• TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
    Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
    Join free Log in
    Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.

Biamping your rig - Crossover - Yes or No

Crossovers - Good or Bad?

  • Great idea

    Votes: 17 28.3%

  • Waste of money and sound

    Votes: 15 25.0%

  • That depends

    Votes: 28 46.7%
  • Total voters
    60
#61
Brad Johnson said:
I agree that is the case MOST often. Which I suppose would not be ALL. What about the rest of the time... should that be completely ignored?
:D
Click to expand...
Just because somebody uses a term incorrectly doesn't make it ok. All it does is confuse the masses.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BurningSkies, DrMole, Downunderwonder and 1 other person
#66
agedhorse said:
Give it up Brad.
Click to expand...

Looks like you did.
:D

It's funny. Someone engages me out of the blue, after 14 years. Then you decide to engage me and then tell me I should give it up because you either used imprecise language ("MOST") or you won't admit that there are things that fit outside of your overly simplistic definition.

If you really meant most, answering my question shouldn't have been that hard. If you meant ALL, which was the only way to really negate my position, why not say it? My guess... because you know it isn't all. So do I.


Neither of those things are on me. So if anyone should give up, why shouldn't it be you? Rhetorical question.
:D

This is an old game, it's inherently weak yet people keep playing it. Why? Not that I expect an answer to that either.
 
Last edited:
#67
For clarification to those who may be following along as puzzled as I am...

I used the word MOST because in the MI world, especially in the keyboard, large format digital organ and synth world, there is a notable exception where there are signals are generated by the algorithms themselves that are band limited as part of the synthesis of the signal. There is no actual crossover involved because the band limited signals are generated and routed internally in software that way and do not need crossover filters. This would still qualify in my opinion as a biamped system even though there wasn't a crossover present.

MOST is exactly the word I meant to use.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DrMole and oldskoolskatedad
#69
agedhorse said:
For clarification to those who may be following along as puzzled as I am...

I used the word MOST because in the MI world, especially in the keyboard, large format digital organ and synth world, there is a notable exception where there are signals are generated by the algorithms themselves that are band limited as part of the synthesis of the signal. There is no actual crossover involved because the band limited signals are generated and routed internally in software that way and do not need crossover filters. This would still qualify in my opinion as a biamped system even though there wasn't a crossover present.

MOST is exactly the word I meant to use.
Click to expand...

There are also some HiFi manufacturers that used the term passive biamping (this usage is somewhat rare an esoteric in my experience but I don't roam in those circles any more). Basically two amps are run full range. One amp is sent to the HPF and tweeter, and the other amp is sent to the LPF and woofer. I believe some manufacturers called this multi-amping as well, which is what I would call it.
 
#70
Wasnex said:
There are also some HiFi manufacturers that used the term passive biamping (this usage is somewhat rare an esoteric in my experience but I don't roam in those circles any more). Basically two amps are run full range. One amp is sent to the HPF and tweeter, and the other amp is sent to the LPF and woofer. I believe some manufacturers called this multi-amping as well, which is what I would call it.
Click to expand...
That was also called bi-wiring by SOME audiophile circles.
 
#72
Wasnex said:
There are also some HiFi manufacturers that used the term passive biamping (this usage is somewhat rare an esoteric in my experience but I don't roam in those circles any more). Basically two amps are run full range. One amp is sent to the HPF and tweeter, and the other amp is sent to the LPF and woofer. I believe some manufacturers called this multi-amping as well, which is what I would call it.
Click to expand...

And that isn't the MOST common configuration.
 
#73
agedhorse said:
That was also called bi-wiring by SOME audiophile circles.
Click to expand...

Some HiFI speakers were bi-wire/bi-amp compatible. Basically this means the woofer and tweeter sections have separate connections. Links to connect the woofer and tweeter terminals were provided for normal operation.


I believe bi-wiring usually refers to this configuration.

[Invalid or Expired Link Removed]

Bi-amp
upload_2019-6-4_18-45-44.png

The article these images came from covers active and passive bi-amping and claims passive is more common in HiFi circles. Bi-Wiring and Bi-Amping Explained | Audio Advice | Audio Advice

From what I have seen, bi-wire/bi-amp capable HiFi speakers are pretty rare, so this is esoteric stuff. I can't imagine there would be much, if any, benefit from bi-wiring or passive bi-amping, other than bragging rights.
 
Last edited:
#75
Wasnex said:
Some HiFI speakers were bi-wire/bi-amp compatible. Basically this means the woofer and tweeter sections have separate connections. Links to connect the woofer and tweeter terminals were provided for normal operation.


I believe bi-wiring usually refers to this configuration.

[Invalid or Expired Link Removed]

Bi-amp

The article these images came from covers active and passive bi-amping and claims passive is more common in HiFi circles. Bi-Wiring and Bi-Amping Explained | Audio Advice | Audio Advice

From what I have seen, bi-wire/bi-amp capable HiFi speakers are pretty rare, so this is esoteric stuff. I can't imagine there would be much, if any, benefit from bi-wiring or passive bi-amping, other than bragging rights.
Click to expand...

Of course it's rare and esoteric, but knowing the discussion I thought that being ridiculously accurate was more important than the content.

The proposed benefits of bi-wiring, either driven by a common amp channel or driven by 2 amp channels, is to reduce common currents) yes, I used the word current intentionally since it does not reduce the common voltages) between the two bands. In theory this was supposed to be a "slick" way to improve the sound but in actuality it was probably a slicker way to extract money from those who thought that $500 speaker cables are a good idea.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DrMole and Wasnex
#76
agedhorse said:
Of course it's rare and esoteric, but knowing the discussion I thought that being ridiculously accurate was more important than the content.

The proposed benefits of bi-wiring, either driven by a common amp channel or driven by 2 amp channels, is to reduce common currents) yes, I used the word current intentionally since it does not reduce the common voltages) between the two bands. In theory this was supposed to be a "slick" way to improve the sound but in actuality it was probably a slicker way to extract money from those who thought that $500 speaker cables are a good idea.
Click to expand...

Likewise passive biamping is a way to sell another $2000 amp, but produce little tangible benefit.
 
#78
Years ago I read an magazine interview where the bass drum was referred to as a pedal drum. I was young and impressionable and adopted the term as it made perfect sense, at least I thought it did. I used the term with my friends throughout junior high and high school, and we all knew what we were talking about. Over the years, every time I used the term pedal drum with people in the music industry I found it confused them and I had to explain what I meant. Eventually I abandoned the term rather than frustrating people and wasting time.

I have seen this argument on biamping play out a number of times. Usually discussion goes on for awhile because no one realizes that the person is talking about simply using two amps with parallel processing instead of using an active crossover and two amps, which is what most people assume biamping means. Once the disparity becomes apparent, the thread inevitably degrades into the same old argument over semantics. I think this will continue to be the norm.

I believe multi-amping is broader and more encompassing term that is very appropriate and useful. I consider biamping a form of multi-amping, but biamping is more narrowly defined to most people.

Here's another article on multi-amping: Multi-Amp Rigs 101
 
  • Like
Reactions: agedhorse, BurningSkies and oldskoolskatedad

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back