First post, so be gentle...

I have several multi-channel amps w/ lots of amp channels available and would like to try bi-amping my speakers. I do not own a 990 but am seriously considering it.

I am wondering that if one intends to bi-amp (not bi-wire) with the 990, can the Zone 2 outs be used to source a set of terminals rather than 'Y-ing' off the Zone 1 outs? Asked another way, can Zone 1 & Zone 2 output from the same source simultaneously?

Example: Use LEFT FRONT from Zone 1 to source the tweeters and LEFT FRONT from Zone 2 to source the mid/woofer of the same speaker.

I like the idea of going direct from pre-amp to amp channel w/o splitting the signal, plus it save on buying a 'Y' adapter.

If the 990 can't do this, does anyone know of another HT pre-amp that can?

Love the Saloon forum. Thanks.

Because zone 2 is independently controlled (both on the 990 and on other processors and receivers), it is not suited to use as a second output for bi-amping. There's an old post by Scott indicating that the unbalanced and balanced pre-amp outputs are available simultaneously, but I'm not sure if both outputs are at the same level (it's common for processors with both output types to have the balanced signals at a different level) and unless half of your space amps were balanced it wouldn't do you any good anyway. The best bet is to go with a reasonably well-made Y adapter.

Thanks for the reply Gonk.

How's this then... if I used the balanced outs to my Cinepro and the unbalanced to my B&K with available trim pots, I should be able to do it? Only concern I have is balancing the levels from two different amps. Is there a good way to do this?

That would be the million dollar question. I also have a B&K amp with individual trim. My thought would be to use the manual internal test tone and only have the CInepro hooked up. Look at the level on your sound meter. Then only hook up the B&K, now use the trim pot to bring the level to that of the cinepro (on each speaker individually). This would balance the individual speakers. Now with both amps hooked up go through the automatic calibration sequence.

Just a reminder, I think this is how you would do it. I currently don't have a 990 (I am looking at it and the 1070). I also only have one amp (The B&K).


If anyone sees any flaws in the above idea please throw them out there.


Maybe Scott could post his thoughts.

Regards,

Charlie

PS- I am actually considering doing this in conjunction with a 1070...

i also have a b&k(6 ch w/trim),i used to have my b&w 601s bi-amped,but when i rearranged i just went back to normal.(it was just a test to see if i liked it(i did) with a mix-match of cables).

i am waiting right now for my PE order(within hours) to set up a biamp again.ordered some 'Ys' and new speaker cables(all dayton cables are 25% off,so couldn't go wrong) we'll see how the build is when i have them in my hands.

my thoughts are that you would be better off to use a decent 'y',it would be cheaper (unless you already have balanced cables) and i KNOW it works. that's the beauty of (most) b&k amps,the trim controls.

oh,and i don't own a 990,i'm still using 'ole faithful'(my 1050)

click below on 'blade' and there's a couple shots of my b&k with the cover removed.

Thats good to know, thanks p'toad. You have a good point about balanced cables vs. Y's. I haven't received my Cinepro yet so I'm anxious to demo it against the B&K 7270. Based on price alone, I expect (and pray) that the Cinepro stomps all over the B&K, a fine amp in it's own right.
I have to say, my Fosgate FAA 1000.5 is better than I expected compared to the B&K. But when the Cinepro arrives, one of them has to go, if not both. Of course, the Cinepro must be eval'd and prove it can pull it's price vs. performance weight... could be a showdown.
Thanks for taking the time to reply.

Second thoughts...

Of course in a perfect world, there would be pre-amps capable of assignable multiple outs that are configurable by the user to facilitate bi-amping. Not sure what the engineering impact would be, but if designers can fit two Zones in a single pre, it can't be impossible.
Other applications may be for front/rears centers or multiple subs assignable by the specific layout of the user. Pipe dream? Maybe. Future proof? Possibly. Practicle? Probably not, but I hope so.

i had an onkyo stereo preeamp that simply had 2 sets of outputs,which made it very nice-2 pairs of speakers,2 eqs,2 amps no messy 'Ys'

that was when i wanted extreme volume,now adays i want extreme detail

I thought when you bi-amped you took a channel and ran it into a crossover. Then feed the low output to one amp and then to the woofer. Then you took the high output to another amp and then to the mids/highs. In this configuration you are bypassing the crossovers in the speakers. At least I know this is how it is done in prosound, but I have seen this samething done at the Linkwitz Labs web site for his systems.

In this case are you still using the crossovers in the speakers?

Just wondering.

As I understand it, you can configure with an external x-over to split the high/mid/low frequencies. In my case, my speakers have separate binding posts which are currently bridged. If I remove the bridge and feed each set of terminals a full range signal, the internal speaker x-over will do the rest - yes?

I believe that both configurations are valid, but if the speaker's internal x-over is capable, I certainly would chose to avoid the external x-over option.

CAVEAT: I am no expert :rolleyes:

There are two approaches to bi-amping: passive bi-amping (what Audiolib describes - pull the jumpers off the two sets of binding posts and use two amps) and active bi-amping (when the crossovers are upstream of the amps and the signals coming from the amps go directly to speaker drivers with no crossovers in the path). Passive bi-amping is easy. Active bi-amping is a good deal more complex, typicall requiring the creation of the crossover networks and some "inside the speaker" re-wiring to bypass the factory crossovers.

I hope you find that most of us are in the habit of not attacking one another, just sharing ideas and experiences, sometimes passionately, sometimes not reaching the same conclusions – but even Outlaws can show respect!

Certainly there would be little point to having both a fully functional active crossover ahead of the amplification and passive filtering at the loudspeakers, but at least one or the other in almost every case.

While the active crossover method introduces a level of complexity and significantly increased expense for both an active crossover network and more channels of amplification, if the active crossover provides the frequency dividing, response shaping and time alignment needed by a particular arrangement of drivers, the direct connection of an amplifier output to each driver provides both better accuracy and power transfer than passive crossover components allow when they are between amplifier and driver.

Most of us are at the other end of the spectrum with a single channel of amplification per loudspeaker and two-way or three-way passive crossovers in our speaker enclosures. Our exposure to active crossover application is limited to the pre/pro or receiver that may separate and provide a mono or stereo signal for subwoofers.

My loudspeakers are three-way and have two sets of binding posts, one for lows and one for mids/highs. I have experimented with bi-wiring and split feed (no active crossover) bi-amplification and found no marked improvement over the usual common feed method. In my opinion finding little or no audible change was a testament to three, possibly four factors: the Outlaw amplification is of very high quality such that it drives a full range load just fine, splitting the frequency loads above the subwoofer frequencies was not an aid to amplifier performance; the speaker wire in use introduced no problems that were helped by carrying certain ranges of frequencies separately; the passive crossover components were still between the amplifier and drivers; the rest of the variables present, there are plenty from source material to listening environment, were such that they overshadowed any differences.

As mentioned elsewhere in this forum, “Your results may vary.” Let us know how things work out for you.

Thanks for the sentiment, bestbang. I have been a reader of the forum for quite a while now, and know what you say to be true, with only a few exceptions. Funny thing about this type of written discourse is that the perceived tone of a post may lie more in the perception of the reader, not necessarily as the writer intended. Sometimes, we look to be offended, due to a bad day, fight with wife, or just disagree with another's opinion, we find offense where none is intended. I will try to be careful to avoid any perceived malcontent in my postings.

I appreciate your welcoming me to the forum. Thanks for your input.