Bi-Wiring & Bi-amping Clear As Mud?

OverLoad

High On Solder Fumes
When it comes to bi-wiring and bi-amping, these two topics for many people are very misunderstood and the two often get confused with one another. They are two separate topics and both very different. For my purposes here, the aim is to keep it as simple as possible and help others understand these concepts better as well as some basic connections.

The various illustrations that are to follow are very real possible hook-up configurations. This is NOT a discussion or debate on terminology, semantics, possible usefulness or nonsensicalness, which is better or isn’t, why, why not and on and on. Leaving all that rubbish out along with the many nuances, let’s try and shed some light on things.

I think we can all agree that "Bi" means two. So let’s start with bi-wiring as it relates to 2 channel stereo systems. Bi-Wiring in its simplest terms means using two lengths of 2 core wire per speaker as opposed to the "conventional" one length. That simple definition taking into consideration that Bi means two, is "technically" correct. HOWEVER, what is known or more commonly referred to as Bi-wiring is not that simple. I’ll illustrate using the following diagrams of various configurations.

As a starting point lets look at the diagram below of a "conventional" 2-channel stereo configuration which is pretty straight forward.


1_ConventionalConfig.jpg





Now lets look at the next two configurations leaving out whether or not they have a usefulness, are nonsensical, what they do, don't do, may do, good, bad and everything in between.


2_Bi-Wire1.jpg


3_Bi-Wire2.jpg



These two configurations are very possible and could "technically" be called bi-wiring. There is nothing technically wrong with these configurations HOWEVER, they are NOT what are more commonly known or referred as bi-wire/bi-wiring.


Finally let’s look at the last two configurations with respect to Bi-Wiring.


4_Bi-Wire3.jpg


5_Bi-Wire4.jpg



It is these two configurations (config#3 & 4) which are known as bi-wire setups in the truest sense. Note the differences between these two and the previous two configurations are the speakers and their connections. In the last two diagrams the configurations utilize bi-wireable speakers.

Ok, so what’s a bi-wireable speaker? Simply put they are speakers that allow the high pass and low pass filters of the internal passive crossover network to be electrically separated thus becoming 2 separate nodes. Typically you will find 2 sets of binding posts with removable straps/jumpers in order to accomplish this. This type of speaker can also be utilized for a form of bi-amping and can also be described or referred to as bi-ampable speakers. So with that said, let’s try and tackle bi-amping.


Bi-amping has become a much muddied topic in of itself and with the different forms now used, has lead to further confusion. There is a LOT of controversy on what actually is even considered bi-amping which leads to incorrect/correct terminology use etc. (no doubt you have heard terms like “fools bi-amping” for example). Then of course there are the debates and arguments over the merits of one over another and much more. REMEMBER, we are leaving all that aside! Just to give an example of terminology, one could argue that using mono-blocks (one for left and one for right) in an otherwise conventional stereo configuration would be bi-amping. From a technical stand point I’d be inclined to agree. Having said that, I’m of the belief that what is referred to as bi-amping in the TRUEST sense is what I’ll call an active bi-amp set-up (explained later). HOWEVER, there certainly are other viable configurations that are completely possible with their own benefits and often used none the less. So again, this is not a discussion about the merits of any, whether you agree with the terminology, the authenticity or anything else for that matter. This is merely to provide (as simple as possible) some insight on possible configurations showing the differences and what I’ll refer to them as for clarity’s sake.


Let’s look at an example of what I’ll refer to as a form of “passive” bi-amping; more specifically horizontal passive bi-amping.


6_Horizontal_Bi-Amp.jpg




Now let’s look at another example of what I’ll refer to as vertical passive bi-amping.


7_Vertical_Bi-Amp.jpg


Notice the difference between horizontal versus vertical. The difference is in the way the amplifiers are utilized and configured. It’s not the focus to debate about the merits of one over the other but I should mention briefly that the horizontal configuration does allow for the use of different amplifiers as long as there is a means of compensating for different gains for example. One reason why this method might be utilized is because of possible different amplifier characteristics for desired results (ex: tube amplifier utilized on the HF and SS on the LF). In both examples, bi-wire/bi-amp capable speakers are used and the signal filtering is after the amplifiers. The filtering is done by the speaker’s passive crossover network much the same as in a “conventional” set-up except the HP and LP nodes have been separated with each node connected to a dedicated amplifier or amplifier channel.

There is yet another form of “passive” bi-amping and probably more correctly called so, that should be at least mentioned. This is a set-up whereby signal filtering is done passively at line level (before the amps). This again, is another viable configuration but less common so I won’t go in to further detail.


Lastly, there is what I’ll refer to as “active” bi-amping. Just as in the passive configurations, there can be both horizontal and vertical configurations and different amps can be utilized in horizontal. Let’s look at the horizontal active bi-amp configuration example.


8_Horizontal_Active_Bi-Amp.jpg



Next is the vertical active bi-amp configuration example.



9_Vertical_Active_Bi-Amp.jpg


In the vertical configuration above, it should be obvious that the right channels of the amplifiers could go to the HF drivers and the left channels to the LF drivers with the left and right inputs on the amps reversed (green to left input and orange to right). Just keep things symmetrical. It is the last two configurations that are referred to as bi-amping in the TRUEST sense IN MY OPINION. The bottom line is ALL the previous illustrations with respect to bi-amping are indeed viable configurations and you may call or not call them what you will.

Realize that the illustrations are basic examples and shown as simple as possible. They are merely to act as guides to help better understand the various configurations, the differences and basic connections. Not every possible scenario, detail and nuance is covered.

I must reiterate that my intentions here are to try and provide some insight in to the two topics with a clearer understanding of the possible configurations, the physical differences and basic connections period. With the basic concepts covered here I hope some of the mud has been rinsed away.

In any event, I have my own opinions and beliefs on the numerous debates regarding bi-wire and the various forms of bi-amp configurations. As the saying goes… opinions are like assholes, everybody has one. So if you have the interest and the means, why not try experimenting with the various configurations discussed here for yourself and formulate you own opinions. Just don’t discuss them here :D
 
Last edited:
Nicely done, but I do question Biwire Examples 2 & 3.

I always thought that to biwire a speaker, it needed two separate sets of speaker terminals. These examples might work (not saying any better or worse than standard wiring) if both speaker outputs A and B are parallel but I'm not too sure how well it would work if they were connected in series, which is a possibility. At best, it'll double the wire gauge. At worst, well...

Other than those two, nicely done.
 
Last edited:
The weekly thread starts.
You either don't know how to read or were ignorant in commenting because you chose not to. There seems to always be at least one wanker in the crowd. You have the honour of being the first. If these useless comments are the way you wish to contribute to the forum then by all means. I cordially ask you and anyone else with nothing constructive to add to "contribute" elsewhere.
 
Nicely done, but I do question Biwire Examples 2 & 3.

I always thought that to biwire a speaker, it needed two separate sets of speaker terminals. These examples might work (not saying any better or worse than standard wiring) if both speaker outputs A and B are parallel but I'm not too sure how well it would work if they were connected in series, which is a possibility. At best, it'll double the wire gauge. At worst, well...

Other than those two, nicely done.
Thanks Mark.

As for the bi-wiring, you may have skimmed over things.

The various illustrations that are to follow are very real possible hook-up configurations. This is NOT a discussion or debate on terminology, semantics, possible usefulness or nonsensicalness, which is better or isn’t, why, why not and on and on. Leaving all that rubbish out along with the many nuances, let’s try and shed some light on things.

These two configurations are very possible and could "technically" be called bi-wiring. There is nothing technically wrong with these configurations HOWEVER, they are NOT what are more commonly known or referred as bi-wire/bi-wiring.
^^^^This was with respect to config #1 & 2

It is these two configurations (config#3 & 4) which are known as bi-wire setups in the truest sense. Note the differences between these two and the previous two configurations are the speakers and their connections. In the last two diagrams the configurations utilize bi-wireable speakers.
 
Overload. Thank you for the great schematics/illustrations. I have tried all of the above bi-amping schemes and currently run two vertical active bi-amped configurations. Did not see much of an impact with passive bi-amping.
 
Biwire configuration 1 and 2 are completely incorrect and shouldn't even be posted. That's just ridiculous...
 
Last edited:
You should also try doing a little reading Rick :)

What is incorrect about config 1 & 2? Are the connections not possible to do? Why yes they are. I can only assume that you agree with bi-wire config #4 so with that, please tell me the difference between config 3 and 4? I'll give you a hint.... THERE IS NONE. Think about it :smoke:
 
Thanks Mark.

As for the bi-wiring, you may have skimmed over things.



^^^^This was with respect to config #1 & 2
I worded my initial post incorrctly. I have no problem with illustration 1, the "standard" speaker hookup. My qualms are with biwire configuration 2, where two speaker oututs go to one speaker terminal.
 
How about active tri-amped with 6 bridged two- channel power amps or 6 mono blocks.:thmbsp::D
 
Last edited:
Nicely done.

I actively biamp and have done it both vertically and horizontally, depending on my amps in use.
 
I worded my initial post incorrctly. I have no problem with illustration 1, the "standard" speaker hookup. My qualms are with biwire configuration 2, where two speaker oututs go to one speaker terminal.
This still doesn't make sense to me because "bi-wire" config #1 and config #2 are essentially the same when you consider the A & B amp terminals in #2 are in parallel. The separate terminals of each channel MUST be in parallel when bi-wiring of any form.

Regarding your qualms, I thought I was perfectly clear on each configuration and the focus of the write up. Are config's 1 & 2 really considered bi-wiring in the truest sense? As I stated already, NO. However is something, regardless if it may or may not be of any benefit, being accomplished with config #1 & 2 over the illustrated "conventional" config? I have to say yes. Bi-wire config's #3 & 4 are typically what is referred to as bi-wiring in the truest sense or would be considered the "correct" method if it pleases. I was doing my best to not travel down this road but some people just can't resist I guess :sigh:

Please people, read things in their entirety. As stated throughout my write up, I don't want this to turn into a debate on the merits of the various configurations or whether they are deemed so called "correct" or any of the other BS that these topics ALWAYS create. It's all the nonsense and misinformation that muddies the waters. The bottom line is that the configurations are ALL viable from a technical stand point regardless if one thinks there is any merit but this was NOT the focus of my write up.
 
How about active tri-amped with 6 bridged two- channel power amps or 6 mono blocks.:thmbsp::D
Thanks Dave :gigglemad I was trying to wash away the mud for those having a hard time grasping bi-wiring and bi-amping and you go throw a wrench like that :D

I was active quad-amping with 8 mono-blocks at one point. I scaled back to tri with 6 mono-blocks but at present, I am "fools bi-amping" with 4 mono-blocks because the current man cave is temporarily smaller.
 
Regardless of individual picky issues with details of the diagrams, I think this gives an excellent and easy to understand overview of Bi-Amping and Bi-Wiring.

I think Overload is to be congratulated on enhancing the knowledge of all with this thread /posts.

:thmbsp:
 
Yes, Thank you Overload for posting these charts.

I had a pair of JBL 4341 4-way Studio Monitors and wound up running them in Horizontal Active biamp mode with various amps over the years.
I found that with those speakers, providing a dedicated (lowPass) amp really allowed the woofer to perform clearly.

I recently got a pair of Vandersteen 2Ce speakers that came with XLO bi-wire wires.
Each cable-set has one set of banana jacks at the Amp end that splits into 2 equal length cables
for the 2 wire connections at the speaker end. Its interesting tech - I have not made my mind up on it yet.

As always, I have to listen to more music and enjoy.

(10AM EDIT - fixed a typo on the XLO cable biWIRE description)
 
Last edited:
I recently got a pair of Vandersteen 2Ce speakers that came with XLO biamp wires.
Each cable-set has one set of banana jacks at the Amp end that splits into 2 equal length cables
for the 2 wire connections at the speaker end.

Please read the original post again. What you describe is bi-wire config #3, not bi-amp. I believe what you received with your Vandersteens are a pair of XLO bi-wire cables.
 
How about active tri-amped with 6 bridged two- channel power amps or 6 mono blocks.:thmbsp::D

If you read and understood the original post, it should be no trouble to extrapolate to tri-amp (or even tri-wire), tetra-amp, quint-amp, or beyond. All the exact same concepts as the basic explanation given already.
 
Back
Top Bottom