PDA

View Full Version : Can you Bi amp the 340's ?



Dan DRC
02-10-2005, 07:42 AM
I noticed in the features list of the 340, you could "bi wire"
I have done this before on other speakers and understand what "bi wire" means. But could you "bi amp" these speakers. Was looking a a good deal on a couple of Parasound 855 amps and I just started thinking that these would be a couple of good lower power ( 80 w/ch ) amps to bi amp a home theater set up. I also understand that bi amping for rear surround would be over kill and the advantages if any would be limited to the front and center speakers. Just a thought. Thanks

bikeman
02-10-2005, 09:12 AM
You can bi-amp the 340's but proper bi-amping is a complicated affair. Have you explored all the issues involved?

David

jimsiff
02-10-2005, 09:31 AM
Excuse my ignorance, but what's complicated about bi-amping? I thought that if the speakers had two sets of binding posts that were setup for bi-wire/bi-amp, and you had a receiver/amp capable of bi-amping, you were set. Is it not that simple?

Mag_Neato
02-10-2005, 09:35 AM
My dad bi-amps his Maggies, and it is a bit more complicated than bi-wiring.

He has an external crossover, using an Audio Research tube amp for the mids on up, and a solid state amp from ex-mfr. Leach, for the bass. Sounds incredible. He controls everything through an Audio Research tube pre.

For HT duty, he has an Adcom Pro-logic add-on processor w/3 100w amps he runs through a monitor loop. No DD/dts.

Quinn
02-10-2005, 09:36 AM
If you're doing it from one componet it is easy. It is when you use two different amps/receivers it gets tricky.

Dan DRC
02-10-2005, 10:07 AM
As far as complications, I assumed that if you could bi amp then all you would have to do is use Y- adapters on the preouts of the preamp and then run interconnects to the inputs of the amp and then run speaker cable to each terminal on the speaker after you removed the jumper bars on the speakers. Am I thinking clearly ?

bikeman
02-10-2005, 04:29 PM
"Am I thinking clearly ?"

It's not a matter of thinking clearly. It's a matter of understanding bi-amping and how it can provide benefit. It appears Mag Neato's dad understands how to properly utilize bi-amping. One thing I would do before I bi-amped anyone's speakers is to talk to the company and get their imput.
If you would like to read about bi-amping, do a search on any of the major audio sites. This topic has been talked to death a number of times.

David

Dan DRC
02-11-2005, 06:56 AM
Thank You all mighty Bikeman, maybe you can can come down from the mountain top someday and school everyone on biamping from your vast understanding of the subject.
I have biamped speakers before in a couple of home and car audio applications with different results for each set up. Sometimes I have switched back to single amp set up sometimes I have not. I dont need to be talked down to by a forum jerk. You are right about one thing though I will just call Ascend and talk to them. I guess I should have done that in the first place. Thanks for the input from eveyone else though.

BradJudy
02-11-2005, 07:49 AM
I don't do bi-amping myself, so I can't talk from experience, but I think what people are alluding to is the argument that bi-amping is only productive if you place the crossover before the amps which can't be done with most speakers. Placing the crossover before the amps means that each amp is only amplifying the appropriate frequencies. The inability to bypass the internal crossover is why most companies only say their speakers are appropriate for bi-wiring, not bi-amping.

In the extreme situation (NOT the situation with Ascend or any reputable products I know of), someone dissected some 'white van' speaker with dual binding posts only to find that the binding posts were connected on the inside. If someone had tried to bi-amp these speakers, they would have likely damaged their amps.

bikeman
02-11-2005, 08:10 AM
"Thank You all mighty Bikeman, maybe you can can come down from the mountain top someday and school everyone on biamping from your vast understanding of the subject. "

I'm sorry you took it this way. You gave no imput as to your knowledge of the subject so I tried to steer you in the right direction by advocating reading. I do that a lot being in the reading business. I don't believe recommending reading when a simple question is asked is talking down to someone. YMMV.

David

jamesg
02-11-2005, 12:12 PM
Let's all take a deep breath here folks. This is audio, after all, not politics. :)

I hereby request this conversation remain civil from here on out.

davef
02-11-2005, 07:24 PM
There seems to be some confusion regarding bi-amping so I thought I will present an accurate explanation…

I have noticed that bi-amping seems to have two definitions lately, both similar, but with very dramatic differences as to how to achieve it and what benefits (if any)

From an engineering perspective, we define bi-amping as using different amplifiers (usually 2) each dedicated to reproducing a different frequency range. In reality, when you are using an AVR with the speakers set to small, and a powered subwoofer you are already bi-amping. The amplifier in your receiver is dedicated to a frequency range of, for example, 80 Hz to 20 kHz, while the amp in your sub is dedicated to 80Hz and below. This is achieved by using active high and low pass filters. Active meaning that the signal processing (filtering) is done on the low level signal (pre-amp level), before it is amplified, thus resulting in an amplifier only reproducing a portion of the bandwidth.

To achieve this type of bi-amping with a loudspeaker (which has many proven benefits), one would have to design an active crossover for the speaker and bypass the internal, passive (high level) crossover… This type of beneficial bi-amping is simply NOT possible with typical loudspeakers that are bi-wire capable. You can not bypass the internal crossover of the speaker. Using 2 amplifiers (each one dedicated to a different frequency range) will have no benefit and can hurt performance.

In fact, even if you were able to bypass the internal crossover, and use an electronic crossover to separate highs and lows thus sending them directly to the tweeter and woofer, I would NOT recommend it. Reason for this, at least in our crossovers, there are many optimizations and impedance compensation circuits designed to contour and control the response and dispersion of the speaker, not just send the highs to the tweeter and the lows to the woofers. Naturally, bypassing our crossover would also bypass these circuits, thus critically hampering the performance of the loudspeaker….

Where confusion seems to develop is that many people now define bi-amping simply as using more than one amplifier feeding the same signal into the speaker. This can be done with our CMT-340 series speakers, however, there is much to be considered before attempting this..

It is critically important to use the exact same amplifier. As you know, not all amplifiers sound the same or have the same gain… In fact, there are probably as many different amps as there are speakers. Imagine using an amplifier that sounds different from another, and one of those amps is feeding the tweeter while the other feeds the woofer. Do you think the loudspeaker would perform within specification? Certainly not, plus, different impedances of the amplifiers could greatly affect how the crossover “blends” the tweeter response with the woofer response. Crossover point might be moved higher or lower, the delicate phase alignment might be thrown off.. All greatly hurting the performance…

Some receivers offer a “bi-amping” feature so that if you are not using that 3rd pair of speaker outputs (7.1) you can run another set of cables from that output to the speaker. This used to be called “amplifier bridging” and I guess the marketing geniuses decided that bi-amping is a more exciting term, even though it is technically incorrect. This type of bi-amping can present a slight performance improvement in power and dynamics only. However, keep in mind that all the amplifiers in your receiver are running off the SAME power supply so technically speaking, the benefits you might achieve in added power and dynamics are severely limited by. It is NOT the same as using two separate amplifiers…


I hope this explains what bi-amping truly is… thanks for your time!

Lou-the-dog
02-11-2005, 08:00 PM
Whew! Thanks Dave! I really appreciate you providing technical explanations as this. Stuff I didn't understand beforehand and now have a better grasp on.

Randy

khoi911
07-12-2005, 07:24 PM
I have been lurking on this forumn for a few days and getting educated on speaker technology and I have a question for you. I am no expert but it seems you are making the argument that Ascend speakers should not be bi-amped due to the complications one may face. If this is indeed the argument that why offer the feature in the speaker to begin with?



There seems to be some confusion regarding bi-amping so I thought I will present an accurate explanation…

I have noticed that bi-amping seems to have two definitions lately, both similar, but with very dramatic differences as to how to achieve it and what benefits (if any)

From an engineering perspective, we define bi-amping as using different amplifiers (usually 2) each dedicated to reproducing a different frequency range. In reality, when you are using an AVR with the speakers set to small, and a powered subwoofer you are already bi-amping. The amplifier in your receiver is dedicated to a frequency range of, for example, 80 Hz to 20 kHz, while the amp in your sub is dedicated to 80Hz and below. This is achieved by using active high and low pass filters. Active meaning that the signal processing (filtering) is done on the low level signal (pre-amp level), before it is amplified, thus resulting in an amplifier only reproducing a portion of the bandwidth.

To achieve this type of bi-amping with a loudspeaker (which has many proven benefits), one would have to design an active crossover for the speaker and bypass the internal, passive (high level) crossover… This type of beneficial bi-amping is simply NOT possible with typical loudspeakers that are bi-wire capable. You can not bypass the internal crossover of the speaker. Using 2 amplifiers (each one dedicated to a different frequency range) will have no benefit and can hurt performance.

In fact, even if you were able to bypass the internal crossover, and use an electronic crossover to separate highs and lows thus sending them directly to the tweeter and woofer, I would NOT recommend it. Reason for this, at least in our crossovers, there are many optimizations and impedance compensation circuits designed to contour and control the response and dispersion of the speaker, not just send the highs to the tweeter and the lows to the woofers. Naturally, bypassing our crossover would also bypass these circuits, thus critically hampering the performance of the loudspeaker….

Where confusion seems to develop is that many people now define bi-amping simply as using more than one amplifier feeding the same signal into the speaker. This can be done with our CMT-340 series speakers, however, there is much to be considered before attempting this..

It is critically important to use the exact same amplifier. As you know, not all amplifiers sound the same or have the same gain… In fact, there are probably as many different amps as there are speakers. Imagine using an amplifier that sounds different from another, and one of those amps is feeding the tweeter while the other feeds the woofer. Do you think the loudspeaker would perform within specification? Certainly not, plus, different impedances of the amplifiers could greatly affect how the crossover “blends” the tweeter response with the woofer response. Crossover point might be moved higher or lower, the delicate phase alignment might be thrown off.. All greatly hurting the performance…

Some receivers offer a “bi-amping” feature so that if you are not using that 3rd pair of speaker outputs (7.1) you can run another set of cables from that output to the speaker. This used to be called “amplifier bridging” and I guess the marketing geniuses decided that bi-amping is a more exciting term, even though it is technically incorrect. This type of bi-amping can present a slight performance improvement in power and dynamics only. However, keep in mind that all the amplifiers in your receiver are running off the SAME power supply so technically speaking, the benefits you might achieve in added power and dynamics are severely limited by. It is NOT the same as using two separate amplifiers…


I hope this explains what bi-amping truly is… thanks for your time!

curtis
07-12-2005, 08:03 PM
I have been lurking on this forumn for a few days and getting educated on speaker technology and I have a question for you. I am no expert but it seems you are making the argument that Ascend speakers should not be bi-amped due to the complications one may face. If this is indeed the argument that why offer the feature in the speaker to begin with?
For those that would to try bi-wiring, not bi-amping.....which is a whole other debate. With bi-wiring, some say they hear differences, some don't. So it is an option you can choose to use or not.

khoi911
07-12-2005, 08:27 PM
Some how this thread went from bi-wiring to bi-amping. I guess you can bi-wire a speaker with one amp but this does not really make sense. But to really bi-wire a speaker you need 2 amps but doing so means you run into lots of potential issues. It is late and I am lost. :(


For those that would to try bi-wiring, not bi-amping.....which is a whole other debate. With bi-wiring, some say they hear differences, some don't. So it is an option you can choose to use or not.

davef
07-12-2005, 08:28 PM
I have been lurking on this forum for a few days and getting educated on speaker technology and I have a question for you. I am no expert but it seems you are making the argument that Ascend speakers should not be bi-amped due to the complications one may face. If this is indeed the argument that why offer the feature in the speaker to begin with?

Hi Kkoi911... welcome to our forum!

First off, one comment I would like to make is that my recommendation against bi-amping is not just for Ascend loudspeakers, this is for 99% of ALL loudspeakers that use a passive non-bypassable crossover network (which are the vast majority of loudspeakers out there)...

Active bi-amping (true bi-amping) is not possible with this type of loudspeaker because it would require bypassing the internal crossover of the speaker and sending a high-level signal directly to the tweeter and a separate high-level signal to the woofer.

Passive bi-amping is possible, but as I recommended in my original post, you MUST use (2) identical amplifiers thus sending the exact same signal to the high-frequency input of the crossover and another signal (from the other amp) to the low-frequency input.

The feature offered (and what we advertise) is called bi-wiring. This is completely different then bi-amping….

Again, this is not specifically for Ascend loudspeakers, but for the vast majority of loudspeakers out there.

Hope this helps!

khoi911
07-12-2005, 10:28 PM
[QUOTE=davef]
Passive bi-amping is possible, but as I recommended in my original post, you MUST use (2) identical amplifiers thus sending the exact same signal to the high-frequency input of the crossover and another signal (from the other amp) to the low-frequency input.[QUOTE]

So one would do this by spliting the pre-out signal from the receiver via a Y cable. Then each cable going into 2 identical amps. The signal is then amplified and sent to one speaker where one amp is decicated to the tweeter and the other amp drives the mid-range. I am painting the correct picture here?

BTW, Thank you for responding to my post. I will be ordering some speakers soon from you. I definitely want 340s up front (L,C,R) but still deciding on the rears. Not sure if I want 340s or the 170s.

Thanks again,
Khoi

davef
07-12-2005, 11:36 PM
Passive bi-amping is possible, but as I recommended in my original post, you MUST use (2) identical amplifiers thus sending the exact same signal to the high-frequency input of the crossover and another signal (from the other amp) to the low-frequency input.

So one would do this by spliting the pre-out signal from the receiver via a Y cable. Then each cable going into 2 identical amps. The signal is then amplified and sent to one speaker where one amp is decicated to the tweeter and the other amp drives the mid-range. I am painting the correct picture here?

Hi Khoi911,

You are exactly correct on the connection. However, be aware that both amps are reproducing and outputting the exact same signal. This would be considered passive bi-amping. The output if each amp goes to the corresponding input of the speaker's crossover. Some 7.1 receivers offer "bi-amping" if the rear surrounds are not used.

An active bi-amping connection would resemble having the low-level signal (pre-amp signal) going to an electronic crossover. The low-level high frequency output of the crossover would drive the amp which would then connect directly to the tweeter (bypassing the speaker's own crossover), the mids would also go to an amp and then connect directly to the midrange drivers. Each amp is reproducing only a portion of the bandwidth... This is true bi-amping and is quite complicated, something that can only be properly implemented with active loudspeakers.

Bi-wiring uses a single power amp with a pair of speaker cables. One set of cables connects from the amp to the high-frequency inputs, and the other set connects from the same set of amp outputs to the low-frequency inputs of the speaker's crossover. The theory behind this is that by by separating the delicate high-frequency signals from the higher energy low-frequency signals within the speaker cable, intermodulation distortion is reduced.

I think you've got it now :D

Glad to help :p

dae3dae3
07-13-2005, 06:18 AM
Can Dave or anybody else please confirm if I am thinking correctly about this setup to use the "bi-amp" feature on my Pioneer 1015? The process would be as follows.

1: Remove the jumpers between the binding posts on the 340's.

2: Run speaker cables from the L/R on the reciever to one set of binding posts on the 340's.

3: Run speaker cable from the unused surround posts on the receiver to the other set of binding posts on the 340's

4: Set the Pioneer to "bi-amp" and re-set levels.

5: Sit back and try to convince myself that I hear a difference. :p

Thanks

chas
07-13-2005, 07:19 AM
That's exactly what I did with my 1014tx....including step #5! ;)

dae3dae3
07-13-2005, 08:52 AM
Did you manage to convince yourself?

chas
07-13-2005, 10:52 AM
Did you manage to convince yourself?

I'm still working on that. :)
If nothing else, vocals seem to be a little cleaner at higher volumes.

Grayson73
04-12-2006, 01:02 PM
The XR57 is supposed to be able to dual-amp the mains when in 5.1 mode.

How is this actually accomplished? Do you actually have to wire the surround channels that aren't being used to the mains or does the receiver internally route the power to the mains to give 200wpc to the mains?

I was thinking that the receiver would route 200wpc to the mains and 100wpc to the center and rears automatically without needing to additionally wire from the surround channels that aren't being used.

curtis
04-12-2006, 01:12 PM
The XR57 is supposed to be able to dual-amp the mains when in 5.1 mode.

How is this actually accomplished? Do you actually have to wire the surround channels that aren't being used to the mains or does the receiver internally route the power to the mains to give 200wpc to the mains?

I was thinking that the receiver would route 200wpc to the mains and 100wpc to the center and rears automatically without needing to additionally wire from the surround channels that aren't being used.
Yes, you wire the unused surround channels to the mains, so you would have one amp output driving the woofers and another amp output driving the tweeter. Just like dae3dae3 described in his post above.

Grayson73
04-12-2006, 01:34 PM
I thought that the XR57 will allow dual amping to a single set of binding posts.

There is a difference between dual amping and bi amping for the XR57, right?

The manual says:

"The advanced dual amp function activates automatically when you use 2-channel stereo playback or 5.1-channel playback. The unit takes advantage of the unused surround back speaker amplifier, and runs one speaker with two amplifiers when this function is on. Advanced dual amplifier offers you sounds that are clearer and higher in audio quality than those available in normal playback."

Sounds to me like you don't need to wire the unused channels to the mains?

curtis
04-12-2006, 01:47 PM
Do you have any technical documentation on the XR57?

The documentation for the XR55 and XR70 specifically say "biwire".

curtis
04-12-2006, 01:49 PM
I thought that the XR57 will allow dual amping to a single set of binding posts.

There is a difference between dual amping and bi amping for the XR57, right?

The manual says:

"The advanced dual amp function activates automatically when you use 2-channel stereo playback or 5.1-channel playback. The unit takes advantage of the unused surround back speaker amplifier, and runs one speaker with two amplifiers when this function is on. Advanced dual amplifier offers you sounds that are clearer and higher in audio quality than those available in normal playback."

Sounds to me like you don't need to wire the unused channels to the mains?
Yeah...that sounds like something different from bi-amping. Sounds like some marketing speak as well.

Mag_Neato
04-12-2006, 01:49 PM
I thought that the XR57 will allow dual amping to a single set of binding posts.

There is a difference between dual amping and bi amping for the XR57, right?

The manual says:

"The advanced dual amp function activates automatically when you use 2-channel stereo playback or 5.1-channel playback. The unit takes advantage of the unused surround back speaker amplifier, and runs one speaker with two amplifiers when this function is on. Advanced dual amplifier offers you sounds that are clearer and higher in audio quality than those available in normal playback."

Sounds to me like you don't need to wire the unused channels to the mains?

Bi-amping is only possible if your speakers have two sets of binding posts connected with jumpers. You would remove the jumpers and hook up one set of wires to each set of posts, bypassing the internal crossover in the speaker.

You cannot hook up two amps to one set of posts to gain amp power or something bad is gonna happen in the world of electricty!

Grayson73
04-12-2006, 01:52 PM
Do you have any technical documentation on the XR57?

The documentation for the XR55 and XR70 specifically say "biwire".

http://service.us.panasonic.com/OPERMANPDF/SAXR57.PDF

There is definitely a difference between dual amp and bi amp for the XR57 because the manual references both.

XR55 can dual amp but only in stereo mode I believe.

curtis
04-12-2006, 02:11 PM
Interesting.

The specs do not call out any power/wattage differences when the dual amp function is engaged.

For me, I think I would want the same power whether I was listening to multi-channel or stereo.

bikeman
04-12-2006, 02:11 PM
XR55 can dual amp but only in stereo mode I believe.
Correct.

David

Grayson73
04-12-2006, 02:13 PM
Interesting.

The specs do not call out any power/wattage differences when the dual amp function is engaged.

For me, I think I would want the same power whether I was listening to multi-channel or stereo.

For HT, wouldn't doubling up the power to 340 mains be a good thing? My system will be a 5.1 system with 340s across the front and 200s in the back.

bikeman
04-12-2006, 02:16 PM
Do you have any technical documentation on the XR57?

The documentation for the XR55 and XR70 specifically say "biwire".
That's not correct for the 55. Dual amp, bi-amp or both with the 55.

David

curtis
04-12-2006, 02:18 PM
For HT, wouldn't doubling up the power to 340 mains be a good thing? My system will be a 5.1 system with 340s across the front and 200s in the back.
But it says the dual amp function only works in stereo mode.......that is only two channels. HT is multi-channel.

curtis
04-12-2006, 02:18 PM
That's not correct for the 55. Dual amp, bi-amp or both with the 55.

David
OK...I must of missed it. Do you notice a difference?

curtis
04-12-2006, 02:19 PM
Nevermind....I see you can dual amp in 5.1 with the 57.

greggle31
01-12-2007, 12:07 AM
I have a pioneer 1016, The manual shows both bi wire and bi amping features. Has anyone in here "bi- amped using the extra unused amp when running a 5.1 setup? From what Ive seen so far, it seems like there is no big difference. I kind of expected there would be a big difference considering the power increase. I'll probably try it either way. If anyone has done this with a similar receiver id love to hear about it. My ascend setup is on its way i cant wait! :D

drewface
01-12-2007, 08:31 AM
since this topic got resurrected, i'll throw this out there, too:

on my yamaha rxv-2400 receiver, it has terminals for two sets of main speakers (A and B). in the manual (http://www.yamaha.com/yamahavgn/Documents/YEC/AV_Receivers/Manual/01_om_rx-v2400.pdf on page 14), it talks about bi-wiring your speakers using the speaker A terminals for the tweeter and the speaker B terminals for the woofer. i asked davef about this a little while ago before i got my 340 mains because i was interested in the subject, and he said that bi-wiring is normally done using one pair of speaker posts with two sets of wires.

do you think that there would be an advantage to separating the cables to the SPEAKERS A and SPEAKERS B like the manual shows as opposed to just using one of them to bi-wire the speakers (which is how dave said it is done). to me it seems if you used separate terminals it may receive more power. any thoughts?

audibleconnoisseur
01-12-2007, 01:20 PM
Dave,

Since I have been following this, there has been a lot of questions, heat, confusion, all after suggesting to leave them be. Can you tell us what the % difference would be if one were to bi-wire/bi-amp/bi-whatever your speakers? Is there a big or noticable difference that would warrent the extra work and potential to damage or mess up the speakers? Not that I don't appreciate squeezing the best from what you have, but is all of this work and time and tweeking worth that effort? If it is a 25% or better difference, I will do it myself but I hate to see these guys going through this if it isn't going to produce a quantitative result that is more statistical than "might can tell a difference."

I speak to you and all the others here that are with this thread with respect!

P Seastrand
01-12-2007, 01:33 PM
I think Dave already covered this nicely here: http://forum.ascendacoustics.com/showpost.php?p=6579&postcount=12

davef
01-14-2007, 10:22 PM
Dave,
Since I have been following this, there has been a lot of questions, heat, confusion, all after suggesting to leave them be. Can you tell us what the % difference would be if one were to bi-wire/bi-amp/bi-whatever your speakers? Is there a big or noticable difference that would warrent the extra work and potential to damage or mess up the speakers? Not that I don't appreciate squeezing the best from what you have, but is all of this work and time and tweeking worth that effort? If it is a 25% or better difference, I will do it myself but I hate to see these guys going through this if it isn't going to produce a quantitative result that is more statistical than "might can tell a difference."

Sorry audible, you are asking me a question which is impossible for me to answer. It is not possible to quantify any form of "percentage of performance increase" when it comes to sound quality. From a technical standpoint, it has been proven under ideal circumstances that bi-wiring can reduce intermodulation distortion. There is no way to prove that a reduction in intermodulation distortion is even audible.

The only person who can answer the questions you ask is you... We have customers who have heard a definite improvement with bi-wiring, others who have not.

Why don't you give it a try and post your results?

Remember that bi-wire and passive bi-amping are not the same thing and technically should not even be part of the same discussion.

audibleconnoisseur
01-17-2007, 11:41 AM
Dave, I don't have the expertise to do this so I don't want to try. They sound plenty good now with two simple banana plugs going in them from my L & R spkr out so I will leave them alone. If you are willing to offer your help on the phone, I will give it a try and let you know my opinion but I don't see the point in messing with something that is pretty damn good now. If I can better benefit my sound and experience by doing so, then yes... I would be willing to give it a go b/c I love my music and the best sound is what we are striving for and why we have your speakers at our desired budget!

davef
01-18-2007, 05:39 PM
Hi Audible,

I only mentioned trying it because you seemed very curious about it. Depending on the cable you are using, bi-wiring can be quite simple. I would say don't even bother at this point. Just enjoy :D

cyberbri
01-22-2007, 10:21 AM
Just to clarify...

If I take the outputs of my left/right channels, split them and run them through 2 channels each in a 5-channel amp, then remove the jumper on the back of the 340 mains and send one channel of the amp to each binding post pair, will that work? And is that bi-wiring? Does that still use the 340SEs' internal xos?

BradJudy
01-22-2007, 11:53 AM
Just to clarify...

If I take the outputs of my left/right channels, split them and run them through 2 channels each in a 5-channel amp, then remove the jumper on the back of the 340 mains and send one channel of the amp to each binding post pair, will that work? And is that bi-wiring? Does that still use the 340SEs' internal xos?

No, it's not 'bi-wiring' - that would be running two sets of cables to the same amp output, removing the jumpers and hooking them to the speakers.

Yes, it still uses the internal crossover components. The only way to avoid that is to remove the crossovers and then replicate the functionality between the pre-amp and amp (sometimes called 'active bi-amping'). Something that should only be attempted if you REALLY know what you're doing.

BTW: here's another decent write-up about bi-wiring on the Axiom site: http://www.axiomaudio.com/tips_biwiring_and_biamping.html

DaveF: How about having a similar type of 'tips' or commentary section on the Ascend site for common questions like biwire/biamp, sub integration, room treatments, etc? The Axiom site has a good collection of topics, but lacks good meat on many areas. The AV123 forum has some good stuff under their 'Rocket science' area - much of it submitted by customers.

cyberbri
01-22-2007, 11:57 AM
No, it's not 'bi-wiring' - that would be running two sets of cables to the same amp output, removing the jumpers and hooking them to the speakers.

Yes, it still uses the internal crossover components. The only way to avoid that is to remove the crossovers and then replicate the functionality between the pre-amp and amp (sometimes called 'active bi-amping'). Something that should only be attempted if you REALLY know what you're doing.

BTW: here's another decent write-up about bi-wiring on the Axiom site: http://www.axiomaudio.com/tips_biwiring_and_biamping.html

DaveF: How about having a similar type of 'tips' or commentary section on the Ascend site for common questions like biwire/biamp, sub integration, room treatments, etc? The Axiom site has a good collection of topics, but lacks good meat on many areas. The AV123 forum has some good stuff under their 'Rocket science' area - much of it submitted by customers.


Thanks, BradJudy.

So is running 340SEs with two separate amp channels "okay", regardless of perceived performance increases (although more power should equal more headroom)?

I agree about the FAQ. Even Fluance has a FAQ like that for bi-wire/bi-amp (I researched and found Fluance for my father, who now has them in his HT room).