Is Bi - amping worth the trouble?

Blindjim: Unless you're technically inclined with test equipment, stick to using identical amps that have been gain matched at the factory. Otherwise, it is easy to run into some strange situations that seem to vary from recording to recording.

Other than that, passively bi-amping is worth a small gain in terms of dynamic range and slightly smoothing things out. Unless one is using an under-powered amp for the specific speakers / desired listening levels, the associated costs aren't really worth the efforts in my opinion. Like you said, the extra amp, interconnects, speaker cabling, etc... can really add up quickly. If running big amps, another dedicated line might also have to be factored in.

When all is said and done, the money that you spent bi-amping could have probably been put to better use by either upgrading the speakers and / or amp. Adding a quantity of gear won't necessarily get you the quality of signal that you desire. Sean
>

With 84 - 88 dB speakers, you could never have enough power. This is why you've heard very noticeable improvements when providing them with drastically increased amounts of reserve.

Other than that, i would consider 84 - 88 dB speakers to be low efficiency, not medium. Of course, i'm talking about using 1 watt @ 1 meter and not 2.83 volts @ 1 meter standard of measurement. There can be HUGE variances in rated output using the latter format depending on the nominal impedances of the speakers being compared. Using 1 watt provides a FAR more uniform standard of measurement. Sean
>

Bmotorcycle: This is one of those things that people won't / can't understand until they experience it for themselves. After doing that, they can't believe they wasted all of that time before stumbling upon this "aural revelation". As i've called it before, "direct drive" i.e. amplifier to speaker cable directly to the raw speaker driver is the real deal. Sean
>

Perfectionist: Given the fact that you're using mono-blocks, you wouldn't be vertically or horizontally bi-amping. You would simply be bi-amping with mono-blocks.

Blindjim: How did you arrive at the figure of 3 dB? At radio frequencies, every connection added is a supposed .5 dB loss according to common teachings. In my experience, a good connection doesn't lose anywhere near that much. At audio frequencies, i'm quite certain that the loss is noticeably less.

Having said that, connection losses may not be linear in amplitude as frequency is varied. On top of that, other distortions may occur as a result of added connections. Obviously, the quality of connection will have a lot to do with how much loss is involved. The greater the variances between terminating impedances, the greater the loss and potential for increased distortion. Needless to say, part of "cable swapping" is a combo of all of the above, which partially explains some of the variable results we achieve in different systems.

I've often contemplated what would happen if one were to take a distortion analyzer and measure an entire system from source input cabling to speaker output cabling. After baselining the system as one normally runs it, one could then swap individual cables and re-run the same tests. I think that the comparative results would be very interesting to say the least. It would also be interesting to see how the system as it was would sound compared to the system as it measured lowest in distortion.

Obviously, one could conduct such testing component by component, swapping cables until the lowest distortion was achieved. From there, the next component and cable could be installed, taking the same approach. One could repeat this until the entire system had been pieced together using this approach.

Using this method, the cables would be acting as impedance matching transmission lines. Each cable would be fine tuned for the specific electrical interaction between the mating components that they joined together.

There's a LOT to think about on stuff like this. Quite honestly, i'm surprised that nobody has done anything like this and / or published research on this subject. Then again, most AF engineers don't think about cabling acting as a "transmission line". Could be why the subject has never been looked into that thoroughly.

Other than that, there are great sonic advantages to be had going "direct drive" i.e. no caps, resistors, inductors between the amp and speaker. Most of the guys messing with "full range" drivers know and realize this, but most of the "audiophile world" are clueless in this specific area. Sean
>

I agree about passive vs actice bi-amping. The only time that i think passive bi-amping is worth the added cost is if the speakers are a very tough load and / or extreme volumes are required. Obviously, i would prefer to do so using an active crossover, but in some cases, that just isn't feasible. Increasing the headroom on such a system can make for a noticeable difference, but in such cases, you really need GOBS of power to overcome that type of handicap.

On the other hand, going active with "direct drive" sounds better under most any circumstance that i can think of. Sean

Blindjim: -3dB is equivalent to a loss of 50% of the signal, which would not only alter the amplitude, but also the quality of the signal in most cases. I'm not trying to pick on you, but i find that figure to be way out of line to say the least. If someone were to latch onto that figure and use it as a point of reference, it may end up skewing their results or calculations. As such, i questioned this for sake of clarity as others may refer to this thread as point of reference in the Agon archives.

My own experience dictates a loss of appr .1 dB for a good quality connection that maintains similar mating impedances. The more that the mating impedances differ from one another, and the poorer the surface contact between them, the higher the losses involved. From my experience, a 50% drop ( -3dB ) in signal would require one helluva bad connection ( limited clean contact area ) between drastically different mating impedances. Sean
>

Blindjim: Signal strength / drive levels and SPL's are directly correlated in an audio system, albeit at a non-linear rate. This has to do with losses through-out the chain, mostly within the speakers. Most all of these losses are easily measured ( or at least approximated ) if one has the know-how and proper test equipment.

Having said that, the figures that i quoted were pertaining to actual line level measurements, not spl measurements. Since your reply was of a generic nature, i'm not certain if you were responding to Gregm as an individual, myself as an individual or both of us simultaneously. Obviously, we can't discuss the same subject if the subject being discussed and responded to is not clear. There is no body language to be interpreted over the net and we can't read your mind as to who you are talking to or where a specific comment was aimed at. As such, it helps to segment or identify who / what a specific reply is aimed at.

I don't think that anyone responding to your last few comments was being pedantic, so much as trying to figure out how and where you arrived at the figures that you proclaimed to be accurate. I'll have to assume that you avoided clarifying the issue for specific reasons and let it go.

Other than that, i hope that this thread has given you some insight as to the many variables involved. Given your last response, it would appear that you're now answering your own questions, so i guess we're done here. Toodles.... Sean
>