Is 5.1 Really the Correct Format for Surround Music?

[Kal Rubinson]

Any system with a powered sub is a biamped system. They remain extremely popular.

In any literature I've read about bi-amping, the sub has nothing to do with it.

Semantics. It depends on your chosen definitions.

 

[wavelength]

Semantics. It depends on your chosen definitions.

I hate arguing about semantics but bi-amping is a well-defined process and again, it has nothing to do with the sub.

 

[Robert van Diggele]

I hate arguing about semantics but bi-amping is a well-defined process and again, it has nothing to do with the sub.

Same here. i always thouhgt bi-amping was using two amps to send the high and low signals, results from an active crossover, to their respective terminals on the speaker. And not that biamping is redirecting low signals to a subwoofer.

 

[himey]

Any system with a powered sub is a biamped system. They remain extremely popular.

Right, subwoofers are popular. Biamping, not so much. Read up on the differences.

 

[LuvMyQuad]

I hate arguing about semantics but bi-amping is a well-defined process and again, it has nothing to do with the sub.

That's true. A sub is not a necessary requirement in a bi-amped system. But I can certainly see where a sub equipped system would be considered a form of bi-amping.

Back in the day the idea was that an electronic crossover could be made to sound a lot better than the passive crossovers found in full range loudspeakers, that, and the idea of using separate amps for the two or even three frequency bands (there were also tri-amped systems). In contrast to some of the opinions here, it was not desirable to match the power amps, but rather use lower powered, inefficient, tube or class A amps for the highs and high power, more efficient, solid state amps for the low end, strictly because of the sound characteristics they were thought to possess. The crossover point was typically much higher than what is used on todays sub equipped systems. My Magneplanars were crossed over at 1000Hz I think. Which was the purist argument for rejecting a bi-amped system.

Still when you think about it, using a sub is a type of bi-amp methodology.

 

[himey]

Same here. i always thouhgt bi-amping was using two amps to send the high and low signals, results from an active crossover, to their respective terminals on the speaker. And not that biamping is redirecting low signals to a subwoofer.

Doesn't have to be an active crossover, but many will argue, to get the true benefits, an active crossover is the way to go.

 

[LuvMyQuad]

Right, subwoofers are popular. Biamping, not so much. Read up on the differences.

Bi-amping, and tri-amping is very popular with multi-driver powered monitors.

 

[fredblue]

I hate arguing about semantics but bi-amping is a well-defined process and again, it has nothing to do with the sub.

Oh! :yikes You're all so anti-semantic today! :ugham:
(wocka wocka.. )

 

[himey]

That's true. A sub is not a necessary requirement in a bi-amped system. But I can certainly see where a sub equipped system would be considered a form of bi-amping.

Back in the day the idea was that an electronic crossover could be made to sound a lot better than the passive crossovers found in full range loudspeakers, that, and the idea of using separate amps for the two or even three frequency bands (there were also tri-amped systems). In contrast to some of the opinions here, it was not desirable to match the power amps, but rather use lower powered, inefficient, tube or class A amps for the highs and high power, more efficient, solid state amps the low end, strictly because of the sound characteristics they were thought to possess. The crossover point was typically much higher than what is used on todays sub equipped systems. My Magneplanars were crossed over at 1000Hz I think. Which was the purist argument for rejecting a bi-amped system.

Still when you think about it, using a sub is a type of bi-amp methodology.

Semantics, as Kal mentioned. Most people who care, wouldn't call their system biamped only because they use a subwoofer. Biamping term has grown into something else. Using the term for a simple satellite/sub system implies that someone doesn't actually know what biamping means.

 

[himey]

Bi-amping, and tri-amping is very popular multi-driver powered monitors.

Not as popular and mainstream as subs. Even soundbars have subs. Very popular? Your definition is different than mine. Popular in the studio, yes.

 

[kap'n krunch]

Oy vey, baby!!!

Give me EVERYTHING you got!!!
Biamping, Triamping, Extra Subs,,,,,
YES!!!

 

[LuvMyQuad]

Not as popular and mainstream as subs. Even soundbars have subs. Very popular? Your definition is different than mine. Popular in the studio, yes.

Be sure you understand what I'm saying. I'm talking about powered monitors. Speakers with built in power amps. You connect them to a line level output. No separate power amp required. More often than not, the better ones are bi-amped internally using amplifiers that are optimized for the drivers.

 

[ssully]

Same here. i always thouhgt bi-amping was using two amps to send the high and low signals, results from an active crossover, to their respective terminals on the speaker. And not that biamping is redirecting low signals to a subwoofer.

This is hilarious.

As Kal says: semantics. Two amps, used for different frequency ranges. 'Redirection' of high and low frequencies to different drivers, via crossover.

Seriously, people. Think about it.

 

[ssully]

That's true. A sub is not a necessary requirement in a bi-amped system.

No one said it was.

But I can certainly see where a sub equipped system would be considered a form of bi-amping.

According to Kal, it's semantics. According to himey, you don't know what you're talking about.

Still when you think about it, using a sub is a type of bi-amp methodology.

You don't say?

 

[ssully]

Semantics, as Kal mentioned. Most people who care, wouldn't call their system biamped only because they use a subwoofer. Biamping term has grown into something else. Using the term for a simple satellite/sub system implies that someone doesn't actually know what biamping means.

If by 'most people who care' you mean audiophiles, their foolishness is well-documented, including their tendency to arbitrarily redefine technical terms (like 'resolution') and make up meaningless new ones (like 'PRaT', though there's a homonym for that one that fits audiophiles nicely).

 

[~dave~~wave~]

This analogy occurs to me regarding the entirely arbitrary personal preference for a center channel:

Quad equates to Campfire mode (musicians and listeners in the same circle)
vs.
5.1 Theater mode (musicians on a proscenium stage facing the listener)

Besides technical or logistical reasons, there may be cultural forces at play.

As has been pointed out, watching a screen while listening steers toward 5.1.
Quad at its best allows a listener to dance or sit anywhere in the room and have a rewarding audio experience if viewing isn't in the equation.

* * *

Regarding the "sweet spot", I recall in 1970 sitting in a stereo "egg chair."
If the sweet spot is so tiny and fragile, the only way to enjoy surround in company is each in his own egg chair.

When [insert your favorite band] mix in surround, do the musicians and the engineers have to take turns in the one chair that's in the
sweet spot?

 

[seilerbird]

Semantics, as Kal mentioned. Most people who care, wouldn't call their system biamped only because they use a subwoofer. Biamping term has grown into something else. Using the term for a simple satellite/sub system implies that someone doesn't actually know what biamping means.

Biamping in not brain surgery. Two amps and two different speakers. It doesn't make much sense unless one of the speakers is bass and one is treble.

 

[par4ken]

This forum is getting away off topic however I'll put my two cents worth in. I've biamped my main system since the late seventies. One set of amps for bass one set for mid/high. The only problem with this approach is the number of power amplifiers required, the cabling alone is a nightmare. But If you want very clean sound it's the only way to go. If you look at a scope display of a typical music waveform and you see a high level low frequency waveform with a bit of high frequency information riding on top of it. If you crank it up as the kids like to do, it clips badly, a squared off waveform contains high frequency distortion products that can damage you tweeters (and your ears!). Filtering out the bass reduces the chance of clipping even at high sound levels. Even if the bass amp is allowed to clip the distortion will be less objectionable as the woofer doesn't reproduce it. Use a high powered solid state amp for lots of heavy base. A tube amp is ideal to get the best out of the Mid/High frequency range. I don't believe that there would be that much to be gained by triamping.
I don't bother with a sub-woofer as I get all the bass I need from the four main speakers.

Back on topic, for music I've never seen the need for a centre speaker. 5.1 was created for movies, it can be used for music however but most systems contain tiny surround speakers not suitable for aggressive surround mixes. Front speakers are usually recommended to be rather close together, good for movies, not as good for music. I down-mix everything to Quad on my main system. In future I might experiment with the centre channel, however the speaker and amps should all be matched! Now just imagine the complexity of a triamped 7.1 system!

 

[GOS]

I'm lucky enough to have a 5.1 system with all speakers matching....and they are large. OK, the sub is a different brand, but that's doesn't matter.

 

[himey]

This forum is getting away off topic however I'll put my two cents worth in. I've biamped my main system since the late seventies. One set of amps for bass one set for mid/high. The only problem with this approach is the number of power amplifiers required, the cabling alone is a nightmare. But If you want very clean sound it's the only way to go. If you look at a scope display of a typical music waveform and you see a high level low frequency waveform with a bit of high frequency information riding on top of it. If you crank it up as the kids like to do, it clips badly, a squared off waveform contains high frequency distortion products that can damage you tweeters (and your ears!). Filtering out the bass reduces the chance of clipping even at high sound levels. Even if the bass amp is allowed to clip the distortion will be less objectionable as the woofer doesn't reproduce it. Use a high powered solid state amp for lots of heavy base. A tube amp is ideal to get the best out of the Mid/High frequency range. I don't believe that there would be that much to be gained by triamping.
I don't bother with a sub-woofer as I get all the bass I need from the four main speakers.

Back on topic, for music I've never seen the need for a centre speaker. 5.1 was created for movies, it can be used for music however but most systems contain tiny surround speakers not suitable for aggressive surround mixes. Front speakers are usually recommended to be rather close together, good for movies, not as good for music. I down-mix everything to Quad on my main system. In future I might experiment with the centre channel, however the speaker and amps should all be matched! Now just imagine the complexity of a triamped 7.1 system!

Thanks for your post but to think a biamped speaker is the ONLY way to get "very clean sound" and that is the only way to keep from damaging your tweeters and ears is false.