Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

AV kunce... bought new 5.1 speaker setup.. thinking it would be a direct swap for my existing yamaha speakers... the new ones being a better model have 'bi connection' available as opposed to the old set with just the standard one pair of terminals per front speaker...

apparenty 'bi connection 'decreases modulation distortion caused by electric resistance of the cables and driving current of the speakers. Consequently, purer sound quality can be achieved'

That'll get done on my holidays...

Now the new sub...the old sub was just a direct plug in to both the sub and the amp... new sub has terminals for speaker wire connection or plug in inputs... 1 using a mono pin cable, not included of course, which connects to the 'subwoofer low pass' terminal on the amp... or using an 'audio pin cable', also not supplied, which is a 2 plug setup which goes to the 'split subwoofer' inputs on the amp....

Which of these options would give the best results?

I'm looking at you Odium.

  • Like 1

bi-amped means to split the signal and run two seperate outputs to the speakers

you need an amp that supports channel a and channel b - or dual amp

my setup is like

you basically run two pairs of speaker wires to each speaker

does the amp have speaker A and Speaker B ?

given that it's a 5.1 its unlikey

does the amp have subout ?

bi-amp is better but if your amp doesnt support it, life goes on. just bridge the terminals so that the single speaker wire goes to both terminals if that makes sense

ie dont cross the wires, but merge them

bi-amped means to split the signal and run two seperate outputs to the speakers

you need an amp that supports channel a and channel b - or dual amp

my setup is like

you basically run two pairs of speaker wires to each speaker

does the amp have speaker A and Speaker B ?

given that it's a 5.1 its unlikey

does the amp have subout ?

The instructions that came with the speakers actually say you can put the 2 pairs of cables into the same terminals on the amp if only one pair of front speaker terminals is available..

yamaha_rx_v467_1.jpg

bi-amp is better but if your amp doesnt support it, life goes on. just bridge the terminals so that the single speaker wire goes to both terminals if that makes sense

ie dont cross the wires, but merge them

yeah you can split the wires, use a bridge tool and run completely seperate - from two seperate outputs

so on my stereo amp

i have channel A and channel B on the amp

Channel A goes to speakers on input #1 on the speakers

channel b goes to speakers on input #2 on the speakers

then on the amp when Channel A and B are turned on you hear normal music

if you only turn on channel a - you only hear trebble, if you only turn on B you only hear bass

Why would you ever want only treble or bass?

From what these instructions say, its not about doing that at all, just about increasing the sound quality... They're connected as normal for now, if I cbf I'll do the bi connection using the single front speaker terminal pairs, but I doubt I'll be able to hear any difference anyway.

As for the sub, the speaker wire option with my amp only having the 1 set of front speaker terminals, I'll go with the AV cable connection instead.

What you're referring to is Bi-Wiring, not Bi-Amping... very different concepts... and neither will increase your chances of a threesome with two bi girls, trust me, I know... The Onkyo Sales Rep lied to me.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bi-wiring .... "Buy-Wiring", ha.

Your success will only determine the type of car that I buy you, not whether I buy you a car or not...I trust you'll look after it as if you had saved for it yourself

/genyparent

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.



  • Similar Content

  • Latest Posts

    • It would be well worth deciding where you want to go and what you care about. Reliability of everything in a 34 drops MASSIVELY above the 300kw mark. Keeping everything going great at beyond that value will cost ten times the $. Clutches become shit, gearboxes (and engines/bottom ends) become consumable, traction becomes crap. The good news is looking legalish/actually being legal is slighly under the 300kw mark. I would make the assumption you want to ditch the stock plenum too and want to go a front facing unit of some description due to the cross flow. Do the bends on a return flow hurt? Not really. A couple of bends do make a difference but not nearly as much in a forced induction situation. Add 1psi of boost to overcome it. Nobody has ever gone and done a track session monitoring IAT then done a different session on a different intercooler and monitored IAT to see the difference here. All of the benefits here are likely in the "My engine is a forged consumable that I drive once a year because it needs a rebuild every year which takes 9 months of the year to complete" territory. It would be well worth deciding where you want to go and what you care about with this car.
    • By "reverse flow", do you mean "return flow"? Being the IC having a return pipe back behind the bumper reo, or similar? If so... I am currently making ~250 rwkW on a Neo at ~17-18 psi. With a return flow. There's nothing to indicate that it is costing me a lot of power at this level, and I would be surprised if I could not push it harder. True, I have not measured pressure drop across it or IAT changes, but the car does not seem upset about it in any way. I won't be bothering to look into it unless it starts giving trouble or doesn't respond to boost increases when I next put it on the dyno. FWIW, it was tuned with the boost controller off, so achieving ~15-16 psi on the wastegate spring alone, and it is noticeably quicker with the boost controller on and yielding a couple of extra pounds. Hence why I think it is doing OK. So, no, I would not arbitrarily say that return flows are restrictive. Yes, they are certainly restrictive if you're aiming for higher power levels. But I also think that the happy place for a street car is <300 rwkW anyway, so I'm not going to be aiming for power levels that would require me to change the inlet pipework. My car looks very stock, even though everything is different. The turbo and inlet pipes all look stock and run in the stock locations, The airbox looks stock (apart from the inlet being opened up). The turbo looks stock, because it's in the stock location, is the stock housings and can't really be seen anyway. It makes enough power to be good to drive, but won't raise eyebrows if I ever f**k up enough for the cops to lift the bonnet.
    • There is a guy who said he can weld me piping without having to cut chassis, maybe I do that ? Or do I just go reverse flow but isn’t reverse flow very limited once again? 
    • I haven’t yet cut the chassis, maybe I switch to a reverse flow. I’ve got the Intercooler mounted as I already had it but not cut yet. Might have to speak to an engineer 
    • Yes that’s another issue, I always have a front mount, plus will be turbo plus intake will big hasstle. I’ve been told if it looks stock they’re fine with it by a couple others who have done it ahahaha.    I know @Kinkstaah said the stock gtt airbox is limiting but I might just have to do that to avoid a defect so it atleast looks legit. Or an enclosed pod so it’s hidden away and feed air from the snorkel and below Intercooler holes like kinstaah mentioned. Hmm what to do 
×
×
  • Create New...