Difference between biampable and non-biampale spea

Is there a difference between the internal electronics of a biampable speaker and one with only one set of binding posts? Or are the upper and lower ranges simply connected internally rather than externally? There is a dissertation in the classicspeakerpages' library on how to biamp the AR90. It doesn't look all that simple.
It depends on the design of the crossover. If it is a purely parallel network, the upper and lower portions are separate and, typically, connected internally to the same pair of terminals. If they are not, one can bi-amp/bi-wire by connecting to the two separate pairs of terminals.

Other network configurations are not (as) amenable to bi-wiring/bi-amping.

Overall, not worth the bother.

I have to think about what you said, but I'm not considering biamping. What I'm wondering is that if single amping might actually sound better than passive biamping if the amp is big enough and depending how the crossover is designed. I'm trying to understand it but it's over my head.
IMHO, it applies equally to bi-wiring and to bi-amping unless one can provide an active custom crossover to replace the built-in ones.

Thanks. My understanding is that the crossovers of my biampable AR9's are connected in series, that when they are single-amped, they are 4 ohms, that when they are biamped, they are 4 ohms. I think what you said about the parallel connection means that if they were biamped their impedence would be twice their impedence strapped. Yes?

My AR9's, when they are single-amped, sound better strapped than biwired. Does that tell you anything?