Is Bi - amping worth the trouble?


Hello all...

I'm on the fence with the thought of bi amping. A big part of me wants to go ahead with it... the 'wallet' part says "Not so fast".

There should be lots of folks who've biamped speakers before... When it was all said and done, "Was it worth the time and expense?"

I'm inclinded to add a tube amp for the upper end of my VR4 JR's ... or any other speakers for that matter... though in any case and reardless the speakers, tube amp on top, and SS on the bottom.

...and then there's the thought of keeping two dissimilarly powered amps matched at the same volume level... and the added IC's, PC, and stand... it does seem to add up.

... and at this point, I'm thinking BAT to keep things all the same... and am not sure there, wether even that matters too much...

I sure do appreciate the input.
blindjim

Well, I'm certainly impressed. haven't done anything yet, but still given the level of informative thoughts and experiences that have presented themselves herein... I am way impressed. As said above, and with no attrmpt to have the last word or bring a hlat to this strem of thought, formulating or making cohesive the question to the responses, the answer thus far needs be dependant upon waht a person views as "trouble". If I may be so bold... and I will.

Apparently one does not escape subjectivity. Be it in practice or methodology. Equating the value or difference between two parts derives the sum of it. What is the level achieved? What is the effort involved? Was there even one summary dismissal of the project? I don't recall it. I do recall some explicit recounts of knowledgeable folks, passionate about audio who were satisfied, ultimately, with the end product. I recall unselfishly how many told of the areas to be aware of, the pitfalls and prerequisites, and the proceedures to reach a proper end with either path, be it active, or passive bi-amplification.

I get the overall feeling at this 'juncture' (if I can quote a former chief of staff), that it's a viable task. One that the results have outweighed the sweat and expense along the way. For me I am sold on the notion to fulfill both a desire and a dream. Though formerly struck near dumb by the avalanche of steps, and the coincidental expense of them to boot, I have recovered sufficiently to grasp the reins and once more move towards that end. (…can’t you just hear Ray Charles in the background softly doing America The beautiful?).

So I’d say just now the posts here say resoundingly, “You bet cha!” But there’s more to it than just buying a second amp and some more wires…. Perhaps. The keys being as I understand them thus far:

Matching the gain of both amps
Limiting amplifier bandwidth for dynamic improvement in the loudspeakers performance… given their particular applications.
Addressing the networks of the loudspeaker dependant upon the choice of an active bi-amping application.
Buying more peripherals.
Buying lots more peripherals.

….not a problem. I thought I was seeing a light at the end of the tunnel… then I thought it was a train. The light is much dimmer now. This tunnel has a curve in it! Fine. I’m good. I’m also looking forward to the whole shooting match. Because from what I’ve seen here, bi-amping is worth it. For regardless the results, my inventory of equipment willhave increased and there will be lots more to play with from time to time. How can you not see that as a plus? (…well there’s that buying it all, part, I guess).
FWIW, you cannot in fact say there is a "consensus" here or in audio in general that bi-amping is simply superior (active or passive).

Bi-amping has one theoretical disadvantage: the loss of coherency due to mixing two different amps with their unique sonic characteristics. There will always be freq-overlap of the two amps with any crossover. This is assuming different amps top and bottom, but as has been pointing out, that's the only way to do it unless you're just down on power.

I'm not saying that bi-amping isn't better in nine out of ten situations (though I'm not saying it is), just that you can't make a blanket that it's always better with this potential/theoretical weakness (which many feel is very real in practice).
Let me try and put some order (into my thoughts at least) on biamping:

As seen before there are various methods for biamping with different results:

1:Dual-amp biwire (nice new term) which is achieved without any freq, limitation on both amps, both amps "amplify the full signal" These method uses forcibly the speakers internal Xover.

1a-Dual-amp biwire with same amps being paralel or series would be just more of the same, yes more power supplies so also more dynamics and more power, same sound. If it is two tube amps the bass will still be a little "undefiend" if its two SS amps the top will be "grainy" (you can change these adjectives as you please...undefined and grainy are just MHO)
*No gain (volume) matching devices needed.
*Use speakers internal Xover

1b-Dual-amp biwire with different amps where you get the sonic benefits and performance of different type of amps; for example: Tubes on top and SS on bottom.
*Gain (volume) matching devices needed.
*Use speakers internal Xover

2- Passive Simple Biamping, Lets agree that for this you need to limit the freq. going into at least one amp.
*These method would still need the speakers internal XOver
* High pass, to avoid this amp to overwork with bass freq.
*Low pass avoiding mid and higher freq. on the amp. (Big SS amps don’t really need to get rid of highs)
*These Xover should be Passive at Line Level before the amps.
*Gain (volume) matching devices needed

3- Active Simple Biamping, Limit freq. going into at least one amp.
If you have satellite monitors and a subwoofer, this could be active simple biamping, since you are using a dedicated bass amp inside the subwoofer. You can also use an EQ for the bass amp which would act like low pass and add a little punch and extension on the lower freq. (nice!)
*These method would still need the speakers internal Xover (because it is simple)
* High pass, to avoid this amp to overwork with bass freq.
*Low pass avoiding mid and higher freq. on the amp.
*These Xover should be Active at Line Level before the amps. Gain (volume) matching devices are usually built into the active Xover.

4- Extreme Biamping, Triamping etc.
*You will need one amp for each driver and there should be only wire going from each amp to the driver.
(An exemption to the rule could be tweeter which could have a passive Xover between amp and tweeter.)
*For this method you cannot use the Speakers internal Xover, It would not be recommended to use a “designer” speaker since there would really be no point to rip out the original “designer” Xover to play around. This method would be recommended for DIY speakers such as Lowther drivers with bass, Horn systems, Professional PA systems etc.
* Line level Xover can be Passive, Active or a Mix of them depending on Amp-Driver combination used.
*Gain (volume) matching devices needed
Jsadurn has got it very well summarized. I just don't agree with generalizing that ALL tube amps have loose bass and sweet highs, wheras ALL SS amps have great bass and harsh highs. There are amps that do everything right, for a given speaker, NOT because they are tube or SS. And there are amps that do many things wrong, again NOT because they are tube or SS. So, making a rule that the best way to bi-amp is to mix SS and tube amps is an over-simplification.