Bi-amping a neat speaker

[kingsap]

Im currently using the neat ultimatum mf5 with a densen b200 pre, and b330 power amp. Was wondering if biamping would improve the quality of the overall system.

Due to the fact that it will be very difficult to purchase another b330, was wondering if there are other recommendations of amps to biamp the mf5. Is using 2 different power amps to biamp recommended? Thanks

Already finished budget on main system...was hoping to get the other power amps to be less expensive :boohoo:

Was thinking of some cyrus or audiolab or rotels....

Any recommendations ? :rockout:

 

[Al ears]

Whilst bi-amping is preferable to bi-wiring in your case I would not bother.

The Denson kit is very good and buying a cheaper power amp may just have a retrograde effect on the sound.

I would stay as you are until you can afford possibly a second-hand Densen power amp.

I must stress this is a personal opinion and you are bound to get forum members telling you amplifiers make no difference anyway.

 

[gregvet]

My understanding is that when bi amping it is very important that both amps have the same gain, otherwise they won't sound right in combination. This is one of the reasons most people use the same make amps when biamping, as usually a manufacturer will keep gain the same accross the range for maximum flexibility.

Some power amps have different gain settings as well I believe (bryston?).

Personally I would stick with what you have. I don't profess to understand the physics side of it, but have seen it argued that with passive speakers there is very little benefit to bi amping, something to do with the crossover. That hasn't stopped me from using two spare channels of my power amp to bi amp my speakers of course

 

[TrevC]

Whilst bi-amping is preferable to bi-wiring in your case I would not bother.

The Denson kit is very good and buying a cheaper power amp may just have a retrograde effect on the sound.

I would stay as you are until you can afford possibly a second-hand Densen power amp.

I must stress this is a personal opinion and you are bound to get forum members telling you amplifiers make no difference anyway.

Gain matching could be tricky using different power amps and don't forget you will only have the same available power as one amplifier on its own. If you have adequate power the difference between quality amplifiers is vanishingly small in my experience, contrast that with the huge differeces between speakers and I know where i would spend my money.

 

[kingsap]

This from neat.co.uk is why i would think of bi amping the mf5. It says substantial benefits...may i shoud try getting another densen :rockout: :rockout:

Q: BI-AMPING What is bi-amping?

A: The reason for having 'bi-wire' terminals on NEAT loudspeakers is actually to facilitate bi-amping (bi-amplification). This is a system whereby two stereo amplifiers (or four monoblocs) are used, one for the bass/mid section and one for the treble. The benefits of this type of operation are substantial, particularly in respect of NEAT loudspeakers. Because NEAT loudspeakers use predominantly first-order crossover networks, this means that very few (passive) components are in circuit with the output of each amplification channel. Thus bi-amping is superior to the 'active' option, giving similar levels of control, but without the necessity for additional active electronic componentry and cabling between the source and the power amplifiers.

 

[DocG]

This from neat.co.uk is why i would think of bi amping the mf5. It says substantial benefits...may i shoud try getting another densen :rockout: :rockout:

Q: BI-AMPING What is bi-amping?

A: The reason for having 'bi-wire' terminals on NEAT loudspeakers is actually to facilitate bi-amping (bi-amplification). This is a system whereby two stereo amplifiers (or four monoblocs) are used, one for the bass/mid section and one for the treble. The benefits of this type of operation are substantial, particularly in respect of NEAT loudspeakers. Because NEAT loudspeakers use predominantly first-order crossover networks, this means that very few (passive) components are in circuit with the output of each amplification channel. Thus bi-amping is superior to the 'active' option, giving similar levels of control, but without the necessity for additional active electronic componentry and cabling between the source and the power amplifiers.

I read i too. It's a great quote to launch in the next active-passive battle.

(I hope I didn't just turn this thread into one :doh: ).