Biwiring make any sense?

Bi Wiring should make no difference unless you use undersized wire (as @carlsbad2 said) .  If it does, then something else is going on to give that effect.   The two "bi wire" signals are actually full range signals coming from the full range amplifier(s), remaining full range down the two cables (what you think is "HF" and "LF" cables) then inserted to the crossover and passively filtered to remove top end for the LF feed or remove low end from the HF feed, following the crossover's plan on where the signal is destined to go.  The typical benefits of bi-amping (according to the old original definition of biamping that is still used in pro) was that an electronic crossover that operates at line level can do the separation work better with less error and then each amp can specialize in HF or LF.  This gave obvious benefits as low end typically draws the most power from the amp and is usually the root cause of amp clipping (running out of power), causing you to hear a clip in the top end.   Clipping is usually the reason tweeters die (from overheating trying to follow a clipped square wave);  the dynamics of music is not linear but logarithmic, so dynamic music peaks can instantly demand many times the output of the average, often outstripping the amps ability to supply it.  This is also one reason a larger amp usually sounds better than a smaller one of the same design.

Brad  

The physics are drop dead simple, the expanding and collapsing high current bass signal modulates HF… Easy to hear n a resolving system and listeners w open mind / ears. I have a set of moderately priced but very robust shotgun biwire cables i loan out… they have a hundred thousand miles on them…sadly none yet on the above mentioned bullet train to Yamaha…. maybe i will carry them on next time i’m in Japan….

be sure to separate the two cables by > 3” along the run… hence the vastly superior shotgun vs internal biwire cable.

@lonemountain --

+1

@lanx0003 wrote:

Bi-amping indeed offers a practical and effective way to optimize the performance of your speakers by dedicating different amplifiers to the high-frequency (HF) and low-frequency (LF) compartments. By using a low-wattage Class A or tube amp for the HF, you can achieve a sweeter, more refined sound in the treble range. On the other hand, a higher-wattage solid-state amp can provide the necessary power and control for the LF, delivering tighter and more impactful bass.

Active crossover systems work on a similar principle by splitting the audio signal into different frequency bands before amplification. This allows each amplifier to handle a specific range, further enhancing the precision and clarity of the sound. Both approaches can significantly improve the overall performance of your audio system, offering more flexibility and control over the sound quality.

It's a popular approach with differentiated amps throughout the frequency spectrum and one I've used myself actively with good results (albeit only with SS variants, i.e.: class A mated with class D/H), but ultimately I prefer using similar amps top to bottom actively (class A/B solid state as is), which is to say all the way down into the subs region to aid overall coherency and tonal imprinting.

Tonality is very much founded in conjunction with the lower octaves, the extent of which actually surprised me, and the problem with shifts in tonal balance using different amps is potentially exacerbated with a combination of very different amp topologies/principles. Think of all the subs being sold with cheap built-in plate amps, most of them (by a mile) class D-based. If there were issues properly integrating subs already, it's not getting any easier for this very reason. And no, smooth acoustic room response (DBA, DRC) isn't all that matters here.

People who balk at the notion of tonality as co-founded into the subs region and thus the importance of using similar amps top to bottom, will have to hold out on a verdict until experience is likely to tell them otherwise. Few are going to find out however as most don't power their subs with external amps of their own choosing, much less with similar quality amps top to bottom. For those using passively configured more or less full-range speakers with a single stereo amp, it's a non-issue (in this regard, unlike other aspects with passive config.), but augmented with separate subs it's usually another matter altogether. 

If you want to biamp and you have existing biwired cables, that means you have to Block off two extra ends that you don't use anymore and that's a pain in the neck.  I wonder if that's a problem?

The jumper is another issue, I think biwiring probably does a better good job then a jumper does and this is probably a good reason to get biwire

Does this make sense?