bi wiring advice

[Tim]

hi everybody,

i know this subject has probably been covered a million times before but i'm new to this site so be kind please . I have a Cyrus 6a and 6 power with Tannoy revolution DC6 speakers, at the moment I am using the 6a to drive the high frequencies and the power to drive the low. Is this the best way to bi wire with these components, all feed back welcome :rockout:

 

[Supreme]

Hi Tim. I have set up my Arcam amps to do the same thing. The integrated for the high frequencies and mids and the power amp for the lows. I get a huge improvement in my system doing things this way.

 

[BigH]

Sounds more like bi-amping to me?

 

[tomlinscote]

+1

what you are describing is bi-amping and it can make a real difference to the sound whereas bi-wiring....well I'm not going near that can of worms!!

Tommo

 

[matt49]

Hi Tim,

welcome to the fun!

What you're doing is the more common approach, the theory being that low frequency drivers require more power. However I have heard people argue for the other approach on the grounds that the high frequency drivers actually use more energy. I'm not saying I agree with this, just reporting an alternative view.

presumably it wouldn't be difficult to swap the cables over, so why don't you give it a try and find out what happens. Nothing to lose after all.

:cheers:

Matt

 

[Benedict_Arnold]

Highest power amp goes to the treble IMHO.

The theory is that the mid and high frequencies use more power more of the time, so a constant ability to deliver more power is needed. The bass only needs lots of power for the thump-thump-thump or crescendo stuff so the power capacitors have time to recharge between thumps. Thus you use less power overall on the bass section. If you don't believe me try disconnecting the bass speaker wires and see how much of the overall sound actually disappears.

Only real advice is to try both and see which you like the best.

 

[Tim]

hi guys,

thanks for your input, gives me ideas to play with over the weekend.

have a good one :cheers:

 

[dansettemajor]

Another reason for using the power amp for the high frequencies and the integrated for the bass, is that delicate high frequencies will benefit more from the simpler circuitry of the power amp, rather than going through the pre amp circuitry inside the integrated amplifier. Again, just try it for yourself. My Roksan set up is used in this way.

 

[dansettemajor]

Another reason for using the power amp for the high frequencies and the integrated for the bass, is that delicate high frequencies will benefit more from the simpler circuitry of the power amp, rather than going through the pre amp circuitry inside the integrated amplifier. Again, just try it for yourself. My Roksan set up is used in this way.

 

[pauln]

Another reason for using the power amp for the high frequencies and the integrated for the bass, is that delicate high frequencies will benefit more from the simpler circuitry of the power amp, rather than going through the pre amp circuitry inside the integrated amplifier. Again, just try it for yourself.

Are you saying that the delicate high frequencies go straight from the source to the power amp, bypassing the preamp? How do you adjust the volume?

 

[dansettemajor]

Sorry, I think I confused myself as well as everyone else! I meant to say that the high frequencies could benefit from being driven by the power amp as it has simpler circuitry than the integrated amp. The integrated amp still controls the volume.

 

[Tim]

cheers all,

im now trying the power for the high frequencies :boohoo:

 

[davedotco]

Sorry but much of the above is simply wrong.

Music contains vastly more power at lower frequencies than at higher frequencies, so generally the more powerful amplifier is used on the bass.

The argument for using the more powerful amplifier on the tweeter is that musical peaks are of short duration and mostly present at higher frequencies, so a more powerful amplifier on the tweeters may reduce the possibility of clipping.

If the amplifiers are adequate I would always use the more powerful one on the bass, I have experience of dozens of bi-amplified systems, both passive and active and can not recall having clipping issues on the tweeters.

 

[Tim]

ok, totally confussed now, can any of this harm my speakers ?

 

[davedotco]

ok, totally confussed now, can any of this harm my speakers ?

Very difficult to harm the speakers, though you could damage the amps if you short them out when swapping around speaker connections.

On the other bi-wiring thread I gave a basic rundown of bi-wiring and bi-amping. here, page 3 post 4.......

http://www.whathifi.com/forum/hi-fi/ways-of-biwiring-a-pair-of-speakers-0?page=2#comment-2864478

Read it through, should help.

 

[ID.]

Sorry but much of the above is simply wrong.

Music contains vastly more power at lower frequencies than at higher frequencies, so generally the more powerful amplifier is used on the bass.

The argument for using the more powerful amplifier on the tweeter is that musical peaks are of short duration and mostly present at higher frequencies, so a more powerful amplifier on the tweeters may reduce the possibility of clipping.

If the amplifiers are adequate I would always use the more powerful one on the bass, I have experience of dozens of bi-amplified systems, both passive and active and can not recall having clipping issues on the tweeters.

I've also (in my very limited experience) never come across an active speaker with a more powerful amp for the tweeter. They either have a more powerful amp for the woofer, or amps of the same power for both (usually on smaller and cheaper models, although I'm not sure whether this is always true).

 

[davedotco]

Sorry but much of the above is simply wrong.

Music contains vastly more power at lower frequencies than at higher frequencies, so generally the more powerful amplifier is used on the bass.

The argument for using the more powerful amplifier on the tweeter is that musical peaks are of short duration and mostly present at higher frequencies, so a more powerful amplifier on the tweeters may reduce the possibility of clipping.

If the amplifiers are adequate I would always use the more powerful one on the bass, I have experience of dozens of bi-amplified systems, both passive and active and can not recall having clipping issues on the tweeters.

I've also (in my very limited experience) never come across an active speaker with a more powerful amp for the tweeter. They either have a more powerful amp for the woofer, or amps of the same power for both (usually on smaller and cheaper models, although I'm not sure whether this is always true).

True, but a slightly different situation.

Apart from the power distribution across the musical spectrum discused above, tweeters are usually more sensitive than bass drivers so need less power to match the output of the bass driver.

In passive designs the crossover will perform this level reduction, usually by means of a 'T pad', so the two 'halves' of the passive speaker have the same sensitivity.

 

[eggontoast]

Just been reading this thread, crikey there's some strange advice in it...highest powered amp to the HF unit, where did that come from. The highest powered amplifier should always be used for the LF drivers, in fact a lower powered amplifier down to one third of the power of the LF drivers can be used for the HF units without any problems.

 

[altruistic.lemon]

...In passive designs the crossover will perform this level reduction, usually by means of a 'T pad', so the two 'halves' of the passive speaker have the same sensitivity.

I think you mean an L pad.

 

[davedotco]

...In passive designs the crossover will perform this level reduction, usually by means of a 'T pad', so the two 'halves' of the passive speaker have the same sensitivity.

I think you mean an L pad.

Correct, my mistake.

Though T pads are sometimes used when one (or more) of the resistors are variable, to adjust tweeter levels.

 

[andyjm]

Bi wiring is generally a bad idea. If you remove the jumper at the speaker between LF and HF, its really no different to running a single cable.

Cables are linear components, double the voltage and you double the current (all other things being equal). The LF circuit made up of the amp, crossover, LF driver doesn't know that the HF circuit exists. Equally, the HF circuit, made up of the amp, crossover and HF driver doesn't know the LF circuit exists. While it is counter intuitive, the two circuits exist in effective isolation, and because the cable is linear, there is no cross or inter modulation distortion.

Split this into two, by biwiring, and you achieve effectively nothing. You might actually make matters worse, because at the crossover point both cables are conducting - leading to a lift at the crossover point relative to a single wire.

If you want to biwire, leave the jumper in place. Not really any different to running thicker cables, but there is nothing wrong with that.

 

[matt49]

Bi wiring is generally a bad idea. If you remove the jumper at the speaker between LF and HF, its really no different to running a single cable.

Cables are linear components, double the voltage and you double the current (all other things being equal). The LF circuit made up of the amp, crossover, LF driver doesn't know that the HF circuit exists. Equally, the HF circuit, made up of the amp, crossover and HF driver doesn't know the LF circuit exists. While it is counter intuitive, the two circuits exist in effective isolation, and because the cable is linear, there is no cross or inter modulation distortion.

Split this into two, by biwiring, and you achieve effectively nothing. You might actually make matters worse, because at the crossover point both cables are conducting - leading to a lift at the crossover point relative to a single wire.

If you want to biwire, leave the jumper in place. Not really any different to running thicker cables, but there is nothing wrong with that.

As the OP recognised a short way into this thread, he actually meant bi-amping.