ProSoundWeb Community

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  
Pages: [1]   Go Down

Author Topic: Bi-amped vs full range  (Read 6491 times)

Dan J Sullivan

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 32
    • http://www.av-tools.co.uk
Bi-amped vs full range
« on: August 23, 2004, 12:33:23 pm »

hi everyone,

I have a Pair of Mach 154 speakers.
I was just wondering how much difference it would make if I was too run them bi-amped instead of full range as they are at the moment.
Im just wondering if it is going to be worth be carrying an extra amplifier around with me.

Any thoughts/views would be great.

Dan

andrew gissing

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 489
    • http://www.stylusra.com.au
Re: Bi-amped vs full range
« Reply #1 on: August 23, 2004, 08:36:47 pm »

I'm totally unfamiliar with these boxes however, a simple home test should help you decide which way to go.

I'm assuming you've currently got one amp and each side drives a separate speaker.

If you're looking at going bi-amped, I'm also assuming that you've got access to an active crossover (either borrow or buy one).

Last assumption, that you've got the necessary cabling to connect your speakers when biamped instead of full range.

So.. what you can do is use your current amp to run one box bi-amped. Run your signal into the active crossover, 2 leads out to the amp, and two leads/one lead with 4 poles to the speakers.

This will let you test one box as bi-amped and you should get a good indication as to whether you want to buy another amp.

I've got JBL SR4733A boxes that I use for mid/top and I really noticed the difference when I went active 3-way for the whole system (subs extra) - the horn just got so much clearer.

I expect you'll find a similar result.

Hope this helps.
Logged

Dave Rickard

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2903
Re: Bi-amped vs full range
« Reply #2 on: August 25, 2004, 06:53:47 pm »

This may be helpful:

http://sound.westhost.com/bi-amp.htm

Dave
Logged
Dave
Yorkville dealer

"The wrong piece of gear, at the right price, is still the wrong piece of gear."

"If you don't have good stuff at each end of the signal chain, (mics and speakers) what you use in between is just turd polish."--Dave Dermont

Baron Gray

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 462
Re: Bi-amped vs full range
« Reply #3 on: August 25, 2004, 10:49:12 pm »

I would agree with Andrew here.
If you need more from the cabs then bi-amping is a way to maximize the performance of your cabs. Have a look in the study hall for information regarding "Insertion Loss" and this will shed some light on the gains (pardon the pun) that can be had.

Another advantage of carrying another amp is if one fails you could always go back to full range operation and finish the gig.


Baron
Logged
See, you can't rewrite, 'cause to rewrite is to deceive and lie, and you betray your own thoughts. To rethink the flow and the rhythm, the tumbling out of the words, is a betrayal, and it's a sin, Martin, it's a sin.

Hank from the 'Naked Lunch'

David A. Parker

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1358
    • http://www.lostandfoundsoundco.com/
Re: Bi-amped vs full range
« Reply #4 on: August 28, 2004, 12:22:03 am »

A former system of mine consisted of tops with 15 + 1" horn with passive crossovers. All passive crossovers are not created equal. When I bypassed the passive crossovers and went bi-amped, the difference was worth it. First thing I reallized was that I needed a lot bigger amp for the horns than I thought. This is a common misconception, especially with 16 ohm horns. Peavey claims that some of their speakers sound better with the passive crossovers, since they have some notch filters and such in the crossovers. Still, I'm sure they would be more efficient bi-amped.
Logged
David Parker
Lost and Found Sound
http://www.lostandfoundsoundco.com/

rubbermatch

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 33
    • http://www.b.knight1.home.comcast.net
Re: Bi-amped vs full range
« Reply #5 on: August 30, 2004, 02:27:12 pm »

digital processing crossovers? the sound will clear up because you can overdrive the mids accidentally and the horn won't be "bogged" by that signal. I f  you have the digital processors you have individual limiters and compressors to even stop all the clipping, how nice it is, not to mention a built in RTA and parametrics all Per bandwidth output..
Logged
or whatever, this studio is eating my wallet!!
http://home.comcast.net/~b.knight1

bo putnam

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 511
Re: Bi-amped vs full range
« Reply #6 on: August 31, 2004, 02:15:21 pm »

D. Parker wrote on Fri, 27 August 2004 21:22

All passive crossovers are not created equal. When I bypassed the passive crossovers and went bi-amped, the difference was worth it.
 
Agree, completely.  Biamping gives you much greater control (particularly with the right active xover), and the entire rig runs more efficiently - however, that means you have doubled your compliment (number) of amps.  Passive crossovers can introduce phasing changes, which may not occur bi-amped.  Bi-amp can result in a more coherent sound (easier to EQ and needing less of it...).  It's the only way to go, IMO.  
Logged
bo

SOUNDsupport

<font size="1">oops - wrong door...</font>

Alan Hamilton

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 341
Re: Bi-amped vs full range
« Reply #7 on: September 01, 2004, 01:10:39 pm »

misterbassman wrote on Mon, 23 August 2004 17:33

hi everyone,

I have a Pair of Mach 154 speakers.
I was just wondering how much difference it would make if I was too run them bi-amped instead of full range as they are at the moment.
Im just wondering if it is going to be worth be carrying an extra amplifier around with me.

Any thoughts/views would be great.

Dan


My answer to this typical question has changed somewhat over the years due to the improvements in passive crossovers in the better speaker systems. Not knowing anything about Mach 154 speakers I can't say where those fit into the equation. I'm particularly talking of Mid/Hi boxes here and well made cabs.

I agree that with a processor and biamping that the spkr can reach its max potential. OTOH, the operator comes into play here as well. If the operator doesn't have the proper knowledge (or equip) to setup a more complex system then any gains will be thrown out the window.

System interconnection will now be more complex so less idiot proof. More options are now available to the operator so that means more areas for subjective thinking and wrong decisions (plus mistakes and accidents). More cables and equip are now needed. The passive crossovers can be built to tailor the sound for that specific model cab, something a basic active crossover won't be able to do. While a digital processor WILL have the ability to mimic these tweaks the operator must know and be able to implement them.

So, as a general rule I say "If you have to ask then you are probably better off using the passive mode".

CAVEAT: Assuming the spkr systems are well built and designed in the first place. Of course if they are not then even getting them to work at their max is not going to match up with a better system anyway. A sow ear won't make a silk purse.

-AlanH
Logged
When I think of a witty saying I will put it here. Please note that my sig space is for rent Smile
http://www.HamiltonSystems.us

Dan J Sullivan

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 32
    • http://www.av-tools.co.uk
Re: Bi-amped vs full range
« Reply #8 on: September 01, 2004, 01:20:11 pm »

Hey everyone thanks for all your help.
I meant to say at the top these boxes are mid/hi boxes crossed over bass cabs.
I think I have decidid to switch them to Bi-amp mode giving me a tri-amp system.  
I have all the required equipment and cabling so that won't be a problem.

Thanks again for your help
Pages: [1]   Go Up
 

Page created in 0.017 seconds with 16 queries.