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…


rsgottlieb
I use an Ayre amp and DAC run only in balanced mode.  I use Vandersteen Quatro's that are a semi active speaker (active subs built in).  Richard has been at this as long as nearly any other designer and knows what he's doing.  He measures, builds and listens.  He takes into account everything a designer needs to.  

I personally love the idea of a full y active system.  That's the way a designer wants it to sound. Now if you don't like how it sounds, move on.  My favorite system of all time, regardless of cost is the Vandersteen 7 mk2 with his own amp (speaker cable included as is the passive crossover that's built into the amp.  The amp also has the DBS unit that Audioquest uses (Richard I believe is a co inventor) as well as the well received HRS systems vibration control system and to top it all off, his amp as well as the amps in the 7's has the Audioquest Niagara technology built in.  

Folks don't often realize what's inside a speaker or amp etc...  To me, it's a fully active system as it was designed that way.  Add a pre and run a source into it and then add a top end pair of AQ balanced interconnect and you have a GREAT system, that's simple and sounds outstanding to most of us.  

Everyone talks about synergy and often forget about it when assembling their systems.  

Bi amp?  if the speaker allows, it can sound so much better than not going it.  I do feel strongly that you shouldn't go with two lesser amps as I've never heard system sound better with lesser electronics.  Again, that's just me.  Bi wire, as I said earlier, yes if it's designed that way as Vandersteen and some others are.  It's all in the implementation. 
''If bi-amping is so great, why do some high end speakers not support it? 

Very simple.
Manufacturers building bi/tri-amp speakers if lucky, perhaps, will sell 10 pair per year the most.

Really? Monitor audio sells a lot more than that--I think all their high end have 4 binding posts.

Adding (a) powered sub(s) with built-in x/o filters IS a form of bi-amping, but doing so does NOT replace the speaker-level x/o, which is left in place to divide the signal for the speakers’ (not the subs’) woofers vs. tweeters.

There has been mention here of digital active x/o’s, but there are still analog x/o’s available, for anyone not wishing to turn his LP’s, 78’s, 45’s, tapes, and FM signal into digits. Two reasonably-priced good ones are made by Marchand and First Watt (Nelson Pass), both around a grand. Bi-amping works only with speakers designed to be so used---Maggie 20.1’s, for example, are, 20.7’s are not (just as 3.6’s are and 3.7’s are not, same with 1.6’s vs. 1.7’s).

The pre-.7 Maggies can be bi-amped using an active electronic x/o because their stock speaker-level x/o's are textbook parallel designs, easily duplicated by an outboard x/o. The .7 speakers have series x/o, not so easily duplicated. Any speaker having corrective filters (Zobel networks, to correct for any driver misbehavior) also make bi-amping complicated.

One reason bi-amping can improve the sound of a speaker that has not been mentioned here (I don't believe), is that powering each driver with a separate, dedicated amp prevents the back-emf (electro-magnetic force) that a woofer sends back to the amp powering it can not reach the tweeter (in a 2-way loudspeaker). The advantage of that arrangement should be obvious!