I don't quite understand how you can say something like this:

Quote:
Originally posted by curegeorg:
id agree that bi-amping is a waste, but disagree about bi-wiring. bi-wiring isn't going to dramatically improve your system, but its nice to have the highs and lows running along their own cables.


yet still say something like this:

Quote:
Originally posted by curegeorg:
you could instead of buying two lesser amps for price A, instead buy one better one for price A and be better off. obviously i asked them more questions about it than that and they said more than that, but that sums up what they said. YOU ONLY BI-AMP ACTIVE CROSSOVER NETWORKS (NOT PASSIVE SPEAKERS), UNLESS YOU JUST WANT MORE POWER AND WANT TO UTILIZE EXISTING AMPS.


It sounds like you're saying bi-amping doesn't do a thing with the passive crossovers in place yet bi-wiring does? I would venture to guess that what you mean is that bi-amping isn't worth the time over just bi-wiring.

A big thing that might help some of us understand the issue better is to know how the passive crossovers receive the signal when it comes from two different lines be it via bi-amp or bi-wire. How does the crossover handle two input signals instead of one? Does it do anything different?

I see what curgeorg is saying about the passive crossover still being in the way, but it is absolutely imperative to answer the question I just posed before being able to answer that. Maybe it was and I just didn't see it? There is a LOT of information here.

[This message has been edited by JT Clark (edited May 15, 2004).]