If bi-amping is so great, why do some high end speakers not support it?


I’m sure a number of you have much more technical knowledge than I. so I’m wondering: a lot of people stress the value of bi-amping. My speakers (B&W CM9, and Monitor Audio PL100II) both offer the option. I use it on the Monitors, and I think it helps.

But I’ve noticed many speakers upward of $5k, and some more than $50k (e.g., some of Magico) aren’t set up for it.

Am I missing something? Or is this just one of the issues on which there are very different opinions with no way to settle the disagreement?

Thanks folks…


128x128rsgottlieb
Biamping offers significant SQ improvements at the cost of more amps - usually the transformer is a big cost, beyond the engineering and QC.

Some speaker manfs. do not want you messing up their carefully designed cross-overs; others may worry you will not spend the $$ for multiple quality amps; and others have a narrow focus on drivers, etc. while missing the big picture.

The trend now is for manf.s to build quality class D amps into their speakers and design the amp to optimize each driver.  Meridian was a pioneer in that and in sending a digital signal as far down the listening chain as possible.
Because a truly bi-amped speaker does not need a crossover. The signal is split prior to the amplifiers.

What manufacturer is going to limit his market by forcing buyers to purchase and extra set of amps and an active crossover?  


Alan,

I could see benefits with that pairing in a biamp configuration,

I haven't owned Maggie's for about 7 yrs and the speakers from then to now would'nt have benefited a biamp configuration,all high efficiency.

Now when you bring up the configuration of active biamping and not using the passive crossovers in a speaker that's a completely different way to go and without question is a game changer.But with greater cost and complexity.


Kenny.