8 responses Add your response
I'm pretty sure that using A and B speaker outputs to biwire a single stereo pair of speakers is not right. Others with more technical knowledge than me can explain, but I would certainly go with either a single biwire set up from one set of outputs as you described, or running dual (aka shotgun )biwire off of single set of outputs.
I own a Creek 5350SE. It has A+B speaker selector switch, I use 4 seperate runs of Kimber 4TC. I contacted Creek Audio and they recommend biwiring this way.
I even asked which was better:
A to one speaker, B to the other
A to treble, B to bass.
The answer was "makes no difference either way".
There's no need to run a biwired set off of more than one set of terminals, unless your cables are so bulky that the extra space and finger room helps you; or if you have two separate pairs of cable already that you don't want reterminated into a single biwired pair at the amp end.
Turning on both A & B sets just makes a simple connection inside. I'd rather have the cables just joined together, as it would likely be a higher quality way of joining the two for biwiring than the amp's internal wiring might give.
It really depends on your amp. If the two sets of terminals were made for Bi-wire then fine. (Only using one set of terminals here is fine also.) If the two terminal sets were made for two separate pairs of speakers, then I would not use both.
Secondly, whether a single bi-wire set or running two separate pairs of cables is better again depends on which cables?? A single biwire set is easier when the amp in questions only has one pair of terminals (which is what I do currently). However, I did once own a double run of cables where I had the two separate pairs combined on one spade for the amp end.
When you find bi-wire cables for sale where the bi-wire pair cost almost double a non biwire pair, it usually means it is a double run combined at the amp end. (Analysis Plus is one). If the bi-wire pair is only slightly more than a single pair, then they are most likely a single internal biwire cable (Audioquest, Straightwire and others). My double run was Audioquest even though they could have been made from a single pair.
Sometimes using a double run (2 pairs) is called "shotgun". In a shotgun setup the user will use one cable set for both (+) terminals and the other set for both (-) terminals; instead of one set for the highs and the other cable set for the lows (traditional biwire setup).
I believe bi-wiring benefits are entirely system and cable dependent. They say that the best performance gains (if you notice any at all) would be from having four seperate runs each enclosed in it's own sheath.
I've tried bi-wiring on several occassions on previous systems including the shotgun (4 run) approach but with no sonic benefits that I could hear.
Earlier this year I converted my bi-wired Harmonic Tech Pro 9's (bi-wired with single terminations) to bi-wire at the speaker ends.
For the first time, I noticed a pretty substantial difference in the 3D soundstaging, better imaging, and an airier high end. I was quite pleased with the results.
Sugarbrie- never heard that idea on shotgun biwire; is there an theory on that or is it based on your experience? Just curious, I've got double runs of Syn Res Sig 2 on my Vandy 3asigs and I've got one run for mid/tweet and other for woof, both placed on the same binding post. Sounds great but I've never tried it your way. Maybe now I'll have something else to do this weekend.
I don't see why shotgun would be better. I assume that it is common knowledge that "external bi-wire" (two separate runs - one to highs / one to lows) is the correct way to bi-wire and running bi-wire internally gives little improvement.
Shotgun sounds like a version of "internal bi-wire" so I am doubtful of any benefits.
Furthermore "shotgun" would eliminate any induction reduction you get by having the + and - next to each other.