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
Regarding biwire and speaker manufacturers. Jim Salk of Salk Sound doesn't think that it matters for sound but he advises his buyers to allow for that capability as it can help resale value.  
So, shardorne, are you saying those of us who've been listening and continue to listen to gear with (only) single ended connections, been hearing crappy sound with ground loop hiss mixed with RF noise all this time? We must be deaf... for sure. Sorry, completely off topic.
Apparently some manufacturers believe that owners are more likely to screw up the sound with biamping and others  support it.

I biamp my  Vandersteens as they are set up for it. Class A monos up top and Class ABs with plenty of current on bass, though an adjustable crossover.

My Wilsons are amped with a single stereo amp as that is what the manufacturer prefers.  Both sound great.

Wilson and Magico can't be bi amped as those companies put a great deal of time and money into the design of their crossovers and how they work with their drivers. In their case much of the money your spending is for that resulting sound. So maybe bi amping improves the sound for some less expensive brands.