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
Apparently some manufacturers believe that owners are more likely to screw up the sound with biamping and others  support it.

I biamp my  Vandersteens as they are set up for it. Class A monos up top and Class ABs with plenty of current on bass, though an adjustable crossover.

My Wilsons are amped with a single stereo amp as that is what the manufacturer prefers.  Both sound great.

Wilson and Magico can't be bi amped as those companies put a great deal of time and money into the design of their crossovers and how they work with their drivers. In their case much of the money your spending is for that resulting sound. So maybe bi amping improves the sound for some less expensive brands. 
Multiamping needs active filters to start making sense (today mostly with DSP). Speaker passive crossovers should be removed. Whether such configuration can sound better is a matter of implementation. With very good amplifiers and passive crossovers speakers can sound excellent. IMHO digital filters need to be done with at least 172 kHz sampling
Theoretically, biamping can be better due to bypassing crossovers. I have found that my pair of Audire Forte amps are less fatiguing when biamping my 803's, but my slightless less powerful class A Audire amp does not need to be paired to maintain the best sound. Of course, subs are required either way, and the Forte's excell with them.