Denon AVRX2600H - what are the correct Bi Amp connections?

jimdriver2

Active Member
I've got a Denon AVRX2600H coming today and I'm going to connect it to my Wharfedale 220's.

I want to bi amp but the manual is not terribly clear.

I can see I use the surround backs alongside the normal fronts but it isn't clear which connection goes where, e.g. so I put high freq in the fronts and low freq in the surround backs?

Seems an oversight to not be clear which goes where!
 

mushii

Distinguished Member
Why would you want to do that? The power all comes from the same transformer. Its all from the same pool?
 

Jamie

Distinguished Member
It seems pretty clear to me


The 2 left channels will be exactly the same signals so in reality it doesn't matter whether the main speaker connectors are used for hi or lo on the speakers.

I appreciate why you might want to try it but it's worth mentioning the consensus is it won't make a difference using an AVR.
 
Last edited:

jimdriver2

Active Member
Oh ok. My previous amp a Pioneer vsx-934 made a big deal about particular cables being connected to particular speaker outputs. I presumed it would be the same.

Thanks for the heads up though. Seems odd the AVR makers would say it's better but the consensus of enthusiasts is that it doesn't...
 

stranger

Well-known Member
They also tell you that their receivers are xxx amount of watts per channel when it's usually less than half that.
 

dante01

Distinguished Member
The benefits associated with passive bi-amping are marginal and usually more often than not more trouble to facilitate than the benefits you'd reap.

You may find this article of interest:

Passive Bi-amping
Passive bi-amping utilizes the passive crossovers built into the speakers, with each amplifier channel reproducing a full range signal to drive separate high and low frequency networks. Relative to active bi-amping, the benefits of passive bi-amping are much less pronounced (you might hear the derogatory term of “fool’s bi-amping” applied). Nonetheless, splitting the high and low frequency networks does have some effect, as the amplifiers each now see a different load than one would under normal circumstances when individually driving the entire speaker. Generally speaking, the individual networks are designed such that “out of band” frequencies will have a very high impedance relative to the expected pass band of the driver(s), and consequently will demand significantly less actual power from the amplifier at those out of band frequencies.

Because of this split, there are a couple practical advantages. Potential output ability is increased as there is little power wasted reproducing those aforementioned “out of band” frequencies. As with active bi-amping, the possibility of tweeter burnout due to amplifier overload is also reduced.
However, in terms of basic audible differences, there’s not much to write home about, and what improvements do exist could typically be gained by simply utilizing a single more powerful amplifier with similar or better performance metrics than the two smaller amplifiers.

All AV receivers facilitate bi-amping in a passive as opposed to an active manner. The audio being output is the same full band to both drive units and both amplification modules are drawing their power from the same PSU. The speakers' own crossovers will still be in effect and the power advantages will be fare less favourable than they would be if using independant amplification for each drive unit.

There are far better things you can be putting those additional 2 channels of amplification to. Only consider bi-amping using an AV receiver if you are positive that you don't want or need to use these 2 channels of amplification elsewhere.
 
Last edited:

gibbsy

Moderator
It's not worth the effort, hardly if any audio improvement. If you are running a base 5.1 then all you are doing is depriving the centre and surrounds of some power.
 

Similar threads

The latest video from AVForums

Podcast: New TVs, Samsung Q800T Soundbar review, IFA latest, Movie and AV News, B+W Brad Pitt
Top Bottom