1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Cambridge Audio... bi-amping front speaker possible?

Discussion in 'Integrated Amplifiers & Receivers' started by peskywinnets, Jul 24, 2007.

  1. peskywinnets

    peskywinnets Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2005
    Messages:
    1,106
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +66
    Hi there,

    I'm just wondering if it's possible to re-utilize the un-needed extra 2 surround rear channels to biamp the fronts? (ie 5.1 from 7.1)...the manual makes no mention of it?

    If so, is it just a case of feeding the front pre-outs into these spare channels pre-ins?

    Wouldn't that cause signal phase problems?
  2. Andy98765

    Andy98765 Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2006
    Messages:
    10,374
    Trophy Points:
    133
    Ratings:
    +1,491
    I do not think that would work as to get input from the direct inputs you would have to select "Direct-In" and in doing so disable all your other inputs.
    Bi-amping is only worth doing if you have very large speakers with at least two to three main drive units, the gains in bi-amping just to drive the tweeters would be a waste.
    What Speakers do you have, I assume big with that Cambridge AV amp you have.
  3. wilse

    wilse Guest

    Ratings:
    +0
    I have a C500 & P500 combo, and was thinking of buying a mates P500 and bi-amping. I thought from what I've read before that this increases the overall musical quality. I'm looking at partnering with 540R V3 (when out) yes I will be dropping the C500, and Monitor Audio RS6, and R250 surrounds.

    curious to know your thoughts.

    wilse
  4. peskywinnets

    peskywinnets Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2005
    Messages:
    1,106
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +66
    I don't own a 640R...actually I'm probably just about to buy an AVR300 (which I can biamp with)...but the 640R only came onto my radar screen last night so I'm heavily researching that option now.

    As it goes my present front speakers aren't bi-ampable, but I'm likely to be upgrading these very soon...& almost certainly to speakers that can be biamped.

    Thanks for your early response, thinking about it more, what you say makes complete sense....I reckon not having a bi amp option seems a bit of an oversight, bearing in mind not many folks have a 7.1 setup & could readily use the extra two channels to biamp their fronts.
  5. peskywinnets

    peskywinnets Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2005
    Messages:
    1,106
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +66
    Just received a reply back from CA (impressed with their speedy response time), when asked if biamping is possible....

    "This isn't possible as the amp actually measured worse when configured in this fashion"
  6. wilse

    wilse Guest

    Ratings:
    +0
    Hi pesky

    I'm looking at the 540R V3, not the 640.
    According to reading the manual for this device it will bi-amp, as all you need is pre-outs, which this model can do in 6.1, their cheaper 340 model only has a subwoofer output.


    I'm a little confused??

    wilse
  7. peskywinnets

    peskywinnets Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2005
    Messages:
    1,106
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +66
    I think we are talking about different ways in achieving the biamp end goal. I was wanting to use the two extra 640r onboard amp channels that don't need (the extra rear surrounds) to bi amp my front speakers with...it can't be done.

    I think you are wanting to feed your front channels into external amps to biamp your speakers...in which case you can simply feed your external amps from the front pre outs of the 540r?

    So in my case at least the AVR300 wins ...probably the better option anyway, as I'm now being quote £630 new - which for an an amp with an original RRP of about £1300 makes it seem like I'm getting more amp for my money than the 640R. A shame, becuase I actually prefer the 640R's styling.
  8. alphabet

    alphabet Guest

    Ratings:
    +0
    Sorry, but I think you are a bit confused.

    I certainly doubt that the 540R V3 will provide bi-amping and considering the power the 540R have on tap, you need very difficult to drive speakers that it cannot drive properly as the CA products specifications are not like so many other products where the quoted power in most instances is achieved with only one channel driven with 1KHz, but rather with all channels driven simultaneously i.e. 80w x 7 or 100 x 2 - 20Hz to 20KHz. Just look at the maximum power consumption compared to other receivers and you will understand what the CA is capable of.

    Why anyone would want to use bi-amping on the 640R except for "because I can" is off course beyond me:D

    The 340 is an integrated stereo amplifier not an AV Receiver
  9. peskywinnets

    peskywinnets Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2005
    Messages:
    1,106
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +66
    It's not so much "because I can", but more so "because I'd like to *if* my future speakers have the option"...I still think it's a shame having two channels sitting there quiescently on the 640r doing diddly squat, when they could so easily be retulitlised on biamping duties to the fronts speakers.

    I'm well aware that the 640R has healthy amounts of power on reserve so my desire to pursue bi-amping is not driven power lack of oomph on the 640R's part, just be nice to separate the high & low driver's delivery path.
  10. wilse

    wilse Guest

    Ratings:
    +0
  11. alphabet

    alphabet Guest

    Ratings:
    +0
    Oops, sorry you were correct! I have not seen this brochure, but there are certainly some interesting prospects there:)
  12. wilse

    wilse Guest

    Ratings:
    +0
    no probs, alphabet

    while your here, do you find the monobloc's increase the quality when using just 2 channel?

    wilse
  13. alphabet

    alphabet Guest

    Ratings:
    +0
    The biggest differences were that bass was a lot more controlled(and audible) at lower volumes(below -50Db) and the overall sound was more "mellow" compared to the CA on its own and the imaging is definitely better with the monoblocs.

    A few weeks ago I took my Flying Moles for an upgrade and had the fronts connected directly to the CA for a few days and then I realised that the CA has a more "forward" sound than the monoblocs, but it is still very good especially in stereo. This is the main reason why I always recommend that people listen to the CA 540R and 640R as the sound quality and power is simply amazing:thumbsup:
  14. alphabet

    alphabet Guest

    Ratings:
    +0
    The biggest differences were that bass was a lot more controlled(and audible) at lower volumes(below -50Db) and the overall sound was more "mellow" compared to the CA on its own and the imaging is definitely better with the monoblocs.

    A few weeks ago I took my Flying Moles for an upgrade and had the fronts connected directly to the CA for a few days and then I realised that the CA has a more "forward" sound than the monoblocs, but it is still very good especially in stereo. This is the main reason why I always recommend that people listen to the CA 540R and 640R as the sound quality and power is simply amazing at the price :thumbsup:

Share This Page