I'm hooking up a pair of Paradigm Studio 60 V3's. I interested in bi-wiring them. Everything I have read online shows that each of the two binding posts are hooked up to the one speaker output of the receiver. Do you use some sort of special plug and cabling for this? Right now I just have nice guage speaker wire with banana plugs. How would I hook up both of the binding posts to the one post on the receiver. Also, if my receiver supports two different speakers (a and b) should I hook up one post as A and one as B? Thanks

You can use one cable set with bananas and the other with spades or bare wire on the same terminals. There are stackable bananas, as well. OTOH, I wouldn't bother with it anyway (and I have the same speakers).

I guess my question was more around how one single cable gets 3 ends on it. It will have to connect to the receiver and the two posts on the Studio 60's.

Currently I can't find one of the metal pieces connecting the posts, so it's the impetus for this ;)

Oh. There are special biwire cables with a single pair of connectors (e.g., bananas) at one end and two pairs at the other.

I'm hooking up a pair of Paradigm Studio 60 V3's. I interested in bi-wiring them. Everything I have read online shows that each of the two binding posts are hooked up to the one speaker output of the receiver. Do you use some sort of special plug and cabling for this? Right now I just have nice guage speaker wire with banana plugs. How would I hook up both of the binding posts to the one post on the receiver. Also, if my receiver supports two different speakers (a and b) should I hook up one post as A and one as B? ThanksFirst of all, be prepared for a host of bi-wiring naysayers to post here. The general consensus around here is that bi-wiring does nothing over mono-wiring to audibly improve the performance of your speakers.

Now, that said, I'll try to answer your question as if you're still interested in bi-wiring your speakers regardless of the "conventional wisdom".

(EDIT: Oops, sorry for any redundancy. I didn't "refresh" my browser before Kal posted.)

It really doesn't matter how you connect both wires to the single post on the receiver. There are any number of ways to accomplish this and which method you use, exactly, will depend upon the gauge of your wire, the design of your banana plugs, and the design of your receiver's binding posts.

If your wire is of a small enough gauge, you can get both strands into a single banana plug. Sometimes, depending upon their design, banana plugs allow for "piggy-backing" which is useful in this circumstance. Another way to connect both wires is to use a spade connector on one wire and a banana plug on the other. Sometimes the banana plug will fit into the hole in the side of the binding post that is normally used for bare wire. And of course you can simply use a bare wire connection on one or both strands.

Regarding your question about using the "A" and "B" set of posts to easily facilitate bi-wiring, on most receivers, yes, you can do this, because the "B" set of binding posts simply represent a parallel connection off of the same pair of amps as the "A" posts. So, depending upon your receiver, yes, you can probably do this. What receiver do you have?

FWIW, Blue Jeans Cable has a Canare 4S11 cable which you can order with a single set of Banana Plugs on one end and a two sets on the other. That's what I'm using on my DefTech 7001s.

It's a lower end Yamaha receiver. I don't have the room needed to warrant a really high end setup. I think I'll go with the A and B speakers so the speaker wiring will be cheaper and easier.

Even the guys who believe in bi wiring will tell you that "bi-wiring' means two wires and that putting two connectors on the end of one wire mitigates much of the effectiveness.

I'll go for one post hooked up to a with a dedicated wire and one post hooked up to b with a dedicated wire.

I'll go for one post hooked up to a with a dedicated wire and one post hooked up to b with a dedicated wire.

Yes, that is somewhat convenient. However, from some of the data I've read about biwiring, that connection methodology may perhaps be one of the worst way to implement it from a theoretical perspective.

I believe it had to do with added resistance from all the extra stuff (probably a relay or two, thin wires, extra solder joints, etc) inside the receiver. These things themselves are all tiny values, but the theoretical benefits of biwiring are contingent on tiny values.

The best arragement, I gather, is to have the least number of connection points and circuit elements involved.