# Bi-amp or...



## Rodny Alvarez (Apr 25, 2006)

I have a question!, I just dont know, is it better to use an amp with more power to power my speakers or Bi-amp the speakers:dontknow:, I have VR3 boston Acoustics and a Emotiva LPA-1(125 watts x 6)
I can run the LPA-1 6 channel, 125 + 125 on each speaker Bi-amp 
If more power is better I will upgrade to the new 5 channel Emotiva (200 watts x 5)

Thanks!!:T


----------



## Guest (Jan 22, 2008)

Hi personally would say bi-amp, 125w per speaker driver is enough power really unless you have a really big room.

Bi- amping with give a smoother and better defined sound. 

See how you like the sound bi-amped and then upgrade, 
if you can up the power to 200w per driver all the better.


----------



## Sonnie (Apr 11, 2006)

I'm going to bi-amp my Ascent i's when I get my NAD T785. It has 7 channels... I plan to reassign those 2 extra channels to the front.


----------



## drdoan (Aug 30, 2006)

I would go with bi-amping assuming the ams have great sound, and they do. Dennis


----------



## avaserfi (Jul 5, 2007)

DS-21 said:


> Unless you have dynamic strain issues now, either course will be pointless.
> 
> Bi-amping is just buy-amping unless you take the crossover (and EQ functions inherent therein) outboard. And the difference between 125W and 200W is pretty much negligible.


Dead on. There isn't a better way to put it. Also, every doubling of power is equivalent to a 3dB increase so going from 125W to 200W will only add about 2dB of output. Simply not worth it unless like DS-21 said you want to go full active .


----------



## Sonnie (Apr 11, 2006)

So is it better to just let those two extra channels do nothing? (This is not a sarcastic question. :bigsmile: )


----------



## avaserfi (Jul 5, 2007)

Sonnie said:


> So is it better to just let those two extra channels do nothing? (This is not a sarcastic question. :bigsmile: )


If you have them it doesn't hurt to use them, but you won't be gaining much. If you are considering buying a more powerful or new amp for the application the advice is don't . 

So I would recommend you do what you want, but tell the OP to save his money and keep the amp he has.


----------



## conchyjoe7 (Aug 28, 2007)

Kinda off topic...sorry...Sonnie, what happened to the Anthem equipment you were getting? Just curious.
Cheers,
Konky.


----------



## Kal Rubinson (Aug 3, 2006)

Sonnie said:


> So is it better to just let those two extra channels do nothing? (This is not a sarcastic question. :bigsmile: )


Definitely. Leaves more of the power supply reserves for the channels in use.

Kal


----------



## Guest (Jan 22, 2008)

Hi i would agree keep the amp for the time being and upgrade when the op is ready, but would also say 200-250watt is fine.

I think each of my drivers sees around 200-225watt for the mid bass and sub-bass into 4 ohms via a tri-amp setup and would say they could still do with around 50-100w more, buts thats my preference.

The extra power adds better dynamics, image ,handling of the speakers, extra real loudness and so on.

I once ran some 50watt pioneer mid speakers with a 300w p.a. power amp and they loved it.

Also maybe the op could then use a decent active cross-over as it adds so much, definitely one of the best upgrades for me so far was going active.


----------



## Sonnie (Apr 11, 2006)

I agree... I see no reason for him to upgrade his amp either. 




conchyjoe7 said:


> Kinda off topic...sorry...Sonnie, what happened to the Anthem equipment you were getting? Just curious.
> Cheers,
> Konky.


I could not afford to keep it... long story, but bottom line is there were other things I needed and couldn't get them if I kept the Anthem stuff. I broke even since I got it at a very good deal... actually made a little. The Anthem gear had a lot of stuff I didn't need... like an expensive Gennum scaler and all sorts of video patterns that I don't know how to use and don't want to learn how to use. I opted instead to order up a NAD T785 Receiver, which frees up some needed room in my cabinet. I doesn't upconvert or scale, which I don't need and should have plenty of power for me. I am also getting that at a very good price, so this freed me up for some other things.


----------



## Rodny Alvarez (Apr 25, 2006)

I guess I just need to Bi-amp and see if I can hear any difference:bigsmile:.


Thanks!!:T


----------



## Otto (May 18, 2006)

Rodny Alvarez said:


> I guess I just need to Bi-amp and see if I can hear any difference:bigsmile:.
> 
> 
> Thanks!!:T


Excellent take on it, Rodny. There are a lot of opinions on this, and there are various facts and myths. But the best thing in the end is to decide for yourself! Good luck, and let us know how it goes.


----------



## Sonnie (Apr 11, 2006)

I'd definitely be interested in whether or not you can hear a difference. A blind A/B test would be even mo betta.


This thread caused me to ask some more questions about amp power. Rather than hijack Rodny's thread... some of you might chime in on a new thread I started.


----------



## avaserfi (Jul 5, 2007)

Sonnie said:


> I'd definitely be interested in whether or not you can hear a difference. A blind A/B test would be even mo betta.


I would venture that a properly done ABx is the only way to factually determine if there is an audible difference. I have personally conducted 3 separate bi-amp and bi-wire "studies" with 6 participants and have yet to find anyone who has heard a difference in terms of statistical significance.


----------



## mazersteven (Apr 5, 2007)

Those speakers are so efficient I doubt that he would hear a difference. :hush:


----------



## Sonnie (Apr 11, 2006)

avaserfi said:


> I would venture that a properly done ABx is the only way to factually determine if there is an audible difference. I have personally conducted 3 separate bi-amp and bi-wire "studies" with 6 participants and have yet to find anyone who has heard a difference in terms of statistical significance.


Hence the reasoning that bi-amping is wasting the power and would be better served as reserve for all channels when needed?


----------



## avaserfi (Jul 5, 2007)

Sonnie said:


> Hence the reasoning that bi-amping is wasting the power and would be better served as reserve for all channels when needed?


Normally, I would say so, but some amps are designed with a smaller shared power source so that they are almost like multiple mono-blocks within one case. In general I wouldn't worry too much about powering speakers. I think everyone gets too caught up in it. I explained a little more in your other thread.


----------



## Guest (Feb 13, 2008)

I have always advocated multi-path amplification with crossover/EQ functions ahead of the final amplifiers and direct connections from each amplifier output to a single driver. All the pro situations in which I have worked go that way. Those who know a lot more than I almost always go that way for their best ‘home’ equipment, even if that means eight amplifier channels for just the left and right main speakers. As a concept, I'm doing work to move in that direction for at least my front speakers.

See this very, very pricey manufactured product:

B&W Nautilus (flagship model) Make sure to read through the specs - although the whole design concept is responsible, I don't think a product with passive crossovers could accomplish this.

or this product ranging from moderate cost as a DIY to somewhat pricey as a finished product:

The ORION from LinkwitzLab

And I concur with the idea that bi or tri-amplification, or even more, is only worth it if you go ‘all the way’, moving all crossover and EQ functions ahead of the amplifiers leaving a ‘clean’ path between amplifier output and driver. The amplifier exerts better control over each driver. No passive crossover elements to introduce additional problems such as varying phase shift over a range of frequencies. 

Merely splitting a full-range signal to two amplifier channels and then sending one full range signal through the half of the crossover network that filters out highs and the other full range signal through the half of the crossover network that filters out lows gains very little, other than relieving the amplifier channel driving the bass of a small portion of the wattage it would otherwise have to handle and allowing the channel handling the mids and highs to work less. For some amplifiers this is an advantage, for others, not so much.


----------



## imbeaujp (Oct 20, 2007)

Sonnie said:


> So is it better to just let those two extra channels do nothing? (This is not a sarcastic question. :bigsmile: )


What is the impact for a single powersupply to drive 4 channels ?

If you have 2 separate power amps, it is not a point, but a 7 channel amp use the same powersupply... I am not sure this will make any difference.

The best way is to try it. If you can not hear a difference, then leave it single wired.



JP


----------



## Sonnie (Apr 11, 2006)

I think Rodny and I are planning an A/B type comparison when we get a chance to get together. He may bring his Emotiva down... plus we could test an EP2500 for two-channel. Of course it would all be subjective, but fun still.


----------



## frosti7 (May 23, 2008)

I recently got myself a nice Parasound Hca-2205a 5x220w amp just for stereo bi-amping
From my experience the bi-amping opened up the sound slightly, but the quality of the amp hade a more pronounced effect (going from nad 214)


----------



## john guest (Apr 4, 2008)

It all depends if you are a two channel music fan , if you are and you like it loud then you will hear a big difference in the way the pair of amps handle the speakers. I have my main speakers bi amped for music and they sound fabulous and there is a very big difference at volumes higher than 50% . I tried bi wiring and could not tell a noticeable difference, there was , but very slight.As for leaving two channels unused , if the quality of your power amp is good and well designed, It will be a waste of two good channels not to be used in this manner. However you should always go with your ears , and try it out , if it sounds no different look else ware to improve the sound. On film sound tracks I hear very little difference in by amping the front channels , as you are engrossed in the overall experience of multichannel sound and display and of course, mainly, the movie its self.


----------

