RT2000i's - Biwireable?

Devildog

I just spoke with Polk technical service and the rep said that RT2000i's are not biwireable. My question was regarding hooking up the Denon 4800 to the left and right fronts. Maybe my understanding of what biwire means needs clarification. I used Monster cable biwire which has two banana plugs on the amp ends and four banana plugs on the speaker ends. I thought if I remove the jumper and plug these in, this was biwiring? I just wanted to know if, in addition, I should hook up the subwoofer line level inputs on the speakers to the left and right line level outputs on the receiver. I am using a PSW 650 for my LFE and a CS1000P for a center. Please help, there's an awful lot of speakers that are labeled subwoofers.

Aaron

What you describe is bi-wiring, and this is how you would bi-wire the RT55i's or RT800i's. However, you cannot bi-wire the RT1000i or the RT2000i. The best way to hook these speakers up is to use only speaker-level connections; don't use the RCA cables from the sub out on your receiver. Set your speakers to LARGE on your receiver. If you want to tweak a little, replace the metal jumpers between the speaker terminals with a short piece of speaker wire.

Aaron

Devildog

I tried to delete this so I could repost to Tech/Setup but the screen tells me I can't delete so I'll have to be embarrassed having posted this to the Opinion forum. You should see me with sharp objects.

Devildog

Thanks Aaron,
I'll follow Option #2 (Figure 5) in the instruction manual. It describes with pictures what you recommend. It's rather novel for me to follow the instructions. I think what threw me was the second set of speaker connections. Guess I'll have some Monster cable biwires to sell. Rick

Aaron

You mean Option #1 (Figure 5), right? This is the one you should use.

Aaron

nascarmann

You should see me with sharp objects.

LOL!

Devildog

This is making me feel like Peter Seller's boss in one of those Pink Panther movies. My eleven year old is waiting for me to finish hooking up the Polks. I told her it'll be around when school lets out. Just so my wife doesn't see all the extra Monster Cables (or the receipts for them). Hope I'm still living here when its hooked up.

pdebaum

Wow, wow, wow. Let's slow down a minute and define bi-wiring clearly. When Polk says you can't bi-wire the RT1000i and RT2000i, it's actually not true literally. They mean bi-wiring as understood for the typical non-powered speaker, to achieve tweeter and mid-range separation. RT1000i and RT2000i are not your typical non-powered speakers, but they still offer the possibility of using 2 pair of wires; this is not to achieve tweeter and mid-range separation though. Let me explain :

In typical non-powered speakers with a tweeter and one or several mid-range woofers, real bi-wiring is separating the tweeter driver connections from the mid-range driver connections as far away from the speaker as possible. Such speakers facilitate this by providing 2 pairs of binding posts, the upper one connected to the tweeter exclusively, and the bottom one connected to the mid-range driver(s) exclusively. In most "uni-wired" connections, the (+) and (-) terminals of the 2 pairs are shorted out together with a piece of metal strap so you can use a single wire pair on 1 of the pair of binding posts to feed all drivers.
Bi-wiring is achieved by simply removing the shorting straps and connecting a pair of wires to each pair of binding posts; the terminals will meet further down at your amp/receiver "out" posts. Note that bi-wiring becomes immediately bi-amping if you use an amp for each pair of wires.
This is real bi-wiring (and bi-amping) as meant for the typical non-powered speaker.

Now, Polk RT1000i and RT2000i are powered speakers with integrated sub-woofers, so you have 3 drivers (or set of drivers) to feed from a single signal. Polk didn't go for 3 pairs of binding posts to separate all drivers, so no "tri-wiring" for you. They actually still keep 2 pairs of binding posts, but they had to combine internally the tweeter and mid-range connections to the top pair of posts and maintain the bottom pair fot the sub-woofer exclusively.
Moreover, Polk offers another sub-woofer separation by providing also a line-level RCA input directly connected to the sub-woofer (more exactly the sub-woofer integrated amp inside the speaker), so your sub-woofer can be reached exclusively either by the speaker-level bottom pair of posts or by the line-level input. Which connection method to choose is up to you the owner and what you amp/receiver offers in terms of outputs and bass-management. The easiest way is to go "uni-wire" by connecting a single pair of speaker wires to one of the pair of binding posts and leaving the metal shorting straps between the upper and bottom terminals. In that case, DO NOT use the line-level RCA input. This is "option 1" in the Polk reference manual I guess.
Another way is to remove the shorting straps and connect a pair of speaker wires to the UPPER pair of binding posts and connect the sub-woofer with the line-level RCA input. This is covered with another variant in options 2 and 3 in the Polk manual. Literally, this is "bi-wire" since you use 2 cables which separate drivers; it's just tweeter with mid-range separated from sub-woofer instead of the traditional "real" bi-wiring with tweeter separated from mid-range. Moreover, you have 2 type of wires, one being speaker-level, the other being line-level (RCA).
Finally, there is another way to connect, undocumented by Polk but obviously implied since they provide speaker-level binding posts for the sub-woofer, and it is still a "bi-wire" : use 2 pairs of speaker wires and separate them at the top binding posts and bottom binding posts, making sure the shorting straps are removed AND the line-level RCA input is NOT used. This type of connection is still correct since you have all drivers connected, but it's usefulness might be debatable (this might be for another topic) since we still achieve (as with previous options 2 and 3) only tweeter/mid-range separation from sub-woofer instead of tweeter with mid-range.

Hope it's clear.

Devildog

Your explanation now makes it clear regarding the second set of speaker (high level) inputs. But since the tweeter and midrange speakers are not seperated by these inputs, it sounds like Aaron's suggestion that the upper high level inputs (with jumper removed) and the subwoofer line level input is the way to go. I still will be able to biwire the center CS1000p and the F/X 1000's as surrounds. Thank you for taking the time to thoroughly explain. I have all my speakers and equipment but am still awaiting delivery of some of the cables. Thats what's causing the current delay in setup. I do look forward to hearing this soon, though. It's like looking at your Harley while the snows falling.

Aaron

Whoa! Pdebaum, no is no reason to use any other hookup option other than #1. There is no benefit from it, only potentional performance problems.

Devildog, I messed up and confused you in my previous post (I've corrected it now). I meant to say that you should only use speaker-level connections, not line-level. Use option #1 in the manual. Sorry for the confusion.

Aaron

pdebaum

Oh, certainly, Aaron, I agree : the speaker-level connection (option #1) is most likely the best; the speaker was designed around that principle after all. It is Polk's recommended hook-up too. I was just describing all the different ways you can hook-up those speakers. Depending on your amp/receiver, bass management, particular system and room acoustics, it's certainly nice to see that Polk in its infinite wisdom supplied us with enough connection schemes to satisfy the most rabid tweaker