|   Bi-Amp or Bridge??? | fireworkzz
Oct 23, 2003 7:23 PM | | Could any one shed some light on a heated debate between a couple of friends?
All gear remaining equal including identicle mono-blocks (that are bridgeable) which method might produce the best quality of sound? Bi-amping or bridging the mono-blocks to one speaker?????
One buddy claims better headroom while the other preaches less distortion <---- Are they even in the right ball park?
Any help for these helpless newbies would be very welcome,
Thanks,
Dave |
| First of all, you're not... | Jimmy C
Oct 24, 2003 3:51 PM | | ...gonna get 100 "audiophiles" to agree on which is best, or, if it even makes a positive difference for any and all applications. O.K., having said that, I certainly no expert in the field, but I have gleaned some info from hanging out w-a-y too long in one of my fave audio stores... hope I get most of it right!
I have never heard the terms "headroom" and "distortion" bandied about, but there are certain advantages to both. Let's look at bridging... you can buy one "bridgeable" amp now, and at a later date, add a second when funds permit. Pure economics. BUT - once bridged, your power will double. This is especially beneficial to speakers that are an 8 Ohm load, but very inefficient... let's say, for eg., a speaker rated at 82 dB sensitvity. You will now have much more horsepower (WPC) for the speakers. Not the best alternative for a speaker with a large impedence swing (like, a Martin Logan, for instance). As you touched on, the amp in question must be bridgeable in the first place... not all are. A toggle switch somewhere will clue ya in..
Bi-amping has advantages also... one can use a sweet, caramel-coated tube for the mids and tweeter, whilst retaining the brute of an SS amp for woofer control. This option isn't a 1-2-3 undertaking if one is choosing different amps... you might have to get an active X-over, worry about gain-matching... whatever.
Sorry I didn't (can't) aswer the "who is right" thing, but it is definitely not so cut and dried... depends upon many variables.
Hope some of this helps... |
| Is this a stereo system? | Norm Strong
Oct 24, 2003 11:01 PM | | How many of these amps do you have? IOW, how many channels? Either one of your "solutions" doubles the number of amps needed. Personally, I wouldn't do either; I'd use one amp per channel and have done with it.
If you insist on doing one or the other, bridge the two. At least you will get twice as much power. With bi-amping you may not get anything of value, and the treble amps will be gross overkill. |
| re: Bi-Amp or Bridge??? | FLZapped
Oct 27, 2003 7:02 AM | | i Are they even in the right ball park?
Without the full context of their argument, it's hard to say.
With Bi-amping, you would select amps that more closely match your speakers power requirements. I bi-amp. My HF amp is 100w and my LF amp is 300W.
Bridging will theoretically give you 4 times the power over the single channel, however, circuit limitations usually leave you with about 3 times. Distortion is higher in bridged operation.
You usually see bridged operation in live applications where a single channel cannot safely provide enough power.
-Bruce |
| |
