Yes correct. I meant that if you go down the route of active crossovers (which many feel provides the main advantage of bi-amping) etc. then it takes a lot of effort to get it right.
Thanks for the Interesting article.
Even though I am digressing fro this thread a few observations.
My Yamaha AVR 667 has seven separate amplifier circuits. So when I Bi Amp Passively in 5.1 mode the Fronts get the benefit of Two separate Amps driving each speaker. So I guess it should help marginally.
Thanks for the Interesting article.
Even though I am digressing fro this thread a few observations.
My Yamaha AVR 667 has seven separate amplifier circuits. So when I Bi Amp Passively in 5.1 mode the Fronts get the benefit of Two separate Amps driving each speaker. So I guess it should help marginally.
I don't know much about the machine but does it not have only one switching power supply which I can see from the pictures of the machine open, for all the channels? I could be mistaken.
I don't know much about the machine but does it not have only one switching power supply which I can see from the pictures of the machine open, for all the channels? I could be mistaken.
Neither am I an expert. All I know is that Yamaha claims 90W per channel. So even if they have factored the fact that all channels will not draw the full rated power at the same time in real life Audio playback there must be some benefit of Bi Amping. The power supply might be common but the subsequent electronics are separate.
Having said that I must confess that I can not make out any difference with or with out Bi Amping - but I went ahead with Bi Amping as I don't have to invest in any thing extra.