Why Use the UMC-200 Bi-Amp Feature?

[stoopalini]

As I consider how to best use my speakers and amplification channels, I am considering bi-amping my NHT vt-1.2a towers (two 4.5" drivers + 1" tweeter on one channel, one 8" woofer on 2nd channel) 

So I see 2 ways to do this:

1. Enable Bi-Amp in the UMC-200, and connect the front and rear surround channels to 4 amplification channels, then to the speakers
   
2. Do not enable Bi-Amp in the UMC-200, and use 2 'Y' splitters to connect only the front channels to 4 amplification channels, then to the speakers

I was leaning toward option 1, assuming I would be able to set the x-over details independently for the bi-amplification channels.  ie: Connect the front channels to the mids and tweeters, and connect the rear surround channels to the 8" woofers.  Then I could bypass the internal passive x-overs in the NHT cabinets and use the UMC x-overs to set it up.

But, I now realize when you enable Bi-Amp mode, you lose the option to set x-over points/slope for the rear surround output jacks. 

So, knowing that, why would anyone want to use the Bi-Amp mode in the UMC-200 instead of just using a 'Y' cable to split the front signals to multiple amplification channels?  Is there a benefit I'm overlooking here?

[KeithL]

About the only real difference is that it's neater

Apr 7, 2014 12:38:43 GMT -5 stoopalini said:

As I consider how to best use my speakers and amplification channels, I am considering bi-amping my NHT vt-1.2a towers (two 4.5" drivers + 1" tweeter on one channel, one 8" woofer on 2nd channel) 

So I see 2 ways to do this:

1. Enable Bi-Amp in the UMC-200, and connect the front and rear surround channels to 4 amplification channels, then to the speakers
   
2. Do not enable Bi-Amp in the UMC-200, and use 2 'Y' splitters to connect only the front channels to 4 amplification channels, then to the speakers

I was leaning toward option 1, assuming I would be able to set the x-over details independently for the bi-amplification channels.  ie: Connect the front channels to the mids and tweeters, and connect the rear surround channels to the 8" woofers.  Then I could bypass the internal passive x-overs in the NHT cabinets and use the UMC x-overs to set it up.

But, I now realize when you enable Bi-Amp mode, you lose the option to set x-over points/slope for the rear surround output jacks. 

So, knowing that, why would anyone want to use the Bi-Amp mode in the UMC-200 instead of just using a 'Y' cable to split the front signals to multiple amplification channels?  Is there a benefit I'm overlooking here?

[stoopalini]

Ya, that's kind of what I figured.

It's too bad the Bi-Amp feature doesn't allow you to keep the x-over and EQ config on the surround back channels, while just sending the front signal to them. This would be a real benefit to the feature.

[lhracing]

I setup my son's UMC-200/UPA-700 system with the MRCA-7 cable using option 1 and it works very well. Also it has one less connection in the signal path.

[stoopalini]

Apr 7, 2014 16:47:24 GMT -5 lhracing said:

I setup my son's UMC-200/UPA-700 system with the MRCA-7 cable using option 1 and it works very well. Also it has one less connection in the signal path.

Yes, I can see a 5.1 system being simpler to hook up this way, but since the UMC-200 offers the use of 7.1, with rear surrounds or front height speakers, I wouldn't want to lose the extra processing channels just to Bi-Amp.

So with 9 channels of amplification and a UMC-200, using option 2, you can still bi-amp the fronts and have 7 speakers (center, front L&R, rear L&R, and the either rear surround L&R, or front height L&R) .... and since I have the amplification channels and the speakers to do this, I'll opt for the 'Y' cable. 

BTW:  Nice avatar!  Road course?  I ran with NASA TX in a GTO for the past 3 years ... great stuff!

[lhracing]

"BTW: Nice avatar! Road course? I ran with NASA TX in a GTO for the past 3 years ... great stuff!"

The picture is from the "Bonneville 100" Open Road Race in Nevada.