Bi Amping

[Kal Rubinson]

The "science" is simply using multi conductor speaker cable and speakon connectors. I'm actually not sure if there's an industry convention for the channel use. I have a small 3 way PA. I think I did the highs on 1/2, mids on 3/4, and subs on 5/6. Those could be repatched in the rack if I had to improvise through some situation. Knowing me, I probably have it backwards vs common practice!

My bi-amped speakers are all wired up in the studio with separate cables. No "science".

???? Seems reasonable but I do not see this as relevant to the discussion, such as it is.

 

[jimfisheye]

Alright, I have a confession: I don't have an analog surround preamp right now. I set my amps for nominal listening level (around 85db) with the digital output attenuated to -18db. That leaves me with a 21 bit output at nominal listening level. Using an Apogee Rosetta 800 192k for the outputs, the lower level program handling is on point. I'm using a digital attenuation stage but it's just fine.

24 bit digital can be looked at like 16 bits for the program with an 8 bit digital resolution floor. That's 96db of dynamic range 100% for the program sitting on top of a 48 bit "noise floor". You have to go pretty far to start causing fidelity damage here! The above somewhat "winging it" scenario is just fine.

 

[himey]

I only run mono blocks in my stereo gear,which is a huge jump in separation and image sound field , for surround gear I'm ok with multi channel amps

I use multiple stereo amps for surround sound...

 

[himey]

Alright, I have a confession: I don't have an analog surround preamp right now. I set my amps for nominal listening level (around 85db) with the digital output attenuated to -18db. That leaves me with a 21 bit output at nominal listening level. Using an Apogee Rosetta 800 192k for the outputs, the lower level program handling is on point. I'm using a digital attenuation stage but it's just fine.

24 bit digital can be looked at like 16 bits for the program with an 8 bit digital resolution floor. That's 96db of dynamic range 100% for the program sitting on top of a 48 bit "noise floor". You have to go pretty far to start causing fidelity damage here! The above somewhat "winging it" scenario is just fine.

My confession is that I own two multichannel, analog preamps, and one of them I use on my stereo only rig, because it sounds at least equal to my two channel preamps that I have.

5.1 Sony TA-P9000ES.
7.1 NuForce MCP-18

I would love to see a list, however short, of every multichannel preamps ever made.

 

[Jim the Oldbie]

One of the reasons I chose the power amps I have is for their somewhat unusual power supply layout.

Most multichannel power amps (particularly those built into a modern AVR) use a single large power transformer, rectifier bridge and filter capacitors feeding all output circuits. Sometimes this arrangement isn't designed with enough current capacity to drive all the channels to full power simultaneously. Truth be told, this is hardly ever necessary with most program material, but it is an incentive for some to use multiple stereo or even mono power amps as several of you have described above, each with its own power supply section, to eliminate this potential power bottleneck. I did something similar for many years, using several stereo receivers.

The Outlaw Audio 7075 is a 7-channel power amp. It uses a single large toroidal power transformer, but with 7 separate secondary windings - one for each amplifier module. Each module has its own rectifier bridge and filter capacitors. This intermediate design allows full simultaneous output on all channels at rated power (75W/ch @ 8 ohms, 110W/ch @ 4 ohms), without the need for multiple single- or dual-channel amps.

Not sure why this design wasn't more popular - I love these things. Of course now with the audio world being dragged kicking & screaming toward Class D output + switch-mode power supplies, I think design ideas like these are pretty much history anyway.

 

[kap'n krunch]

OK, I rectify..
I hear a VERY BIG difference in quality with the Biamping.
Bass is REALLY tight and HF is way more concise...It sounds as if I have a SUB, which I don't...
Better late than never I say!!!
If you have a receiver that can handle it (my Marantz is Atmos capable but I don't have enough space for it), stop wasting time and do it, you will be surprised!!!

Thanks to wavelength who posted this a few years ago...

 

[Sal1950]

My buddy swears by his two bridged NAD 2400's.

That brings back memories. I ran 2 NAD 2400's bridged to drive my 2 7ft tall HSU subwoofers in my old rig before I retired back up in Chicago. They used some tricky designed power supplies to deliver a ton of instantaneous power on peaks. Don't know much about the design but it did seem able to make those subs "almost" be able to keep up with my Klipsch La Scalas on dynamic material.
https://www.manualslib.com/manual/108945/Nad-2400.html

 

[himey]

That brings back memories. I ran 2 NAD 2400's bridged to drive my 2 7ft tall HSU subwoofers in my old rig before I retired back up in Chicago. They used some tricky designed power supplies to deliver a ton of instantaneous power on peaks. Don't know much about the design but it did seem able to make those subs "almost" be able to keep up with my Klipsch La Scalas on dynamic material.
https://www.manualslib.com/manual/108945/Nad-2400.html

His speakers he is driving are about 5 1/2 foot tall, professionally built, by a long retired gentleman, who owned Speaker World in Pinellas Park, Florida. They are 3 ways with all Vifa drivers, including 2 twelve inch per cabinet woofers.