"Bob Latham" wrote in message


You are both correct from a simple electrical point of
view it is quite pointless. However, I might point out
that rightly or wrongly, probably a substantial majority
of people with an interest in Hi-Fi would say that
Bi-amped systems sound better

But this isn't really bi-amping. There are still passive crossovers, and
both amplifiers have to amplify the full signal.

and indeed to be
"pointless" the amplifiers would have to suffer zero load
issues.

Note that the impedance curve of this speaker shows that the tweeter
provides only a small fraction of the load on the power amplifier.

"Bob Latham" wrote in message

In article ,
Arny Krueger wrote:
"Bob Latham" wrote in message


You are both correct from a simple electrical point of
view it is quite pointless. However, I might point out
that rightly or wrongly, probably a substantial majority
of people with an interest in Hi-Fi would say that
Bi-amped systems sound better

But this isn't really bi-amping. There are still passive
crossovers, and both amplifiers have to amplify the full
signal.

Its not "active" certainly but it is what most would mean
by bi-amped.

Who is this "most"?

Most audio fanatics?

Bi-amped has traditionally meant, and means in most audio circles to this
day, active crossover, two power amps, two-way speaker system.

That a few naive audiophiles have been snookered into buying two amps to a
job that one amp can do as well, is an aberration.

and indeed to be
"pointless" the amplifiers would have to suffer zero
load issues.

Note that the impedance curve of this speaker shows that
the tweeter provides only a small fraction of the load
on the power amplifier.

Oh agreed completely. I suspect the pro bi-amp argument
would say that the heavy current load of the bass driver
is detrimental to the performance of the
amplifier/cable/tweeter performance.

That may sell on the salon sales floor, targeted at naive audiophiles that
have money burning a hole in their pockets.

Look a the vast majority of commercial products, not the world of sleezy
deals involving audio imbeciles. It is very hard to find commercial
bi-amped speakers that don't also have an active crossover.

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Bob Latham" wrote in message

In article ,
Arny Krueger wrote:
"Bob Latham" wrote in message


You are both correct from a simple electrical point of
view it is quite pointless. However, I might point out
that rightly or wrongly, probably a substantial majority
of people with an interest in Hi-Fi would say that
Bi-amped systems sound better

But this isn't really bi-amping. There are still passive
crossovers, and both amplifiers have to amplify the full
signal.

Its not "active" certainly but it is what most would mean
by bi-amped.

Who is this "most"?

Most audio fanatics?

Bi-amped has traditionally meant, and means in most audio circles to this
day, active crossover, two power amps, two-way speaker system.

That a few naive audiophiles have been snookered into buying two amps to a
job that one amp can do as well, is an aberration.


Arny, as this is a UK news group, we normally use UK nomenclature. This side
of the pond, using two amplifiers but retaining the passive crossover is
generally called "bi-amping" whilst using two amplifiers with electronic
crossovers is generally called "active". The former is of no value whilst
the latter provides many benefits.

S.

--
http://audiopages.googlepages.com

"Bob Latham" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Serge Auckland wrote:

Arny, as this is a UK news group, we normally use UK nomenclature. This
side of the pond, using two amplifiers but retaining the passive
crossover is generally called "bi-amping" whilst using two amplifiers
with electronic crossovers is generally called "active".

Sounds about right to me.

The former is of no value whilst the latter provides many benefits.

Such overwhelming confidence presumably means you've tried it.


Bob.

--
Bob Latham
Stourbridge, West Midlands

As I grew up in Broadcast, active 'speakers were quite common. I discovered
active 'speakers for home use in the mid '80s and have not had passive
'speakers since. In my view there are several benefits from active
operation:-

1) Not having a passive crossover means no resistive losses in the
inevitable series resistance of inductors in series with bass units, and
with consequently better damping factor, although it is a moot point as to
how much the slightly improved damping factor matters.

2) Crossover frequencies and slopes can be much more accurately and
repeatedly tailored with electronic crossovers, especially if done in DSP
than is possible with passive lumped components.

3) The power output of an active system is additive, as the bass amplifiers
only amplify bass signals, ditto for the treble. Using two 100 watt
amplifiers driving 8 ohm bass and treble units is equivalent to a single 400
watt amplifier driving the same drive units passively crossovered as the *
peak voltages* are additive.

4) As I don't get pleasure from owning lots of boxes, nor playing mix 'n
match with amps etc, an active system having everything in the one box is
domestically more acceptable, and is cheaper as you're not paying for fancy
boxes for the amps, nor have to find the space for them.


I use Meridian 'speakers in my main system and small Genelecs in my second
system, and nothing I've heard recently would make me change.

S.



--
http://audiopages.googlepages.com