A) Connect + & - to the high-frequency terminals
B) Connect + & - to the mid/bass terminals
C) Connect + to high-frequency and - to mid/bass
D) Other configuration
I’ve changed to one of these options (A-C) and am pleased I experimented.
Anyone care to share?
In my tests (in no way exhaustive, but I was curious) from many years ago I found that it did depend on the speakers in question; some liked A best, others C, sometimes D (such as F configuration). In all cases I found dispensing with any metal links to be beneficial.
I usually use the C configuration, which was recommended to me by a local hi-fi guru many years ago, But Richard is right, it depends upon the speaker. It’s quite disappointing that so many speakers these days are still designed for bi- or even tri-wiring (or -amping, of course)… I never found any benefit, and it makes it so much more difficult for the great majority who have no interest in such arrangements.
Positive to bass and then negative to treble in a diagonal configuration.
I found that I liked, having tried all possible permutations, the following connection most:
- Speaker cables to bass terminals
- Links to treble
Improvement also came from obtaining decent jumpers to complement SuperLuminas.
Having tried all the combo’s going, little to nothing between them
I’ve been on the same ever since - F connection, into bass first, F linked to treble
Proper speakers only have one pair of terminals, so it’s not an issue. Why oh why do speaker manufacturers put two or three pairs on their speakers when hardly anyone bi or tri wires their speakers? I bet nearly everyone sticks with the crappy metal links and therefore never hears their speakers at their best. It’s just daft.
Adam, may I ask which jumper cables you decided to use with your SL speaker cables?
Went for Vertere Mini Pulse X (cannot remember the name exactly, but it was something similar)
I have to strongly disagree here. This reply seems shortsighted and ignores the benegfits of bi/tri-amping.
While bi/tri-wiring generally provides absolutely no benefit, bi/tri-amping allows you to match high quality amplification to speakers that a single amp alone may not handle, thus opening up your speaker options. This is especially true for users with valve amps. High sensitivity speakers only get you so far.
Often moving onto an amp that can drive speakers alone is:
- Far more expensive to get a single amp with sufficient power and equal or greater quality to the current amp, than 2 amps.
- Means moving away from an otherwise satisfactory and carefully partnered amp.
There are speakers I considered for the next upgrade to my office system that quality-wise may be a good match for the UQ2 used. But I’ve had to strike some off the list because they were a tad much to drive and while adding a NAP100 is an option, those soeakers had only one set of terminals.
I agree with HH. Using a better and more powerful amplifier for passive amplification will give better results than using two lesser amplifiers.
There’s no “right” or “wrong” on speakers with bi or tri terminals. Not that many years ago a Naim 135 six pac driving Linn Isobaric’s was the-ee top end system.
I might agree a single terminal pair on one amp is all that’s required, but other people with other amps & systems have other ideas, and speaker brands cover all the options because of this.
You’ve misread my post. I never said 2 lesser amps sound better. Not even implied it.
I’ve asked this question to the designer of the speaker which I currently own. To him, the existence of bi-wiring terminals is purely due to marketing. Although minority of people consider bi-wiring as useless, majority of people prefer or want to have the feature. Hence some speaker manufacturers still provide the biwiring facility to their speakers.
Tried all and although there is little difference between them, settled with B. Could have settled with either one, depending on my listening mood. It has been almost 2 years since I fiddled with the biwiring configuration so perhaps it is time I change it.
This is amost certainly true for low cost speakers that are already relatively easy to drive.
But there’s a big difference in the rationale to put bi-wire posts on a $500 pair of speakers that can be driven with a 25w amp quite well versus tri-wire posts on something very tricky to drive like PMC Fact12.
I’ve also heard comments from makers that it is all about marketing. But I also don’t think the comments are in context. They’re often talking about entry-mid range speaker manufacture. Many of those same manufacturers do use multi inputs higher in their ranges. Remember power doesn’t equal quality. Maybe you have a $30k 40w amp and bettering it in a single more powrful amp is going to cost $120k or involve a downgrade. As I said, 2x $60k amps may be a far more reasonable option if you really feel those difficult speakers are right for you.
Do Naim offer a factory option to have their SL cable terminated like this?
Not sure - it was only discussed with my dealer after I’d decided upon Chord, who offer any form of termination you want as part of the deal.