Dummies guide to bi amping

[Blacksabbath25]

Right I understand that the amp I have has the power amp built inside and understand that power amps are good for record players . But what I want to understand is bi amping if I got a marantz power amp and wanted to bi amp would this be worth it to do ? I all so expect that my amp powers my speakers ok without a power amp . What would I gain from using a power amp and is worth the extra expense of doing bi amping ? And can anyone give me a dummies guide to bi amping please but interested in passive bi amping as I do not want to take the cross overs out of my speakers also could i use my old pm6005 amp to run the treble part of the speaker or would this be a backwards step Thanks

 

[philpot1001]

technically speaking you would (in theory) get more grip and control over your bass and midrange. Bi amping essentially separate the treble control to the "integrated" amp (your current amp) and moves the midrange and bass control to the power amp. (my lamens understanding).

In terms of whether its worth it or not, only you can tell really by demo. I would imagine benefits would be second order.

Arcam amps seem to be set up to prefer bi-amping, in general if you have an Arcam amp it seems they almost exclusivley benefit from bi-amping to liven them up a touch......no idea about Marantz.

 

[Paulq]

I have always used a pre/power combo but this is personal preference and largely for the reasons of control cited by the above poster.

However there is a lot of conventional wisdom that says you actually don't need to and some manufacturers overtly state that it isn't necessary at all.

The advice isn't universal therefore so I'd strongly urge you to demo first rather than embark upon a costly exercise of adding a power amp only to find that it actually doesn't improve anything for you. There's no 'right/wrong' with it unless you have a real need for extra power (not volume). Despite not knowing the size of your room I should imagine that the PM8005 on its own should prove more than adequate for most people.

 

[gasolin]

The old Marantz Melody Media (M-CR610) you can bi amp how they do it i don't no, since it's only a 2 channel amp

Under input/output

http://www.marantz.co.uk/uk/products/pages/productdetails.aspx?catid=networkproducts&subcatid=networkcdreceiver&productid=melodymediamcr610

 

[Al ears]

On a budget bi amping is probably not worthwhile certainly if you already have a decent integrated amp.

It can be beneficial if you design a system with this in mind from the outset and build a system that uses a pre amp along with two monoblock power amps. This, however, is not a cheap option.

 

[MajorFubar]

To use a separate power amp your existing amp needs to have a pre-out linked to the volume control, because separate power-amps don't usually have volume controls. I don't know if your Marantz has this.

 

[Vladimir]

Generally speaking the only benefit from passive bi-amping is having more power. However, you can also have lots of fun experimenting with it. Example, you can use a class A valve or SS amp for the tweeters and midrange and go high power class D for the woofers.

 

[Blacksabbath25]

yes the 8005 does have pre outs and a power amp direct botton . Could I make use of my pm6005 amp to run the tweeters side of the speaker and use the 8005 to run the bass unit side of the speaker or am I thinking wrong here ? Or I have seen a marantz mm7020 I think it is 2 channel going for a good price

 

[Blacksabbath25]

yes the 8005 does have pre outs and a power amp direct botton . Could I make use of my pm6005 amp to run the tweeters side of the speaker and use the 8005 to run the bass unit side of the speaker or am I thinking wrong here ? Or I have seen a marantz mm7020 I think it is 2 channel going for a good price . My speakers have a double tweeters in them one ribbon and the other kind in each speaker

 

[DocG]

IMO, considering how little power the tweeters ask, it doesn't make much sense to use a separate amp for them, unless you want to try (a variation on) Vlad's suggestion. If you want to biamp for power reasons, go 'vertical': use one amp per speaker. This way, the 'bass channel' can use the amp's power supply to its best (*). Needless to say, you need two identical power amps for that.

(*): Is this proper English? Sounds wrong in my head, but don't know how to phrase it better...

 

[gasolin]

Only use bi amping if your amp can't handle the bass(control/soundquality/tighter,firmer bass), you want to max out the bass when playing loud(power) or going to use active crossover(sound quality)

 

[gasolin]

Forget it

The marantz PM8005 i have heard the last week or 2 has a much better sound then the PM6005 which we both still have.

And it makes no sense to use both amp for bi amping,since the PM8005 have better sound then the PM6005,which i guess why you in the first place bought to get better sound then what you had with the PM6005, again why would you use the PM6005 when the PM8005 have better sound quality?

Use both you have to always make shure every time you turn the volume up or down that the volume between the amp for the tweeter andt the bottom always have the same difference, you can't just set bot to 9'o clock and expect balance to be good and use bass,treble to compensate for different levels (watt) is not working sine treble only goes op or down at 10khz and that's not what you want

If pre out on the PM8005 is usable with the amp and another i guess it could work, but your not getting more power (power for the bass is the same), do you get better sound using the PM6005 for the tweeters? NO since i and many others including yourself (blacksabbath25) said, claimed that the PM8005 has much better sound then the PM6005 (that you replaced because you wanted better sound), how can you get better sound using an amp (PM6005) that you replaced with another one with better sound.

Better sound: Get a better amp

More power: Get a much bigger amp (200watt or more in 4 ohm)

Want to bi amp: buy a power amp to use with your PM8005 (don't use your PM6005)

Want both get a Marantz PM-11S3 http://www.amazon.co.uk/Marantz-PM11-S3-GOLD-PM-11S3-gold/dp/B009SL47CO

Or mabye 2 of these amps (more power,better sound and bi amping) https://emotiva.com/products/amplifiers/xpa-2 can be bridge for 1000watt pr channel

 

[Blacksabbath25]

Only use bi amping if your amp can't handle the bass(control/soundquality/tighter,firmer bass), you want to max out the bass when playing loud(power) or going to use active crossover(sound quality)

ok I am happy with the 8005 sound that's not the issue here . I do not no much about bi amping that's why I started the post . I asked whether I could use the 6005 for any part of bi amping process as I do not want to wast money if I could try the 6005 as it sits here in a box doing nothing . So the option would be a power amp or running 2 8005s yes ? As they would have to be equally the same power to bi amp .

 

[Blacksabbath25]

IMO, considering how little power the tweeters ask, it doesn't make much sense to use a separate amp for them, unless you want to try (a variation on) Vlad's suggestion. If you want to biamp for power reasons, go 'vertical': use one amp per speaker. This way, the 'bass channel' can use the amp's power supply to its best (*). Needless to say, you need two identical power amps for that.

(*): Is this proper English? Sounds wrong in my head, but don't know how to phrase it better...

lol like i said i did not no what possable

 

[Benedict_Arnold]

Contrary to what you might think, it's actually the higher frequencies that demand the most power. Think of it like this, the mid and high frequencies are where the music, the guitars, the vocals, the cybals, etc. are, whereas the bass is mainly for the thump-thump-thump of the bass drum etc.

Therefore, if bi-amping with two amps of different power outputs, it's actually better to connect the higher power amp to the treble side, not the bass.

This assumes, of course, you're bi-amping in twin stereo mode. That is you're using the left and right outputs of each stereo amp to drive the left and rights of the speakers.

If you're bi-amping in twin mono mode, that is, where one mono power amplifier drives the high and low frequency sides of one speaker and a separate mono power amp drives the right speaker, then this doesn't apply.

Of course, if you want to go bananas you can use four mono power amps, one for HF left, one for LF left, one for HF right and the fourth for LF right. Cyrus kit, for example, lets you do this, although hifi buffs here don't reckon its worth the cost.

 

[Vladimir]

Contrary to what you might think, it's actually the higher frequencies that demand the most power. Think of it like this, the mid and high frequencies are where the music, the guitars, the vocals, the cybals, etc. are, whereas the bass is mainly for the thump-thump-thump of the bass drum etc.

That part is inaccurate. Low frequencies demand more power, typically over 2/3 from what the amp delivers. It's true that most of the music and speech information is in the midrange, but even simple thumpadithump eats up 80% of the watts.

 

[Benedict_Arnold]

Contrary to what you might think, it's actually the higher frequencies that demand the most power. Think of it like this, the mid and high frequencies are where the music, the guitars, the vocals, the cybals, etc. are, whereas the bass is mainly for the thump-thump-thump of the bass drum etc.

That part is inaccurate. Low frequencies demand more power, typically over 2/3 from what the amp delivers. It's true that most of the music and speech information is in the midrange, but even simple thumpadithump eats up 80% of the watts.

I would agree that getting a big bass cone to move requires more instantaneous power and that is why big power amps have big power capacitors (to provide that sudden almost instant energy feed, but in terms of continuous power I think you'll find I'm right. My calculus is too rusty to do the sums this morning, but if you simply draw a sine curve with a frequency of, say, 10 kHz, and compare it to a sine curve of the same amplitude but with a frequency of, say, 100 Hz, you'll quite plainly see the area inside the curve is significantly higher at the higher frequency, meaning that more continuous power is being used. Big power capacitors provide the reserve for the thump-thump but take time to recharge between thumps, so you need the amplifier with the highest continuous (usually expressed as the root mean square or RMS power output) power to drive the high end.

 

[hybridauth_Facebook_100004211376004]

Hay sabbath. I wouldn't bother with an extra power amp for biamping at this level,it's not going to make much difference,I'd be more inclined to save the cash and put it towards a better integrated from the likes of naim,krell bryston or Lima...that kind of level anyway. I had my arcam a85 biamped with p85,yes it was better,but not £550 better.sold both and turned to the black side .the xs on it's own can see off the pair of arcams.

 

[davedotco]

Contrary to what you might think, it's actually the higher frequencies that demand the most power. Think of it like this, the mid and high frequencies are where the music, the guitars, the vocals, the cybals, etc. are, whereas the bass is mainly for the thump-thump-thump of the bass drum etc.

That part is inaccurate. Low frequencies demand more power, typically over 2/3 from what the amp delivers. It's true that most of the music and speech information is in the midrange, but even simple thumpadithump eats up 80% of the watts.

I have also heard it said that high frequencies demand more power as musical peaks tend to be at higher frequencies so require more power, this too is nonsense.

Passive bi-amping is largely a waste of time, the effective total power available in this setup is the output of the smallest amplifier being used.

The suggestion that bi-amping offers more control is only valid if a better power amplifier is used on the bass, but overall this will sound no different to using the better amplifier in normal, full range mode.

Bi-amping sounds like a good idea, so people want it to work, but unless you use different types of amplifier as Vlad suggested, the sound really is not going to change.

This however is fraught with complications, you need 2 power amplifer sections with exactly the same input sensitivity and gain, difficult enough with amplifiers from the same manufacturer, let alone from different sources.

Even 'vertical biamping' as described by DocG does not have the effect he describes, all the power is not available to the bass channel as the capacitors tha supply the 'raw' power are split between the two channels, so no real advantage.

 

[davedotco]

Contrary to what you might think, it's actually the higher frequencies that demand the most power. Think of it like this, the mid and high frequencies are where the music, the guitars, the vocals, the cybals, etc. are, whereas the bass is mainly for the thump-thump-thump of the bass drum etc.

That part is inaccurate. Low frequencies demand more power, typically over 2/3 from what the amp delivers. It's true that most of the music and speech information is in the midrange, but even simple thumpadithump eats up 80% of the watts.

I would agree that getting a big bass cone to move requires more instantaneous power and that is why big power amps have big power capacitors (to provide that sudden almost instant energy feed, but in terms of continuous power I think you'll find I'm right. My calculus is too rusty to do the sums this morning, but if you simply draw a sine curve with a frequency of, say, 10 kHz, and compare it to a sine curve of the same amplitude but with a frequency of, say, 100 Hz, you'll quite plainly see the area inside the curve is significantly higher at the higher frequency, meaning that more continuous power is being used. Big power capacitors provide the reserve for the thump-thump but take time to recharge between thumps, so you need the amplifier with the highest continuous (usually expressed as the root mean square or RMS power output) power to drive the high end.

Nice argument but fallacious for the simple reason of power distribution is not uniform across the frequency bands. Power is concentrated in the bass, for music generally we are looking at 90% of the power below 500hz, even more so on modern 'bass heavy' pop material.

In the example you give, the 100hz sine wave would be massive, the 10khz one tiny, huge difference that overwhelms your argument by several orders of magnitude.

 

[Al ears]

Contrary to what you might think, it's actually the higher frequencies that demand the most power. Think of it like this, the mid and high frequencies are where the music, the guitars, the vocals, the cybals, etc. are, whereas the bass is mainly for the thump-thump-thump of the bass drum etc.

That part is inaccurate. Low frequencies demand more power, typically over 2/3 from what the amp delivers. It's true that most of the music and speech information is in the midrange, but even simple thumpadithump eats up 80% of the watts.

I have also heard it said that high frequencies demand more power as musical peaks tend to be at higher frequencies so require more power, this too is nonsense.

Passive bi-amping is largely a waste of time, the effective total power available in this setup is the output of the smallest amplifier being used.

The suggestion that bi-amping offers more control is only valid if a better power amplifier is used on the bass, but overall this will sound no different to using the better amplifier in normal, full range mode.

Bi-amping sounds like a good idea, so people want it to work, but unless you use different types of amplifier as Vlad suggested, the sound really is not going to change.

This however is fraught with complications, you need 2 power amplifer sections with exactly the same input sensitivity and gain, difficult enough with amplifiers from the same manufacturer, let alone from different sources.

Even 'vertical biamping' as described by DocG does not have the effect he describes, all the power is not available to the bass channel as the capacitors tha supply the 'raw' power are split between the two channels, so no real advantage.

Which is why bi-amping with monoblocks is the only sensible way to go. ;-)

 

[Vladimir]

Contrary to what you might think, it's actually the higher frequencies that demand the most power. Think of it like this, the mid and high frequencies are where the music, the guitars, the vocals, the cybals, etc. are, whereas the bass is mainly for the thump-thump-thump of the bass drum etc.

That part is inaccurate. Low frequencies demand more power, typically over 2/3 from what the amp delivers. It's true that most of the music and speech information is in the midrange, but even simple thumpadithump eats up 80% of the watts.

I would agree that getting a big bass cone to move requires more instantaneous power and that is why big power amps have big power capacitors (to provide that sudden almost instant energy feed, but in terms of continuous power I think you'll find I'm right. My calculus is too rusty to do the sums this morning, but if you simply draw a sine curve with a frequency of, say, 10 kHz, and compare it to a sine curve of the same amplitude but with a frequency of, say, 100 Hz, you'll quite plainly see the area inside the curve is significantly higher at the higher frequency, meaning that more continuous power is being used. Big power capacitors provide the reserve for the thump-thump but take time to recharge between thumps, so you need the amplifier with the highest continuous (usually expressed as the root mean square or RMS power output) power to drive the high end.

Nice argument but fallacious for the simple reason of power distribution is not uniform across the frequency bands. Power is concentrated in the bass, for music generally we are looking at 90% of the power below 500hz, even more so on modern 'bass heavy' pop material.

In the example you give, the 100hz sine wave would be massive, the 10khz one tiny, huge difference that overwhelms your argument by several orders of magnitude.

Which option dissipates more energy in 24h?

1) 5 minute 50 MT nuclear explosion.

2) Very fast constant flicks with your pinkey on a feather all day.

 

[Benedict_Arnold]

Which option dissipates more energy in 24h?

1) 5 minute 50 MT nuclear explosion.

2) Very fast constant flicks with your pinkey on a feather all day.

Specious argument. You are confusing instantaneous power with average power over a longer period. A bass drum thump happens, typically, at 60 to 80 beats per minute (70 bpm, from memory, is "standard" disco beat, timed to match the typical working beat of the human heart). In a power amplifier, that power is drawn from the power capacitors which are there to provide that instantaneous surge in energy.

Remember, like car batteries (which are in effect large electro-chemical capacitors) capacitors do not create energy (or power) they merely store electrical charge, a form of potential energy if you like. Try charging up a battery or capacitor and then discharging it. Eventually it goes flat. It has to be re-charged before it can give out more energy.

The instantaneous or peak power output of an amplifier is often quoted as peak music power output (PMPO) and is the sort of figure quoted to impress people who buy their stereos from an Argos catalogue.

What you need for the mid and high end is the continuous power output (often expressed as the root mean square or RMS output) of the amplifier. This isn't drawn from the power capacitors but the current across the transistors. To get higher RMS power utput you need higher capacity transistors, which are more expensive, which is why more powerful amplifiers are more expensive.

Simples.

Anyway, to Mr Sabbath, I would say bi-amp if you want to, it won't do any harm, then decide for yourself. Personally, I'm off to do some real engineering, designing a pipeline system to carry 2.6 billion cubic feet per day of natural gas from Katy, Texas, to Tuxpan, Mexico (about 600 miles).

 

[davedotco]

Contrary to what you might think, it's actually the higher frequencies that demand the most power. Think of it like this, the mid and high frequencies are where the music, the guitars, the vocals, the cybals, etc. are, whereas the bass is mainly for the thump-thump-thump of the bass drum etc.

That part is inaccurate. Low frequencies demand more power, typically over 2/3 from what the amp delivers. It's true that most of the music and speech information is in the midrange, but even simple thumpadithump eats up 80% of the watts.

I have also heard it said that high frequencies demand more power as musical peaks tend to be at higher frequencies so require more power, this too is nonsense.

Passive bi-amping is largely a waste of time, the effective total power available in this setup is the output of the smallest amplifier being used.

The suggestion that bi-amping offers more control is only valid if a better power amplifier is used on the bass, but overall this will sound no different to using the better amplifier in normal, full range mode.

Bi-amping sounds like a good idea, so people want it to work, but unless you use different types of amplifier as Vlad suggested, the sound really is not going to change.

This however is fraught with complications, you need 2 power amplifer sections with exactly the same input sensitivity and gain, difficult enough with amplifiers from the same manufacturer, let alone from different sources.

Even 'vertical biamping' as described by DocG does not have the effect he describes, all the power is not available to the bass channel as the capacitors tha supply the 'raw' power are split between the two channels, so no real advantage.

Which is why bi-amping with monoblocks is the only sensible way to go. ;-)

Financially sensible?

Wouldn't a bigger pair of monoblocks be better in all respects?

 

[Benedict_Arnold]

Financially sensible?

Wouldn't a bigger pair of monoblocks be better in all respects?

Yes. That's why most people don't recommend buying four Cyrus power amps, but spending the same (or less) money on two better (bigger, whatever) monoblocks instead.