Any good reason to biamp?

[disp]

Save for a few holdouts we’ve all been thoroughly educated on the irrelevance of speaker size with regard to tone.

So then, is there any advantage to biamping?

I currently have an old Hartke HA7000. These heads have two power amps pushing 240 watts @ 8 ohms each. Each channel is controlled by an adjustable crossover and balance pot.

I currently set the crossover at 80 Hz and send the low side to a 1x15 and the high side to a vertical 2x10. I keep the balance at 50/50 and EQ to taste.

The way I understand things, I don’t think I’m doing anything wrong necessarily (my off-axis response isn’t negatively effected, right?) but am I gaining anything, be it efficiency (volume) or anything of that nature? The conventional wisdom used to state that your allowing each cabinet to do what it’s best at. Perhaps that’s true of certain cabinets but on paper at least mine are fairly equal.

On this head biamping is switchable. As for my own personal observations with this setup, biamping produces higher apparent volume with more of a mid-scooped sound, while running the head in mono (full signal to each channel) yields a tone a bit closer to my taste with markedly less high end content. Who knows what’s actually going on inside the head when you switch back and forth so I can’t say all else being equal, but those are the end results. Either approach is easily EQ’d to where they need to be.

I ask because I’m considering changing things up and need some good advice before I abondon this setup.

[Floyd Eye]

I have a Carvin 1000 watt Redline with 1X18 and 4X10 cabs. I bi-amp because I think it sounds better. Also the cabs are different wattages and impedances ( why Carvin did this I have no idea) and running full range distorts at a lower volume then bi-amping.


Also it's a quick turn of a knob to knock the mids and highs down a bit in the middle of a set for certain songs.

[Sundogue]

The only advantage to bi-amping is controlling individual output to two distinctly different cabs...i.e. - the lows go only to a cab designed to handle ONLY lows and the mids and highs go to a cab designed for that purpose ONLY.

Using two full range cabs makes bi-amping pretty much pointless. And more so using two full range cabs where the 210 might even handle the lows better than the 115. EDIT: +1 to KJung's point below where you are actually losing low end by only sending it to one cab. Keep in mind that most full range bass cabs are not designed to be subwoofers so crossing over at 80Hz is effectively robbing your system of low end.

[KJung]

No reason to biamp two full range cabinets. Does more harm than good regarding getting full power from your amp, and also forcing one full range cab to handle all the low end when you could be using both.

The only reason to biamp is if you have speakers 'optimized' to produce certain frequencies, like the big 15" subwoofer and the small 6" mid driver in the fEarful type cab builds.

I guess there could be some advantages if you are running a stereo rig also to minimize interference, etc., but that would be a highly specialized reason that few would need or use.

Otherwise, run full range and be happy.

[BigOldHarry]

As it is no 1988, I'd say NO.

Biamping was a fad that sure seemed like a good idea (I did it for a while, too). Like so many ideas, it came and went. If you have a biamped rig and love it, then great... But for most folks it's more work that it's worth.

[N.F.A.]

Some effects are muddy on the low end. I like biamping and using certain effects above the crossover to sound better. Chorus is one example, IMO... Clean low end, chorused top end... YMMV...

[Sundogue]

Originally Posted by BigOldHarry

As it is no 1988, I'd say NO.

Biamping was a fad that sure seemed like a good idea (I did it for a while, too). Like so many ideas, it came and went. If you have a biamped rig and love it, then great... But for most folks it's more work that it's worth.

It's not a fad, and it is quite prevalent still today. Any two way cab has an internal crossover so the components aren't required in the amp or an external crossover.

I bi-amp and prefer it, but I use a two way system (all in one cab) without an internal crossover.

[Rockmusician]

I have a GK rig that I run biamped through a 1x15 and a 4x10. I like the clarity and range it gives me.

[craig.p]

I've run both ways, and although it may seem counter-intuitive, biamping can actually subtract character from your sound -- character that you didn't even know you had until it went missing due to biamping. High fidelity is not necessarily your friend when it comes to attaining the best sound for YOU. I think style and material should play a large part in deciding whether to biamp. I'm not against biamping, but, like everything else, it needs to be applied properly.

[Phalex]

If you have PA support for FOH, it's overkill. Bi-amping A 1x18 topped with a 4x10 can give you a MONSTER sound. But if you only use your amp for stage monitor purposes as I do, who the heck wants to lug a 100lb 1x18 cab?

[Plstrns]

Only biamp with a real PA sub under 100hz + a FR cab, or a purpose built biamp speaker cab/ cabs at a midrange frequency. Biamping full range cabs is a waste of time, you lose output, sometimes tone, and gain nothing.

If you like the sound, and have no PA support knock yourself out. But with a PA, you're only hurting yourself with a rig that only you can hear and a house that has to mix around it.

[billfitzmaurice]

Originally Posted by disp

Save for a few holdouts we’ve all been thoroughly educated on the irrelevance of speaker size with regard to tone.

So then, is there any advantage to biamping?

Only if you have speakers specifically designed to do so. AFAIK no major manufacturer currently sells any.

I currently set the crossover at 80 Hz and send the low side to a 1x15 and the high side to a vertical 2x10. I keep the balance at 50/50 and EQ to taste.

Since your cabs have frequency response that isn't significantly different you're probably not getting any major benefit from doing so. Running them parallel may sound just as good, if not better.

[Jerrold Tiers]

Biamping always sounds like a good idea, but it never quite seems to work out like that.

In your case, with identical cabs, its probably actually bad, especially with low power (240W is low any more). All it will do is limit the volume in each range.

Even with suitable cabs, only GK did it right, an amp with a lower power channel for highs. Otherwise its a real problem to get set up with ranges that use the available power effectively.

I did a biampable PA cab once, the AC CE-34. But, I never found any electronic crossover of reasonable cost that would make it sound as good as the internal crossover, which was optimized to match the speakers. it needed a processor. Hitting it with about 1000 watts full range worked best.

I wouldn't fool with it. A lot of power, (like bridged) full range is often the best, its all available for any note, no balancing, no fuss.

In your case, a cab per channel, full range, is probably going to give you the most volume and even tone.

[smoov]

I currently biamp. I use a cab with 1-18" and 1-10". I have over the 35+ years of playing tried many different biamp set ups....heres what I found. Most (cheap)electronic crossovers have a 12dB per octive slope..doesnt work very well with a bass rig. ..so if you want a more balanced sound I found that the steeper the slope the better....crowns Xti amps have a 48dB slope.....you can only get that in a very expensive seperate rack units. It makes the transistion from low to high seemless....at 12dB..the speakers slope off into each other which is where things get funky.. Alright, no flames needed...just my observation over the years trying MANY set ups.

[jmac]

I have the capability to biamp. I'm running an alembic F-1X preamp; which has a crossover built in.

The cabinets that I'm running are Bergantino HT112ER and EX112ER. Since the EX112 does not have a tweeter would it make an acceptable cabinet for the low end in a biamp setup?

[KJung]

Originally Posted by jmac

I have the capability to biamp. I'm running an alembic F-1X preamp; which has a crossover built in.

The cabinets that I'm running are Bergantino HT112ER and EX112ER. Since the EX112 does not have a tweeter would it make an acceptable cabinet for the low end in a biamp setup?

No, those cabs are both full range. Read the above posts... we are all saying the same thing. The issue with one having a tweeter and one not having a tweeter is already taken care of with the crossover in the HT122ER.

[JTE]

Again, it only makes any sense to bi-amp if you have cabinets specifically geared towards that. A typical bass cabinet, no matter the driver size, is pretty much a full-range cabinet, with all the attendant compromises that entails. A 1x15/2x10 stack is still a pair of cabinets where the 15 isn't designed for only lows and the 10's aren't designed only for highs. IFF (the logical "if and only if) the 15 cabinet (not just the driver, because we have to look at the whole system) is designed to be optimized for all the way down to 40 or 35 or whatever Hz and is strictly a low-end design, then the designer isn't worried about the cabinet's mids or highs. And if you have a 2x10 thats specifically designed to be optimized for everything above say 250 Hz, then the designer specifically made it to do those frequencies well and to not be concerned with anything below 250, then bi-amping would make a lot of sense.

But in the real world, that 1x15 cabinet is designed to be able to do a good job across the whole spectrum. Not a great job, but a good job. So, it's not as smooth, or as efficient, nor as reliable below 100 Hz so that it can sound OK going all the way up to 12K or higher. And that 2x10 is made to be able to get down to 45 Hz or so without breaking up too much, so it sacrifices some of it's ability at the other end. That's why bi-amping full-range boxes is kind of a waste of power. That Hartke head is rated at I believe 350 WRMS/side @ 4Ω, and 240 or so @ 8Ω. Bi-amping has removed how much low end you're getting out of the rig in total, because your 10's which can handle it aren't getting any. And that mid-scoop you're hearing is due to the bi-amping and the curve of the cross-over. If it were mine, I'd run it full range into both cabinets.

I had a pair of the original Guild/Hartke 4x10 and a bi-amp rig back in the days when I still had some hair. It sounded pretty cool of course, but then I switched the pre-amp from bi-amp to full range, and it didn't sound any worse. In fact it sounded much better because it had solid mids. And it was less weight to haul around because I didn't need a stereo power amp.

John

[disp]

And my ears confirm that John. The system does sound discernably better full range - less frequency holes and peaks as you stated.

[tttttt]

Is it still 'biamping' if you run two full frequency cabinets each with its own amp? I'm a reformed guitard and still use the same pedalboard with bass (albeit with a couple bass-specific effects). The end of my effects chain has some stereo effects. I set the two amps up with the same volume & tone settings. Most of the time I leave the stereo effects off, effectively running mono thru the 2 cabs. But I have the sound man mic each cab and pan one signal hard left and the other hard right. When I punch in one (or more) of the stereo effects, I get a bigger sound via the PA.

[JTE]

No, "bi-amp" means that the frequencies are split before the power amp, and a different amp (or side of an amp) handles different frequencies. The advantages IF you use dedicated cabinets, are that you can design a cabinet to excel at specific frequencies and not send the frequencies it doesn't do well to it. It also allows you to not worry about clipping from extensive low end causing distortion in your highs.

Merely running stereo is not at all like bi-amping.

John