OverLoad
High On Solder Fumes
When it comes to bi-wiring and bi-amping, these two topics for many people are very misunderstood and the two often get confused with one another. They are two separate topics and both very different. For my purposes here, the aim is to keep it as simple as possible and help others understand these concepts better as well as some basic connections.
The various illustrations that are to follow are very real possible hook-up configurations. This is NOT a discussion or debate on terminology, semantics, possible usefulness or nonsensicalness, which is better or isn’t, why, why not and on and on. Leaving all that rubbish out along with the many nuances, let’s try and shed some light on things.
I think we can all agree that "Bi" means two. So let’s start with bi-wiring as it relates to 2 channel stereo systems. Bi-Wiring in its simplest terms means using two lengths of 2 core wire per speaker as opposed to the "conventional" one length. That simple definition taking into consideration that Bi means two, is "technically" correct. HOWEVER, what is known or more commonly referred to as Bi-wiring is not that simple. I’ll illustrate using the following diagrams of various configurations.
As a starting point lets look at the diagram below of a "conventional" 2-channel stereo configuration which is pretty straight forward.
Now lets look at the next two configurations leaving out whether or not they have a usefulness, are nonsensical, what they do, don't do, may do, good, bad and everything in between.
These two configurations are very possible and could "technically" be called bi-wiring. There is nothing technically wrong with these configurations HOWEVER, they are NOT what are more commonly known or referred as bi-wire/bi-wiring.
Finally let’s look at the last two configurations with respect to Bi-Wiring.
It is these two configurations (config#3 & 4) which are known as bi-wire setups in the truest sense. Note the differences between these two and the previous two configurations are the speakers and their connections. In the last two diagrams the configurations utilize bi-wireable speakers.
Ok, so what’s a bi-wireable speaker? Simply put they are speakers that allow the high pass and low pass filters of the internal passive crossover network to be electrically separated thus becoming 2 separate nodes. Typically you will find 2 sets of binding posts with removable straps/jumpers in order to accomplish this. This type of speaker can also be utilized for a form of bi-amping and can also be described or referred to as bi-ampable speakers. So with that said, let’s try and tackle bi-amping.
Bi-amping has become a much muddied topic in of itself and with the different forms now used, has lead to further confusion. There is a LOT of controversy on what actually is even considered bi-amping which leads to incorrect/correct terminology use etc. (no doubt you have heard terms like “fools bi-amping” for example). Then of course there are the debates and arguments over the merits of one over another and much more. REMEMBER, we are leaving all that aside! Just to give an example of terminology, one could argue that using mono-blocks (one for left and one for right) in an otherwise conventional stereo configuration would be bi-amping. From a technical stand point I’d be inclined to agree. Having said that, I’m of the belief that what is referred to as bi-amping in the TRUEST sense is what I’ll call an active bi-amp set-up (explained later). HOWEVER, there certainly are other viable configurations that are completely possible with their own benefits and often used none the less. So again, this is not a discussion about the merits of any, whether you agree with the terminology, the authenticity or anything else for that matter. This is merely to provide (as simple as possible) some insight on possible configurations showing the differences and what I’ll refer to them as for clarity’s sake.
Let’s look at an example of what I’ll refer to as a form of “passive” bi-amping; more specifically horizontal passive bi-amping.
Now let’s look at another example of what I’ll refer to as vertical passive bi-amping.
Notice the difference between horizontal versus vertical. The difference is in the way the amplifiers are utilized and configured. It’s not the focus to debate about the merits of one over the other but I should mention briefly that the horizontal configuration does allow for the use of different amplifiers as long as there is a means of compensating for different gains for example. One reason why this method might be utilized is because of possible different amplifier characteristics for desired results (ex: tube amplifier utilized on the HF and SS on the LF). In both examples, bi-wire/bi-amp capable speakers are used and the signal filtering is after the amplifiers. The filtering is done by the speaker’s passive crossover network much the same as in a “conventional” set-up except the HP and LP nodes have been separated with each node connected to a dedicated amplifier or amplifier channel.
There is yet another form of “passive” bi-amping and probably more correctly called so, that should be at least mentioned. This is a set-up whereby signal filtering is done passively at line level (before the amps). This again, is another viable configuration but less common so I won’t go in to further detail.
Lastly, there is what I’ll refer to as “active” bi-amping. Just as in the passive configurations, there can be both horizontal and vertical configurations and different amps can be utilized in horizontal. Let’s look at the horizontal active bi-amp configuration example.
Next is the vertical active bi-amp configuration example.
In the vertical configuration above, it should be obvious that the right channels of the amplifiers could go to the HF drivers and the left channels to the LF drivers with the left and right inputs on the amps reversed (green to left input and orange to right). Just keep things symmetrical. It is the last two configurations that are referred to as bi-amping in the TRUEST sense IN MY OPINION. The bottom line is ALL the previous illustrations with respect to bi-amping are indeed viable configurations and you may call or not call them what you will.
Realize that the illustrations are basic examples and shown as simple as possible. They are merely to act as guides to help better understand the various configurations, the differences and basic connections. Not every possible scenario, detail and nuance is covered.
I must reiterate that my intentions here are to try and provide some insight in to the two topics with a clearer understanding of the possible configurations, the physical differences and basic connections period. With the basic concepts covered here I hope some of the mud has been rinsed away.
In any event, I have my own opinions and beliefs on the numerous debates regarding bi-wire and the various forms of bi-amp configurations. As the saying goes… opinions are like assholes, everybody has one. So if you have the interest and the means, why not try experimenting with the various configurations discussed here for yourself and formulate you own opinions. Just don’t discuss them here
The various illustrations that are to follow are very real possible hook-up configurations. This is NOT a discussion or debate on terminology, semantics, possible usefulness or nonsensicalness, which is better or isn’t, why, why not and on and on. Leaving all that rubbish out along with the many nuances, let’s try and shed some light on things.
I think we can all agree that "Bi" means two. So let’s start with bi-wiring as it relates to 2 channel stereo systems. Bi-Wiring in its simplest terms means using two lengths of 2 core wire per speaker as opposed to the "conventional" one length. That simple definition taking into consideration that Bi means two, is "technically" correct. HOWEVER, what is known or more commonly referred to as Bi-wiring is not that simple. I’ll illustrate using the following diagrams of various configurations.
As a starting point lets look at the diagram below of a "conventional" 2-channel stereo configuration which is pretty straight forward.
Now lets look at the next two configurations leaving out whether or not they have a usefulness, are nonsensical, what they do, don't do, may do, good, bad and everything in between.
These two configurations are very possible and could "technically" be called bi-wiring. There is nothing technically wrong with these configurations HOWEVER, they are NOT what are more commonly known or referred as bi-wire/bi-wiring.
Finally let’s look at the last two configurations with respect to Bi-Wiring.
It is these two configurations (config#3 & 4) which are known as bi-wire setups in the truest sense. Note the differences between these two and the previous two configurations are the speakers and their connections. In the last two diagrams the configurations utilize bi-wireable speakers.
Ok, so what’s a bi-wireable speaker? Simply put they are speakers that allow the high pass and low pass filters of the internal passive crossover network to be electrically separated thus becoming 2 separate nodes. Typically you will find 2 sets of binding posts with removable straps/jumpers in order to accomplish this. This type of speaker can also be utilized for a form of bi-amping and can also be described or referred to as bi-ampable speakers. So with that said, let’s try and tackle bi-amping.
Bi-amping has become a much muddied topic in of itself and with the different forms now used, has lead to further confusion. There is a LOT of controversy on what actually is even considered bi-amping which leads to incorrect/correct terminology use etc. (no doubt you have heard terms like “fools bi-amping” for example). Then of course there are the debates and arguments over the merits of one over another and much more. REMEMBER, we are leaving all that aside! Just to give an example of terminology, one could argue that using mono-blocks (one for left and one for right) in an otherwise conventional stereo configuration would be bi-amping. From a technical stand point I’d be inclined to agree. Having said that, I’m of the belief that what is referred to as bi-amping in the TRUEST sense is what I’ll call an active bi-amp set-up (explained later). HOWEVER, there certainly are other viable configurations that are completely possible with their own benefits and often used none the less. So again, this is not a discussion about the merits of any, whether you agree with the terminology, the authenticity or anything else for that matter. This is merely to provide (as simple as possible) some insight on possible configurations showing the differences and what I’ll refer to them as for clarity’s sake.
Let’s look at an example of what I’ll refer to as a form of “passive” bi-amping; more specifically horizontal passive bi-amping.
Now let’s look at another example of what I’ll refer to as vertical passive bi-amping.
Notice the difference between horizontal versus vertical. The difference is in the way the amplifiers are utilized and configured. It’s not the focus to debate about the merits of one over the other but I should mention briefly that the horizontal configuration does allow for the use of different amplifiers as long as there is a means of compensating for different gains for example. One reason why this method might be utilized is because of possible different amplifier characteristics for desired results (ex: tube amplifier utilized on the HF and SS on the LF). In both examples, bi-wire/bi-amp capable speakers are used and the signal filtering is after the amplifiers. The filtering is done by the speaker’s passive crossover network much the same as in a “conventional” set-up except the HP and LP nodes have been separated with each node connected to a dedicated amplifier or amplifier channel.
There is yet another form of “passive” bi-amping and probably more correctly called so, that should be at least mentioned. This is a set-up whereby signal filtering is done passively at line level (before the amps). This again, is another viable configuration but less common so I won’t go in to further detail.
Lastly, there is what I’ll refer to as “active” bi-amping. Just as in the passive configurations, there can be both horizontal and vertical configurations and different amps can be utilized in horizontal. Let’s look at the horizontal active bi-amp configuration example.
Next is the vertical active bi-amp configuration example.
In the vertical configuration above, it should be obvious that the right channels of the amplifiers could go to the HF drivers and the left channels to the LF drivers with the left and right inputs on the amps reversed (green to left input and orange to right). Just keep things symmetrical. It is the last two configurations that are referred to as bi-amping in the TRUEST sense IN MY OPINION. The bottom line is ALL the previous illustrations with respect to bi-amping are indeed viable configurations and you may call or not call them what you will.
Realize that the illustrations are basic examples and shown as simple as possible. They are merely to act as guides to help better understand the various configurations, the differences and basic connections. Not every possible scenario, detail and nuance is covered.
I must reiterate that my intentions here are to try and provide some insight in to the two topics with a clearer understanding of the possible configurations, the physical differences and basic connections period. With the basic concepts covered here I hope some of the mud has been rinsed away.
In any event, I have my own opinions and beliefs on the numerous debates regarding bi-wire and the various forms of bi-amp configurations. As the saying goes… opinions are like assholes, everybody has one. So if you have the interest and the means, why not try experimenting with the various configurations discussed here for yourself and formulate you own opinions. Just don’t discuss them here
Last edited: