People complain about lack of bass, not enough mid range. Solution?

After you have co,pleted the room’s acoustical treatment, bi-amping, real bi-amping with a line-level crossover before the power amps can make a huge difference, both in allowing amp matching (transistors low, tubes high, e.g.) but in dynamic range - up to 6dB.

Another improvement, arguably the most audible, is the improvement of LF control due to the elimination of any low-pass series inductor(s) from the passive crossover. Never was that made more clearly than when Henry Kloss introduced the rare-as-hens-teeth Powered Advent. A stunningly competent speaker, on comparison with its passive stablemates, the advantages of bi-amping were immediately apparent. Much tighter, more impact full bass, a clarity previously nonexistent in the midrange, and the overall voicing of the Advent - neutral to slightly warm, no nasalness or honking on vocals or midrange - still intact.

Upstream from that, the spendy ADS 1020 Tri-amped 12" 3-Way, put on a masters class in what a box speaker could do.

Bi-amping Altecs and JBLshas been a standard practice in studio, theater, and live sound since at least the late 1960s.

And finally, the Magneplanar Tympni III, preferably powered by ARC tube gear, set a high-water mark in soundstaging and resolution few speakers today even approach.

That was 50 years ago, so bi-amping is not news. And whenever I see a manufacturer introduce a new bi-amp speaker, I do tend to sit up and take notice.

But there is a problem. I see lots of people thinking they are biamping by using two amps and running into an existing speaker’s passive crossover biwire connections. That absolutely is not bi-amping. It is just the most expensive form of bi-wiring. It is pointless and wasteful, as it accomplishes none of the goals of bi-amping, yet still manages to double the price of amplification. It feeds full range signals to the high end, where the passive crossover is left to absorb the LF energy and doesn’t remove the series resistance that destroys LF damping, and because it doesn’t separate LF and HF, into separate loads, it does nothing to increase a systems dynamic range.

So, done right, bi-amping can be great, and I am a big fan.

My hifi room is "treated" by the stuff in it, thus allowing the "room sound" I prefer, and note the only "proper" speaker setup is the one that sounds best to you. I don’t think bi-amping is useful or necessary for home audio as to truly pull it off (as stated above) you need a crossover ahead of the amps to drive directly to the drivers, and almost nobody bothers to do that except in live sound powered array speakers maybe. Also true bi-amping is a wonderful way to blow up a tweeter...trust me...I bi-amped my beloved old A7s for years in PA use...Kustom made a great mono PA bi-amp in the 70s with 100 watts for the horns and 200 for the bass bins. Plenty loud for most any occasion.

So I'm thinking of bi-amping my B&W 602s2 bookshelf from a Rotel RB-850 5 channel amplifier. As I understand I use my bi-wire Audioquest cables by plugging it into the left main and left surround and the same with the right. What I'm reading here it's a waste of time. Am I chasing a ghost?

@dennis041992

So I’m thinking of bi-amping my B&W 602s2 bookshelf from a Rotel RB-850 5 channel amplifier. As I understand I use my bi-wire Audioquest cables by plugging it into the left main and left surround and the same with the right. What I’m reading here it’s a waste of time. Am I chasing a ghost?

None of us are really in a situation to know for sure what your results will be. Given a less ideal setup of 2-way passive speakers and a single multi-channel amp, you’ll likely have less dramatic results than some other bi-amp situations, but you have little to lose by trying because you already have the capability. If you don’t try, there will be zero change. If you do try, there might be some improvement. Give it a go, and find out for yourself.

Per Denon:

No.