysayers oversimplify things when they discount the potential merits of AVR “bi-amping”. 7-ch’s fully driven is not analogous to 4-AVR-ch’s feeding a 2-ch front stage. Even if a given AVR’s power supply is its limiting factor, it is far more likely that the its limitations would be reached in the 7-ch case... but they still might be in the 2-ch case. However, if the AVR’s output stages are limiting, then clearly utilizing 4 ch’s of output holds the potential for improved SQ.

Trust your own ears...

F1nut

So would you get more benefit from running speaker wire from one terminal to the other than you would get from using the stock jumpers?

Yes.

Take a look at the new LSiM's and you'll see that Polk is now using wire jumpers instead of the plates. That should tell you something.

comfortablycurt

The thing to remember about bi-amping with an AVR...is that regardless of how many amp channels you have it connected to, the speaker is still only going to draw as much power as it needs at any given time. Also, all the amp channels on an AVR derive their power from one common power supply, thus there is no way that connecting a speaker to multiple outputs is going to double the wattage going to the speaker. As someone stated the other day, it's like drinking the same amount of water through two straws instead of a single straw.

nguyendot

comfortablycurt wrote: »

The thing to remember about bi-amping with an AVR...is that regardless of how many amp channels you have it connected to, the speaker is still only going to draw as much power as it needs at any given time. Also, all the amp channels on an AVR derive their power from one common power supply, thus there is no way that connecting a speaker to multiple outputs is going to double the wattage going to the speaker. As someone stated the other day, it's like drinking the same amount of water through two straws instead of a single straw.

That depends... If you are capable of sucking 1gal/minute through 1 straw, and you get two straws but now can suck 2 gal/minute through two... you can get double the throughput. The straw isn't the issue, it's the ability to give double the power, and take double the power (avr, speaker). The wire isn't an issue (the straw). It also depends if you're running stereo or 5 channels, or 7 channels.

In stereo, if you're biamping, you're using 4 channels. A Marantz will hit its rated power into 5 channels, so why wouldn't it hit its power into 4 channels? Now if you run it into 5.1 with biamp, you're using 7 channels, and yes, you'd not get even close to full power. Is there a sonic benefit? Probably not.

Now, if each channel on the receiver is limited to say, 50w/channel, and it is not allowed to go higher, however you can drive both those channels to full 50w simultaneously, yes you can double the power theoretically. Many receivers are limited, as part of the design. This really only applies to the higher end (like NAD) receivers.

Given, a tweeter won't use even 1/10th the power of the midrange or bass section, so it won't be much more power.

Even with all that said, I say AVR biamping is a waste of time and a waste of cable.

kuntasensei

Aren't you all glad I started this "straw" analogy? Heh...

nguyendot

It's not a very good analogy...
The issue isn't the straw.... If you're using good cables, bandwidth/power handling isn't a problem.

kuntasensei

I was trying to keep it simple, man!

Tour2ma

nguyendot wrote: »

It's not a very good analogy...
The issue isn't the straw...

Depends where the bottleneck is... or something...


We're having the same discussion here:
http://www.polkaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?t=111428

comfortablycurt

nguyendot wrote: »

That depends... If you are capable of sucking 1gal/minute through 1 straw, and you get two straws but now can suck 2 gal/minute through two... you can get double the throughput. The straw isn't the issue, it's the ability to give double the power, and take double the power (avr, speaker). The wire isn't an issue (the straw). It also depends if you're running stereo or 5 channels, or 7 channels.

Yes, but to suck the 2 gal per minute through the two straws, you would still have to effectively double your sucking power...where as in a real scenario, the suction from a single straw would be divided equally between the two straws. You aren't going to instantly have twice as much suction power because you're using two straws. You're still drawing the exact same amount of air, except it's running through two separate conduits now.

I don't see how you think that's a bad analogy. I think it's basically the best way I've heard to dumb the concept down. It's not perfect...but it gets the point across.

Codex

Recently came across this article. Which may be of interest:

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

LuSh

AVRs are limited in part to the dynamic output of each output transistor - by incorporating another output transistor you've added another tap. The fact it is drawing from the same well is irrelevant.