bi wiring and biamping ?

Mongo

Hi all,

Please, in RTIA9`s marketing webpage at Crutchfield, it's written

"Other cool features include two sets of gold-plated five-way binding posts for biamping or biwiring"

Please, what do biamping and biwiring mean ?

May I get rid of the short-circuit gold pieces (that came set up in the speakers) and hook the two terminals to two different wires ?

I have a regular Yamaha receiver that has "FRONT A" and "FRONT B" speaker terminals, I wonder if I will get a better sound by connecting each pair of terminals in each speaker to these separate "FRONT A" and "FRONT B" terminals on the receiver - of course taking out the short-circuit gold pieces.

Thanks a lot,

Mongo

EndersShadow

Do yourself a favor and forget you read and or saw references to bi-amping. Its not worth the time and money to really "Bi amp" the speakers.

Bi-wiring is running 2 sets of wires from one set of inputs of the AVR and removing the gold pieces from the speakers. Most folks would rather run one wire from the AVR and then just use a short piece of speaker wire to replace the jumper.......

Some say they notice a difference when replacing the jumper by either replacing the stock jumpers or bi-wiring.

Mongo

EndersShadow wrote: »

Bi-wiring is running 2 sets of wires from one set of inputs of the AVR and removing the gold pieces from the speakers.
.

From ONE set of inputs ? I mean, will I hook up two pairs of wires to ONE output of my AVR, say "FRONT A" ? Or may I use the FRONT A and FRONT B AVR outputs ?

Thanks,

Mongo

F1nut

I'll make it simple for you. Run one set of regular speaker cables from the AVR to the speakers. Replace the jumpers (gold colored bars) with a short piece of speaker cable. Then, sit back and enjoy.

EndersShadow

Mongo wrote: »

From ONE set of inputs ? I mean, will I hook up two pairs of wires to ONE output of my AVR, say "FRONT A" ? Or may I use the FRONT A and FRONT B AVR outputs ?

Thanks,

Mongo

Bi-wiring would be running 2 sets of wires into the Front Left speaker connection and then connecting one pair of wires to the top RCA's and one to the bottom RCA's and remove the jumpers.

Its honestly better to just get a better jumper and get one good set of wires.

Mongo

EndersShadow wrote: »

Bi-wiring would be running 2 sets of wires into the Front Left speaker connection ...

OK, but what about the connection on the AVR ? Would both wires be short circuited on the SAME AVR output terminal ? I don`t see a clear advantage on that,

But I can maybe see an advantage on using the FRONT A and FRONT B outputs.....maybe this would be closer to what people call "bi amping"

Thanks,

Mongo

EndersShadow

Mongo wrote: »

OK, but what about the connection on the AVR ? Would both wires be short circuited on the SAME AVR output terminal ? I don`t see a clear advantage on that

Mostly its to replace the jumpers on the speakers with better wire.

Mongo wrote: »

But I can maybe see an advantage on using the FRONT A and FRONT B outputs.....maybe this would be closer to what people call "bi amping"

Yes and no. Its called passive bi-amping and it really isnt worth it. You dont really get enough of a boost in power. I can say that since I have done it with an AVR, a dedicated amp and just about any other way.

A true bi-amp has the input going to a crossover before it hits the amp which isnt possible in an AVR. You also then have to remove the internal crossover on the speakers as well.

Mongo

EndersShadow wrote: »

Mostly its to replace the jumpers on the speakers with better wire.



Yes and no. Its called passive bi-amping and it really isnt worth it. You dont really get enough of a boost in power. I can say that since I have done it with an AVR, a dedicated amp and just about any other way.

A true bi-amp has the input going to a crossover before it hits the amp which isnt possible in an AVR. You also then have to remove the internal crossover on the speakers as well.

Thanks, I believe I am understanding now

Gatecrasher

I think bi-wiring is a lower bang for the buck option than bi-amping seems to be if you do it right. Not saying that bi-wiring is worthless but most say it's not going to be an earth-shattering improvement if you had good speaker wires to begin with. Bi-amping on the other hand can make a significant difference when done properly. I was unsure at first too until I recently tried it and noticed a difference right away.

EndersShadow wrote: »

Yes and no. Its called passive bi-amping and it really isnt worth it. You dont really get enough of a boost in power. I can say that since I have done it with an AVR, a dedicated amp and just about any other way.

A true bi-amp has the input going to a crossover before it hits the amp which isnt possible in an AVR. You also then have to remove the internal crossover on the speakers as well.

That's not true for all AVRs. Some of the newer higher-end receivers have fully adjustable cross-over circuitry before it hits the amps. I know my Pioneer SC-09TX does. The receiver has 10 channels of amplification, each rated at 200 watts into 8 ohms. You can use the 10 amplifier channels in several ways, including biamping 5 speakers. The crossover frequencies for each speaker is fully adjustable either on the AVR or via remote control. That's one heck of a feature. My Polks are also bi-amp capable except for the CS1000p center (which is semi-capable).

The SC-09TX owner's manual recommends the 5.2 bi-amp configuration for the ultimate audiophile sound delivery possible from the AVR.

In addition to having the option of bi-amping 5 speakers in a 5.2 or 5.1 configuration, it also has the option to bi-amp just the front 3 speakers and run the surrounds individually. So in other words, you can still have a 7.2 or 7.1 configuration with the front three speakers bi-amped. This is supposedly the 2nd highest quality audiophile configuration possible with the SC-09TX.

Every one I had spoken to who has tried it says bi-amping was the way to go if you have the proper equipment with the capability to make a difference (which is why I decided to try it). I'm glad I did.

I wouldn't imagine that it would do as much on an older receiver that wasn't specifically designed for bi-amp capability and have never tried it on one but I was surprised at the difference it made with my Polk RT5000 system and the SC-09TX Elite's bi-amped Direct Energy High Fidelity Class D ICEPower. The RT3000p satellites are bi-amped and the powered subwoofers are driven from the dual pre-amp subwoofer outputs. The f/x 1000's are also bi-amped. The CS1000p is semi bi-amped because the mid & tweeter drivers still utilize the Polk crossover circuitry on one input (high pass) and the subs are driven by the low pass.

I think it was definitely worth the effort. My speakers never sounded as good as they do now.

EndersShadow

^its still not bi-amping unless you then also pull the crossovers from your speakers.....

And I doubt the OP is looking to spend 7k on an AVR....

Gatecrasher

EndersShadow wrote: »

^its still not bi-amping unless you then also pull the crossovers from your speakers.....

And I doubt the OP is looking to spend 7k on an AVR....

I agree with what you're saying but while the Polk crossovers are still in place, the adjustable crossover frequency capability of the SC-09TX still has an effect though (although it probably is being limited somewhat by the speaker's crossover circuit). The AVR will only feed the mids and tweeter whatever frequency I have it set to though so I can in effect adjust the frequency ranges to the mids and tweeters individually.

You statement "A true bi-amp has the input going to a crossover before it hits the amp which isnt possible in an AVR" was not really true though. I'm not sure but I think other Elite AVRs as well as a few other brands may have it too (I'll have to confirm that though to be sure before I make that as a blanket statement).

As for the $7,000 price tag for the SC-09TX, I didn't buy mine the day they came out and ended up paying a lot less for it. Unfortunately for Pioneer, they released the "flagship" SC-09TX right when the economy began its epic melt-down down in 2007 and got stuck with a lot of them.

I think we are going to see more AVRs with true bi-amp capability and maybe someday here I will remove the Polk crossover circuitry from my speakers but just can't bring myself to do it right now - especially since they sound so dam good the way they are.

F1nut

Gatecrasher wrote: »

I think bi-wiring is a lower bang for the buck option than bi-amping seems to be if you do it right. Not saying that bi-wiring is worthless but most say it's not going to be an earth-shattering improvement if you had good speaker wires to begin with. Bi-amping on the other hand can make a significant difference when done properly. I was unsure at first too until I recently tried it and noticed a difference right away.



That's not true for all AVRs. Some of the newer higher-end receivers have fully adjustable cross-over circuitry before it hits the amps. I know my Pioneer SC-09TX does. The receiver has 10 channels of amplification, each rated at 200 watts into 8 ohms. You can use the 10 amplifier channels in several ways, including biamping 5 speakers. The crossover frequencies for each speaker is fully adjustable either on the AVR or via remote control. That's one heck of a feature. My Polks are also bi-amp capable except for the CS1000p center (which is semi-capable).

The SC-09TX owner's manual recommends the 5.2 bi-amp configuration for the ultimate audiophile sound delivery possible from the AVR.

In addition to having the option of bi-amping 5 speakers in a 5.2 or 5.1 configuration, it also has the option to bi-amp just the front 3 speakers and run the surrounds individually. So in other words, you can still have a 7.2 or 7.1 configuration with the front three speakers bi-amped. This is supposedly the 2nd highest quality audiophile configuration possible with the SC-09TX.

Every one I had spoken to who has tried it says bi-amping was the way to go if you have the proper equipment with the capability to make a difference (which is why I decided to try it). I'm glad I did.

I wouldn't imagine that it would do as much on an older receiver that wasn't specifically designed for bi-amp capability and have never tried it on one but I was surprised at the difference it made with my Polk RT5000 system and the SC-09TX Elite's bi-amped Direct Energy High Fidelity Class D ICEPower. The RT3000p satellites are bi-amped and the powered subwoofers are driven from the dual pre-amp subwoofer outputs. The f/x 1000's are also bi-amped. The CS1000p is semi bi-amped because the mid & tweeter drivers still utilize the Polk crossover circuitry on one input (high pass) and the subs are driven by the low pass.

I think it was definitely worth the effort. My speakers never sounded as good as they do now.

Well, not quite. The SC-09TX is rated at 140 wpc @ 8 ohms if more than 7 channels are used. Besides that, all those channels are still sharing the same power supply, so there is no possible way to properly bi-amp with it or any other AVR.

John K.

Gatecrasher, the most basic point that you've overlooked is that true bi-amplification(which almost no one does for home use because of the complication and expense)requires by definition two separate amplifiers with each only amplifying a limited frequency range. A receiver has only one amplifier with one power supply section, and its output is distributed through several output channels. The factor of separate crossover frequencies, typically about 40-200Hz, dividing the point at which the bass in a channel is sent to the sub has been almost universally available in even low-cost receivers for several years. This bass management has nothing to do with bi-amplification.

Gatecrasher

My recommendation would be if your AVR has bi-amp capability, go for it (or at least try it out). They don't put the feature on there for nothing.

Do a comparison and let your ears be the judge.

I was very skeptical and biased at first. I originally had the speakers wired to the SC-09TX in a conventional 5.1 setup with 12 gauge cables. I think I actually wanted it to show no noticeable improvement but there was no denying it in the end.

Best upgrade I've done since buying my RT5000 system 9 years ago (other than buying the SC-09TX to begin with).

As for the power of the AVR, the specs are somewhat confusing. Here?s what the reviewers say,

Class D amplification configurable in the following options. 140 Watts x 10 channels or 200 Watts x 7 channels, giving you the ability to send 400 watts to 5 speakers in a Bi-Amp scenario. Fewer speakers are used than with other patterns and the maximum number of channels is 5.2, but this pattern provides the highest sound quality.

They weren?t kidding and it sounds like more than simply an increase in wattage and it's beyond a "placebo effect" even to the most-skeptical listener.

Just for giggles, I think I might try a bi-wire experiment if for no other reason other than I'm curious to see if I notice anything with it setup that way.

F1nut

They don't put the feature on there for nothing.

You're right, it's the latest buzz created by the marketing departments. Before that, it was bi-wiring. The fact is that you cannot actually bi-amp while all channels share the same power supply.

nguyendot

They do put it on there for something, marketing. That's it.

If you want easy, get good speaker wire and replace the jumpers with wire.

If you want to spend a lot of money and *maybe* get better sound, get outboard crossovers, a few monoblock amps, and remove the crossover from the speakers.

Gatecrasher, we understand you spent way too much on a receiver only to not only use it wrong, but teach others how to use it wrong, but you need to listen to the voice of reason. You don't biamp with a shared power supply. The end.

Gatecrasher

nguyendot wrote: »

Gatecrasher, we understand you spent way too much on a receiver only to not only use it wrong, but teach others how to use it wrong.... The end.

Wow. I spent too much for my receiver and am using it wrong? :rolleyes:

Connecting the speakers exactly the way the manufacturer recommends for the best performance is wrong in your expert opinion? Maybe you should become a technical writer for Pioneer so us under-educated folks can understand the instructions better? lol

What are you trying to prove here? That you know more than everyone else? I guess people are not supposed to trust their own ears and instead should just place their blind faith in someone that seems to resort to personal attacks as a response? Is that supposed to be more convincing?

I'm only giving my opinion as to what my own ears hear. If you don't like my opinion and think I'm a liar with some alterior motivation or something, that's your prerogative. If this forum isn't "open" to people who have opinions and viewpoints that differ from yours, I guess a moderator should let us new guys know that in advance so we don't upset you by expressing them.

I don't think I overpaid for my Polks or my AVR. As a matter of fact, you don't have the slightest idea what I paid for any of my equipment. I think I got a fantastic deal on all of it. I'm not rich. I take my time, visit stereo shops and friends with systems to listen and then shop around.

I waited a while and didn't pay anywhere near full price for my AVR or my speakers. I like them both and am very satisfied with the performance and if that isn't to your liking...I don't know what else to tell you. Cyber bully away if you like. I have everything connected exactly as the manufacturers recommend in the instructions and it works great (imagine that). I in no way think bi-amping my system was a "gimmick" with zero increase in performance as you claim it is.

I am glad I tried it and was simply expressing my own personal experience to others on the forum.

'Nuff said. I'm not here to upset anyone or create a conflict.

On3s&Z3r0s

I don't think the OP said what Yammy receiver he has did he? I don't know of any receivers where outputs labeled Front A / B are used for bi-amping. All the ones I've ever seen repurpose the rear surround outputs when bi-amping. In fact, I've seen some where the manual specifically says not to hook the A/B outputs to the same speakers. I'm not saying no such receiver exists... just don't think it's a good idea to start running extra wires randomly from the receiver based on Crutchfield advertising extra posts on the speakers. When in doubt, RTFM... don't do anything your receiver's manual doesn't specifically say it's ok to do. It would be pretty easy to end up damaging the receiver or speakers that way.

F1nut

Gatecrasher, everyone here is stating the same thing, that you cannot bi-amp with a shared power supply, never mind the fact that you are still using the passive crossovers. Why are you not getting that?

FTGV

On3s&Z3r0s wrote: »

I don't know of any receivers where outputs labeled Front A / B are used for bi-amping. All the ones I've ever seen repurpose the rear surround outputs when bi-amping..

Agreed the A /B is just a speaker selection switch that allows you choose which set will be driven by the front amplifer channels.Recievers with the repurposing option allow the addition of another amplification stage per speaker so that you would have two complete amplifier channels driving one speaker in a passive biamping arrangement. However IMO the only real benifit of the passive biamping approach is a few extra db of added power headroom.

On3s&Z3r0s

Note to self... read the sig, maybe. Receiver is a Yamaha RX-V1200. It can be run as 5.1 or 6.1... no bi-amp option that I saw in the manual.

@Mongo, don't try to bi-amp anything using that receiver. Even if the speakers are made to allow bi-amping, your receiver isn't. I agree replacing the metal strip jumpers with some better speaker wire jumpers wouldn't be a bad way to go if you want to play with something just to see if it improves the sound at all.

RMParker

F1nut wrote: »

Gatecrasher, everyone here is stating the same thing, that you cannot bi-amp with a shared power supply, never mind the fact that you are still using the passive crossovers. Why are you not getting that?

Glad to see ya around helping out F1Nut. Thanks for helping me out on the Carver blog a couple years back.

Gatecrasher

Call it what you will, this is the best-sounding speaker set-up for my combo. Was definitely worth the extra effort fabricating the cables and trying out.

tonyb

F1nut wrote: »

Gatecrasher, everyone here is stating the same thing, that you cannot bi-amp with a shared power supply, never mind the fact that you are still using the passive crossovers. Why are you not getting that?

Because he doesn't understand it Jess, he only understands the marketing aspect of it.

What he is really doing is simple bi-wiring, and if he hears an improvement, I can deal with that, but what it is is in no way bi-amping,period.

Gate- best maybe to do alittle reading up on what bi-amping truely is so you can see where we are comming from. Nobody denies what you claim to hear, just what your calling it. Enjoy your tunes.

FTGV

Gatecrasher wrote: »

Call it what you will,

It's called passive bi amping.Is it the equivilant of active biamping?As a proponent and user of the latter IMO certainly not.And for the record the bi stands for the number of amplifier channels driving the speaker not the number of power supplies.Anyway since that Pioneer uses B&O's ICE modules there may be several switching supplies instead of the typical single linear supply found in most AVR's?I might do some digging on that.

Gatecrasher

FTGV wrote: »

It's called passive bi amping.Is it the equivilant of active biamping?As a proponent and user of the latter IMO certainly not.And for the record the bi stands for the number of amplifier channels driving the speaker not the number of power supplies.Anyway since that Pioneer uses B&O's ICE modules there may be several switching supplies instead of the typical single linear supply found in most AVR's?I might do some digging on that.

Yeah I know the difference between passive & active bi-amping and realize my setup is passive bi-amping because I still have the Polk crossovers intact. There's little chance I'm ever going to remove the crossovers from my unmolested RT3000p's. They sound good (better than they ever have or ever thought they would) and I'm content to leave them as-is. Look at the picture. They're in mint condition and I'm not going to butcher them. I still have the original boxes and everything from 2002.

People can argue semantics all they want on here. I'm not on here to argue the point into the ground. I don't claim to be the ultimate audiophile like some, but I'm no total dummy and do happen to know a little bit about electronics. I've been an amateur radio operator for over 30 years. AV is just a mild hobby for me. I had a 20 year-old receiver (Pioneer VSX-D1S) and finally decided to upgrade last year.

The SC-09TX claims to have 10 separate driven channels and my intention was to use them all (or at least try it out and let my ears be the judge). I had never removed the connecting bars from my Polks the entire time I've owned them and wanted try it with the 10 channel AVR. I'm glad I did. IMO, the SC-09TX is one heck of an AVR (the best Pioneer has ever made) and I'm happy based on the amount I have into everything. Sure I could have gone all-out with separates and spent my money differently. As we all know, the sky's the limit there.

There are a lot of people on this forum that have better stuff than I do but I'm pretty satisfied with what I ended up with and tried to utilize it to its fullest potential. While shopping around for some of my components, I sure saw (and listened to) some phenomenal equipment. Stuff that was way out of my league and price range.

I have other hobbies that consume more time and money than my audio one does. I can't afford too many more expensive "hobbies".

lol

F1nut

RMParker wrote: »

Glad to see ya around helping out F1Nut. Thanks for helping me out on the Carver blog a couple years back.

Well, thank you and you're more than welcome.

On3s&Z3r0s

Gatecrasher wrote: »

Yeah I know the difference between passive & active bi-amping ...
People can argue semantics all they want on here. I'm not on here to argue the point into the ground.

Um... I think FTGV is on your side here. He was saying passive bi-amping is still bi-amping, as distinct from bi-wiring as some others assert you are effectively doing.

For the record, I agree with you that bi-amping with the Pio Elites has a very discernible effect. I was doing it with mine for a while. I decided for the majority of the stuff I listen to (like anytime I'm not trying to rattle the windows with the Dark Knight BluRay) it sounded better just using one channel per front and jumpers. But your speakers may sound better bi-amped with that receiver. Who's to say?

Always remember, no matter how much F1nut and his toadies insist you have dead ears and no idea what you are talking about, they are only trying to be helpful. :biggrin:

FTGV

On3s&Z3r0s wrote: »

Um... I think FTGV is on your side here. He was saying passive bi-amping is still bi-amping, as distinct from bi-wiring as some others assert you are effectively doing.

Yes exactly the point I was making.

gp4jesus

Gatecrasher wrote: »

... maybe someday I will remove* the Polk crossover* circuitry* from my speakers but just can't bring myself to do it right now...

When you get to it*, mess w/the MW only, then play w/the XO frequency while listening to familiar music to confirm your AVR circuitry works as claimed. this will eliminate "mistakes" that could cost you a new set of tweeters.

cheers tony

nguyendot

Unless those "10 separately driven channels" have 10 separate power supplies, you're not gaining anything, since you're still using a shared power supply.