Biamping your rig - Crossover - Yes or No

[Doug Parent]

I find it interesting when people say or think thier 4-10 cabs don't go as low as thier single 15 cabs. Most 4-10 cabs I ever used went lower than the single 15's. Most 1-15 cabs had better mids than the scooped 10" speaker array. etc etc.

 

[Brad Johnson]

Well, if you don't use a crossover, then you have to use some kind of filter for bi-amping.

No you don't.



I understand why people want to think this but in fact you don't.

There must be something in the signal chain that allows for the frequencies to be seperated. As you pointed out, you can use a dual channel EQ and cut all the lows out of one side and all the highs out of the other, but either way, you have to use something to separate. Otherwise you are just running full range to both cabs, regardless if they have their own dedicated amp.

No you don't. The signal could be separated at the cab. Two cabs could be controlled separately. Etc.

"Bi" means "two". "Two" "Amps". That can "just" be running two cabs full range.

Here's an example since this seems to not be sinking in with some folks here. For this example let's say you have two cabs... a Bag End S15D amd a older Carvin 210 w/horn. If you ran them on ONE channel of amplification you'd have no way to address any difference in efficiencies.

OTOH with two channels of amplification you could run the Bag End as hot as you wanted, knowing a low pass might not be necessary since the Bag End has no horn. You could bring the gain up on the Carvin to flesh out the frequency range the BE didn't reproduce. And that setup would be what?



No crossover involved, independently controlled mono signal driven by two amps.

This is basic.

 

[Brad Johnson]

I find it interesting when people say or think thier 4-10 cabs don't go as low as thier single 15 cabs. Most 4-10 cabs I ever used went lower than the single 15's. Most 1-15 cabs had better mids than the scooped 10" speaker array. etc etc.

That's because people are thinking "10s" instead of "actual cabinet, in operation"

 

[Brad Johnson]

Invalid Link Removed

This is a biamp rig*. There is no crossover. Both combos are run with tone controls flat.

Understanding the BASICS of a concept are key. That's true of most advanced conceptualizations. Basics first.



So why is this not a biamp?





*Polytone MiniBrute 3 and Crate G-20. Sorry... I didn't really want to show off

 

[JTGale]

I must admit, I jumped on the bi-amp/tri-amp bandwagon a few years back (12 or 13, to be precise). I ran a 2-15 for the lows and a 2-10 with an attentuator (sp?) to a tweeter for my mids/highs. The biggest problem: I just never seemed to be getting enough juice to either cab. At the time, I was gigging all over the upper Midwest and every room was different, every place seemed hard to dial in. Maybe it was just a time-crunch; maybe it was just my inexperience; maybe it was the fact my rig was underpowered. I don't really know. But it never seemed to work for me. OTOH, I really like my full-range 4-10 with a tweeter. It gets low; it gets high; it gets everything in between. No hassles. No extra gear. Just playin -- and that is what it is all about for me these days. Just playin ...

 

[nashvillebill]

.....

"Bi" means "two". "Two" "Amps". That can "just" be running two cabs full range..........
No crossover involved, independently controlled mono signal driven by two amps....

I understand your logic. Yet, I think the definition of "bi-amping" has evolved (or been corrupted?) to inherently include the use of a crossover before the amps so that the two amps amplify different frequencies. I've heard it commonly used that way for well over 20 years. So, by definition, bi-amping has come to include the use of a crossover, even though in the most literal sense you are indeed correct, the phrase as written merely means two amps.

Now, back to the topic, I've tried it (the crossover kind ) and still have several setups I could use with bi-amping...It's kinda fun to set up a wall of speakers. I could drive TWO 2x15's for lows and a 4x12 for the highs, with 1800 watts or more.

But now I've devolved and gone to a kinder simpler approach. One bass, one combo amp at the gig...less stuff to tote around. Easier on my back, quicker to unload/setup/teardown/load. Although the biamped setup certainly has more sonic impact, and a better sound if adjusted properly, the simple combo approach is more practical for my elderly lifestyle.

 

[Passinwind]

This is a biamp rig*. There is no crossover. Both combos are run with tone controls flat.

Understanding the BASICS of a concept are key. That's true of most advanced conceptualizations. Basics first.

So why is this not a biamp?

Because it won't pass the definition of any working audio professional, perhaps? I'd get fired instantly if I provided a rig in that configuration and tried to pass it off as biamplified. Two amps are not what it's all about, in terms of the accepted definition in the audio community. You often see dozens of amps in biamplified systems, actually. The "bi" part means two separate frequency bands; that's the BASICS.

The word biamplification is not in any dictionary that I could find. It's well defined on zillions of websites though. Like here:[Invalid or Expired Link Removed]

quote in full: Term used to refer to a 2-way active crossover where the audio signal is split into two paths, and using separate power amplifier channels for each driver.

AFAIK, the term was invented in the audio community to begin with. We've beaten this horse bloody enough though, no?

 

[Brad Johnson]

This is a biamp rig*. There is no crossover. Both combos are run with tone controls flat.

Understanding the BASICS of a concept are key. That's true of most advanced conceptualizations. Basics first.

So why is this not a biamp?

Because it won't pass the definition of any working audio professional, perhaps? I'd get fired instantly if I provided a rig in that configuration and tried to pass it off as biamplified.

Whether or not you'd get fired has nothing to do with the topic of biamps in general. Biamps are not the domain of working audio professionals. That's BASIC.

You could just as easily get fired for showing up at a Fortune 500 office dressed in these:

Link Removed


Doesn't mean they aren't "pants".


Again... why is the rig I pictured not a biamp rig? What part of the word "biamp" refers to "quality"?

Two amps are not what it's all about, in terms of the accepted definition in the audio community. You often see dozens of amps in biamplified systems, actually. The "bi" part means two separate frequency bands; that's the BASICS.

Bi-amp means two separate frequency bands? That would mean no overlap, wouldn't it? Obviously that's not always true.

The word biamplification is not in any dictionary that I could find. It's well defined on zillions of websites though. Like here:[Invalid or Expired Link Removed]

quote in full: Term used to refer to a 2-way active crossover where the audio signal is split into two paths, and using separate power amplifier channels for each driver.

"Biamp" IS a crossover???




Show me where it says "no exceptions".

Since you want to hang your hat on Rane's definition, I guess that rules out PASSIVE crossovers? And anything else?

AFAIK, the term was invented in the audio community to begin with. We've beaten this horse bloody enough though, no?

Indeed. You seemed to be confused with what a biamp "is" vs. what it can be. It most definitely CAN have an active crossover in it's signal path. OTOH it doesn't HAVE TO. That's the simple point people seem to be fighting me over.

Too basic?

 

[Brad Johnson]

I understand your logic. Yet, I think the definition of "bi-amping" has evolved (or been corrupted?) to inherently include the use of a crossover before the amps so that the two amps amplify different frequencies. I've heard it commonly used that way for well over 20 years. So, by definition, bi-amping has come to include the use of a crossover, even though in the most literal sense you are indeed correct, the phrase as written merely means two amps.

You're right... and some people refuse to believe it could be anything outside of that definition. For some reason they're bent on ruling out anything that doesn't fit their narrowed definition.

Now, back to the topic, I've tried it (the crossover kind ) and still have several setups I could use with bi-amping...It's kinda fun to set up a wall of speakers. I could drive TWO 2x15's for lows and a 4x12 for the highs, with 1800 watts or more.

But now I've devolved and gone to a kinder simpler approach. One bass, one combo amp at the gig...less stuff to tote around. Easier on my back, quicker to unload/setup/teardown/load. Although the biamped setup certainly has more sonic impact, and a better sound if adjusted properly, the simple combo approach is more practical for my elderly lifestyle.

I've gone that route myself in the past. I was biamping in the late 70's. Triamping in the early 80's. Maybe it's because I was around before the proliferation of gear that I don't have this problem with what it must be. Guess we could have some fun next with what's "required" to do multitrack recordings

 

[bgavin]

How about skipping the semantics and lawyer-ethics, and getting back to the discussion at hand?

 

[Brad Johnson]

Good suggestion... why don't you skip it? No one's forcing you to read any of it.

 

[bgavin]

Done.

 

[Passinwind]

Good suggestion... why don't you skip it? No one's forcing you to read any of it.

Brad, I believe you're missing something very basic here. The topic is not "biamps", as in "biamplifiers"; it's biamplification, which is commonly shortened to biamp.

You are most definitely playing at semantics here, with all due respect. All that does is make heat, not light, and I'm done.

I'd simply encourage any remaining readers of the thread to do a web search on "biamplification", and draw your own conclusions.

 

[Brad Johnson]

This must be true... you couldn't possibly be missing anything.



"Biamplifiers"? Sheesh... and you want to talk semantics?

 

[Brad Johnson]

I've been addressing this thread the entire time. The choices are:


"Great idea", "Waste of money and sound" or "That depends" on the issue of crossovers. Some of you think biamplification can't be accomplished WITHOUT an active crossover so apparently the only possible answer is "Great idea".

OTOH knowing all of the unknowns in this question, how could it be anything other than "That depends"? It depends on what exactly you're using to reach the sonic goal you're after. I'm pointing out a lot of those unknowns.

You'd think I was the one making sweeping generalizations or something


Carry on.

 

[Chad Michael]

"Bi-amping is a technique which uses one amplifier for the low frequencies, and another for mid and high frequencies. The choice of crossover frequency is not too critical, provided that the amplifier powers are properly balanced to achieve the maximum benefit, and the drivers used are operating well within their frequency and power limits."

Link Removed

Link Removed

"To biamp or not to biamp, THAT is the question..."

 

[Sundogue]

Brad,

Why would anyone bother bi-amping if both cabs were to run full range? Bi-amping, by your definition is not only redundant, but a total waste of time and money.

IMO, (and I know Brad feels differently than this ), unless you wanted to split frequencies (instead of splitting hairs ) and send lows to one cabinet and mids/highs to another, you don't need to bi-amp. If you do, then you should use a crossover, EQ, or some kind of frequency filter. Without one, you are just running full range into two different cabs, with two different amps.

You are right Brad, you don't need a crossover. Bi-amp full range. I seriously doubt anybody would want to do that however.

 

[Brad Johnson]

Brad,

Why would anyone bother bi-amping if both cabs were to run full range? Bi-amping, by your definition is not only redundant, but a total waste of time and money.

IMO, (and I know Brad feels differently than this ), unless you wanted to split frequencies (instead of splitting hairs ) and send lows to one cabinet and mids/highs to another, you don't need to bi-amp. If you do, then you should use a crossover, EQ, or some kind of frequency filter. Without one, you are just running full range into two different cabs, with two different amps.

You are right Brad, you don't need a crossover. Bi-amp full range. I seriously doubt anybody would want to do that however.

I already gave an example of when one might want to do it. While you call it splitting hairs, I call it a real life example. Something I've done before.

The fact of the matter is, you don't ALWAYS have to SPLIT frequencies... sometimes ATTENUATING them is enough.

Are you unable or just unwilling to understand that?

It's perfectly okay to run one cab full range in a biamp rig, especially if you like what that cab does FULL RANGE. That means YOU ARE NOT SPLITTING FREQUENCIES BETWEEN THE TWO CABS. THERE IS NO SPLIT ON THE FULL RANGE CAB.

Someone tell me how you can independently control the signal to two drivers (or sets of drivers) with one amp... without using a passive crossover or two channels of amplification?

How would you run an envelope filter on a 210 cab while running a 2-15 clean (to maintain your lows unfettered)... WITHOUT BIAMPING? Then tell me where the frequency split is and better yet where the frickin' active crossover was needed? Then tell me why that isn't a biamp?

By the logic displayed here, to run the effects setup I just mentioned you'd probably say just run stereo. The problem is, if the EQ is tweaked in the slightest, SEPARATELY, FOR EITHER CHANNEL, then it becomes a biamp.

Is any of this sinking in? I doubt it. You guys are so busy complaining about semantics and hairs being split you're ignoring what's right in your face.

Next.

 

[Brad Johnson]

"Bi-amping is a technique which uses one amplifier for the low frequencies, and another for mid and high frequencies. The choice of crossover frequency is not too critical, provided that the amplifier powers are properly balanced to achieve the maximum benefit, and the drivers used are operating well within their frequency and power limits."

Link Removed

Link Removed

"To biamp or not to biamp, THAT is the question..."

Actually the question was crossovers: good or bad?



This schematic is for a basic biamp, which seems to be where several people's experiences are stuck.

 

[DrMole]

Whether or not you'd get fired has nothing to do with the topic of biamps in general. Biamps are not the domain of working audio professionals. That's BASIC.

You could just as easily get fired for showing up at a Fortune 500 office dressed in these:

Link Removed


Doesn't mean they aren't "pants".


Again... why is the rig I pictured not a biamp rig? What part of the word "biamp" refers to "quality"?



Bi-amp means two separate frequency bands? That would mean no overlap, wouldn't it? Obviously that's not always true.



"Biamp" IS a crossover???




Show me where it says "no exceptions".

Since you want to hang your hat on Rane's definition, I guess that rules out PASSIVE crossovers? And anything else?





Indeed. You seemed to be confused with what a biamp "is" vs. what it can be. It most definitely CAN have an active crossover in it's signal path. OTOH it doesn't HAVE TO. That's the simple point people seem to be fighting me over.

Too basic?

14 years later.
You are being pedantic.
The accepted definition of biamplified is as described by Passingwind.
Different amplifier channel for different frequency range. If that is acheived via crossovers, filters or voodoo- the definition remains relatively ubiquitous, nevertheless.