Amplifier wiring question and confusion with terms.

pretorios

We will be moving into a new home, and a recent bout of upgrade-itis had me purchasing a Pioneer elite SC-67 receiver and the following speakers for a 7.1 setup:

Front: Rti10
Center: CSi5
Surround: FXiA4 (2 pairs)
Subwoofer: SVS P-1000

Bi-amping, bi-wiring, and all that jazz
There seems to be a lot of confusion over these terms, which leaves me confused. Some folks on the Internet remove the gold bridge on the front speakers and then wire, say, the receiver front channel to the bottom posts and the front height channel to the upper posts. I thought this is bi-wiring, not bi-amping. Wouldn't bi-amping imply that you run one of the outputs--or both--to a separate power amplifier? Or are these terms identical? Speaking of which, if you are going to add a power amplifier, why not use the pre-outs on the AV receiver instead of bi-amping?

The SC-67 is rated at 140 watts per channel. Having not hooked anything up yet, I'm not sure whether the SC-67 has ample power for these speakers (especially the fronts). I am considering a separate power amplifier.

Amplifier wiring
I am looking at the Emotiva XPA-5, which offers 5 channels. Now the SC-67 has a white and red pre-out connector for the front channel (white and red, respectively). The input for the XPA-5 has a single input plug for each channel. Does this imply that I would wire the left front connector to one XPA-5 channel, the right front to channel 2, the left front height to channel 3, and so on? Or would I need some type of Y-connector to do this? Is there even a point to running the front height channels to a power amp, or can the SC-67 handle these without issue?

My questions probably indicate my level of confusion on these topics.

F1nut

Some folks on the Internet remove the gold bridge on the front speakers and then wire, say, the receiver front channel to the bottom posts and the front height channel to the upper posts. I thought this is bi-wiring, not bi-amping.

It's neither. It is ghetto bi-amping.

Wouldn't bi-amping imply that you run one of the outputs--or both--to a separate power amplifier?

True bi-amping would use separate amps and active crossovers, bypassing the internal crossovers all together.

The SC-67 is rated at 140 watts per channel. Having not hooked anything up yet, I'm not sure whether the SC-67 has ample power for these speakers (especially the fronts). I am considering a separate power amplifier.

The SC AVR's are a bit different than most. It will actually output its full rated power in a 5.1 set up and slighty less in a 7.1. My suggestion, try the AVR first before thinking about adding an external amp.

specd_out

The SC AVR should push those speakers just fine. An external amp will improve the sound but it isnt needed. I have done Bi-amping using an avr and bi-wiring. Neither make an audible difference. Only advantage IMO is the speakers look nicer with a nice set of biwires running to them.

rpf65

Personally, I've never understood why anybody would bi-wire/amp speakers. I've always thought that if you don't like the way they sound, either don't buy them, or sell them. Let the speakers work their magic, unless you're some sound genius or something.

Personally, I would probably run just the AVR with your current set-up. That AVR is designed for 9 speakers as is. Your RTI 10's probably need a little more than most people would choose, especially if married, but you'll probably be alright.

pretorios

rpf65 wrote: »

Personally, I've never understood why anybody would bi-wire/amp speakers. I've always thought that if you don't like the way they sound, either don't buy them, or sell them. Let the speakers work their magic, unless you're some sound genius or something.

Personally, I would probably run just the AVR with your current set-up. That AVR is designed for 9 speakers as is. Your RTI 10's probably need a little more than most people would choose, especially if married, but you'll probably be alright.

I don't really understand it, either. The benefits seem to be modest, at best. If I ever feel compelled to get an amp, I will run those fronts directly from the amp.

Glen B

Some people obviously benefit from bi-wiring and bi-amping or high end speaker manufacturers would not make their speakers with split crossovers. IMO a good reason to bi-amp would be to take advantage of the particular sonic signatures of a particular pair of amps (e.g., tubes on the top and solid state on the bottom).

During my old days as a DJ, I found that a bi-amped system yielded cleaner sound. By driving the woofers with a separate amp, they did not modulate and muddy the midrange and treble at high volume levels, as occurred with a single amp. The amp used on the uppers performed better, having been relieved of the job of driving the woofers. This is the same benefit you get with powered subs in an HT system. On many occasions, curious partygoers would come looking to see what equipment I was using.

I currently maintain a separate, modest party system for family parties, and it is bi-amped with electronic crossover, and separate monoblock amps driving high frequency/midrange cabs, and passive pro sub.

specd_out

Glen B wrote: »

Some people obviously benefit from bi-wiring and bi-amping or high end speaker manufacturers would not make their speakers with split crossovers. IMO a good reason to bi-amp would be to take advantage of the particular sonic signatures of a particular pair of amps (e.g., tubes on the top and solid state on the bottom).

During my old days as a DJ, I found that a bi-amped system yielded cleaner sound. By driving the woofers with a separate amp, they did not modulate and muddy the midrange and treble at high volume levels, as occurred with a single amp. The amp used on the uppers performed better, having been relieved of the job of driving the woofers. This is the same benefit you get with powered subs in an HT system. On many occasions, curious partygoers would come looking to see what equipment I was using.

I currently maintain a separate, modest party system for family parties, and it is bi-amped with electronic crossover, and separate monoblock amps driving high frequency/midrange cabs, and passive pro sub.

I agree with bi amping using separate amps. But in the case if using an AVR to do the biamp has no real advantage

pretorios

Glen B wrote: »

Some people obviously benefit from bi-wiring and bi-amping or high end speaker manufacturers would not make their speakers with split crossovers. IMO a good reason to bi-amp would be to take advantage of the particular sonic signatures of a particular pair of amps (e.g., tubes on the top and solid state on the bottom).

During my old days as a DJ, I found that a bi-amped system yielded cleaner sound. By driving the woofers with a separate amp, they did not modulate and muddy the midrange and treble at high volume levels, as occurred with a single amp. The amp used on the uppers performed better, having been relieved of the job of driving the woofers. This is the same benefit you get with powered subs in an HT system. On many occasions, curious partygoers would come looking to see what equipment I was using.

I currently maintain a separate, modest party system for family parties, and it is bi-amped with electronic crossover, and separate monoblock amps driving high frequency/midrange cabs, and passive pro sub.

For the setup you're talking about--having a solid-state and a tube amp--I can definitively see the advantage.

I was thinking of it more in terms of bi-amping with an AV receiver and a separate power amp, in which case I don't see the advantage versus running the full range of each speaker (with passive crossover intact) through a power amp. I could see the advantage, though, when you have two separate amps with very different strengths.

Glen B

specd_out wrote: »

I agree with bi amping using separate amps. But in the case if using an AVR to do the biamp has no real advantage

I concur.

samreddevilz

I agree with bi amping using separate amps. But in the case if using an AVR to do the biamp has no real advantage