2. speakers
  3. 130092-88016

If bi-amping is so great, why do some high end speakers not support it?

I’m sure a number of you have much more technical knowledge than I. so I’m wondering: a lot of people stress the value of bi-amping. My speakers (B&W CM9, and Monitor Audio PL100II) both offer the option. I use it on the Monitors, and I think it helps.

But I’ve noticed many speakers upward of $5k, and some more than $50k (e.g., some of Magico) aren’t set up for it.

Am I missing something? Or is this just one of the issues on which there are very different opinions with no way to settle the disagreement?

Thanks folks…


128x128rsgottlieb
chrisr's avatar
chrisr
542 posts
 
Because bi-amping is not as good as two big monoblocks.
arh
366 posts
 
If I bought 3.7i I could not Bi-amp. That is why I keep my 3.6's If I did buy 3.7i's I would use my Bernings as mono blocks.No pans to do so
Alan
kdude66
1,200 posts
 
Alan,
If you like your combo of Maggie's and bernies there is probably no reason to spend the money and change anything.

Enjoy,

Kenny.
Post removed 
oddiofyl's avatar
oddiofyl
3,493 posts
 
I've never seen any reason to bi amp....   but i have wondered if the impedance changes because you are driving terminals that are normally tied in parallel with a jumper .  I think using different amps for each section is a recipe for disaster....  how can amps with different gain, input sens. and voicing yield better results? 

I have used several pairs of mono amps, never dissatisfied with the results.   My last stereo amp was a McCormack DNA 125 which was a great amp, no doubt,  but my current Quicksilver amps throw a huge 3D image.....maybe it has nothing at all to do with the fact that they are mono but the difference in stereo imaging was not subtle
More to discover