Biwire cable on a standard 2 terminal speaker?

Is this simply a dumb idea?

13 years ago after auditioning many different speaker cables I came across some MIT biwires which at the time were expensive to buy.The difference with these cables was the quality of sound they produced on my Def Tech BP2000's which are biwireable.

After all these years I finally took possession of a pair of AV13 LS-6 line arrays. They are not biwireable. I purchased a set of Reality cables which seem to work OK. I do have issues with sound as I try to marry my cables and equipment to these speakers.

Out of curiosity I connected the Reality cables to Def Techs, listened, then put the MIT biwires back in. The MIT cable produced far more magic in terms of soundstage, imaging, air, all the reasons why I bought them so many years ago.

The wife asked why I don't use them with our new speakers. The answer was simple, "they're biwires, 4 terminals don't fit on 2 binding posts. In reality, they could. Would there be a reason not to try other than reterminating the ends to spade lugs?

The biwires cables have a built-in network box which I pretty sure separate the high and low frequencies. So I'm defeating the idea of a biwire cable by connecting the separated wires (frequencies) together as one. Maybe I just answered my own question. More experienced folks may have better knowledge than I I'm sure.
1. If there's a network to separate the high and low frequencies (which I doubt), you would want to defeat that separation by combining the wires for a non-biwired speaker.

2. OTOH, the presence of such a network (which I doubt) would impose a loss with this cable compared to an ordinary single-wire arrangement.

I have musicline bi-wire cables on my Dynaudio C1's. Musicline was big about 20years ago and it is more of a 'Shotgun' wire. 4 wires per cable split into 2 16 ga stranded (24 strands for the low) and 2 16 ga stranded (104 strands for the highs). I've combined them and they very good compared to when I tried just either half of the cable so there may even be some benefits.

If your cables have a network on them I personally would not want to short the network outputs. You would be adding those components/crossover in series with your cable.
Often HF and LF portions of the cable are different. One is optimized for the lower frequencies with thicker wires while the other keeps gauge above 18 to prevent skin effect. Combining different wires is beneficial - Audioquest does this inside of their biwired cables (they call it spread spectrum). Inexpensive Audioqest Indigo, I had once, has multiple runs of different wires in parallel for the low/midrange portion (different gauges and metal purities) and just one set of thin wires for the tweeter. My current cables Acoustic Zen Satori Shotgun have each portion of the shotgun optimized for intended frequency range (not identical). In spite of that their speakers are not biwired. Many companies (like Dynaudio or Acoustic Zen) don't believe in biwiring and their speakers have only one set of terminals. This should not stop me from getting Dynaudio speakers in future - I would be just sorry that I spend twice more for the shotgun. I would use both parts of the cable.
I have several sets of AQ shotgun biwires and none have any differentiation between the two runs.

Thanks for your responses. I will reterminate the banana plugs to spades tonight and see how this cable compares to the Reality cable I recently purchased. Should be an interesting comparison.
Kal - I was talking about biwired Audioquest Indigo. It has three pairs for low/mid and one for tweeter. Total of 8 wires in the cable (different gauge).

As for shotgun - my Satori has cables optimized and factory marked for low/mid and hi. I don't remember Audioquest selling any shotgun cables - somebody (store?) probably made it from identical runs.
All my AQ shotgun cables came directly from AQ and at their suggestion.

Kal - you're right, they sell shotguns. It is in their price list but I missed it.
Audioquest, having already complex construction and spread spectrum, decided
against specific optimization. My Acoustic Zen had them optimized but I don't
know how. I re-terminated them myself and don't see any difference. On the
outside they looks the same. It is possible that arrangement (twist?) inside is
different or it is only a marketing ploy.
Or it doesn't really matter. ;-)

So I did it. I silver soldered the leads of the biwires together and replaced the Reality cables with the MIT's.

First, I'll start by saying the sound of my newly acquired LS-6's was a disappointment. The whole presentation had a tipped up quality and a tizziness that begged the volume control down. The bass was so lacking I actually hooked up my Def Techs to utilize the built-in subwoofers!! That's bad in a setup like mine.

Setup is this:
Nuforce 9SEV2
Cary SLP-05
Assorted VH-Audio power cords with Furutech plugs.
Considerable amount of room acoustics

In went the MIT's and in went the bass response. WTF. These speakers do bass. Deep, down low prodigious bass. In fact, the whole presentation tipped the other way - too much so. No more tizziness but no more sparkle either. Air had been lost as well. It was easy to listen to at first, really a relief but after about 10 minutes I felt something wrong. Leading edge transients were not so delineated and for lack of a proper description, it seemed timing or pace was screwed up.

Reality speaker cables don't work in my system. Modded MIT biwires don't work either.

Where does one go from here?
Try Anti-Cables...No lie. They are very neutral and revealing. They have a money back guarantee My dealer dropped by to voice my Vandersteen 5A's and was really impressed. They work better for me than anything I've tried, and I've tried lots