Bi-wiring The question that can't be answered?

[PAOGORMAN2001]

I have read I don't know how many articles about whether bi wiring works or not.I want o know if it makes an audible difference
I have Cambridge Soundworks M80 3 way bookshelf speakers and a Onkyo TX-8511 100 watt receiver I only play cd's. Has there been any concrete proof that it makes a noticeable diiference or is the jury still out on this.? or is it going to be a "what ever sounds good to you " answer. What's the latest!!!!!!!!!!!!

Thanks Pete

[Peter Duminy]

At best, there might be a very subtle difference in areas of imaging depth and perhaps ambiance. But is it worth all the extra cost? I have never found a justification for the added outlay IMHO.

You may also find this interesting reading from B&W's findings here:

http://www.bwspeakers.com/index.cfm...67F00D0B7473B37

Also, this article may help:

http://www.sonicdesign.se/biwire.html

I am sure other members may well disagree, but then, this what makes this hobby so rewarding. :-)

[paul_pci]

I didn't know that biwiring was an "outlay" of money; it's just a specialized speaker wire or you just use four separate speaker wires from whereever.

[Mike Anderson]

It costs more because you're buying twice as much cable. If you insist on super-fancy cable, that can be very expensive.

Personally, I use magwire, so it isn't that much more expensive to bi-wire. So I just do it, and don't worry about how/whether it makes the sound better.

[PeruvianSkies]

If it were my decision I would NOT bi-wire, but instead use that money on some really good speaker wires, like the PS Audio xstreams that I use...they are super-rediculously thick, but have great response time and have really helped bring definition into my system over the AudioQuest GR-8's that I had prior, which were bi-wired.

[Dusty Chalk]

On one of my previous systems, I chose to bi-wire to eliminate confusion. I was confused over whether I should connect my speaker wire to the upper jumpers, or to the lower jumpers (or something else). If I biwired, it was a non-decision, so that's what I did.

[poneal]

What is biamping and bi-wiring? When you biamp, you have an amp for each driver. If it's a three way then you will need 6 amp channels to bi-amp the three-way. If you have a 2 way then you will need 4 amps instead of two. So, what is going on when you do this? I mean sure it sounds cool, but wouldn't you really rather understand what is going on?

To that end, here is what is going on so that everyone can understand. To keep it simple I will be basing my assessment on a typical 2 way speaker. In a two way design you have a low pass and a high pass crossover. One to route to the woofer and the other to route signals to the tweeter. The usual method is to connect the two crossovers on a board and tie it into the pos and neg legs. In this design, you only have 1 set of speaker terminals. In the bi-amp scene, the designer choose to keep the two crossovers separate and provide two sets of terminals, normally connected via a jumper so that only 1 set would be needed. If you wanted to use it then you take the jumper out and connect the tweeter to one amp and the woofer to another amp. Of course being fed the same signal. You must adjust the volume of each amp so that both drivers sound level matched. This is why most people do not bi-amp. It's a pain to set the signals everytime.

Now on to bi-wiring. The network is still separate and you have the two terminals connected by a jumper. In bi-wiring you are only taking the neg. leg of the amp and connecting it to both negs. on the terminals. Same with the pos leg. Now you tell me, will this make any difference? I highly doubt it at all. This is not what it was made for. Bi-amping has been used in the pro. industry for years. Now they are trying to sell it as some new innovative idea to the consumer market via bi-wiring. No one in their right mind would add more wire to end up with the same thing. Do you understand what I mean? Bi-amp makes sense. You can drive a hugh woofer with a separate amp and use a lower powered amp for the tweeters and mid.

So, does bi-wiring make an audible difference. I doubt it and I really don't even care to try it. It's a waste of cable and money IMHO. No bi-amping has some benefits.

Hopefully, I have shed some light on this topic as it seems to be a common misunderstanding.

Paul

[hermanv]

..edit...
So, does bi-wiring make an audible difference. I doubt it and I really don't even care to try it. It's a waste of cable and money IMHO. No bi-amping has some benefits.

Hopefully, I have shed some light on this topic as it seems to be a common misunderstanding.
Paul

While it is true that below a certain price point bi-wiring does next to nothing because that's just not the weakest link. Above those prices, Bi wiring can and does help, there is no confusion, just ill informed folks who try and hear with theory instead of their ears.

[Smokey]

So, does bi-wiring make an audible difference. I doubt it and I really don't even care to try it. It's a waste of cable and money IMHO. No bi-amping has some benefits.

I agree with you. Bi amping make sense, but bi wiring doesn’t sense electrically or theoretically.

Theoretically, once two wires (woofer and tweeter connection) from the negative or positive leg of speaker connection touch each other at the amps terminal, they become electrically equivalent. Which mean both high and low wires will have the same node* at any point along both wires.

So if replace two wires that have same node with only one wire, nothing has changed electrically

*node: electrical property of junction in a circuit.

[hermanv]

I agree with you. Bi amping make sense, but bi wiring doesn’t sense electrically or theoretically.

Theoretically, once two wires (woofer and tweeter connection) from the negative or positive leg of speaker connection touch each other at the amps terminal, they become electrically equivalent. Which mean both high and low wires will have the same node* at any point along both wires.

So if replace two wires that have same node with only one wire, nothing has changed electrically

*node: electrical property of junction in a circuit.

Your opinion is based on the belief that wires have no properties, characteristics or parameters such as ohms, capacitance or inductance all of which and more wires do have..

Once you assign all of these properties to a wire you will see that the node of which you speak is in fact seperated by a multiple of parametric devices and that one point on the wire is not in fact identical to any other point on the wire.

So you are theoretically incorrect. That's not very important, what is important is that you form your opinion by listening.

[Smokey]

Hi Hermanv

You make good point regarding node point along the wires and that is correct. My point was regarding as how amplifier's output terminal see speaker woofer and tweeter cross over terminals (high and low pass filter). In biwiring, instead of having the connection at the speaker end of the cable, it is made at the amplifier terminal.

So in biwiring, the equivalent speaker cross over circuitry that amplifier sees stay the same. The only that have changed is cable property via doubling it

[E-Stat]

I agree with you. Bi amping make sense, but bi wiring doesn’t sense electrically or theoretically.

At least that you are aware of. There are dozens of speakers and amplfiers that support biwiring. Before you counter with "they just do that to placate stupid audiophiles", I suggest you actually talk to one of their designers so that you may understand the engineering reason(s).

As for me, I am neutral on the topic because I use full range electrostats.

rw

[jneutron]

At least that you are aware of. There are dozens of speakers and amplfiers that support biwiring. Before you counter with "they just do that to placate stupid audiophiles", I suggest you actually talk to one of their designers so that you may understand the engineering reason(s).rw

The designers will not have correct engineering reasons. None of them ever do. Talking with them will be useless.

That doesn't mean biwiring is incorrect, just that they do not understand.

As for me, I am neutral on the topic because I use full range electrostats.
rw

Perhaps you should add some rear firing tweeters to bring those "(darn, can't remember what the word was..insert something witty here)" panels up to bare minimal audiophile standards..

How's it going? Just figured I'd drop in and add some negativity..

Cheers, John

[FLZapped]

I have read I don't know how many articles about whether bi wiring works or not.I want o know if it makes an audible difference
I have Cambridge Soundworks M80 3 way bookshelf speakers and a Onkyo TX-8511 100 watt receiver I only play cd's. Has there been any concrete proof that it makes a noticeable diiference or is the jury still out on this.? or is it going to be a "what ever sounds good to you " answer. What's the latest!!!!!!!!!!!!

Thanks Pete

The absolute answer is yes, it makes a difference. However, the question that matters, which you correctly asked: Does it make an audible difference? Well, maybe. There are so many variables to take into account that it is totally system dependant.

Allow me to list some:

The amplifier impedance over frequency
The wire impedance over frequency
The impedance characteristics of each driver over frequency
The effects of the crossovers over frequency

Bi-wiring essentially adds the small amount of wire impedance into the total impedance of the speaker system connected to the amplifier, assuming the amplifiers is of low enough output impedance, in order to attempt to increase the effectiveness of the crossover.

-Bruce

[Resident Loser]

...I don't give a rats @$$ about this constant, goes-nowhere debate...however...

Inside your loudspeaker there are short, isolated lengths of wire that go from the appropriate points of the Xover circuit board to the appropriate drivers...if so equipped, there is a jumper that joins the LF and HF sections of said Xover...

Now, if you bi-wire, you are essentially taking those short, relatively protected wires and extending them outside of their little cabinet-style home and exposing them to all manner of EFI/RFI/EIEIO...not to mention adding a bit of resistance and capacitance which changes the make-up of the specifically designed crossover...

jimHJJ(...you do the math...)

[jneutron]

Now, if you bi-wire, you are essentially taking those short, relatively protected wires and extending them outside of their little cabinet-style home and exposing them to all manner of EFI/RFI/EIEIO...not to mention adding a bit of resistance and capacitance which changes the make-up of the specifically designed crossover...jimHJJ(...you do the math...)

Oh NO!! Not EFI/RFI/EIEIO

Math...math....hmmm, what's that??

Cheers, John

[kexodusc]

This is the best muther****in thread I've read on any audio site, anywhere, in months....keep going guys...

I've always felt bi-wiring could help, but just haven't been able to confirm it on any setup I've tried yet.

For the benefit of those eager young learners here like my good ar.com buddy, uh, Mexodusc, who's probably the least educated in this thread in such things, there's a few things I'd love to have explained.
It would seem to me, the differences in currents of each wire to woofer and tweeter at each frequency would somehow react differently with the downstream crossover filters compared to a single wire splitting after the speaker terminal, very shortly, before each filter. But I'm no EE and can't really conclude by myself if this is true. Are the currents in the wires to woofer and tweeter after the speaker terminal of a mono-wired speaker system not also different with each frequency? If so what's the benefit of having a different current over a longer length of wire?

And, does this generate enough of a difference to be heard by the average human ear? Is there any measurement supported research available on this matter? What were the conclusions?

And what effect, if any, does bi-wiring have on the time domain and phase of the system?

[jneutron]

I've always felt bi-wiring could help, but just haven't been able to confirm it on any setup I've tried yet.

I believe audibility testing for it has a huge error component which prevents accurate discernment....us..

For the benefit of those eager young learners here like my good ar.com buddy, uh, Mexodusc, who's probably the least educated in this thread in such things, there's a few things I'd love to have explained.
It would seem to me, the differences in currents of each wire to woofer and tweeter at each frequency would somehow react differently with the downstream crossover filters compared to a single wire splitting after the speaker terminal, very shortly, before each filter. But I'm no EE and can't really conclude by myself if this is true. Are the currents in the wires to woofer and tweeter after the speaker terminal of a mono-wired speaker system not also different with each frequency? If so what's the benefit of having a different current over a longer length of wire?

And, does this generate enough of a difference to be heard by the average human ear? Is there any measurement supported research available on this matter? What were the conclusions?

And what effect, if any, does bi-wiring have on the time domain and phase of the system?

Ahhhh...the last question is by far the best..I'll discuss it at the end..

Where to start, so that Mexodusc can clearly understand...

Take a one way system. 8 ohms resistor, with wire at say, .1 ohm total.

Put a sine wave into it, 4 amperes peak current. When the current is at the top of it's waveform, the 8 ohm resistor will dissipate I squared R, or 4 squared times 8, 16 times 8, or 128 watts. The wire will heat up, the power lost to the wire will be 16 times .1, or 1.6 watts. Again, the wire will have it's maximum power loss at the exact same time as the resistor (load). When the wire has zero current, no loss in either the wire or the resistor.

Now, make two of these systems, with 20 hz playing in one set, 10Khz playing in the other. Each will do the exact same thing, but of course, based on each current. At the instant in time when the 20 hz signal is at 4 amperes, and the 10Khz signal is at 4 amperes, what is the power loss in the wires? Simple, it is 1.6 watts times 2. This is the biwire configuration. When the 20 hz signal is at +4 amps, and the 10Khz is at -4 amps, what is the power loss?? Simple again, both are losing 1.6 watts. (remember, when you square a negative number, the result is positive..)


OK, now..let's make a system with two resistors, and a crossover network so that the 20hz gets to one resistor, and the 10Khz to the other.. And, lets push the amplifier so that there is 4 amperes of 20 hz and 4 amperes of 10Khz.

Let's look at the same points in time as before..

When both signals are at +4 amperes, each resistor STILL dissipates 128 watts. What is the single wire dissipating?? The current in the wire is 4 + 4, or 8 amperes. Power = 8*8 (I squared) times .1 ohm...or 64 times .1, 6.4 watts.

With the biwire setup, there is 1.6 plus 1.6 watts being lost to the wire..3.2 total. This means that using one wire to move both currents causes twice as much loss in the wire as the biwire case.

Now, bass at 4 amps, highs at -4 amps. With a single wire, the wire current is ZERO, so there is no power being lost to the wires. But a biwire setup loses 3.2 watts at this time.

So, recap:
1. When biwiring is used, the peak power loss is 3.2 watts, where the peak loss in monowire is 6.4 watts.

2. When monowiring is used, there will be times when there is no wire loss, and at the same time, biwiring will lose 3.2 watts.

3. If you go through the math, you will find that the average power loss within biwiring will be the same as the monowiring....

4. It is not possible to select a monowire guage which will make it lose power exactly like biwiring does. They are different.

This difference, for the simple back of the envelope calculations I present, is 1.48%.

My contention is that this difference, by it's nature, cannot be seen using an FFT analyzer. But yet, the difference is there, this is clear from the math.

This power loss will be assymetric to the hf, and it is dependent on the lf, I do not know how this plays out in audibility. However, if the bass signal in the right and left channels is different, the modulated losses will also. I suspect this will wreak havoc with localization (spacial imaging).

Cheers, John

ps..if Mexodusc has more questions, relay them here, and I will answer to the best of my ability.

[kexodusc]

Thanks jn, it's a real treat having you here when you do drop by. I don't have the time to devote studying all this stuff myself, it's nice to get some simple answers to help me guess if I'm being BS'ed by biwire yeah or naysayers when these debates pop up from time to time.

I believe audibility testing for it has a huge error component which prevents accurate discernment....us..

Fair enough. Though I might question how "huge" in some cases, when the human ear can pick up on small changes in LCR in the crossover components. I'm in the camp that if it falls in that region of error, it's not significant enough for me unless it's really cheap and easy to do. Guess I'd make a bad audiophile.

Ahhhh...the last question is by far the best..I'll discuss it at the end..

Look forward to it..

So, recap:
1. When biwiring is used, the peak power loss is 3.2 watts, where the peak loss in monowire is 6.4 watts.

2. When monowiring is used, there will be times when there is no wire loss, and at the same time, biwiring will lose 3.2 watts.

3. If you go through the math, you will find that the average power loss within biwiring will be the same as the monowiring....

4. It is not possible to select a monowire guage which will make it lose power exactly like biwiring does. They are different.

This difference, for the simple back of the envelope calculations I present, is 1.48%.

My contention is that this difference, by it's nature, cannot be seen using an FFT analyzer. But yet, the difference is there, this is clear from the math.

This power loss will be assymetric to the hf, and it is dependent on the lf, I do not know how this plays out in audibility.

Okay. Your example assumes isolated frequency signals in both wires, 20 Hz and 10 kHz. Is this for the benefit of simple calculations (to make it simple for poor Mexodusc)? I think it's fair to say that most music sources would demand an amplifier send multiple frequency signals across each wire, and your example would be an extreme situation.
This begs the question, in practical terms, if each wire is going to see more than 1 individual frequency at a given point in time, and thus resulting in different currents in each wire as a result of the different reactance of each filter/driver for those frequencies, will the power loss differences between biwiring and monowiring therefore be smaller in most cases than 1.48%? Sometimes zero?
(I'm rambling a bit here, but just hoping you'll point where I get lost if/when it happens).

Knowing what I do know about drivers, when you change the power of the signal fed to the driver, the FR must change at least a bit between these two wiring setups. I'd consider this as being analogous to placing a small resistor in series before the filter (or a really small pre-filter tweeter pad). At lower SPLs, 1.5% power loss differences are probably significant...but with the logarithmic relationship of power and SPL, I'm guessing the audible difference the 1.48% power difference generates is extremely small. Smaller than 1.48% at max, at any rate Maybe I'm way off But that's just FR and I'm sure there's distortion, time and phase considerations not accounted for (yet).

Cheers, John
ps..if Mexodusc has more questions, relay them here, and I will answer to the best of my ability.

Just don't forget the time/phase stuff....

[jneutron]

Though I might question how "huge" in some cases, when the human ear can pick up on small changes in LCR in the crossover components. I'm in the camp that if it falls in that region of error, it's not significant enough for me unless it's really cheap and easy to do. Guess I'd make a bad audiophile.

heh, me too. I use #12 for 100 foot runs, without regard to biwire stuff. It's a convienience thing.

Okay. Your example assumes isolated frequency signals in both wires, 20 Hz and 10 kHz. Is this for the benefit of simple calculations (to make it simple for poor Mexodusc)?

No, silly. It's for the benefit of ME..I can't handle the more complex problem. Same thing applies to 3 way systems, but the math gets even worse.

I think it's fair to say that most music sources would demand an amplifier send multiple frequency signals across each wire, and your example would be an extreme situation.

yes, it is

This begs the question, in practical terms, if each wire is going to see more than 1 individual frequency at a given point in time, and thus resulting in different currents in each wire as a result of the different reactance of each filter/driver for those frequencies, will the power loss differences between biwiring and monowiring therefore be smaller in most cases than 1.48%? Sometimes zero?

beats me ...I would think that my numbers were the max, and it ranges from that to zero. I used equal power highs and lows also, which doesn't happen without trashin the tweet. So for typical program information, my guess is that it may or may not be audible, normally falling below jnd"s.

At lower SPLs, 1.5% power loss differences are probably significant...but with the logarithmic relationship of power and SPL, I'm guessing the audible difference the 1.48% power difference generates is extremely small. Smaller than 1.48% at max, at any rate Maybe I'm way off But that's just FR and I'm sure there's distortion, time and phase considerations not accounted for (yet).

Ya gotta remember, this is not a overall power loss, that remains constant..it is an instantaneous loss, sometimes it is double, sometimes it is zero. This variation in loss will show up as less and more power to push the voice coil around, based on the lows..so, that will alter the timing of the highs based on program content. That'd be the timing part of ITD. It should be consistent with bass induced phase modulation.
Honestly, I don't know how to test that for audibility.

Cheers, John

ps...discussing this with Bob Lee...could get interesting..but then again, he may just consider me a "slow learner"..(gotcha Paul... )

[hermanv]

When both signals are at +4 amperes, each resistor STILL dissipates 128 watts. What is the single wire dissipating?? The current in the wire is 4 + 4, or 8 amperes. Power = 8*8 (I squared) times .1 ohm...or 64 times .1, 6.4 watts.

It seems to me that the woofer current heats and allows the wire to cool at 20Hz. Since copper wire changes resistance with temperature the woofer current will now modulate the 10KHz tweeter signal. Not by much but it will, I haven't measured or calculated the disturbance, but I'm sure there is one. Audible? Maybe.

The point is that when talking about audio quality in an environment with 96dB (Redbook CD) dynamic range, very small effects can be audible. Most equations about wire look only at first order effects i.e. resistance, when second and third order effects are included the situation becomes far more complex. The too simple, wire is wire argument doesn't include any of these factors. In modern equipment with oversampling, upsampling and iteration the dynamic range can be better yet with some claiming over 100dB)

Some of these high order effects include: Magnetic interaction, constriction and expansion with current, EMI, dielectric loss and absorbtion, eddy current losses, thermionic effects and piezo electric effects. I am not saying that one or any of these I listed explain the issue, I am simply saying that the question is more complex than simple Ohms law although even Ohms law provides some insight. The effects I mention can be measured, but I don't know anyone who has correlated these measurements with an audible effect if any.

The point is that the earth orbited the sun long before anyone measured orbital mechanics and proved the sun couldn't orbit the Earth. I can listen and hear a difference that satisfies my subjective criteria. I am quite happy to exploit this difference and while I wouldn't mind an explanation one is not necessary for me to enjoy what I hear as a benefit.

[Dusty Chalk]

This begs the question, in practical terms, if each wire is going to see more than 1 individual frequency at a given point in time...

Correct me if I'm wrong, but is this a correct assumption? We do fourier analysis when looking at signals, but really, it's still and always will be one signal. A difference potential across the outputs of the amplifier will send electrons scurrying ("...scurrying..." at the speed of light, that is) across the wires to create an analogous potential drop at the other end of the wires, back-EMF notwithstanding. The only multiple-frequency situation will be at the point where the back-EMF interacts with the incoming current.

[jneutron]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but is this a correct assumption? We do fourier analysis when looking at signals, but really, it's still and always will be one signal..

Correct, it is one signal. In a monowire, it is one current. That's not the issue.

The problem starts when it branches to two different loads at the crossover. The loads see their own intended signal, but the monowire sees both. That "both" part changes the power loss in the mono vs the bi set.

A difference potential across the outputs of the amplifier will send electrons scurrying ("...scurrying..." at the speed of light, that is) across the wires to create an analogous potential drop at the other end of the wires, back-EMF notwithstanding..

No. Electrons travel at mm per second.

The only multiple-frequency situation will be at the point where the back-EMF interacts with the incoming current.

Don't even worry about back emf at this time. My analysis does not need it to be correct (or not). Back emf would only confound the situation..let's keep it simple for now, shall we?

Even this simple analysis is not understood by those who should..I am suprised the world of pro audio has gotten as far as it has.

I blame the professors who teach e/m. They have failed to teach the engineers how to extend their "box".

Cheers, John

[Mash]

Well, E-Stat, are you asking the right question? Who knows? Anybody care?

I answered before, but this should be more obvious:

1. I am a speaker manufacturer. My reps and dealers make me aware of a buzz about bi-wiring speakers for better speaker performance. [Maybe some audio hobbyists bi-wired some speakers and declared an improvement and then other audio hobbyists did the same. Maybe a magazine reviewer had made a speculation. I cannot prove any scenario, but I cannot disprove it. You cannot prove or disprove it, either!]

2. A subset of Audiophiles slowly develops that believes that bi-wiring speakers gives better performance. I cannot prove this scenario, but I cannot disprove it. You cannot prove or disprove it, either!

3. Some positive buzz about bi-wiring appears in Audiophile publications. Perhaps the writers happen to believe the audio hobbyists who bi-wired some speakers and declared an improvement. Who knows?

4. But guess what? I am in the business of making and SELLING loudspeakers! I am NOT in the business of telling Audiophiles that they should or should not bother to bi-wire.

5. My reps and dealers provide feedback that a newly discovered subset of Audiophiles will only consider speakers that offer a “bi-wire capability”.

6. I find that my cost of adding “bi-wire capability” is $10 to $25 per pair of speakers. If I add this “bi-wire capability” my speakers will then be considered by that subset of Audiophiles previously identified as only willing to consider speakers that do offer a “bi-wire capability”. What do I do? What do I do?

7. I add the “bi-wire capability” to my speakers. Isn’t this a “no-brainer” if I wish to have the opportunity to sell as many speakers as I possibly can?

8. Now I can leave the decision to bi-wire or not to bi-wire to my customer. There is NO risk of harm to my customer, so why not?

9. If the Audio Magazine doing a review of my speakers has previously opined that bi-wiring is good, why should I not “go along” with them? Remember, I am in the business of what? Selling loudspeakers!


Here is a TRUE story about bicycles that shows you how shift can happen”:

I remember that c1985 aluminum bicycles began to appear and were perceived as alternatives to CrMo steel bicycles. An early reviewer of an early aluminum bicycle determined that that new aluminum bicycle had a much smoother ride than contemporary steel bicycles he had ridden. He POSTULATED that “aluminum must have better damping qualities than steel”. NOTE the wording: “…must have better damping qualities….”

By c1988 reviews of aluminum bicycles always concluded that the aluminum bicycle being discussed had a better ride than a similar steel bicycle “because of the inherently better damping qualities of aluminum compared to steel”. Did you notice the change in wording, “ inherently better ”???

So you see, as more and more reviews of aluminum bicycles were published the SPECULATION “aluminum must have better damping qualities than steel” became the FACT “because of the inherently better damping qualities of aluminum compared to steel”.

I became peeved about this nonsense one (slow) day and sent a letter to the largest bicycling magazine pointing out chapter and verse on damping characteristics of structural materials, with full documentation of structural materials references, that

1. If steel and aluminum are both stressed to the same percentage of their Young’s Modulus, which represents identical strains in the metal, the steel has 3X the damping of aluminum.

2. The damping contributed to any structure by either material was completely insignificant anyway. Bolted joints, for example, provide a very small amount of damping, but aluminum and steel effectively provide no structural damping.

They published my comments and from then on, NO reviewer of an aluminum bicycle ever again wrote: “aluminum must have better damping qualities than steel”, or “because of the inherently better damping qualities of aluminum compared to steel”.

Moral: E-Stat, You may be asking the wrong question.


Great job, jneutron, but where here have you provided your “transparent proof of a PRACTICAL benefit” I missed it. The last line seems to say "yes and no"....


So, jneutron, here is your recap for our reference:

1. When biwiring is used, the peak power loss is 3.2 watts, where the peak loss in monowire is 6.4 watts.

2. When monowiring is used, there will be times when there is no wire loss, and at the same time, biwiring will lose 3.2 watts.

3. If you go through the math, you will find that the average power loss within biwiring will be the same as the monowiring....

4. It is not possible to select a monowire guage which will make it lose power exactly like biwiring does. They are different.

This difference, for the simple back of the envelope calculations I present, is 1.48%.

My contention is that this difference, by it's nature, cannot be seen using an FFT analyzer. But yet, the difference is there, this is clear from the math.

[kexodusc]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but is this a correct assumption? We do fourier analysis when looking at signals, but really, it's still and always will be one signal. A difference potential across the outputs of the amplifier will send electrons scurrying ("...scurrying..." at the speed of light, that is) across the wires to create an analogous potential drop at the other end of the wires, back-EMF notwithstanding. The only multiple-frequency situation will be at the point where the back-EMF interacts with the incoming current.

One signal perhaps, but I was under the impresssion it would have multiple frequencies simultaneously?
Perhaps I'm missing something trivial to you folks. What am I missing exactly. I play an 80 Hz tone, I assume 80 Hz signal travels the wire, and the speakers produce the 80 Hz tone. Likewise with the ground loop effect at 60 Hz, I hear a 60 Hz tone.

The way I understand a simple microphone, air pressure is converted to votlage waveforms which convert audio-frequency air pressure waves into corresponding voltage waveforms. The exact makeup of these frequencies in the voltage signal is dependent on the sound being reproduced. If the sound waves consist of a 60 Hz tone, the voltage waveform will likewise be a sine wave 60 Hz?. If the sound wave is composed of several notes, say, a chord, then waveform produced by the mic will consist of those frequencies mixed together.

So a harp and bass play their highest and lowest notes, respetively, would not the 2 separate frequencies corresponding to those notes travel the speaker wire simultaneously?

This thinking was the basis for my assumption...perhaps more simply put, how else could a speaker simultaneously output the sound a guitar, singer, bass, and drums all make at the same time?