The Official Energy Speakers Thread

[BigAl87]

Originally Posted by callas01

in general, passive bi-amping like you are doing has no affect on performance.

I recommend going back to the most basic method of single wiring to begin with.

[callas01]

Originally Posted by BigAl87

I don't see the part where he could be bi amp and he puts surround speakers in the same sentance this is confusing.

on some 7.1 receivers you can use the Surround Back terminals for bi-amping and you in a sense lose the SBR & SBL speakers, so you would only be able to have a 5 speaker setup, you could never have a 7 speaker setup when bi-amping.

[BigAl87]

Originally Posted by callas01

on some 7.1 receivers you can use the Surround Back terminals for bi-amping and you in a sense lose the SBR & SBL speakers, so you would only be able to have a 5 speaker setup, you could never have a 7 speaker setup when bi-amping.

Ha ok I thaught his wires were running to his speakers, Did he actually remove the little bridges between the speaker binding posts?

I rered this and it makes alot of sense but as I said he forgot to mention if he had removed the bridge between the posts, and there must be an option to set this in the receiver that you are bi-amping your speakers, is that set correctly?

[tang7969]

I have the top terminals on the speakers going to the Left and Right terminals on the rcv, The bottom terminals on the speaker go to the surround back Left and Right on the rcv. Is this wrong?

[callas01]

Originally Posted by BigAl87

Ha ok I thaught his wires were running to his speakers, Did he actually remove the little bridges between the speaker binding posts?

that Im not sure of.... but I hope so, cause if he didn't that could damage the speakers or receiver.

[callas01]

Originally Posted by tang7969

I have the top terminals on the speakers going to the Left and Right terminals on the rcv, The bottom terminals on the speaker go to the surround back Left and Right on the rcv. Is this wrong?

id switch it personally, its harder to drive the woofers then the tweeters, and the fronts typically use and output more power then surrounds.

[BigAl87]

Originally Posted by tang7969

I have the top terminals on the speakers going to the Left and Right terminals on the rcv, The bottom terminals on the speaker go to the surround back Left and Right on the rcv. Is this wrong?

Ok this is correctly connected, now on page 60 of your manual it tells you what you have to do to make this work properly, Have you done so?

You have to change the surround back speakers settings to Fornts Bi-Amp, you can find this on page 41.

Thanks for the picture

[BigAl87]

Originally Posted by callas01

id switch it personally, its harder to drive the woofers then the tweeters, and the fronts typically use and output more power then surrounds.

Does not matter according to his manual the receiver drives the same thing bud

[tang7969]

Ok I am going to back to the traditional way. I will let you know what happens. Thanks for everything!

[BigAl87]

Originally Posted by tang7969

Ok I am going to back to the traditional way. I will let you know what happens. Thanks for everything!

Well As I said have you set this properly in the receiver?

[callas01]

Originally Posted by BigAl87

Does not matter according to his manual the receiver drives the same thing bud

ok... thanks

[callas01]

remember we were discussing 6.1 movies... watching Top Gun on blu right now....

[K-Fed2]

Originally Posted by callas01

on some 7.1 receivers you can use the Surround Back terminals for bi-amping and you in a sense lose the SBR & SBL speakers, so you would only be able to have a 5 speaker setup, you could never have a 7 speaker setup when bi-amping.

That's exactly the choices I have on my Denon,
1. zone2 (default)
2. bi-amp (passive)
3. 7.1 configuration

passive bi-amping is basically non-effective. i tried it before I went 7.1 and heard NO difference.

[BigAl87]

Originally Posted by callas01

remember we were discussing 6.1 movies... watching Top Gun on blu right now....

I watched Pirates of the Caribbean, Curse of the Black Pearl.

[9883]

Bi-amping is of interest to me as well. Passive is when you run dual speaker wires from the same channel on the amp to one of the bridged terminals on the speaker and active is when you run wires from two different channels to each of the two (- and +) terminals with the bridge between them removed, do I have this correct?

How would I be able to tell which of the two terminals powers the tweeter and which one powers the woofer? How would those duties be divided on a speaker like the CF-30 which has two woofers and one tweeter?

As far as power per channel on a receiver is concerned, this is my understanding: receivers only make the listed power on one or two of the channels and for the rest the output drops off sharply (don't know if that also applies to Denon receivers that have individual amps for each channel). For example, the specs on my sony receiver say, "8 Ohms 20-20kHz : 95W + 95W" which probably means that the receiver has 95W RMS of power at the front right and left channel. I don't know how little the other channels have but I wonder if that is something that I can test with a multimeter.

[K-Fed2]

Originally Posted by 9883

Bi-amping is of interest to me as well. Passive is when you run dual speaker wires from the same channel on the amp to one of the bridged terminals on the speaker and active is when you run wires from two different channels to each of the two (- and +) terminals with the bridge between them removed, do I have this correct?

How would I be able to tell which of the two terminals powers the tweeter and which one powers the woofer? How would those duties be divided on a speaker like the CF-30 which has two woofers and one tweeter?

As far as power per channel on a receiver is concerned, this is my understanding: receivers only make the listed power on one or two of the channels and for the rest the output drops off sharply (don't know if that also applies to Denon receivers that have individual amps for each channel). For example, the specs on my sony receiver say, "8 Ohms 20-20kHz : 95W + 95W" which probably means that the receiver has 95W RMS of power at the front right and left channel. I don't know how little the other channels have but I wonder if that is something that I can test with a multimeter.

no not quite. running two sets of wires from the same channel on the amp to each set of binding posts with the bridge removed is "BI-WIRING" (see attached bi-wire pic... bottom jpg) which has mininal to no effect at all. With the bridge left on is no benefit at all.

Passive bi-amping is using 2 amplifiers to power each set of teminals on one speaker seperatly. example: back surround channel on a 7.1 avr set to bi-amp. If you do this you MUST!!!!! again i say MUS Tremove the metal bridge between the two sets of terminals or you will BLOW the amp.

connect first amp to low freq terminals on both speakers. ( see attached bi-amp pic.. top jpg) then use 2nd amp to conect to both high freq teminals on both speakers. mininal performance gain but better than bi-wiring.

on two and a half way speakers like my RC-30s. top termianls are the tweeter, bottom terminals are the TWO woofers which have different cut off freq. for each. your CF30s should be the same i would assume

[9883]

I got bi-wiring and bi-amping confused in the post that I made + the mistake of bi-wiring to the same set of posts with the bridge on, sorry.

[9883]

Is there such a thing as active bi-amping?

[9883]

What benefits from/can take more "juice" the tweeter or the woofer?

[K-Fed2]

Originally Posted by 9883

Is there such a thing as active bi-amping?

Yes there is but you need a seperate pre-amp to feed signal to two individual power amps. also called vertical bi-amping. see attached pic.
much prefered method and does have benefits and is the recommended method by energy.