O'Shag
01-24-2008, 03:17 PM
I've been using the Monitor Audio Gold Reference 60s as my front channels for a while. I change things around every so often, and also use the KEF Reference 107 as front channels to change things up - they have certain qualities the Monitor Audios, as good as they are - cannot reproduce.
The Monitor Audios have three sets of speaker terminals, thus allowing bi-wire/tri-wire or bi-amp/tri-amp operation. I've long known of the benefits bi-wiring and, ultimately, bi-amping. I use both - biamping is best, but in the interests of energy conservation, for regular listening, bi-wire serves very well.
Linn and Hitachi Japan have long been champions of bi-wiring, having studied the subject in great depth. Linn's top speaker systems now incorporate an external active electronic crossover network as standard, and this is the ultimate expression of the concept.
Having read an article recently, by one of Linn's engineers, I became curoius as to the possible benefit tri-wiring might have on the performance of the Monitor Audio GR60. It was a bit of a pain in the arse, but I managed to fit an additional speaker cable to the amp terminals. This extra cable is run to the tweeter binding posts, after removing the wire jumpers I had made myself. A bi-wire cable was connected to the midrange and bass binding posts. After a quick check to make sure everything was safely connected, I powered the amps up, and played some music.
I sat there very pleasantly surprised.
How could tri-wire make such a difference over bi-wire? A new level of ease and clarity was immediately evident. Performance, although good in the bi-wire setup, took a leap forward. There was more open-ness, more air, more dimensional and defined imaging - no bs. One would expect this from bi-amping or tri-amping, but tri-wire?
For those that have three sets of binding posts on their speakers, I would highly recommend you give this a whirl. It's well worth it.
Anyone else tried tri-wiring?
The Monitor Audios have three sets of speaker terminals, thus allowing bi-wire/tri-wire or bi-amp/tri-amp operation. I've long known of the benefits bi-wiring and, ultimately, bi-amping. I use both - biamping is best, but in the interests of energy conservation, for regular listening, bi-wire serves very well.
Linn and Hitachi Japan have long been champions of bi-wiring, having studied the subject in great depth. Linn's top speaker systems now incorporate an external active electronic crossover network as standard, and this is the ultimate expression of the concept.
Having read an article recently, by one of Linn's engineers, I became curoius as to the possible benefit tri-wiring might have on the performance of the Monitor Audio GR60. It was a bit of a pain in the arse, but I managed to fit an additional speaker cable to the amp terminals. This extra cable is run to the tweeter binding posts, after removing the wire jumpers I had made myself. A bi-wire cable was connected to the midrange and bass binding posts. After a quick check to make sure everything was safely connected, I powered the amps up, and played some music.
I sat there very pleasantly surprised.
How could tri-wire make such a difference over bi-wire? A new level of ease and clarity was immediately evident. Performance, although good in the bi-wire setup, took a leap forward. There was more open-ness, more air, more dimensional and defined imaging - no bs. One would expect this from bi-amping or tri-amping, but tri-wire?
For those that have three sets of binding posts on their speakers, I would highly recommend you give this a whirl. It's well worth it.
Anyone else tried tri-wiring?