Here's the best block diagram I've found to help consumers understand the complete folly of bi-wiring. [It uses sarcastic terminology but it is 100% correct in the point they are illustrating]:
As long as you are using the proper thickness of wire in the first place there is absolutely no difference. Bi-wiring was invented to make consumers
buy-wire, twice as much as they actually need.
Interestingly even some electrical engineers just don't get it, so they apply advanced electrical prinicples such as transmission line theory [which has little to do with the frequencies and distances we use in a home audio setting] and when their computer modelling calculates a tiny, tiny, little decrease in insertion loss they proudly wave their results in our faces and proclaim, "See, it is small and maybe inaudible, but it
does make a difference!" They are wrong though because they improperly used different effective wire gauges for their modelling as I shall now explain.
What they don't get is that using double the number of copper strands running across one's living room floor from the amp to the speaker will lower the load (i.e. the resistance the amp sees) and
this may have a tiny, inconsequential, (usually) inaudible effect*. . .
but you also could have applied that to any conventional speaker without bi-wire posts equally as well, simply by using the same two parallel runs used for bi-wiring but twisting them together, on both ends, and connecting that to any run-of-the-mill speaker without bi-wire posts. It nets the exact same results! [Or alternatively use a single
thicker wire run from the get go. Again, the only change is that the amp sees a slightly easier load because more strands means an effectively thicker pipe and less resistance.]
*The change to double the number of copper strands could have an audible effect if one has
purposefully used an inadequately thick wire for the original single wire run distance. But we all know an adequate gauge of wire matters so just use the right one in the first place.