Jump to content

Sign up for a free account to remove the pop-up ads

Signing up for an account is fast and free. As a member you can join in the conversation, enter contests and remove the pop-up ads that guests get. Click here to create your free account.

- - - - -

Connecting one set of speakers to two sets of terminals...

  • You cannot start a new topic
  • Please log in to reply
4 replies to this topic

#1 of 5 OFFLINE   Vin


    Supporting Actor

  • 547 posts
  • Join Date: Oct 23 2000

Posted March 31 2003 - 01:35 AM

My receiver has a set of B terminals that would allow for a 2nd set of main speakers in another room. These speakers could be played alone or along with the A main speakers. IOW, I could play A, B or A&B....I'm sure this is very common and many of you have recievers with this capability.

OK, here's my question: being that the amplifiers that power the B speaker terminals are shared with the surround speakers (read: B mains and surrounds cannot be active at the same time), is there a reason why I couldn't have my surround speakers connected to the B main speaker terminals at the same time? Assuming this can be done, I'm thinking of maybe using jumpers from the surround terminals to the B mains.....is there a better way to do this?

What I'm trying to do is simulate 'all channel stereo' for music listening, a feature my receiver doesn't have.

In theory, it seems to me this would work but I'm obviously not certain and wouldn't want to damage the receiver.....anyone know for sure?


#2 of 5 OFFLINE   ColinM



  • 2,057 posts
  • Join Date: Dec 08 2001

Posted March 31 2003 - 03:36 AM

[quote] : B mains and surrounds cannot be active at the same time [quote] I think that should be "A+B and Surround cannot be active at the same time" ? Too much of a load on the amp / power supply.

Don't try to configure another speaker setup not specifically called out in the manual. Smoke and flames may not be far off.

And if you connect a speaker to 2 amps (surr and B) you effectively feed power amp into power amp. Can't be a good thing.

Maybe a speaker selector - Surround to channel A, B to channel B, and select for the proper playback. (Except I think in this case you'd reverse the wire's path - Surround amp to channel 1, B amp to channel 2, surround speaker leads to "Amp".http://www.partsexpr...._ID=4872&DID=7

I might be way off - I'd never try this at home. Wife hates wires.
You call that a knife?

#3 of 5 OFFLINE   Vin


    Supporting Actor

  • 547 posts
  • Join Date: Oct 23 2000

Posted March 31 2003 - 06:44 AM

[quote] And if you connect a speaker to 2 amps (surr and B) you effectively feed power amp into power amp. Can't be a good thing. [quote]

B uses the same amp as the surrounds. The 'default' setting for normal playback (whether it be for 2 channel stereo playback or 5.1 DD/DTS playback) is A only. If A+B is selected I've essentially turned off my surrounds....this is what got me thinking, if the B terminals aren't being used to power another set of speakers in another room, why can't I use my surround speakers in this dual role by having them also connected to the B terminals (which will only be active when A + B is selected, thus cutting power to the surround terminals) instead of having another set of speakers in the same room (as the case would be, for my purposes)?

Note: I stated in my original post that I have three options, A, B or A+B but probably only have two options...I don't believe I can select B by themselves, I'll double check that when I get home tonight.

Thanks for your input and anything that you might add.


#4 of 5 OFFLINE   Adam.Gonsman


    Stunt Coordinator

  • 132 posts
  • Join Date: Jan 09 2003

Posted March 31 2003 - 08:20 AM

Vin, I experimented was an indentical setup about a year and a half ago with my old Sony receiver. It was somewhat outdated and like yours lacked all channel stereo. I had limited success. As long as I was very careful not to do anything that would throw the recevier into a surround mode while I was running A+B, it seemed to work ok. If I did accidently hit a soundfield on the remote or something though, it would confuse the receiver and trip it's protector circuit. This I think though was actually a bug in the Sony since it would seem to me that the receiver was not smart enough to block surround signals to the surround/B amps while the receiver was set to A+B. So the in my case, the only real danger seemed to be a shortcoming of the pre/pro section of my receiver. As for Colin's concern, if Vin's receiver is like my Sony, A and B are seperate amps. It's not like some receivers that essentially just provide a second set of binding posts for the main 2 channels. In compromise though, the seperate amps that power B are in fact the same amps that power the surrounds when in surround mode. So you can't really be feeding one amp into another by jumpering the Surround binding posts and the B binding posts in this particular instance becuse they are the same amps. On this same note though, you may run into problems or have the potential to cause damage on the other side of the amps though where the processor feeds into the amps. Your receiver may still try and feed surround to the amps in question if you switch to something other the 2 channel even though you have A+B already set. Like I said, this is what mine did. I would say that what you describe is doable. I found mine inconvenient though and it was too easy to keep tripping the receiver. I would say that you should do it at your own risk though as I can almost 100% promise you this type of setup is not approved by your receiver manufacturer. I would also not recommend it if your spouse/kids/roomate/goldfish are not as absolutely sure how to use and command the system expertly since they may be more likely to try and invoke surround by accident while A+B is set. Really if at all possible, I would consider moving up to a different receiver that provides all channel stereo or investing in a small pair of dedicated bookshelf speakers to set next to the surrounds and wire specifically to the B binding posts if all channel is really that important to you.

#5 of 5 OFFLINE   Vin


    Supporting Actor

  • 547 posts
  • Join Date: Oct 23 2000

Posted March 31 2003 - 08:52 AM

Thanks Adam for pointing out the potential risks that I might encounter. I've actually already upgraded to a receiver with all channel stereo (although not specifically for that reason) and will be selling my old receiver to a friend. Of course, now he would like a receiver capable of all channel stereo Posted Image which is what prompted my query.

Anyway, I don't think I'll chance burning his house down with my proposed arrangement but may suggest to him that another set of speakers connected to the B terminals (or the use of a speaker selector as Colin mentioned) would be a safer way to possibly accomplish this goal.


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users