Is Bi - amping worth the trouble?

You are currently getting almost everything your speakers can provide. Someone suggested moving up in the VS line. I suggest moving beyond it. Both ideas are going to give you more future upgrade options than you will see by trying to squeeze your current speakers for the last two per cent they might have in them. Bi-amping your current speakers means driving into a cul de sac. The only way to go from there is back out.
Besides that, it's a little like putting a spoiler on your Neon.

Blindjim, I have the VR5 SE's and just finishid biamping them, I have a Vac Phi 110 driving the tops and a Spectron Musician III driving the bottoms. Was it worth it? Absolutely! I love the Vac amp but it just didn't have the bottom end I wanted.I bought the Spectron and tried it by itself with the 5's "great bass" but it couldn't touch the Vac in the mids and high's. One thing I noticed when running them seperate was that the Vac played a lot louder at the same volume setting, later checking gain I found the Vac to be about 10db louder.I put a pair of Rothwell 10db attenuators between the pre and the Vac and that seemed to solve the problem. Maybe I was lucky but I found no other problems and the system never sounded even close to what I have now.

The Vac will be louder cause you eliminated all that loss in crossover on the lows, and the fact you are not driving lows with it now at all, but the crossover itself was probably soaking up 50% plus of the power in the amps power supply, so its got a lot more headroom in reserve. Yeah biamping if done right with good speakers and amps can definatly have advantage's.

Why not put all the money In a ecxellent stereo amplifier, instead of several lesser units with signal degrading from external crossover units.

Mfontana
Good to hear. those 5's are way more sensitive than the 4JR's though, aren't they? that following post makes sense too... eliminating some path and resultant obstacles should have provided for more gain... I'll keep those rothwell attenuators in mind too.

Hiend2
that's a good question. Actually i'd like to have an idea of just how much a signal is degraded period. by anything... and just how much can a signal be degraded before it is audible? ...and are we sure that a signal is being degraded, in the first place? or is only X overs the culprit for signal degredation?

Personally, i think otherwise. if this tact has worth... the signal begins at a source. let's say a digital source. let's say the signal is at it's best after all the D/A conversion is done... that's the output terminals. then would cables play a part in signal degredation too? oK, how much?

I hear that term bandied about frequently. From personal experience, in cable applications, everytime a connection is employed in the signal path a resultant loss of approximately 3db occurrs. Depending upon the initial signal level, 3 db isn't much at all. minimally in regular setups, given the above... 12 to 18db loss is occurring. Now if there is loss, then isn't the signal being degraded? Loss equates to degredation. Distortion, now, there is perhaps a more apt term. i believe many confuse the one with the other... and use them interchangeably. then it would stand to reason a one piece unit without additional peripherals and connections 'should' (if comparably build quality is incorporated), be best. integrated units should take the lead... I think 'separates' are in that position, however.

All in all, there is no such thing as a perfect system or plan, if humans are involved. As to the above poster, 'perfectionist', I too am a perfectionist... with a poor track record... so I gave up on that path and decided to be extremely good, and most often, 'just above average', I can live with that quite easily. there is more time for listening, and enjoyment, and oh, yeah, there's that 'fun' aspect of it all too.