I have been researching the threads on this topic like a good girl and I think I have the gist of this but I am wondering if it is worth it?

I currently have the 7100 and the Polk Lsi series for Center and Fronts. Is it worth getting some Monoblocks to bi-amp these? I am using all 7 outputs of the 7100 already.

Don't waste your time with passive bi-amping or bi-wiring. The differences made by bi-wiring are nil, and passive bi-amping makes little or no difference in the sound.

The only real bi-amping scheme that makes a very audible difference is active bi-amping where the passive crossover network in your speaker is replaceced with a direct speaker driver-to-amplifier connection, and the frequency division is performed by an electronic crossover network before the amps. This route is very labor intensive to do correctly and the use must have the test equipment to properly set a system like this up. That is why it is not offered by manufacturers of consumer systems. It is routine in professional systems though, and all movie theater systems are actively bi-amped.

Ok, Thanks a lot. That saved me some time and $$$$$.

The LSi's are rated as a 4 ohm load, so the 7100 is giving you 165W - which should match up pretty well with the speakers (the recommended power for the LSiC and some of the other LSI's is 20W-200W, while the LSi15 is 20W-250W). If you decided to add monoblocks (such as the Outlaw Model 200, which can provide 300W into a 4 ohm load) for the main speakers, I'd let the monoblocks handle the load by themselves rather than bi-amp with the 7100.

Hmmmmm. That is an interesting idea. Would I hear any improvement on the 15's with the Monoblocks to make that worth doing? Maybe I should have purchased the 770 instead of the 7100.

Added power does not necessarily translate into a sonic improvement, so I can't say if you would hear any benefit from going from the 7100 to a 770 or monoblocks. I'm not familiar enough with your speakers to know how they behave with different amps, but 165W at 4 ohms is a pretty respectable reserve of power. Monoblocks could offer a little benefit simply by the nature of giving each amp channel its own power supply.

Yes, don't make the mistake I did and buy by amping cables. My polk speakers didn't benefit from it. Just a waste of money as far as I am concerned.
The sound improvement I heard came when I removed the speaker grills, did they seem to come alive. Hard to bleieve I had been listening to them muffled for two years.

I have dogs so unfortunately I have to leave my speakers with their clothes on or little cute doggie hairs will find their way in them.

I actually just got my BetterCables Bluetruth biwire and I am breaking it in on the center channel. I am withholding judgement for a while but so far it sounds fine. I can detect no real discernable difference yet except perhaps a tad more brightness than my Cobalts. We will see...

I also got a set of Acoustic Zen biwire jumpers and put them on my LSI15s. I actually noticed a diference right away. I was really caught off guard as I did not expect to at all. The sound was slightly clearer and more detailed. I say slight but it is noticeable and slight is big in this game. I am very happily surprised by these little guys.

i was just reading a 'review' on polks and they said putting a jumper in place of the straps made a big difference.my used b&w 601s came with 'nautilus 805' jumpers.i've never been able to compare,maybe truth to removing straps.(now i passive bi-amp)4 now

It really did make a big difference, I still can't believe it. Can you remember where you saw that review? I would be interested in reading it?

here you go 'nut'

it's just a paragraph at the end of the article.


http://www.stereotimes.com/speak051600.shtm

Regarding bi-wiring and bi-amping: I couldn't disagree more. There are great benefits to each of these techniques. I absolutely know for a fact that my speakers (B&W Nautilus 802's) sound more open and extended now that I bi-wired them. You must use seperate legs for this - that is, a seperate plus and minus wire for each upper and lower half. Remember that means 4 seperate wires for each speaker - 8 seperate wires for the speaker pair. For a scientific reason that this is so, check out the Vandersteen speaker website. Richard says it far better than can I. When I called the Outlaws for information on their sub-woofer, the representative told me that the woofer not only makes low sounds, but frees the amps for the mids and highs, therefore making them sound better. This is the basis for bi-amping. It can be prohibitavely expensive, and may not not be worth it for mid-fi, however, there is an increase in quality with its use. I have 2 systems - a high end stereo system, and a totally different one for 5.1 video. They both benefit from many tweeks such as better power cords, anti-resonance devices, better wall plugs, seperate and dedicated power lines, room treatment, on infinitum. With the judicial application of each of these, there can be a step closer to Nirvana.

Partly new and partly word for word from another post I made today:

Most of us are in the habit of not attacking one another, just sharing ideas and experiences, sometimes passionately, sometimes not reaching the same conclusions – but even Outlaws can show respect and often a smile!

My training and experience leads me to somewhat disagree with Stringreen. But I do realize that he and I work with a different set-up in a different environment. Improvement generally comes from two areas: finding a better way of doing something; overcoming problems or limitations. The combination of system/environment variables that Stringreen has may have been noticeably helped by bi-wiring, whereas my system was not. Similarly for changing power cords and other tweaks I find dubious, but I'll try to stay on topic.

Sites for more reading:

The Cobalt Cables web site does not advocate bi-wiring apart from bi-amplification (second half of page): http://www.cobaltcable.com/which/speaker_connections.htm Yet other cable manufacturers that sell bi-wire products do advocate bi-wiring (at increased cost).

Some pros and cons of bi-wiring, mildly technical: http://www.sonicdesign.se/biwire.html After reviewing this information, as I see it, as the lower the resistance/reactance of the speaker wire, both the damping problems and the phase shift problems are minimized, therefore a low resistance, low reactance cable helps whether you bi-wire or not, and both the pros and cons for bi-wiring reach a point of no return as the cable becomes less of an issue. Maintaining damping and signal coherence at the actual drivers is an issue, starting with excellent amplifier damping, preserved as the signal passes through a cable with very low resistance/reactance, and avoiding as much reactance/resistance as possible in the passive crossover, or eliminating the passive crossover altogether.

While the active crossover method introduces a level of complexity and significantly increased expense for both an active crossover network and more channels of amplification, if the active crossover provides the frequency dividing, response shaping and time alignment needed by a particular arrangement of drivers, the direct connection of an amplifier output to each driver provides both better accuracy and power transfer than passive crossover components allow when they are between amplifier and driver.

Most of us are at the other end of the spectrum with a single channel of amplification per loudspeaker and two-way or three-way passive crossovers in our speaker enclosures. Our exposure to active crossover application is limited to the pre/pro or receiver that separates and provides a mono or stereo signal for subwoofers.

My loudspeakers are three-way and have two sets of binding posts, one for lows and one for mids/highs. I have experimented with bi-wiring and split feed (no active crossover) bi-amplification and found no marked improvement over the usual common feed method. In my opinion finding little or no audible change was a testament to three, possibly four factors: the Outlaw amplification is of very high quality such that it drives a full range load just fine, splitting the frequency loads above 80Hz (the subwoofer crossover point set in the pre/pro) was not an aid to amplifier performance; the speaker wire in use introduced no problems that were helped by carrying certain ranges of frequencies separately; the passive crossover components were still between the amplifier and drivers; the rest of the variables present, there are plenty from source material to listening environment, were such that they overshadowed any differences.

As mentioned elsewhere in this forum, “Your results may vary.”

Bi-Amping, particularly in cases were the internal passive crossover can be bypassed and a correct active crossover substituted, makes good sense. Most of the rest is varying degrees of snake oil.

Power cords? Why buy equipment from a company who's not competent to design something as simple as a power cord?

BestBang said it better than I.

i think this topic has been exhausted more than any other. we have concluded that active bi-amping is worthwhile, and bi-wiring is not. everyone should know the lower resistance the better for any wire, unless some desired specific resistance is desired such as in a resistor...

the idea is to get the sound as quickly from the media to your speakers as possible.