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…


rsgottlieb
High priced speaker is not necessarily high fidelity. RCA is a crap connection but you find it everywhere because it is cheap and convenient even if it is inferior to XLR
A further note. The speaker crossovers should be disconnected before the bi-amped signal is delivered. If you don't, nothing will explode, but the clean bi-amped signal will have to drive the speaker crossover, which, being made of inferior parts, will eliminate much of the benefit of bi-amping.

For the most part. In general. YMMV

@shadorne 
What!?!?  There's nothing mechanically or electrically wrong with RCA, and the virtue of XLR isn't found in the intrinsic quality of it's cable or connectors. It's found in the virtue of of how 2 opposing signals can be used to cancel noise and distortion and XLR is just a more convenient that pairs of RCA, but pairs or RCA can do the exact same thing. 
@kosst_amojan  

sorry to break any sacred cows but RCA uses ground as a wire - so no shield

you obviously have not used a multitude of equipment as you would have observed first hand that XLR always has less hum or RF noise or ground loop hiss.

RCA is just cheap crap and obviously very popular for that reason
Regarding biwire and speaker manufacturers. Jim Salk of Salk Sound doesn't think that it matters for sound but he advises his buyers to allow for that capability as it can help resale value.