More wiring fun

EndersShadow

So posing a question to everyone to hopefully get some advice.

Currently I am using a 5 channel amp to power my fronts. For each left and right speaker I am using a Y adapter to split the interconnect to use 2 channels each. I then am running 2 sets of cable to each speaker (after removing the jumper of course).

I have the option in my receiver to bi-amp my fronts. If I didnt have my external amp I would connect my tweeters to the Front Left and Right connections, and the woofers to the Surround Back Left and Right.

Here are my questions:

1. If I set it to bi-amp will it route the signal properly via the pre-outs so instead of splitting the Front Left and Right using a Y adapter I could actually use 5 separate cables 2 pairs of which would be running to each front.

2. Which set of RCA's (top, bottom) are for the tweeters and which are for the woofers?

Before you ask, I did bust out the Integra manual and this question isn't covered either :frown:

quadzilla

As far as I know, the bi-amp option just sends the front signal to the front and surround rear power amp section. No idea it would route through the pre-amp as well. And easy test that won't hurt anything is to hook it up like that, then go into the calibration menu and see if you get signal out of the pre-outs.

As far as which you should run to the tweeters, it won't matter. It's the same signal unless you have an option to set the xover point for the bi-amping. And if you do, then you'll need to pull the xovers out of the speakers as well, since you would be doing active bi-amping.

On3s&Z3r0s

I don't know about the Integra, but on some receivers it might make a difference which RCAs are used. On the Pioneer SC-25 the Surround Back speaker wire binding posts and RCAs are used for the lower frequencies when bi-amping the fronts. The RCA pre-outs for the Surround Back channels are active when bi-amping, so on the Pioneer you could run 4 RCA interconnects from the Front and Surround Back pre-outs to 4 separate channels on the amp and avoid using the splitters.

I'd say, depending on your speakers, bi-amping isn't likely to buy you much. I tried bi-amping my fronts and it made them (Monitor 70's) sound worse. If the manual for your receiver doesn't say what signal (hi/lo) goes out on what RCA/speaker post then I'd bet that Quadzilla's right that it's the same signal going out on both.

EndersShadow

On3s&Z3r0s wrote: »

I'd say, depending on your speakers, bi-amping isn't likely to buy you much. I tried bi-amping my fronts and it made them (Monitor 70's) sound worse. If the manual for your receiver doesn't say what signal (hi/lo) goes out on what RCA/speaker post then I'd bet that Quadzilla's right that it's the same signal going out on both.

The manual does list which set go to the high's and which go to the low's of each speaker.

I am more curious on the way Audyssey will EQ them and if I will realize any benefit in that regards.

I have the front signal split now using a Y adapter from each front so each amp channel is getting a full signal it is attempting to re-produce and its relying on the speakers (jumpers removed of course) to filter everything. But if Audyssey would set both the gain and SQ for each speakers high and low independent I would think I would get a much better sound...

But thats me...

silvertuner

it's all a big waste of time Dan. go buy a HTIAB

EndersShadow

silvertuner wrote: »

it's all a big waste of time Dan. go buy a HTIAB

I am gonna punch you in the throat next time I see you for that comment punk....

'specially since your the one helping me generate some of these questions lol...

I went ahead and ordered parts to give a shot since I am going to be re-wiring all my gear next Saturday, so hopefully I will get some better EQ from it....

silvertuner

EndersShadow wrote: »

I am gonna punch you in the throat next time I see you for that comment punk....

'specially since your the one helping me generate some of these questions lol...

I went ahead and ordered parts to give a shot since I am going to be re-wiring all my gear next Saturday, so hopefully I will get some better EQ from it....

im shaking in my shoes (like whenever she flashed those baby blue's)

i'll be there saturday to interupt the process and make you feel like a r-tard and tell you none of it will work :biggrin:

EndersShadow

So I am going to inquire to Integra if/how it splits the signal when bi-amping. If it does truly indeed split it properly, would it then be well worth the effort of using the bi-amp features (realizing its not true bi-amping of course)??

I did get a good article from another thread on this. The article can be found here: http://www.gcaudio.com/resources/howtos/biamping.html

It made a bunch of sense to me but here was where I got curious:

Ok, so what about just using two amplifiers and forgetting about the electronic crossover? Simply using two amplifiers is not true bi-amping and does not offer the same advantages; we still face the limitations of the passive crossover. What about the notion that bi-amping reduces stress on the amplifiers since they are powering only limited frequency ranges? That would be true in a true bi-amp configuration where the frequencies are split ahead of the amplifiers, but in a passive environment both amplifiers receive a full range signal from the preamp and dump that power into the speakers, regardless of whether one is connected to the tweeter or woofer inputs. The only benefit (and it marginal at best) is simply the additional power offered by the second amp.

So it seems that if the signal is split properly (actively not passively) into the right frequency range @ the Integra, when I send it out using the 2 pre-outs per front it would actually allow each channel (tweeter, woofer) to draw only the necessary power right?

If so there could be a bottleneck since they are both pulling from the same pool of power, but shouldnt that result in a little better EQ since you are bypassing some of the passive crossover network which is where lots of power and EQ are lost? Or is it going to be the same as if I simply bi-wired the speaker to one input?

Some interesting reading for sure. Thanks to F1Nut for linking to it in another thread!

silvertuner

i have a suggestion but im keeping it to PM, brb Dan lol

EndersShadow

bi-wired and called it a day. got enough interconnects that I am just going to run all 5 speakers off my amp and be done....till I get Signal Cable Analog Two's that is lol

slammin86

I was considering doing this exact thing with a different amp. I searched for awhile and posted a question here and didn't have much luck. One guy on AVS forum had asked about this awhile back on his onkyo and someone said it was possible.

Whatever set of speaker outlets normally go to the tweeter, use that set of pre outs to go to the amp powering the tweeter.

Just try it and see what happens.

EndersShadow

slammin86 wrote: »

I was considering doing this exact thing with a different amp. I searched for awhile and posted a question here and didn't have much luck. One guy on AVS forum had asked about this awhile back on his onkyo and someone said it was possible.

Whatever set of speaker outlets normally go to the tweeter, use that set of pre outs to go to the amp powering the tweeter.

Just try it and see what happens.

I already did and it did nothing special. Only instead of using the bi-amp feature in the Integra I split the front pre-out using a Y connector. Using the bi-amp feature in the Integra was basically the same thing.

See thread here

slammin86

EndersShadow wrote: »

I already did and it did nothing special. Only instead of using the bi-amp feature in the Integra I split the front pre-out using a Y connector. Using the bi-amp feature in the Integra was basically the same thing.

See thread here

Well that is good you got some answers. I am bi wiring mine also to remove the jumper. Can't hurt right.

EndersShadow

slammin86 wrote: »

Well that is good you got some answers. I am bi wiring mine also to remove the jumper. Can't hurt right.

Basically, plus in my case the speaker wire I am using already has 4 strands built in so whatever configuration I want to use I can.

Tour2ma

ES,
First, interesting twist to the old AVR bi-amp question... if an AVR could in fact ultilize it's cross-over capabilities in the bi-amp mode, then alot of the "no benefit" crowd would have to rethink their position.

However, I'm thinking most AVR's and pre/pros x-over range is in the <250 Hz area for LFE management. Does your AVR have x-over range that entends as high as 3kHz?

As for the article you posted, I disagree with it. It and all similar articles (and posts in CP and other forums) extolling the comparative virtues of active bi-amping start with the assumption that in a passive bi-amp arrangement both amps feeding a single channel are each doing all the work that one amp would do servicing the full signal for a single ch. The more I look into this, the more convnced I become that this is not true.

Still developing the full case for passive bi-amping, but in essense it rests on the fact that the capacitor used to filter the LF portion of the music signal to a tweeter requires no (or next to no) net work on the part of the amp.

EndersShadow

Tour2ma wrote: »

ES,
First, interesting twist to the old AVR bi-amp question... if an AVR could in fact ultilize it's cross-over capabilities in the bi-amp mode, then alot of the "no benefit" crowd would have to rethink their position.

And that crowd would agree w/ you to a point as it would be an active crossover at that point, but still sharing a single amp and the same power transformers.

Tour2ma wrote: »

However, I'm thinking most AVR's and pre/pros x-over range is in the <250 Hz area for LFE management. Does your AVR have x-over range that entends as high as 3kHz?

No it doesnt have that kind of xover range (and I dont know of any with that kind of setting), bi-amping just feeds a full signal (or whatever the signal your crossover isnt sending to your sub) to both channels, hence it not being worth it....

silvertuner

dan, did you ever actually just try it? running the pre-outs set as LF and RF high frequency and low frequencies seperate? let your ears ultimately be the judged, and give up on a "proper label" and take the initiative to see what your ears like best. its some work just to switch everything back if you hate it, but sometimes trial and error is how you figure **** out that no one can quite grasp lol.

F1nut

The concept of bi-amping was figured out long ago.

EndersShadow

silvertuner wrote: »

dan, did you ever actually just try it? running the pre-outs set as LF and RF high frequency and low frequencies separate? let your ears ultimately be the judged, and give up on a "proper label" and take the initiative to see what your ears like best. its some work just to switch everything back if you hate it, but sometimes trial and error is how you figure **** out that no one can quite grasp lol.

I did indeed try it and wired it per the manual and noticed no difference at all. Hence why I just went with a bi-wired setup for my fronts and now have all my speakers driven by the Carver.

silvertuner

EndersShadow wrote: »

I did indeed try it and wired it per the manual and noticed no difference at all. Hence why I just went with a bi-wired setup for my fronts and now have all my speakers driven by the Carver.

odd. u heard a difference by splitting the signal but not by switching your pre-outs?

EndersShadow

silvertuner wrote: »

odd. u heard a difference by splitting the signal but not by switching your pre-outs?

Here is what I did. I went from my ghetto bi-amped setup (see picture titled current) to my proposed setup (see picture titled proposed) and noticed no difference in sound. My thought is they were both doing basically the same thing (splitting each fronts signal into two paths) so I shouldnt notice any difference in sound.

I then went to a bi-wired setup on my fronts and noticed no real significant difference.

So I am not sure if the differences I thought I heard in my ghetto bi-amped setup were real, or just me halucinating because I wanted there to be differences......

I dont have the ability to really crank it volume wise and the Monitor 60's are quite effecient, so it could be that I need a more challenging load to determine if there are any gains from ghetto bi-amping or not. At this point I am extremely happy with my setup and dont plan on changing anything (besides replacing my fronts and center at some point)

So now I have the 5 channel running all my speakers w/ my fronts bi-wired at the speaker end just to get rid of the jumper.

Tour2ma

F1nut wrote: »

The concept of bi-amping was figured out long ago.

Then there's nothing for you to add... so move along and let those with open minds discuss.

EndersShadow wrote: »

And that crowd would agree w/ you to a point as it would be an active crossover at that point, but still sharing a single amp and the same power transformers.

Yup active... albeit in the digital realm. But actually it's separate amps and sharing a single transformer... Could an AVR's single transformer potentially be limiting? Yes. Is it necessarily so? No. When you drop from supplying five (or seven) ch's to two ch's, it's clear the transformer's duty drops significantly.

Does seem from your above post that the "no bennie crowd" (which is virtually the same as the "trust your ears" crowd) managed you get you to mistrust your ears. Pretty neat trick...

Consider the possibility that it wasn't that you heard improvements because you wanted to hear them, but that you didn't believe what you heard because you were told no difference could be made.

EndersShadow wrote: »

No it doesnt have that kind of xover range (and I dont know of any with that kind of setting), bi-amping just feeds a full signal (or whatever the signal your crossover isnt sending to your sub) to both channels, hence it not being worth it....

Nor do I... kind of surprising that some mfg. hasn't programmed in the capability.

I know I've not made the full case as yet, so I do not expect you take my word for it. However, the full signal input doesn't matter if the work the amp is wired to do does not require reproducing that "full signal".

Keep an open mind...

silvertuner

i suppose keep it like you have it then Dan. if that makes you happy then why change it. i suppose my physics, theories, and overall thought process was beyond flawed in my suggestions. as long as you are happy with it, then leave it how it is :biggrin:

EndersShadow

silvertuner wrote: »

i suppose keep it like you have it then Dan. if that makes you happy then why change it. i suppose my physics, theories, and overall thought process was beyond flawed in my suggestions. as long as you are happy with it, then leave it how it is :biggrin:

I am, but if you want to stir up the pot perhaps when I have a free saturday (which will be about a month lol) we can do some blind testing.

It would take a bit to do but I am open to it. Maybe get another local as well so we could have 2 people listening to it that dont know how its wired lol.....

silvertuner

ehh, i think im out for that