Kind of a hokey way to bi-amplify a set of speakers.  If you were serious about bi-amplification, I would use a Port driving two amplifiers.   

Thanks for the reply.  In your suggestion I would still have two amplifiers driving my speakers. Why is my arrangement considered hokey to you?

“Measurable” and “Audible” are two different characteristics and “best” depends on each listener’s opinion. In some listening trials the inferior measuring system sounds better than the superior measuring system.

It’s a very difficult measurement, but the “best” approach would usually be a PORT, an active crossover, and separate 3rd party amplifiers for left and right lows and highs. This approach will minimize intermodulation distortion.

Another approach that some use is “bi-wiring”. Here separate wires are run from the amplifier to low and high terminals on the speaker. Obviously, bi-wiring is cheaper than bi-amplification. Sonic benefits are hotly debated.

Because you would need to group the two Amps, which is a dynamic process which would not survive things like updates or reboots.  It would also be subject to being out of balance due to two separate volume controls.  Better to have a single source driving a Port and two external amplifiers.

With your scheme you would need to Group the two AMP’s. Time alignment between Grouped players is within a couple milliseconds. From time to time each member of the Group’s delivery will be adjusted in order to work around varying local network conditions. Each user’s sensitivity to these adjustments is different, most users will not notice the adjustments because the timing is similar to L/R time differences resulting from simple body movements. If there are time variations between lows and highs, the imaging characteristics of each speaker will change. Again, user sensitivity varies.

It just isn’t worth the bother, now that the Sonos Amp has enough grunt in terms of deliverable power. Unless you love tinkering for its own sake.

Thanks guys, super helpful. I'm going to put this idea on pause.

You will be better served by using speaker wire of the correct copper core thickness for the length of the speaker cable run, and making sure that cable terminations are well done.

To some, attempting to differentiate between amplifiers is as silly as The Princess and the Pea story. Other listeners can demonstrate that they differentiate between amplifiers.

I classify this as “cheap” and “expensive” listeners. It is possible to satisfy a “cheap” listener. An “expensive” listener is not likely to ever be satisfied. Probably the “cheap” listener sleeps better at night.

My way would be to classify listeners between those that listen to music for what it is, and those that use it as a test signal as part of a different hobby. I can’t speak to sleeping better, but the first lot enjoys the music more than the second, I warrant.

I have one foot in both camps, I love music for what it is, but I'm also fascinated and intrigued by sound quality and the "feel" of the music. A powerful lower range is addicting, and Diana Krall is mesmerizing.

We can have similar discussions about cars, boats, and whatever. To me there are only two important characteristics with respect to cars. First. it gets me there on time. Second, I’m dry when I arrive. I appreciate that many other details are very important to other drivers. I suspect that some owners spend more time tweaking than driving their car. They simply enjoy different aspects of “car”.

Speaking of wire, I’m due to upgrade. To drive two tower speakers with one Sonos amp, any advice for me?  14awg?  16awg?  obviously a clean quality connection is vital. thanks.

It’s an easy argument that fatter wire is better, but be sure to check the fattest wire accepted by the speaker and amplifier terminals.

Fat wire is stiffer and can pose a physical risk to the speaker terminals if the wire is flexed.

A link that gives all you need to know about speaker wire and selection of the thickness for the length of the run.

https://www.the-home-cinema-guide.com/speaker-wire.html

If terminal size is a constraint for a very long run needing thick wire, stranded wire should allow the ends to be made thinner by cutting some strands to the extent needed for the end to be inserted into the terminal. Obviously, you also don’t want it hanging down from the terminal loading the connection, so try to anchor it somewhere close to the terminal so that the anchor takes the weight of the cable run.

@buzz : Treating things as appliances - audio kit, cameras, cars - tends to also be an age thing. One grows out of the obsession with the finger pointing to the moon, instead of looking at the moon.

That said, I can still understand the thing with cars, or even cameras. They provide a on going and direct interface between the user and what they are being used for, when in use. Audio kit just sits there, passively, as far as the user is concerned, for over 99% of the time that it is doing what it is meant to do. Unlike, for example, a musical instrument such as a guitar - the latter being a better analogy for the cars or cameras thing.

That is fine, as long as you understand that over 99% of the sound quality you hear is down to how well the performance was recorded, and how well your speakers interact with your room to deliver the result of that recording to you in that room.

Given a level of quality for all the other kit in the signal chain of course, a level that is quite easily obtainable these days for not a lot of money.

I still remember walking in to one of the listening rooms of an high end dealer maybe twenty years ago with Diana Krall playing on a Linn set up with a pair of electrostats. Almost brought tears to my eyes

Almost certainly down to the Electrostats, especially if they were Quad units. All they needed was relatively low powered Quad amps to shine. The challenge was finding a room where they could be placed well into the room. And of course, the money to buy them!