Biwiring make any sense?

I had one cable on the +/- posts of the speaker and the other cable doing the same for the other post. I changed that so that one cable connected the + posts and the other cable connected the - posts. This is how I saw bi-wiring being implemented in a number of articles and videos I reviewed.

I had one cable on the +/- posts of the speaker and the other cable doing the same for the other post. I changed that so that one cable connected the + posts and the other cable connected the - posts.

Hmmm . . . @84xfirez-51 , if I am interpreting this correctly, the way you HAD it was you used one speaker cable to go to one set of speaker posts (to the woofer, for example) connecting one spade or banana to the + post (to the woofer) and then connecting the other spade or banana to the - post for the woofer. And then you took the other speaker cable and did the same thing for the tweeter + and - post.

I always thought that this was the way bi-wiring was supposed to be done?

So what you changed, and are doing NOW, if I understand you correctly, is that you are using one speaker cable, with both terminals of that cable connected to the + post of your amp, and you are connecting this cable to both the + to the woofer AND the + of the tweeter? And then you are hooking two from the - of the amp to both - posts of the speaker (- woofer and - tweeter) ?

Well, I make no claims to be one of A’gons gurus, but I always thought the first way was the way it was usually done, but I guess that assuming you had the identical type of speaker wire pairs that you would essentially be doing the same way either way you did it . . . hmmm . . . that’s interesting.

https://images.app.goo.gl/EWcRQ8SDJ4MiWh5j9

I agree with tomic601. The physics is real. I biwired Martin Logan Request, very resolving speakers; biwire one and not the other and moving from speaker to speaker the improved resolution (Norah Jones voice emerging more distinctly from the mix) was very apparent, even to the wife! Haha! There is a reason higher end speakers are biwireable (beyond just a gimmick to make money.) I feel sorry for the denialists, they don't know what they are missing.

@84xfirez-51 , I am not saying that is not correct, because I don’t know; and I am not saying it wouldn’t work, because if the runs of cable are identical pairs I see no reason it wouldn’t work; I am just saying that I was always under the impression that speaker cables were routed from amp binding posts to speaker binding posts as per usual, and then another speaker cable came out of the same amp binding posts and went to the same speaker but connected to the other (unused) binding posts.

But no biggy, if it works it works. As I typed, assuming all the cable runs are identical, I cannot see how it would make any difference which method you used.

With the cables I was using, I would have been unable to do it the second way. I was using one grade of Kimber Kable to hook to my tweeter binding posts, and then I was using the next grade up of Kimber Kable to hook to my woofer/midrange driver binding posts. Thinking about it, I guess I could have used the smaller grade of Kimber for the grounds on both sides, but still, I had one of the pairs made with spades on the ends for the speakers and bananas on the amp end, therefore I wouldn’t have to double any of the spades up on top of each other at the amp end. (In other words, at the amp, the woofer pair of cables was connected via spades, and then the tweeter pair of cables was connected to the amp via bananas.