Need more Power. Should I Bi-amp or Bridge channels?

[JeffM 10+ year member]

I want to send more than 80 watts to the Germaniums. Should I use the crossovers Bi-amp feature or should I just bridge the amp and run them in passive mode?

Click to read more...

 

[Buck 5,000+ posts]

if i'm reading this right. you are wondering if you should get another amp or bridge one?

 

[JeffM 10+ year member]

no. I am wondering if it would be best to use the bi-amp feature on my cross overs, to send 100 watts to each mid and 50 to the tweeters, or would be better to Just bridge my 4 channel amp and send them 150 watts in passive mode.

 

[helotaxi 5,000+ posts]

You won't gain much of anything by bi-amping. The only reason to do that in the first place is to be able to run different power to the mid and tweet. There isn't much loss in a passive crossover until you start running lots of power. Running 4x100 for example in a biamp setup isn't going to be detectably louder than just running 2x100. Running 2x200, however will be noticably louder.

 

[James Bang 5,000+ posts]

I recommend using the bi-amping feature when passive xovers have the ability to do so. That way you can level match to your liking. Having an amp with seperate input sensivity for each channel would be even better. Also, if you have an HU with Time alignment, it would be more effective if you bi-amp a passive comp set.

 

[helotaxi 5,000+ posts]

If you're going to bother with time alignment, why would you not go fully active? Bi-amping is useful for level matching, like I said, not for trying to get a setup more power or louder.

 

[JeffM 10+ year member]

Well now Im having a hard time trying to decide which route to take. Both options sound like they have their advantages. Im not sure about this whole time alignment thing though. My Premier 780 deck is capable of TA, but not to the extent as the 880 does. Besides, Im happy with the staging of the speakers as they are, I would just like to be able to send more power to them. In this case, I guess It would be better to run passive with 200 watts a channel?