• Hello and Welcome to HiFiVision.com - an online community for the home entertainment and tech enthusiasts!

    If you would like to ask a question, participate in a discussion and view attachments please Register yourself.

Do AV Receivers really Bi-amp or just Bi-wire?

Audiolab 6000A Amplifier

MTP

New Member
Joined
Jul 20, 2007
Messages
8
Points
0
Hello all.

Here is a questions for the experts, Do AV Receivers really Bi-amp or just Bi-wire? I have done a lot of research on the net but there are no clear answers for AV receivers like the Denon 1907 which claim to have Bi-amping capabilities. I know for a fact that it not true Bi-amping ( which requires 2 separate Amps) but can it be called Passive Bi-amping or is it just bi-wiring cause the signals are not electrically separated at the receiver , although they have couple of extra outputs for 2 more cables to run to the speakers. I am guessing companies use the term bi-amping more as marketing gimmick for novices who have heard somewhere that Bi-amping offers higher sound fidelity and more power. Please correct me If I got this wrong.

biwire


Prashant
 

avexplorer

New Member
Joined
Oct 1, 2006
Messages
29
Points
0
Theoretically, I don't see why one would not call bi-amping from av receivers as true bi-amping.

Simply put (ignoring circuit complexity), an av-receiver amplifier section is like 7 logical (or 5 depending on the receiver) mono-blocks attached to 7 separate signal sources (or channels) controlled (routing, timing etc.) by DSP logic. Yes, one could certainly argue that this technique certainly introduces some factor of noise(Total Harmonic Distortion and stuff) compared to 7 dedicated mono-blocks.

In a single-amp arrangement, outputs from 2 logical mono-blocks feed the hi and low frequency inputs in parallel (connected with a bridge). The cross-over then splits the signals to the respective woofers, mid-range and tweeters. But as with any parallel circuit there's a drop in current (hence signal strength).

In a bi-amped arrangement 4 logical mono-blocks are used to feed 4 logical speaker partitions (that happens when the bridges are removed) using dedicated links. While 2 of those 4 logical mono-blocks feed the hi frequency partitions of the respective speakers, the remaining 2 mono-blocks feed the low-frequency partitions of the 2 speakers.

Bi-wiring on the other hand requires the signals to be fed from only 2 logical mono-blocks to 4 logical speaker partitions. So whats the advantage over single wiring? We'll the theory is that circuitry of the cross-overs are such that they do a better job of filtering out the noise when fed with 2 duplicate signals instead of one. In fact one could bi-amp and bi-wire at the same time for the most optimal speaker performance

I use an ARCAM AVR 350 to feed ProAc Studio 140 and I have seen that bi-amping results in much better performance than when single-amped. This especially made sense because the Studio's are rated at 250 watt rms and the arcam is capable of only 100 watts per channel. When bi-amped, the combined wattage is 200, which other wise would leave the Studio's under powered.

Finally, please note that bi-amping requires software settings to be configured whereas bi-wiring typically doesn't require any such thing.
 

pradski

Member
Joined
Aug 27, 2008
Messages
279
Points
18
Location
Mysore
Hi,

I had the same doubts.

What if the zone B and zone A are connected for bi amping can it qualify for bi amping or is it wrong by itself.

Thanks.
 

Absolute Phase

Active Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2006
Messages
437
Points
43
Location
Bangalore
Theoretically, I don't see why one would not call bi-amping from av receivers as true bi-amping.

Simply put (ignoring circuit complexity), an av-receiver amplifier section is like 7 logical (or 5 depending on the receiver) mono-blocks attached to 7 separate signal sources (or channels) controlled (routing, timing etc.) by DSP logic. Yes, one could certainly argue that this technique certainly introduces some factor of noise(Total Harmonic Distortion and stuff) compared to 7 dedicated mono-blocks.

In a single-amp arrangement, outputs from 2 logical mono-blocks feed the hi and low frequency inputs in parallel (connected with a bridge). The cross-over then splits the signals to the respective woofers, mid-range and tweeters. But as with any parallel circuit there's a drop in current (hence signal strength).

In a bi-amped arrangement 4 logical mono-blocks are used to feed 4 logical speaker partitions (that happens when the bridges are removed) using dedicated links. While 2 of those 4 logical mono-blocks feed the hi frequency partitions of the respective speakers, the remaining 2 mono-blocks feed the low-frequency partitions of the 2 speakers.

Bi-wiring on the other hand requires the signals to be fed from only 2 logical mono-blocks to 4 logical speaker partitions. So whats the advantage over single wiring? We'll the theory is that circuitry of the cross-overs are such that they do a better job of filtering out the noise when fed with 2 duplicate signals instead of one. In fact one could bi-amp and bi-wire at the same time for the most optimal speaker performance

I use an ARCAM AVR 350 to feed ProAc Studio 140 and I have seen that bi-amping results in much better performance than when single-amped. This especially made sense because the Studio's are rated at 250 watt rms and the arcam is capable of only 100 watts per channel. When bi-amped, the combined wattage is 200, which other wise would leave the Studio's under powered.

Finally, please note that bi-amping requires software settings to be configured whereas bi-wiring typically doesn't require any such thing.

Very well put. The next level would be to go fully active, where in you omit the passive crossover and go in for active cards which are installed in the power amps itself. For this you need to have amps that can take active cards and your speakers must have a passive by pass to active mode. This comes by default in all Linn speakers and amps.

Heard a fully active 5.1 HT full Linn in Glasgow and was blown, never ever heard Pink Flyod sound so good, it was a dvd concert. Sadly it costs a lot.
 

kanna.sridharan

Active Member
Joined
May 15, 2009
Messages
226
Points
28
Location
Ramnad (Tamil Nadu)
Hi,

I had the same doubts.

What if the zone B and zone A are connected for bi amping can it qualify for bi amping or is it wrong by itself.

Thanks.

The Marantz SR5002 had an option where the rear surrounds could act as Speaker C, which could be enabled for biamping... I'm yet to get my system.. I was going thru the manuals.. Can this be done.. I've ordered for these

Marantz SR 5002
Wharfedale Dia 9.1
Wharfedale SWF 150

I've read the Dia 9.1 manuals and it was given that it can be biamped.

Need some help on whether this can be done, if so wouldnt there be any conflicts on the speaker impedances and the amplification power.
 

spirovious

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 10, 2008
Messages
12,619
Points
113
Location
Mumbai
Biwire & Biamp, What will be the freq of seperation?
1.Does that AVR decides?

Say 2k of AVR seperation,then fed to spk & if spk has seperation of 3k,then 2.How can one get full freQ response?

3.Can it damage the tweeter?
 

kanna.sridharan

Active Member
Joined
May 15, 2009
Messages
226
Points
28
Location
Ramnad (Tamil Nadu)
Biwire & Biamp, What will be the freq of seperation?
1.Does that AVR decides?

Say 2k of AVR seperation,then fed to spk & if spk has seperation of 3k,then 2.How can one get full freQ response?

3.Can it damage the tweeter?

r u asking me?? I havent got the avr yet and really have no idea of the freq. that can be passed to the Speaker C if used for bi-amping or dont even know if there is a menu where it can be setup.

will get back if i get any info
 

kanna.sridharan

Active Member
Joined
May 15, 2009
Messages
226
Points
28
Location
Ramnad (Tamil Nadu)
I use an ARCAM AVR 350 to feed ProAc Studio 140 and I have seen that bi-amping results in much better performance than when single-amped. This especially made sense because the Studio's are rated at 250 watt rms and the arcam is capable of only 100 watts per channel. When bi-amped, the combined wattage is 200, which other wise would leave the Studio's under powered.

Finally, please note that bi-amping requires software settings to be configured whereas bi-wiring typically doesn't require any such thing.

what would be the impedances of each driver in your speaker, is this to be considered or not.. as you said combined wattage is 200 watts.. genrally if your speaker on the whole (bass+tweeter) has a load of 6 Ohm, since they are in parrallel mode, the drivers would be of higher impedances to achieve this load.

eg: if bass driver is 8 Ohms and tweeter driver is 8 Ohms when parralled the load becomes
= 1/8 + 1/8 = 1/x, where x = 4, so the load imposed is 4 ohms of the speaker package....

I maybe wrong or confusing, just had these doubts.... kindly correct me if im wrong...
 

doors666

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 15, 2008
Messages
1,821
Points
113
Location
bangalore
663 has 7.1, but I am using it in 5.1. Has anyone used the remaining 2 channels to bi-amp the front speakers. I know it allows that, but what has been the experience. Does it give better sound quality?
 

suprateep

New Member
Joined
Mar 2, 2009
Messages
1,103
Points
0
Location
Chicago
663 has 7.1, but I am using it in 5.1. Has anyone used the remaining 2 channels to bi-amp the front speakers. I know it allows that, but what has been the experience. Does it give better sound quality?

biwire!!!
Not a difference worth mentioning - but maybe some people reported better calrity etc. I tried it with my onkyo 606 with mission m35's - gave it up because the entire excercise was pointless IMHO
 

reju

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 12, 2008
Messages
1,482
Points
83
Location
Mumbai
biwire!!!
Not a difference worth mentioning - but maybe some people reported better calrity etc. I tried it with my onkyo 606 with mission m35's - gave it up because the entire excercise was pointless IMHO

You could try out bi-wiring only because you were given a provision to do so by the speaker manufacturer. Unless it makes some difference (however minor it maybe) why should all these top end speakers give you an option of bi-wiring binding posts? Are they wasting your money & time??

An extract from Diamond 9 brochure I had posted earlier in another thread:

The four connectors in total, two red and two black, allow the high frequency and bass drivers to be connected separately. Although a gold-plated bridge connector is supplied if you really wish to use a standard cable, even when using an amplifier with one set of outputs, it is worth using bi-wire cable. Linking the cable at the amplifier end instead of the loudspeaker end will reduce intermodulation to give a more open mid-range.
 

doors666

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 15, 2008
Messages
1,821
Points
113
Location
bangalore
You could try out bi-wiring only because you were given a provision to do so by the speaker manufacturer. Unless it makes some difference (however minor it maybe) why should all these top end speakers give you an option of bi-wiring binding posts? Are they wasting your money & time??

An extract from Diamond 9 brochure I had posted earlier in another thread:

The four connectors in total, two red and two black, allow the high frequency and bass drivers to be connected separately. Although a gold-plated bridge connector is supplied if you really wish to use a standard cable, even when using an amplifier with one set of outputs, it is worth using bi-wire cable. Linking the cable at the amplifier end instead of the loudspeaker end will reduce intermodulation to give a more open mid-range.

Actually I was asking about bi-amping, not bi-wiring with 663.
When the speaker manufacturers are providing provision for this, i think their intention is to provide for bi-amping. Biwiring is basically a by product of that.
I was using biwiring till some time ago, but when I removed it, didnt notice any difference or degradation in quality.
 

reju

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 12, 2008
Messages
1,482
Points
83
Location
Mumbai
Actually I was asking about bi-amping, not bi-wiring with 663.
When the speaker manufacturers are providing provision for this, i think their intention is to provide for bi-amping. Biwiring is basically a by product of that.
I was using biwiring till some time ago, but when I removed it, didnt notice any difference or degradation in quality.

Yes I know you are talking about bi-amping. Maybe you can call bi-wiring as poor man's bi-amping:D

But the point I was trying to make was that Wharfedale was suggesting that at least bi-wiring should be done if bi-amping was not possible.
 

dillihifi

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2008
Messages
1,065
Points
83
Location
DELHI
Just penning some thoughts

As I understand the speaker cables which are now connected from the amp and speaker carries the full bandwidth signal which is now split by the crossover specific to HF or LF, is this so ???
 

venkatcr

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2008
Messages
7,327
Points
113
Location
Chennai
As I understand the speaker cables which are now connected from the amp and speaker carries the full bandwidth signal which is now split by the crossover specific to HF or LF, is this so ???

Yes, that is the job of the crossover inside the speaker cabinet. There are two types of crossovers - passive and active.

The most common type of crossover is passive which is inside all speakers and is activated by the sound signals. Passive crossover uses inductors and capacitors for 'filtering' ou some frequencies. Capacitors and inductors become good conductors only under certain conditions. A crossover capacitor will conduct the current very well when the frequency exceeds a certain level, but will conduct poorly when the frequency is below that level. A crossover inductor acts in the reverse manner - it is only a good conductor when the frequency is below a certain level. In most speakers units, the frequency is divided up by inductors and capacitors and then sent on to the woofer, tweeter and mid-range drivers. The sound signal, to go to the tweeter, will have to pass through a capacitor. So for the most part, the high frequency part of the signal will flow on to the tweeter voice coil while the rest of the sound signal is filtered out. Similarly, to go to the woofer, the current passes through an inductor, and only certain low frequencies will be allowed to pass through. A crossover for the mid-range driver will conduct the current through a capacitor and an inductor, thereby cutting or filtering out low and high frequencies.

Crossovers inside AVRs and bi-amping electronics are what are called active crossovers. They pick out the frequency range before they are even amplified. In active crossovers, you can, theoretically, adjust the frequency ranges for crossover.

Because an active crossover can be done in a better way inside an AVR or other amplifiers, a bi-amped system will deliver better results.

BTW, do you know why it is called a crossover and not a tap or a filter? An inductor and a capacitor do not shut off frequencies completely beyond certain limits. Rather they taper the frequencies off slowly. At some point, there will be a narrow bandwidth of frequencies that are being fed to two drivers at the same time. In other words, there is a point where the two frequencies cross over each other. Look at the image below. The X-Axis is the frequency, while the Y-Axis represents gain in dB.




Cheers
 
Last edited:

dillihifi

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2008
Messages
1,065
Points
83
Location
DELHI
I am generally getting the drift.

Well if the active crossovers in the AVR split the signal based on the frequency range then what about the crossover in the speaker. I mean that now since you are sending a certain frequency range signal to the HF or LF unit so theoretically there should be no passive crossover in the circuit and the amplified signal would be fed to the drivers directly.
 

doors666

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 15, 2008
Messages
1,821
Points
113
Location
bangalore
Yes I know you are talking about bi-amping. Maybe you can call bi-wiring as poor man's bi-amping:D

But the point I was trying to make was that Wharfedale was suggesting that at least bi-wiring should be done if bi-amping was not possible.

Not really, bi-amping produces (or atleast supposed to) produce good results, while biwiring is bullshit. Its like this, a cable is carrying a signal from amp to speaker. If not biwiring, you short the terminals at the speakers end, if biwiring, you short it at the amp's end. whether you do the shorting at the beginning or the ending, doesnt matter to the signal, for all practical purposes, the cable is shorted and the signal remains the same.

as some one once said, biwiring is buy (more) wiring, thats all.
 

dillihifi

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2008
Messages
1,065
Points
83
Location
DELHI
Hi
Fine. Now the question is if the active crossover in the AVR are limited to the subwoofer frequencies then the crossover in the speaker is being used. Further now both the amps (in case of biamping) are feeding the full bandwidth (identical) signal to the HF and LF of the speaker. The passive crossover in the speaker now separate for the LF and HF, filter out the range that is allowed to pass through them. Is muy understanding correct. If this is so then how is biamping producing better/cleaner sound as both the amps are feeding the full bandwidth signal (less interference ????)to the speaker and the crossover is the same.
 
Top