Rogue Zues with Vandersteen 5A's at 2004 HE Show

Zippyy--

I've read that Richard is strongly opposed to horizontal bi-amping (what you described), with the claim that it sounds like crap. In fact, most people who bi-amp seem to recommend vertical bi-amping. I have no experience with it, but those who have tried both always seem to end up with a vertical setup.

Zippyy- themadmilkman is correct that RV recommends vertical bi-amping. I have absolutely no electrical engineering knowledge, but I can say that I used a vertical bi-amp system with Vandy 3Asigs with great success for several years. Many others as well. And yes, there are two sets of terminals on each speaker, one for the woofers and one for the mid/tweets. This is true for all Model 2 and 3 speakers that I have seen. The Model 4s, which had a passive sub, had three sets and required bi-amplification (at least). Conceptually, you can think of the 5s are an extension of the Model 4 design, with built-in subwoofer amps, or a 3Asig, with built-in 2Wq subs.

The 5As are designed to be bi-wired, and if you want, bi-amped. Just to digress for a minute, the 3's on down the Vandersteen line are also designed this way. However, with them, the division is between the woofers and the mids/hi's. Since the 5's and 5A's have a powered sub the division is between the mids and the tweeter. There is no speaker wire going to the sub woofer in the 5 or 5A. Which, if I understand some of the above posts, is what is confusing some of you.
When I had 3A sigs. I went from a bi-wire configuration to a vertical bi-amp configuration and the improvement was dramatic. So much so, I would advise anyone with 3A's to give it a try. Since I had the amps available I continued the vertical bi-amping with my 5A's. In this case the difference is very slight and not worth purchasing a new amp to try it.

Themadmilkman,
I certainly hope the article said more then they "sounded like crap", that's not much to go on. Some backround information. I have a pair of Aerial 10T's that I power in the follow way. I am using two BAT VK1000 monoblocks for the botton end(s) and two BAT VK60 monoblocks for the top end(s). This is uniquely "horizontal" bi-amping, and not vertical. Why then would it matter (sound wise) if you used two stereo amps and wired them so that each channel of one amp powered the lows (of both speakers) and each channel of the other amp powered the hi's (of both speakers) verses using one amp for the hi's and low's of one speaker and the same for the other channel. In horizontal, one amp is producing only low freqs and the other amp is producing only the upper freqs. In vertical, one half of each amp is producing low freqs and the other half in doing the hi's. How can one way sound any better or worse then the other?
Swampwalker,
If you are vertical bi-amping (btw, what amp(s) are you using) have you tried to horizontally bi-amp them. If so, how did it sound, if not, why not?
Agaffer,
Aren't the 5's a four way speaker? Since they have a powered subwoofer built in, doesn't that leave the woofer, mid and tweeter left to be powered. So wouldn't the x-over point be between the woofer and the mid/hi freqs and not between the mid and hi as you suggest? In your scenario, the woofer and the mids are combined and the tweeter is separate.
I hope all this isn't too wordy!

Zippyy- I used a pair of McCormack DNA 0.5 Rev A+ (soft recovery diode). I only used them vertically bi-amped, since the designer strongly recommended it. IMO, the primary benefit for vertical bi-amping is increased channel separation, imaging, soundstaging. BTW, I also had a pair of 2WQ subs, so the bass was rolled off below 80 hz, therefore not putting too much of load on the amp in that regard.