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 (http://www.bwspeakers.com/index.cfm/fuseaction/local.faq/ObjectID/F5CA2E9F-3D20-11D4-A67F00D0B7473B37)

Also, this article may help:

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

I am sure other members may well disagree, but then, this what makes this hobby so rewarding. :-) <!-- / message --><!-- sig -->

[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 :)

[hermanv]

Hi Smokey;

While the effects of wire on the sound of an audio signal seem to be not fully understood, there is little doubt that different wires do make an impact beyond what conventional theory might have us believe.

It is precisely this idea that the mid/tweet signal does not travel in the same wire that is carrying the heavier woofer currents that is the advantage of bi-wiring. As an engineer my proffesional training gives little or no explanation for many of these effects. They should be so small as to be inaudible, but my ears tell me differently.

Whether it's speaker cable of interconnect cable my system has suffucient resolution to tell that various wires sound different. It's not allways possible to tell which is better or more accurate, but I can usually pick the one that suits my personal prefference.

I have heard speakers where bi-wiring had no effect at all, and others where the sound "opened up" considerably. I have never heard a case where bi-wiring made things worse. So I say, as always; try it, listen and then decide.

[poneal]

Hi Smokey;

While the effects of wire on the sound of an audio signal seem to be not fully understood, there is little doubt that different wires do make an impact beyond what conventional theory might have us believe.

It is precisely this idea that the mid/tweet signal does not travel in the same wire that is carrying the heavier woofer currents that is the advantage of bi-wiring. As an engineer my proffesional training gives little or no explanation for many of these effects. They should be so small as to be inaudible, but my ears tell me differently.

Whether it's speaker cable of interconnect cable my system has suffucient resolution to tell that various wires sound different. It's not allways possible to tell which is better or more accurate, but I can usually pick the one that suits my personal prefference.

I have heard speakers where bi-wiring had no effect at all, and others where the sound "opened up" considerably. I have never heard a case where bi-wiring made things worse. So I say, as always; try it, listen and then decide.

This is not really true in bi-wiring. You see that is the problem. Both wires carry the same signal. The second wire is nothing more than a jumper wire connected to the other terminal. Both wires are carrying the same signal. The crossover is what separates the lows and highs (nothing to do with the wire--it's just a wire). In bi-amping, you can send different signals if you're using an active crossover. If not then you're still just sending the same signal to another amp and then using that amp to power the woofer or tweeter whichever one it is connected too.


Wires are like that snake oil they tell you to put in your cars engine to extend it's life. It usually doesn't work and gums up the inside. Sure manufactures can do things to wires to change the impedance, etc which will make it sound different. The question becomes do you want the manufacturer changing the original source signal in the first place? I don't. I want my signal to be reproduced as it was originally intended. Good old 14/2 zipcord works just as good as the mega dollar cables and doesn't change the signal as much.

Paul

[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

[hermanv]

This is not really true in bi-wiring. You see that is the problem. Both wires carry the same signal. The second wire is nothing more than a jumper wire connected to the other terminal. Both wires are carrying the same signal. The crossover is what separates the lows and highs (nothing to do with the wire--it's just a wire). In bi-amping, you can send different signals if you're using an active crossover. If not then you're still just sending the same signal to another amp and then using that amp to power the woofer or tweeter whichever one it is connected too. PaulThis is important, both wires do not carry the same signal, that's the point. The woofer current flows in one pair of a bi-wired set and the mid/tweet current in the other pair so with varing frequency they certainly do not carry the same current, so therefore they don't carry the same signal at all. While the signal at the amplifier terminals starts out being identical, with bi-wiring by the time it reaches the speaker jacks it's no longer identical.


Wires are like that snake oil they tell you to put in your cars engine to extend it's life. It usually doesn't work and gums up the inside. Sure manufactures can do things to wires to change the impedance, etc which will make it sound different. The question becomes do you want the manufacturer changing the original source signal in the first place? I don't. I want my signal to be reproduced as it was originally intended. Good old 14/2 zipcord works just as good as the mega dollar cables and doesn't change the signal as much.PaulYou build your own speakers but can't hear the differences between various wires? What makes you think that zip cord is the most accurate, why isn't it just as likely it's the least accurate? You seem to believe wire can change the signal, so when someone (such as Cardas) uses a far heavier gauge, ultra pure copper, low inductance construction and Litz wire (flat to much higher frequencies) you suspect they are changing the signal - for the worse, huh?

A lot of zip cord is an alloy of copper and steel (makes the wire stronger) steel is magnetic and has hysteresis, some zip cords sound so bad even a boom box will let you hear the difference. Zip cord is made the way it is not because that's the best way to carry a signal, but because that's the cheapest possible way to make a wire pair.

Some people get an idea sort of locked in their brain and turn off all ability to think. Just listen is all I ask.

[Dusty Chalk]

This is important, both wires do not carry the same signal, that's the point. The woofer current flows in one pair of a bi-wired set and the mid/tweet current in the other pair so with varing frequency they certainly do not carry the same current, so therefore they don't carry the same signal at all. While the signal at the amplifier terminals starts out being identical, with bi-wiring by the time it reaches the speaker jacks it's no longer identical.Except...wire is a conductor, and what flows out of the amplifier is electricity, and electricity flows at the speed of light. If we were talking about bi-amplification, I'd agree with you, but I don't think this is the case with bi-wiring.

[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]

This is not really true in bi-wiring. You see that is the problem. Both wires carry the same signal.
Paul
That would be incorrect.


Good old 14/2 zipcord works just as good as the mega dollar cables and doesn't change the signal as much.
Paul
Nothing you have posted yet supports that assertion.

Cheers, John

[jneutron]

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 :)

That is also incorrect.

Cheers, John

[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..:cornut:

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

Cheers, John

[Resident Loser]

That would be incorrect.

Nothing you have posted yet supports that assertion.

Cheers, John

...what do you think this is young man, the Audio Lab?

What's up? How goes the trials and tribulations of home owning?

jimHJJ(...my contribution: good fences make good neighbors...)

[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:confused:

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

Cheers, John

[E-Stat]

The designers will not have correct engineering reasons. None of them ever do. Talking with them will be useless.
Omniscient, are we?


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..:cornut:
Skeptic/Soundmind's attempted derogatory term is "dressing screens". :)


How's it going? Just figured I'd drop in and add some negativity..
Aside from some rain, things are doing well here in AR. Negativity? I rather appreciate it when knowledgeable folks correct the simple conclusions made by armchair audio engineers.

rw

[jneutron]

...what do you think this is young man, the Audio Lab?...
Oh jeeze, I ended up in the wrong place..no wonder there were new posts here...


...
What's up? How goes the trials and tribulations of home owning?

jimHJJ(...my contribution: good fences make good neighbors...)

Not bad. Patio is done just in time for the leaves to drop.
Bedroom is done, carpeted, in ceiling speaks, closet done. Right now, lookin at LCD's. I think I'll be goin wit the sharp 42D62U unit, second choice the 37D90U.

Once that puppy is in and runnin, I'm headin to the basement to make the workshop.

That, I cannot wait for...chompin at the bit..

Oh, almost forgot, wuz at the Blue Note on 3rd street last Friday, Chick Corea played.

The bassist? Holy mother of (insert diety)....I have never seen such talent at the bass..unbelievable.

Then Sat, at Iridium, solo guitarist..very good also.

Yourself??

Cheers, John

[jneutron]

Omniscient, are we?
rw
Don't know..gotta look that up. It certainly isn't in my copy of Jackson.

Edit: ah, I realized a better word than Omniscient.. Historian. As in, so far, to date, I've not seen an explanation which holds water. Those who explain why it does either misconstrue existing concepts, extend out hearing ability far beyond reasonable, or make stuff up as they go along. Reasons why it can't work have not historically hit the target either..

So, no, not Omniscient. (end of edit)

I can't believe nobody's followed up on the dissipation angle, it's just so darn simple. Sheesh, I posted it what, two years ago?


Skeptic/Soundmind's attempted derogatory term is "dressing screens". :)rw

Ah yes, dressing screens..well, they probably still need rear firing tweets..:) Take it from me...my coffee cup has rear firing tweets, and the coffee tastes so much better..



Aside from some rain, things are doing well here in AR. Negativity? I rather appreciate it when knowledgeable folks correct the simple conclusions made by armchair audio engineers. rw
When I find someone who is knowledgeable, I'll send them here..till then, all ya gots is me..I post in between sweeping the floors and cleaning the bowls..

Cheers, John

[E-Stat]

Ah yes, dressing screens..well, they probably still need rear firing tweets..:)
My big a$$ dipoles have thirty square feet of 'em!

While "rear firing tweeters" was the title of the post, what really floats SM's boat is spraying HF at the ceiling using three tweets crossed over at 6 khz. Yes, you heard me correctly.

rw

[jneutron]

My big a$$ dipoles have thirty square feet of 'em!

While "rear firing tweeters" was the title of the post, what really floats SM's boat is spraying HF at the ceiling using three tweets crossed over at 6 khz. Yes, you heard me correctly.

rw

Ah. Honestly, when I see both of your monikers, I have little desire to delve into the sub thread...again, a historical consideration, nothing more..

Cheers, John

[Resident Loser]

Oh jeeze, I ended up in the wrong place..no wonder there were new posts here...Yourself??

Other than trying to keep neighbors and their relatives, contractors, tenants and other non-descript associates thereof from using my driveway as their own private passage to India, not much...'ceptin leaves, which I don't mind so much...I'm fond of mindless endeavors, like visiting audio sites...

Replaced the muffler and tail-pipe on my Jeep...heads were a-turnin' and it wasn't because I'd won a concours d'elegance...yet another use for the ol' Sawzall...what a wonderful, constructively destructive tool! Steel casement windows, tree limbs, tail-pipes...do it's uses never end?

A new Diehard, serpentine drive belt, and 6qts of 10W-30 Mobil1 and I'ze winterized...

The high point was baking a coupla' loaves of bread...I'm gettin' purty good at it...

Also managed to get a few CDs at the Tower Records near Roosevelt Field...sad, another old name bites the dust...

jimHJJ(...good luck with the shop...)

[jneutron]

The high point was baking a coupla' loaves of bread...I'm gettin' purty good at it...
Bein gluten-intolerant, I can understand that. I'm gonna buy one of dem bread makin thingy's, a friend made some and holy mackeral, do I miss bread..there's some awful nice wheat free bread mixes out there which mimic reglar bread quite well...without the consequences.


Also managed to get a few CDs at the Tower Records near Roosevelt Field...sad, another old name bites the dust...

jimHJJ(...good luck with the shop...)
You near there, eh? I'm goin to get the lcd at 6th ave electronics I believe.

Sawsalls are great, aren't they?

Yah, havin a workbench for the woodworking is something I miss terribly. This time, I'm gonna add dust collection to it.

Cheers, John

[hermanv]

In ceiling speaks? In ceiling speaks !#**\\!

I recommend banishment from the site. :)

Will you at least bi-wire them? :ihih:

[jneutron]

In ceiling speaks? In ceiling speaks !#**\\!

I recommend banishment from the site. :)

Will you at least bi-wire them? :ihih:
No.

(Think Richard Crenna in that comedy spoof of first blood..)

Each is fed by about 100 feet of 14 guage...

That 14 guage is bundled with 7 cat5e cables, two thermostat cables, 1 75 ohm cable, two 1/2 inch copper pipes, and comes through the same stud bay as 2 romex runs.

Each speak is five inch.

Each has a 3/4 inch cone tweet.

Each are placed asymmetrically in the ceiling.

The x'overs are stock.

In the basement, the wires are stripped and twisted to the feeds from the RECEIVER. (note, I did remember to connect red to red, black to black..)

The connections are dangling from a floor joist.

They are dangling two feet from a central air unit.

The cd's are burned copies made with mp3 at 128..

Had enough?? Gonna spill your guts?? Hmmm??:)

They met the need.

Cheers, John

Almost forgot..Bdrm, kit, and living room speaks all tie into a pushbutton selector box with those strip and push type connections, and most of the wire conductors are actually in the connector.. (ewwww)

[hermanv]

Getting back to the discussion:

The goal is the "best" possible sound from a system. Best of course is a subjective description, but only I have to be pleased with my own end results.

First I need to back up a bit. My audiophile friend and I decided to build our own speakers because we just couldn't afford those commercial ones we liked. It took 7 years and $7,500 (assuming free labor), but we have built some three way speakers that are as good or better than any speakers we have heard. We are currently working on the second set for me, most parts were purchased in sets of 4 so most of the money has been spent.

All of this is relevant because of the things we learned about wiring. As the speakers were being developed and the quality gradually improved, we learned that exotic and expensive passive parts (silver coils, tin foil and polypropylene capacitors) sounded considerably better than the cheaper mass market parts. We ended up replacing all the wires and the rest of an already decent system with better electronics and cables to enable the drivers to perform to their fullest.

Now finally, the speaker wiring: We tried all kinds of arrangements with several brands of specialty wires. In the end we found a couple of trueisms. 1. A larger gauge always sounded better. 2. Silver was better than copper but the difference was inaudible (to us) on the woofer. In playing around with various configurations we found a winner.

We moved the crossover to be right at the back of the power amp and ran longer seperate wires to each driver. We used 9.5 AWG Cardas copper for the woofer, it's fairly cheap and nice and big. We used 5 wires of 11.5 AWG arranged in a low inductance ribbon for the Mid, silver sounded a bit cleaner but we just couldn't afford that much silver (about 9 AWG aggregate) and finally becase the current and power are low we were able to use 5 silver 21 gauge wires for the tweet also arranged in a low inductance ribbon (about 17.5 gauge aggregate). All the wire was made by Cardas, whose stories read better than most. All the wires were Teflon insulated and (damn it) sounded better when they were raised off the floor.

We concluded that at the extremes of audio performance tiny details are audible and make a difference. Remember that a CD has a dynamic range of 96dB, that means the smallest signal being captured is very, very small so effects that do not show up in first order measurements can easily influence the end result. Put another way, if you are listening at around 4 watts average level which is near normal active listening levels, then the smallest signal would be around 600 microwatts perhaps smaller if you allow for over sampling.

[jneutron]

You state "low inductance" for your various wires.

What were the measured LCR's for them?

Cheers, John

[poneal]

getting a little heated and opinions are coming in. I base mine of facts. Here is a link to a typical bi-wire scheme:

http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~jcgl/Scots_Guide/audio/biwire/Page1.html

Notice the jumpers? It's not like you take two sets of hots/negs and connect the two hots to amp hot and the two negs to the amp neg. You have one wire from the amp pos/neg and then little jumper wires to attach to the speaker terminals. Like I said before, "One signal feeds both" in this arrangement. The xover is what separates the highs from the lows. The amp has nothing to do with splitting the signal. And just because you jump it to the extra terminal doesn't mean that signal changes. It doesn't change until it goes into the xover and that's what bends the signals. So to recap for those hard of getting it. You have an amp, you run a wire from the amp to the speakers. You splice into the wire and add some jumpers and route them to the other terminal. Same signal, same amp, same everything except those little jumper wires going to different speaker terminals.

Bi-Amp has some merit. This is where you take a separate amp for each driver (one for the tweeter, one for the mid, one for the woofer, etc). In a two way speaker this means you need four amps to run a bi-amp. Two amp channels for each speaker. One channel to the tweeter, the other to the woofer in a two way. Why would this help? Well, think about it. The woofer is the power hungry guy. It may take the full 100watts and leave the leftovers for the mid and tweet. Probably driving them into distortion. With 1 amp on the woofer and one on the tweeter you don't have that problem. Just because the woofer distorts doesn't mean the mid or tweeter will because they are on separate paths.

Anyway, I've typed until I'm blue in the face so if you don't get it by now, maybe you will get it in the future or then again, you may never get it. Good luck.

Paul

[poneal]

That would be incorrect.


Nothing you have posted yet supports that assertion.

Cheers, John


OK, one last time for the slow learner. In bi-wiring you have a single wire just like you do without bi-wiring from the amp. At the terminals, you make some jumpers and plug them into the other terminal. Same signal, same amp, same everything except a smidgen of added wire. The signal does not get changed until it reaches the passive components in the xover. The woofer gets the same signal as the tweeter, the tweeter the same as the woofer. The xover is what filters out the highs or lows. That's all there is to it. Nothing magical, nothing complicated, it's just the way it works. One more time, the signal doesn't get changed until it hits the passives in the network. You still have the same old problems as with reg. wiring. If your woof takes up the full 100watts then whatever is left over goes to the tweeter and mids. Probably distorted. One way to solve this is bi-AMPING but bi-wiring is nothing. I mean come on. Look at the diagram. All they did was separte the xovers. I've built designs like this. I don't use it for bi-wiring but it sure does help out when measuring. Hook one xover up to one and the other to the other and then all you have to do to measure the other is to switch the speaker wire. This is not complicated, it's so simplistic, oh nevermind.

Paul

[jneutron]

getting a little heated and opinions are coming in.Paul
Heated??? Where? What thread are you reading?


I base mine of facts.
No, actually you haven't

You have only stated opinions, and now, you link to the opinion of others.

Go through Jim's calculations, and find me where he calculates the difference in dissipation between biwiring and normal.


So to recap for those hard of getting it. You have an amp, you run a wire from the amp to the speakers. You splice into the wire and add some jumpers and route them to the other terminal. Same signal, same amp, same everything except those little jumper wires going to different speaker terminals.
Well, where's the wire dissipation component??

If you wish to explain to us why biwiring is not effective, then you must come up with something better than what you have posted. You're not floatin my boat.


Anyway, I've typed until I'm blue in the face so if you don't get it by now, maybe you will get it in the future or then again, you may never get it. Good luck.
Paul

Silly.

If you wish to "get it, just ask. I would be happy to explain what you are missing.

If you just want to slap and run, do so. You won't learn anything that way, however.

Now, pay attention.

10 feet #14 awg, 6 mOhms per foot, 60 milliohms total.

Two sets connectors, 15 milliohms per contact, another 60 milliohms...total insertion, .12 ohms.

Now, single wire to crossover...two signals...lets make the math easy...8 ohms. 4 amps peak is 16 times 8, or 128 watts peak.

now, two signals...4 amps bass, 4 for highs. When both signals are at peak current, wire sees 8 amperes. Losses in the wire, I squared R, 64 times .120, or 7.68 watts dissipative loss in the wires.

Now, seperate them...each wire sees 4 amps peak..I squared R for each wire peaks at 1.92 watts....times 2, is 3.84 watts.

So, single wire has twice the peak loss as a pair of the same resistance. The most important aspect is not the total power loss, but how it happens. The peak loss is a function of the multiplication of the two currents, not summation as biwiring does. And the difference is 3.8 watts out of a sum of 256, or 1.48% of the total..can you hear 1.48 % distortion??Hmmm?

I could post the equations, I could post the graphs....but from your demeanor, I fear I would be pissin in the wind. You seem not to want to learn..

Perhaps I misread you?? If so, I apologize...if not, take it elsewhere..It gets tiring explaining the simple stuff to those who don't care..

Cheers, John

[jneutron]

OK, one last time for the slow learner.
Paul
Paul, you've no idea. I'm being gentle..


This is not complicated, it's so simplistic, oh nevermind.Paul

Read my last post. When you are ready, ask questions.

You seem to believe that others do not know what you are talking about..Stick around, you'll get over that quickly.

Oh, btw..I've never heard the difference between regular and biwiring...simply because it is of no concern to me. However, what you've said so far certainly doesn't prove your point.


Cheers, John

Ps..I've attached a nice little graph for you to think of..
Dark blue is the dissipation envelope of the lows.
Magenta is the dissipation envelope of the highs.
Yellow is the summation of the two, this is biwire dissipation.
Light blue is the dissipation envelope of both signals when they are in one wire.
Brown is the dissipation discrepancy between mono and biwire.
Notice it is not zero??
Notice it goes negative??
It is a class of signals which cannot be viewed by an FFT, as it is a zero power signal.
Buuuut, it's there for all the world to see..

Questions? Or, are you still gonna call me a slow learner..

[hermanv]

Hi poneal;

There is some confusion, (from your post #35), in the bi-wire scheme there is no jumper at the speaker ends. Although doubling up the number of wires with the jumpers may help, that doesn't seperate the signal currents as a conventional bi-wire scheme does. In following your own link to end the author proposes and supports that bi-wiring does make a small mathematical diffenence. Small differences is what we are talking about, the link you chose doesn't seem to support your own conclusions.

Hi jneutron;

We did measure the inductace, it was a while ago and I no longer remember the answer something in the nanohenries per foot probably. As far as I know the ribbon (flat, side by side) configuration (return, hot, return, hot, return) gives the lowest practical inductance given some physical space considerations.

[jneutron]

Hi jneutron;

We did measure the inductace, it was a while ago and I no longer remember the answer something in the nanohenries per foot probably. As far as I know the ribbon (flat, side by side) configuration (return, hot, return, hot, return) gives the lowest practical inductance given some physical space considerations.
Ah, tis a shame..

It would have been nice to calculate the effective dielectric constant and characteristic impedance from your geometry.

LC = 1034 EDC, L in nH per foot, C in pf per foot...

Z = sqr(L/C)

Cheers, John

[poneal]

Paul, you've no idea. I'm being gentle..



Read my last post. When you are ready, ask questions.

You seem to believe that others do not know what you are talking about..Stick around, you'll get over that quickly.

Oh, btw..I've never heard the difference between regular and biwiring...simply because it is of no concern to me. However, what you've said so far certainly doesn't prove your point.


Cheers, John

Ps..I've attached a nice little graph for you to think of..
Dark blue is the dissipation envelope of the lows.
Magenta is the dissipation envelope of the highs.
Yellow is the summation of the two, this is biwire dissipation.
Light blue is the dissipation envelope of both signals when they are in one wire.
Brown is the dissipation discrepancy between mono and biwire.
Notice it is not zero??
Notice it goes negative??
It is a class of signals which cannot be viewed by an FFT, as it is a zero power signal.
Buuuut, it's there for all the world to see..

Questions? Or, are you still gonna call me a slow learner..

OK, I'm not saying that there is not a measureable difference. I'm aware that if you have 14/2 and go to 10/2 or something else that you can have longer runs without loss. I've also read that you should have each cable the same length. I tried this and I heard zilch, nada, no difference at all. Now, my hearing isn't near as good as it was 20 years ago, but I, like you, just don't do the bi-wire thing. I just cannot justify the added expense when I can't hear a difference.

I'm always willing to learn, but come on with the wire thing. I think that if anything makes an audible difference it is the speaker drivers themselves. Different speakers have different sonic signatures and I can hear that. This makes logical sense to me since drivers are made from different materials, etc. But wire is wire. It's not like when I go to the DIY shows that someone breaks out the $300 cables to make sure that we are hearing the signal as it should be. Nope, it's usually some standard 14/2 copper wire from a supply store or maybe if they splurge some monster cable.

Also, the shorter the distance the higher gauge you can go. Look at all those little bitty wires on passives. They might be 20ga tin? But since the connections are normally point to point it make no difference that they are tin instead of copper. They conduct just fine. As you can tell, I have strong feelings toward wire. I think of it as some company trying to dupe consumers into buying something that really doesn't make a difference. And look at copper prices these days. Holy cow, who wants more wire at the skyrocketing prices. I get pissed every time I have to buy an inductor and see how much they cost.

Anyways, if I sounded abrupt my apology. My post was to help out the original poster trying to figure out what bi-wiring is. A lot of people get it mixed up so I was trying to clear the air. Then again, it was 4:00pm here with 30 minutes of work left and I didn't feel like doing any more work so fired off that comment. You take care,

Paul

[collegeboy]

hope that pic was removed before anyone else was blinded by it. Viewing was not by choice, and it was nasty.

[Dusty Chalk]

I'm going to go home and look at pictures of Giorgia Palmas and Reon Kadena until I stop feeling like sticking hot pokers in my eyes.

[hermanv]

Ah, tis a shame..

It would have been nice to calculate the effective dielectric constant and characteristic impedance from your geometry.

LC = 1034 EDC, L in nH per foot, C in pf per foot...

Z = sqr(L/C)

Cheers, John
Hi John;
We wrote it down somewhere, maybe I can find it. Although I readily admit that there isn't anywhere near full understanding of why wires sound different, I'm pretty sure that the basic RLC parameters of a wire will not fully explain the audible results. I've done much of the math and the effects of traditional wire constants are tiny indeed. I doubt that transmisson line impedance is the issue, trying for a 4 Ohm (or so) line impedance implies some physical wire results that aren't very practical, plus the wires are driven by a source impedance that usually well under 1/10 of an Ohm.

Many theories have been put forward as to why for example metal purity matters, most of those theories revolve around grain boundaries because the long grain cables seem to sound better. I also know that many have tried to very carefully measure the predicted effects of a grain boundary (bad diodes, localized thermionic effects, etc) and no one has been able to support these theories (at least in public) to date. I only know that they sound different enough to me to warrant the extra not inconsiderable expense.

Since we last spoke at length about wires I have reasearched a lot on the net and built many cables. I now know that for interconnect cables at least, the single most important attribute is dielectric absorbtion. Using material with very low dielectric constants (such as foamed Teflon) will result in a good sounding cable, air is even better but very difficult to implement for a home builder making one cable at a time. Low capacitance cables have intrinsically low dieletric absorbtion, but paradoxically a relatively high capacitance of and by itself does not seem to be an impediment to good sound as long as it isn't also accompanied by a high dieletric absorbtion..

[jneutron]

OK, I'm not saying that there is not a measureable difference. I'm aware that if you have 14/2 and go to 10/2 or something else that you can have longer runs without loss. I've also read that you should have each cable the same length. I tried this and I heard zilch, nada, no difference at all. Now, my hearing isn't near as good as it was 20 years ago, but I, like you, just don't do the bi-wire thing. I just cannot justify the added expense when I can't hear a difference.
If you re-examine my statement and the graph, one glaring thing was said. The error component, the "2ab" graph, is the difference between biwiring and monowiring when the load is a branch circuit composed of frequency directing elements (a crossover). Two very important concepts were stated...1, the integral of this 2ab error component is ZERO, meaning it has an integrated energy of zero. This precludes the possibility of viewing it using standard FFT algorithms. and, 2. Half of the error is NEGATIVE energy...as a standalone concept, this defies the first law of thermodynamics half the time..If you examine the 2ab component and the "a squared plus b squared" yellow plot, you will notice that the extreme negative dissipation point coincides with the peak positive summation point, and the sum of those two at that point is zero (the light blue line). The 2ab component cannot exist without the sum of squares component, so physics is not defied..no new laws are being created.

But, nonetheless, there is a difference between biwiring and mono, for a two or three branch frequency dependent load. And from my simple previous back of the envelope analysis, a 120 milliohm speaker cable/connector set introduces a 1.5% error component to the node at the speaker. Nobody in their right mind would claim 1.5% is inaudible. The issue to date has been one of measuring.


I'm always willing to learn.
I hope that is the case.

but come on with the wire thing.
What wire thing? I have presented a simple analysis using a simple equation, shown how the error component enters audibility, explains how such an error signal defies measurement using rather sophisticated measurement tools (FFT), and simply stated that your rebuttal to the concept of biwiring did not have any "meat" to it, therefore failed to support your assertion that it is of no consequence.

And, I only provided the analysis of the R component of the wires, leaving L and C (or more precisely, Z) of the cable alone. That is a more difficult analysis as the energy within the system is not lost, but eventually arrives at the load lagged (disregarding frequency dependent reactive of course(no need to complicate things.).


I think that if anything makes an audible difference it is the speaker drivers themselves. Different speakers have different sonic signatures and I can hear that. This makes logical sense to me since drivers are made from different materials, etc..
I concur, but that is off topic here.

But wire is wire...
Wire is wire, of course. And for the most part, it can be considered as lossless without consideration of it's effect on the system. However, as you can see from my simple derivation of dissipation losses, the lumped parameters of the wire cannot be discounted for low impedance circuitry such as speakers.


Also, the shorter the distance the higher gauge you can go....
For non cryogenic runs, I use bundled 500 mcm's, 500 amps per wire..over 5 kiloamps the trays cannot support the weight, so solid copper busswork is required..

For my big speakers, I use 12/3 extension cord with neutriks. For my HT, I use the 24awg out of the box and the free IC's, they meet my requirements. If I were concerned about this biwire thing, I'd do so...but I am not, so don't. This does not mean I think it silly, just that I do not require it.


As you can tell, I have strong feelings toward wire.
That was noticeable. However, one should temper ones feelings in discussions within forums, as sometimes the person at the other end of the 'net may indeed have a valid point.


I think of it as some company trying to dupe consumers into buying something that really doesn't make a difference. And look at copper prices these days. Holy cow, who wants more wire at the skyrocketing prices. I get pissed every time I have to buy an inductor and see how much they cost.
I know your pain, try pricing a 10 millihenry inductor that can handle 10 kiloamps.. And yes, I do not like the snake oil explanations either. Last night a salesguy tried to sell me an HDMI cable that had "nitrogen dielectric". Course, he has no clue what that is..


Anyways, if I sounded abrupt my apology. My post was to help out the original poster trying to figure out what bi-wiring is. A lot of people get it mixed up so I was trying to clear the air.
Accepted. nuff said.

Helping the poster is good, clearing up misconceptions is good (there are so many). But, as I point out, your own misconceptions with regard to biwiring did not support your argument, it would have been a more reasonable tact to ask why I stated such.

Cheers, John

[jneutron]

I'm pretty sure that the basic RLC parameters of a wire will not fully explain the audible results...
That would be incorrect. However, it must be noted that RLC can be frequency dependent, and feeding a branch circuit complicates the concepts (as my trivial resistance calculations show). An industrywide lack of understanding of these interactions within low impedance loops is to blame. Given the complexity, it is expected that correlation of audibility with RLC will be lacking. That will change eventually.


I doubt that transmisson line impedance is the issue, trying for a 4 Ohm (or so) line impedance implies some physical wire results that aren't very practical, plus the wires are driven by a source impedance that usually well under 1/10 of an Ohm....
Transmission line theory is typically though of as an rf thing with wavelengths less than the line length. That is a simplified subset of actual transmission line theory, and is a simplification for convienience.

Any wire pair will have a lumped L and C, and therefore a characteristic Z. The energy storage within any wire pair which drives a load (at frequencies far below line wavelengths) is minimized when the load impedance matches the line impedance. I attach a graph demonstrating this storage...the lumped capacitive, the lumped inductive, and the summation of stored energy. What is of concern is the fact that the stored energy of a typical zip approaches 5% of the energy delivered per lobe for a 10Khz signal (again, a simple back of the envelope calc done years ago).

While I do not worry about reflections per se, what is taught as lumped element storage within the wire is indeed the result of infinite (in the limit) reflections, the lumped approximation is useable whereas reflection math is far too cumbersome.



Many theories have been put forward as to why for example metal purity matters, most of those theories revolve around grain boundaries because the long grain cables seem to sound better. I also know that many have tried to very carefully measure the predicted effects of a grain boundary (bad diodes, localized thermionic effects, etc) and no one has been able to support these theories (at least in public) to date. I only know that they sound different enough to me to warrant the extra not inconsiderable expense.....
Yes, the theories are rather "interesting", shall we say. It is surprising how many clearly made up garbage explanations aquire legs..

Cheers, John

[hermanv]

That would be incorrect. However, it must be noted that RLC can be frequency dependent, and feeding a branch circuit complicates the concepts (as my trivial resistance calculations show). An industrywide lack of understanding of these interactions within low impedance loops is to blame. Given the complexity, it is expected that correlation of audibility with RLC will be lacking. That will change eventually.My biggest problem with the RLC explanation is that bad sounding cables seem to have an additive component. This component, which sounds to me like a band limited hash, seems to be prominent at that same frquency range (within 1 to 4 KHz) that digital recordings seem to have the most problems. While energy storage as in dielectric absorbtion or in the energy stored in the reactive components can generate additive effects I wonder about the spectrum. I haven't done the energy storage math but your claim of up to 5% doesn't mention the discharge time. With 4 Ohms at one end and a very low (but rising with frequency) Z at the other end of a speaker cable how long does the energy take to discharge to let's arbitrarily say 0.1% or 0.01%?

My second problem with the RLC explanation is that the better sounding cables do usually have lower capacitance and or inductance but that the difference between "good" and "bad" cables isn't huge, at least not compared to the change in transparancy or low level detail retrieval that I hear.

Cables made with alloys that are magnetic (steel) do sound a little like amplifier crossover distortion. If we allow for the need of a finite AC current to flip the steel domains in the cable then this argument makes a certain amount of sense, I don't know if anyone has ever measured this. This effect would also be additive in the sense of spreading a signals spectrum or crossmodulating between two signals. The cable industry concern about metals purity could be missplaced, it might only be magnetic impurities that matter.


..edit..Any wire pair will have a lumped L and C, and therefore a characteristic Z. The energy storage within any wire pair which drives a load (at frequencies far below line wavelengths) is minimized when the load impedance matches the line impedance. I attach a graph demonstrating this storage...the lumped capacitive, the lumped inductive, and the summation of stored energy. What is of concern is the fact that the stored energy of a typical zip approaches 5% of the energy delivered per lobe for a 10Khz signal (again, a simple back of the envelope calc done years ago).

While I do not worry about reflections per se, what is taught as lumped element storage within the wire is indeed the result of infinite (in the limit) reflections, the lumped approximation is useable whereas reflection math is far too cumbersome. ..edit..
Cheers, JohnIf you assume a short at one end and know the cable resistance, it's fairly easy to calculate the number of round trips in say a 2 meter long cable before the reflections damp to a small percentage. I say fairly easy, but admit to being too lazy this morning to look up the equations and do the work.

Let me close by saying I personaly suspect a number of causes of the cable sound phenomina, the reason we can't seem to find it could easily be because there are a number of very small mechanisms at work and any one explanation won't provide a sufficient enough answer as to what is going on. There are a lot of paradoxes, why don't the wires inside a component contribute as much as those wires outside? Worse, most equipment runs the signals through PCB copper with little effort made for purity or concern about RLC constants. This does lend credence to the wire is wire crowd, the rub is that I and apparently many others can hear differences between cables and it's not particularly hard to hear those differences..

[jneutron]

My biggest problem with the RLC explanation is that bad sounding cables seem to have an additive component. This component, which sounds to me like a band limited hash, seems to be prominent at that same frquency range (within 1 to 4 KHz) that digital recordings seem to have the most problems. While energy storage as in dielectric absorbtion or in the energy stored in the reactive components can generate additive effects I wonder about the spectrum...
Honestly, your biggest problem with the RLC explanation is you have not been provided a correlational link between it and what you hear. That is not your fault, but that of the industry. The end users have to rely on what is told them, and what is told them comes from the sellers for the most part. This is why there is so much in the way of "interesting" explanations out there.



I haven't done the energy storage math but your claim of up to 5% doesn't mention the discharge time. With 4 Ohms at one end and a very low (but rising with frequency) Z at the other end of a speaker cable how long does the energy take to discharge to let's arbitrarily say 0.1% or 0.01%?...
Discharge time is a dc style concept, which is not what I speak of. A simple inductance, for example, will simply lag the signal due to charging and discharging to the magnetic field..a simple R-L circuit, easily understood and modelled across a wide range of frequencies. What is not so simple is the difference between the energy stored with only one load present as a biwire does, and a two current energy storage that a monowire presents when feeding a two way speaker. (in the previous example, the non linear aspect was the energy loss within the wire, for inductance, it is I<SUP>2</SUP>L ...when the signals are combined, the magnetically stored energy is twice that of the biwire case). Twice the energy because it is only one wire?? The relevant question is..how does that energy transport to the load? It will eventually be there, the question is..when, what spectra?


My second problem with the RLC explanation is that the better sounding cables do usually have lower capacitance and or inductance but that the difference between "good" and "bad" cables isn't huge, at least not compared to the change in transparancy or low level detail retrieval that I hear.
As I've stated in the past, best cable is lowest practical R, cable Z equal to load, and product LC as low as possible. (note, it cannot go below LC = 1034, L in nH per foot, C in pf per foot, as that would violate the speed of light..can't go doin that, now can we?)


Cables made with alloys that are magnetic (steel) do sound a little like amplifier crossover distortion. If we allow for the need of a finite AC current to flip the steel domains in the cable then this argument makes a certain amount of sense, I don't know if anyone has ever measured this. This effect would also be additive in the sense of spreading a signals spectrum or crossmodulating between two signals. The cable industry concern about metals purity could be missplaced, it might only be magnetic impurities that matter.
The internal inductance of the wire is proportional to the metal's permeability, 15 nH per foot times the mu..typical magnetic steel at mu of 100 gives 1.5 uH per foot, which is certainly significant, and swamps the geometric external inductance.


If you assume a short at one end and know the cable resistance, it's fairly easy to calculate the number of round trips in say a 2 meter long cable before the reflections damp to a small percentage. I say fairly easy, but admit to being too lazy this morning to look up the equations and do the work.
Me too. That's why I use lumped element, there is no need to make it difficult. Using a reflective model is useful only as an academic exercise to arrive at the lumped numbers.


Let me close by saying I personaly suspect a number of causes of the cable sound phenomina, the reason we can't seem to find it could easily be because there are a number of very small mechanisms at work and any one explanation won't provide a sufficient enough answer as to what is going on. There are a lot of paradoxes, why don't the wires inside a component contribute as much as those wires outside? Worse, most equipment runs the signals through PCB copper with little effort made for purity or concern about RLC constants. This does lend credence to the wire is wire crowd, the rub is that I and apparently many others can hear differences between cables and it's not particularly hard to hear those differences..
The apparent paradox is fed by the tendency to treat cables as magic. It is certainly not magic. Two ugly factors are responsible for this condition..the tendency to call wires wires without regard to the underlying physics behind low impedance circuitry, and the tendency to make up ridiculous explanations using physics words pulled from a scientific thesaurus. Both are incorrect, both tend to fuel the flames within attempts to discuss the topic.

As you can see, I take both sides to task as needed, to keep the topic focussed.

Cheers, John

edit.."inpedance"...sheesh

[E-Stat]

As I've stated in the past, best cable is lowest practical R, cable Z equal to load, and product LC as low as possible. (note, it cannot go below LC = 1034, L in nH per foot, C in pf per foot, as that would violate the speed of light..can't go doin that, now can we?)

While you've mentioned the magic 1034 constant before, I don't recall this specific refinement of "product LC as low as possible". Interesting. Here are a couple of points of reference familiar to me:

14 gauge zip (I use in vintage system - others tout as sonically "perfect" for 8' runs) LC product=5000 .0055 ohms/ft

JPS Labs Superconductor I use in main system LC product=1200 .0020 ohms/ft

Nordost Valhalla (preferred by reviewer friend) LC product=1152 .0026 ohms/ft

So far, so good!

rw

[jneutron]

While you've mentioned the magic 1034 constant before, I don't recall this specific refinement of "product LC as low as possible". Interesting. Here are a couple of points of reference familiar to me:

14 gauge zip (I use in vintage system - others tout as sonically "perfect" for 8' runs) LC product=5000 .0055 ohms/ft

JPS Labs Superconductor I use in main system LC product=1200 .0020 ohms/ft

Nordost Valhalla (preferred by reviewer friend) LC product=1152 .0026 ohms/ft

So far, so good!

rw
Interesting. I guess you are affirming correlation.

The actual equation is LC=1034DC. DC is the dielectric constant, epsilon<SUB>r</SUB>.

This equation is derived from the coaxial equations. For coax, it is exact. For all others, it is a minimum limit.

For others, the term DC must be replaced with epsilon<SUB>r</SUB>mu<SUB>r</SUB>. Since nobody really uses magnetic material, mu is irrelevant, so the product must be replaced by a term I call "Effective dielectric coefficient", (EDC), and is used for the case of a non coaxial structure. It is related to the spillage outside the cable of magnetic and electric field.

Whenever Gene D at AH posts any cable tests, I plug his data into LC/1034 to get the effective dielectric coeff, it pleases me to sometimes catches severe errors in the data this way, as, if that number is less than 1, there is an error. Attached is a graph of that, from one of his wire shootouts (from what I recall). While I present the data, I've no idea what each of the wires actually is nor their cost, nor their popularity..(sorry the graphs are not hi rez, saving jpegs below 100k is not very pretty.)

The energy stored in the cable is related to EDC, and the prop velocity is also related to it via equations. So while it is possible to attribute a difference to the prop velocity, that is incorrect. The prop velocity is related to the simple LC numbers, as is the storage..

My goal has been to correlate these parameters to "possible" audibility, you give some interesting points of data..thanks.

Cheers, John

[jneutron]

hope that pic was removed before anyone else was blinded by it. Viewing was not by choice, and it was nasty.

Oops, sorry bout that. Perhaps I should post a warning?:)

Hey, ya know...all ya gotta do is drop the cookie...then, wheneva ya sees a post of mine, any questionable pic doesn't shows up...

Course, ya might miss a pic of Giorgia Palmas or Reon Kadena then...(man's got taste)..perhaps this pic??

Hmmm, risks, risks...what ta do...:confused5:

gotcha..:cornut:

Cheers, John

[E-Stat]

Interesting. I guess you are affirming correlation.
Yes, sorry for the hanging conclusion.


Attached is a graph of that, from one of his wire shootouts (from what I recall). While I present the data, I've no idea what each of the wires actually is nor their cost, nor their popularity..(sorry the graphs are not hi rez, saving jpegs below 100k is not very pretty.)

I don't care about cost or popularity in a vacuum either - just audible performance. Using your "lowest product" criteria, the best cable in this bunch has a dividend of 2. Nordost Valhalla's is 1.11 and my JPS Labs Superconductor+ is 1.16.


My goal has been to correlate these parameters to "possible" audibility, you give some interesting points of data..thanks.

Great goal! I haven't had more time today (yes, I work too) to examine some other popular cables using your criteria.

rw

edit: I found this text from the Nordost site regarding Valhalla. They must be using a slightly different factor than 1034.

"The cable has an effective dielectric constant of 1.12, which is incredibly low, the reference point being air or a vacuum, which has a dielectric constant of 1".

[poneal]

If you re-examine my statement and the graph, one glaring thing was said. The error component, the "2ab" graph, is the difference between biwiring and monowiring when the load is a branch circuit composed of frequency directing elements (a crossover). Two very important concepts were stated...1, the integral of this 2ab error component is ZERO, meaning it has an integrated energy of zero. This precludes the possibility of viewing it using standard FFT algorithms. and, 2. Half of the error is NEGATIVE energy...as a standalone concept, this defies the first law of thermodynamics half the time..If you examine the 2ab component and the "a squared plus b squared" yellow plot, you will notice that the extreme negative dissipation point coincides with the peak positive summation point, and the sum of those two at that point is zero (the light blue line). The 2ab component cannot exist without the sum of squares component, so physics is not defied..no new laws are being created.

But, nonetheless, there is a difference between biwiring and mono, for a two or three branch frequency dependent load. And from my simple previous back of the envelope analysis, a 120 milliohm speaker cable/connector set introduces a 1.5% error component to the node at the speaker. Nobody in their right mind would claim 1.5% is inaudible. The issue to date has been one of measuring.


I hope that is the case.

What wire thing? I have presented a simple analysis using a simple equation, shown how the error component enters audibility, explains how such an error signal defies measurement using rather sophisticated measurement tools (FFT), and simply stated that your rebuttal to the concept of biwiring did not have any "meat" to it, therefore failed to support your assertion that it is of no consequence.

And, I only provided the analysis of the R component of the wires, leaving L and C (or more precisely, Z) of the cable alone. That is a more difficult analysis as the energy within the system is not lost, but eventually arrives at the load lagged (disregarding frequency dependent reactive of course(no need to complicate things.).


I concur, but that is off topic here.

Wire is wire, of course. And for the most part, it can be considered as lossless without consideration of it's effect on the system. However, as you can see from my simple derivation of dissipation losses, the lumped parameters of the wire cannot be discounted for low impedance circuitry such as speakers.


For non cryogenic runs, I use bundled 500 mcm's, 500 amps per wire..over 5 kiloamps the trays cannot support the weight, so solid copper busswork is required..

For my big speakers, I use 12/3 extension cord with neutriks. For my HT, I use the 24awg out of the box and the free IC's, they meet my requirements. If I were concerned about this biwire thing, I'd do so...but I am not, so don't. This does not mean I think it silly, just that I do not require it.


That was noticeable. However, one should temper ones feelings in discussions within forums, as sometimes the person at the other end of the 'net may indeed have a valid point.


I know your pain, try pricing a 10 millihenry inductor that can handle 10 kiloamps.. And yes, I do not like the snake oil explanations either. Last night a salesguy tried to sell me an HDMI cable that had "nitrogen dielectric". Course, he has no clue what that is..


Accepted. nuff said.

Helping the poster is good, clearing up misconceptions is good (there are so many). But, as I point out, your own misconceptions with regard to biwiring did not support your argument, it would have been a more reasonable tact to ask why I stated such.

Cheers, John

I'm off next week for Thanksgiving and will start building one of the boxes for my Kappa Pro 15LF-2, HM130Z0, and MDT-37 pro stereo speakers. I already have some bi-amp terminals so I will use these. I will measure the response of the speaker with and without bi-wiring using the different topologies indicated in the link I gave. I will also take some impedance sweeps of these different type of arrangement. We can then determine whether it makes an audible difference. I have the ECM-8000 mic that has been calibrated. A Yamaha analog mixer with phantom power, and an amp and Sound Easy latest version. I will take on axis and off axis at about 1 meter away at tweeter height. This should at least tell us if it is audible.

Cheers,

Paul

[Resident Loser]

I'm off next week for Thanksgiving and will start building one of the boxes for my Kappa Pro 15LF-2, HM130Z0, and MDT-37 pro stereo speakers. I already have some bi-amp terminals so I will use these. I will measure the response of the speaker with and without bi-wiring using the different topologies indicated in the link I gave. I will also take some impedance sweeps of these different type of arrangement. We can then determine whether it makes an audible difference. I have the ECM-8000 mic that has been calibrated. A Yamaha analog mixer with phantom power, and an amp and Sound Easy latest version. I will take on axis and off axis at about 1 meter away at tweeter height. This should at least tell us if it is audible.

Cheers,

Paul

...be measureable or audible?...After all, many of our goldeneared brethren claim to hear things that defy measurement, fly in the face of measurement or claim that the correct type of measurement to account for what is heard has yet to be devised...

And besides things have to burn-in/break-in for at least a few centuries...

jimHJJ(...the word moot comes to mind...)

[jneutron]

I don't care about cost or popularity in a vacuum either - just audible performance. Using your "lowest product" criteria, the best cable in this bunch has a dividend of 2. Nordost Valhalla's is 1.11 and my JPS Labs Superconductor+ is 1.16.
I am of the belief that it is not just the LC product, but a combo of that and the characteristic impedance. It is the total energy stored that I am speaking of..
It is possible to create any cableset which meets an arbitrary load impedance...the real issue is to get the lc product as low as possible also.


edit: I found this text from the Nordost site regarding Valhalla. They must be using a slightly different factor than 1034.

"The cable has an effective dielectric constant of 1.12, which is incredibly low, the reference point being air or a vacuum, which has a dielectric constant of 1".

No, we speak of the same thing. The 1034 is really just a units conversion thing...be careful to use feet, nH and pF, or the numbers get really messy.

My guess is they measured L and C, calc'd the prop speed from:

V = 1/sqr(LC) = c/sqr(epsilon mu)

Assumed mu=1 to give v = 1/sqr(epsilon)

Then got the effective dielectric constant.

So we be speakin the same language..

Cheers, John

[jneutron]

I'm off next week for Thanksgiving and will start building one of the boxes for my Kappa Pro 15LF-2, HM130Z0, and MDT-37 pro stereo speakers. I already have some bi-amp terminals so I will use these. I will measure the response of the speaker with and without bi-wiring using the different topologies indicated in the link I gave. I will also take some impedance sweeps of these different type of arrangement. We can then determine whether it makes an audible difference. I have the ECM-8000 mic that has been calibrated. A Yamaha analog mixer with phantom power, and an amp and Sound Easy latest version. I will take on axis and off axis at about 1 meter away at tweeter height. This should at least tell us if it is audible.

Cheers,

Paul
If it were that easy, my guess is it would already have been measured.

You have to time correlate the mike to the source material.

Several confounders:
1. You have to time correlate the mike to the source material. Both signals..
2. You, in the listening area..reflections which change
3. spl
4. Mike diaphram movement (it sees the lows)
5. What algorithm is being used to capture the node voltage for impedance measure? FFT?

The method has some hairy confounders..I do not predict this will meet the requirements.

Don't forget, the error is a product of the branch currents, and we hear in stereo...Humans are sensitive to 2uSec temporal shifts ear to ear (each channel has different current products), humans are sensitive to very low ear to ear level shifts..

Your overall measurement technique does not consider temporal issues. A big hole there.

It'd be great if you found something there, but I suspect you will not..

Have a nice thanksgiving.

Cheers, John

[poneal]

...be measureable or audible?...After all, many of our goldeneared brethren claim to hear things that defy measurement, fly in the face of measurement or claim that the correct type of measurement to account for what is heard has yet to be devised...

And besides things have to burn-in/break-in for at least a few centuries...

jimHJJ(...the word moot comes to mind...)


It's like the guys who swear by those high dollar Mundorf capacitors. By golly they can hear a difference. I've not been able to tell personally. I did a little experiment this past month up at the DIY Iowa Event. I built this speaker for this guy with the understanding that I present it and get judged on it. I used electrolytic caps with .01uF film and foil by-pass caps on the positive leg. Of course I used my multimeter to ensure the values were the same since electrolytics' tolerance levels are not as stringent. Guess what? It won third place and everyone was amazed at the clarity and imaging of this speaker. I actually had on EE come outside and tell me before he left that in his opinion my sounded the best he had heard all day. He was just there to judge and enjoy. No entry. At DIY Ohio last year, they did a cap test. Took good old electrolytics vs the high end ones. Only 1 person said they heard a difference and this was from a group of individuals who listen hours trying to get the vocals and everything just right. Same with wire I guess.

Paul

[poneal]

If it were that easy, my guess is it would already have been measured.

You have to time correlate the mike to the source material.

Several confounders:
1. You have to time correlate the mike to the source material. Both signals..
-----Not a problem. All my meas. are time correlated via gating.
2. You, in the listening area..reflections which change
----I measure outside where reflections are not an issue
3. spl
---- I usualy use 1 watt at 1 meter
4. Mike diaphram movement (it sees the lows)
---Most meas. systems don't take good measurements down low on a gate. I've successfully gotten into the low hundred hertz range with a long enough gate.
5. What algorithm is being used to capture the node voltage for impedance measure? FFT?
---MLS signal is used and the FFT and other tranformations via the software.

The method has some hairy confounders..I do not predict this will meet the requirements.

Don't forget, the error is a product of the branch currents, and we hear in stereo...Humans are sensitive to 2uSec temporal shifts ear to ear (each channel has different current products), humans are sensitive to very low ear to ear level shifts..


-----This will be an MLS signal

Your overall measurement technique does not consider temporal issues. A big hole there.

----If you are talking about lobing then yes it does take that into consideration.

It'd be great if you found something there, but I suspect you will not..

Have a nice thanksgiving.

-----Hey, you too. I've got some EE buddies emailing me to make sure the test is a valid test. If you have any input into making it better I'm all ears. These EE's are some of the top engineers in speaker building. I'm not one for throwing around names but here are a few that I will bounch this off.

John Kreskovsky: http://www.musicanddesign.com/
Roman Bednarek: http://www.rjbaudio.com
John Krutke: http://www.zaphaudio.com
CurtC: http://www.geocities.com/cc00541/index.html
David Ralph: http://www.speakerdesign.net/

Cheers, John

I'm sure between all these head that we will come to some conclusion.

Paul

[jneutron]

I'm sure between all these head that we will come to some conclusion.
Paul
Perhaps. I'll be here to toss monkey wrenches into anything you do, of course...:)

Seriously, I'll help where I can..

Fraid I do not know any of those names, nor their companies..sorry.

Course, you probably don't know anybody I work with either..

I was not speaking of lobing. What I speak of is a temporal shifting of the hf as a result of the lf current..how to measure that while low freq spl is in the air is not gonna be easy. Perhaps mounting woof as a dipole to provide cancellation? Course, that gets anechoic, bet you don't have one..

Since the monowire error signal is zero integral energy, the assumption is that it's loss from the output signal is also zero integrated energy. I do not know if it will be measureable using standard techniques. Fraid FFT math is a tad above me..

Have a nice week.

Cheers, John

[poneal]

Perhaps. I'll be here to toss monkey wrenches into anything you do, of course...:)

Seriously, I'll help where I can..

Fraid I do not know any of those names, nor their companies..sorry.

Course, you probably don't know anybody I work with either..

I was not speaking of lobing. What I speak of is a temporal shifting of the hf as a result of the lf current..how to measure that while low freq spl is in the air is not gonna be easy. Perhaps mounting woof as a dipole to provide cancellation? Course, that gets anechoic, bet you don't have one..

Since the monowire error signal is zero integral energy, the assumption is that it's loss from the output signal is also zero integrated energy. I do not know if it will be measureable using standard techniques. Fraid FFT math is a tad above me..

Have a nice week.

Cheers, John

I got a few emails back and well I may still do this exercise during the building process but they brought me back to reality. That's the good thing about friends, they let you know when you onto nothing. Oh, BTW, here's some more articles on bi-amping and cables in general. This is a good site. They also have projects (not just articles) for building amps and diffferent electronics if you're so inclined. Not a bad site to keep bookmarked.

http://sound.westhost.com/articles.htm

Here's one of the responses that led me to this indecision.

Sacred Cows...

Generally the bi-wires are tied together at the amp, with separate runs to the woofer and to the mid/tweeter. -An extension of star-grounding, if you will. Some isolation of the speaker crossover networks is possible with bi wiring, but of course it depends...

This is more or less religious debate, and I see no reason to step on the toes of the true believers on either side of the fence.

All you can say for sure is that considering the practically unlimited number of situations; components, cables, speakers, individuals, etc., -In any given instance, it may be just as possible to hear an audible difference as not.

Sure, impedance, capacitance, and inductance will change. Will it make an audible difference? It depends on how much and how those changes interact with the rest of the system.

C

You take care,

Paul

[E-Stat]

fly in the face of measurement...
In the face of which measurement? Validated to prove exactly what?

rw

[Resident Loser]

In the face of which measurement? Validated to prove exactly what?

rw

...in toto the entire audiopile experience, I seem to recall any number of folks who wax euphorically about the sonic nirvana of tubes over solid state when specs would seem to be at odds with such anecdotal accolades, particularly when the phrase "straight wire with gain" (read: lower distortion) is the benchmark.

Other more mundane things, which fly in the face of logic, like bi-wiring, where one essentially doubles the the target area for EMI and RFI upon which to impinge their nasty little artifacts...or the fact that most of the aforementioned hash is generated within most modern components and yet there are some who spend a great deal of time and money attempting to lessen the deleterious effects of those unwanted signals, whose strength is inversely proportional to the distance from it's source...

There always seems to be a convenient "out"...

Personally, and in recent history, much of my listening is done, via about $12 of hardware...Dean Martin still sounds like Dean Martin, Coltrane and Davis, even in RVG mono, are still who they are and the music is what still matters...

There may be some audio breakthrough that will transport the performance into your living room, but for some strange reason, wire seems to be an unlikely candidate for the honor...

jimHJJ(...and then of course we have diverse bits of multi-track mono masquerading as as "stereo"...but that's another facet of the mythology...)

[jneutron]

I got a few emails back and well I may still do this exercise during the building process but they brought me back to reality. That's the good thing about friends, they let you know when you onto nothing.

Your friends are giving you bad advice.

Options are:
1. You explained inadequately to them what I have posted.

2. They do not have the ability to think beyond their understandings.

3. They do not wish to discover that their education is inadequate..

Oh, of course there is the option that they are correct..but I have discounted that...:)

Here's one of the responses that led me to this indecision.

Sacred Cows...

Generally the bi-wires are tied together at the amp, with separate runs to the woofer and to the mid/tweeter. -An extension of star-grounding, if you will. Some isolation of the speaker crossover networks is possible with bi wiring, but of course it depends...

This is more or less religious debate, and I see no reason to step on the toes of the true believers on either side of the fence.

All you can say for sure is that considering the practically unlimited number of situations; components, cables, speakers, individuals, etc., -In any given instance, it may be just as possible to hear an audible difference as not.

Sure, impedance, capacitance, and inductance will change. Will it make an audible difference? It depends on how much and how those changes interact with the rest of the system.

C

You take care,

Paul

This is all your fault.

You should have explained to your friends:

1. jneutron does not biwire any of his systems.
2. jneutron does not care to biwire any of his systems.
3. jneutron has never heard a difference as a result of biwiring.
4. jneutron has no desire to hear a difference as a result of biwiring.
5. jneutron has arrived at his assertions via mathematical analysis.
6. jneutron has applied conservation of energy to the analysis to arrive at his assertions.

Now, re-read that list and explain to me where I have invoked religion, beliefs, dogmas, sacred cows, golden hearing, manufacturer white papers..

I have used Maxwells equations, joule's law, ohms law, and the first law of thermodynamics.

I run into this a lot, actually. The real problem here is not what your friends learned, but rather, what they were taught. Rather than give you bad advice, they should be asking me questions.

Sheesh, I bet they still think "skin depth" is governed by the exponential equation for audio frequencies.

I'm glad you're still interested in testing, however.

Cheers, John

[E-Stat]

...in toto the entire audiopile experience, I seem to recall any number of folks who wax euphorically about the sonic nirvana of tubes over solid state when specs would seem to be at odds with such anecdotal accolades, particularly when the phrase "straight wire with gain" (read: lower distortion) is the benchmark.
Ah, THD. I repeat: Validated to prove what?


Other more mundane things, which fly in the face of logic, like bi-wiring, where one essentially doubles the the target area for EMI and RFI upon which to impinge their nasty little artifacts
Not necessarily. For those who use zip cord, yes. As for me, my cables are shielded. Regarding "logic", I guess you haven't read any of John E's posts - or simply think that the dozens of amplifier and speaker manufacturers who support bi-wiring are just pandering to irrational behavior.


Personally, and in recent history, much of my listening is done, via about $12 of hardware...Dean Martin still sounds like Dean Martin, Coltrane and Davis, even in RVG mono, are still who they are and the music is what still matters...
True. Similarly, I could say the same of my Boy Scout crystal radio.

rw

[jneutron]

Regarding "logic", I guess you haven't read any of John E's posts - or simply think that the dozens of amplifier and speaker manufacturers who support bi-wiring are just pandering to irrational behavior.

rw
Actually, I am sure that some support biwiring for irrational reasons, some because it is what their customers expect, and some because they either believe it makes a difference, or have heard a difference.

Given the fact that it is subtle, it requires actual measurement confirmation to convince the diehard EE types...biwiring and my analysis does fly in the face of what we were taught those oh so many years ago.

Paul, his friends, RL, they are simply supporting what has been taught, that's all. I can't blame them their position (although I can and do razz them), nor can I blame you yours.

Measurement confirmation will put that to rest, leaving us all to argue about something else. Course, the confirmation leads down a rather interesting circuit theory path...it almost seems to violate superposition. (it doesn't of course, but the distinction is dangerously subtle.)

Cheers, John

[poneal]

Your friends are giving you bad advice.

Options are:
1. You explained inadequately to them what I have posted.

2. They do not have the ability to think beyond their understandings.

3. They do not wish to discover that their education is inadequate..

Oh, of course there is the option that they are correct..but I have discounted that...:)


This is all your fault.

You should have explained to your friends:

1. jneutron does not biwire any of his systems.
2. jneutron does not care to biwire any of his systems.
3. jneutron has never heard a difference as a result of biwiring.
4. jneutron has no desire to hear a difference as a result of biwiring.
5. jneutron has arrived at his assertions via mathematical analysis.
6. jneutron has applied conservation of energy to the analysis to arrive at his assertions.

Now, re-read that list and explain to me where I have invoked religion, beliefs, dogmas, sacred cows, golden hearing, manufacturer white papers..

I have used Maxwells equations, joule's law, ohms law, and the first law of thermodynamics.

I run into this a lot, actually. The real problem here is not what your friends learned, but rather, what they were taught. Rather than give you bad advice, they should be asking me questions.

Sheesh, I bet they still think "skin depth" is governed by the exponential equation for audio frequencies.

I'm glad you're still interested in testing, however.

Cheers, John

One of them does bi-wire as he stated he heard a difference on some ribbons but only on certain tracks. It's not like they aren't thinking and that's just a wrong judgement on your part IMHO. To be quite honest, I posted a similar question over on the PE forum and got more replies from different individuals than here. This board is sorta slow though. You're welcome to post your opinion over there to stir the pot up some more :). Here's the link:

http://www.pesupport.com/cgi-bin/config.pl?read=316909

It's interesting to read all the replies and it was kept very civil. BTW, the guy that does bi-wire, David Ralph, has published articles in speaker magazines. Here is one:

http://www.speakerdesign.net/home.html

just click on the first button titled, "Speaker Builder Article on Relative Acoustic Offset". He has other articles that are very interesting too.

Paul

[jneutron]

It's not like they aren't thinking and that's just a wrong judgement on your part IMHO.

Read the post again. I presented 4 options as explanation. I made no judgements.



To be quite honest, I posted a similar question over on the PE forum and got more replies from different individuals than here. This board is sorta slow though. You're welcome to post your opinion over there to stir the pot up some more :). Here's the link:

http://www.pesupport.com/cgi-bin/config.pl?read=316909

Thanks, took a look.. You presented nothing regarding my analysis, which was incorrect on your part.

While they have more responses, I have not seen anything there to float my boat..

Your other link...Rods a nice guy, pretty smart.. While his analysis is pretty good, transmission line theory is a bit weak.

Cheers, John

[Resident Loser]

(1) Ah, THD. I repeat: Validated to prove what?


(2)Not necessarily. For those who use zip cord, yes. As for me, my cables are shielded. Regarding "logic", I guess you haven't read any of John E's posts - or simply think that the dozens of amplifier and speaker manufacturers who support bi-wiring are just pandering to irrational behavior.


(3)True. Similarly, I could say the same of my Boy Scout crystal radio.

rw

(1)You asked what flew in who's face...treating the subject as an entire package, that's my reply...I'd rather hear dry or brittle or analytical over soft, warm or spongy...To my way of thinking, the former is more revealing of lesser recordings whereas the latter just soaks up or glosses over defects...Even entities such as JR pretty much said that anything that makes everything sound good can't be all that accurate.

Personal preference is what it is, so I'd guess measurements need not apply...so I'd also guess that's my point.

(2)Good for you...how many others bi-wire with zip or use unshielded multi- conductor aftermarket wire?...Where is the supposed advantage offered by the equivalent gauge increase if it also puts out a welcome-mat for sonic vermin?

And for the record, yep...the emperors new clothes...How else are you going to sell new stuff...I mean look at the recording biz, the same old bought-and-paid-for catalog...Just introduce a new medium only this time don't provide a choice...bada-bing, bada-boom...sorry folks your record and tape collections are obsolete...and P.S. now we have SACDs and MP3s so don't get too comfy with your CDs and B&M stores...Just how many average audio types have the gear to realize any sonic improvement...Again pointing to JR, it's SOTA stuff, tweaked-to infinity and beyond, that has the best shot...that leaves out an awful lot of folks who will most likely hear nothing...

I'd hazard a guess if we weren't forcibly digitized, we wouldn't even be discussing the subject, as we'd be debating the pros and cons of tonearm/cart/TT combos...and that at least makes some sense.

(3)Cat's whisker you say! You'll have to separate those apples and oranges...My $7 GPX CDP and $5 Koss 'phones have more power, usable dynamic range and wider FR than an unpowered AM crystal set...they measure better and sound far closer to the average hi-fi...Yes, it's the music that matters but why compare them to audio that sounds like it's coming through a telephone handset...

jimHJJ(...I mean even I have my limits...)

[E-Stat]

To my way of thinking, the former is more revealing of lesser recordings whereas the latter just soaks up or glosses over defects...
So, which (defied) logic determines those characteristics?


(2)Good for you...how many others bi-wire with zip or use unshielded multi- conductor aftermarket wire?...Where is the supposed advantage offered by the equivalent gauge increase if it also puts out a welcome-mat for sonic vermin?

Wasn't your question regarding RFI rejection (that which shielding addresses)?


Yes, it's the music that matters but why compare them to audio that sounds like it's coming through a telephone handset...

Gee, that's what I was thinking when you set the bar with your "Dean Martin still sounds like Dean Martin.. " example. :)

rw

[Resident Loser]

So, which (defied) logic determines those characteristics?

Wasn't your question regarding RFI rejection (that which shielding addresses)?

Gee, that's what I was thinking when you set the bar with your "Dean Martin still sounds like Dean Martin.. " example. :)

rw

...specs are specs, all measured, all repeatable...What defies logic is doubling a potential receptor for wayward hash...Context, context...that's what paragraphs are for...

Actually my question and supporting statement was: Just how many average audio types have the gear to realize any sonic improvement...Again pointing to JR, it's SOTA stuff, tweaked-to infinity and beyond, that has the best shot...that leaves out an awful lot of folks who will most likely hear nothing...

Would you prefer Sinatra? Or Pavarotti? Not really a huge fan of his (although I really like Memories Are Made Of This), but with little contempo music to listen to, I've assumed a retrograde motion...one of my most recent male vocal acquisitions was DMs "Essential" compilation...some very nice guitar work in some of those tracks and even given the then SOTA, it hardly sounds like the truncated FR of a phone line...

jimHJJ(...or a crystal set...)

[Mash]

about the glorious benefits of bi-wiring loudspeakers. These wire debates never contribute anything really meaningful for anyone except those who sell wires.

This bi-wire debate is even complete with the requisite Audio-purist rebuttal to wires-are-inaudible: “If you cannot hear the benefits, your system is not resolving enough”. The highly original “You must try it and decide for yourself” might sound open-minded, but if someone should return and post a wires-are-inaudible listening result then it will be back to “your system is not resolving enough”. Ho hum.

These rebuttals to the inaudibility-of-wires-result are also good for the ‘new magic-interconnects with Foo-Foo dust’ debates. I know there must also be some ‘new magic-interconnects’ debates here somewhere. It IS rather efficient to be able to get double-duty out of an illogical argument.

You can blow thousands of dollars and lots of time fiddling with those redundant wires. But heck, you post that you can afford it. Me? I have a dock to buy and some land acquisition to negotiate. These activities will be far more “rewarding” than piddling my time and money away with wires.

I did revise our bedroom home movie system. It now has an up-converting OPPO HD DVD/CD feeding audio to a CJ preamp, which in turn feeds the audio to the HD LCD, and also to the Velodyne Servo-15, Jolida 302B, and smaller Magnepans which comprise the primary speaker system. Add the up-converting Bravo-1 for VCR tapes and we have a mostly-new-equipment killer-sounding system that cost $3000 not counting the HD LCD. This is a far, far better use of $3000 than any silly wires. But you chaps should continue your wire debates and spending your time and money on wire experiments for the better glory of the Audiophile world.

The Ripoff Reports site is far more interesting. People there have real problems instead of these audiophile make-believe problems. Those people posting their problems at the Ripoff Reports site are often butt-deep in real, as opposed to sham, poo.

My wife and I will continue to watch operas on DVD and enjoy lifelike video and audio, while you chaps listen to your wires’ stunning inner beauty. This sounds good to me.

[E-Stat]

...specs are specs, all measured, all repeatable..
Even the maker of arguably the worst sounding component ever (the ICK, sorry IC-150 preamp), Crown, has recognized the irrelevancy of THD. Note that their current gear has higher measured distortion. At least using this simplistic measure. Faith in useless metrics is no different from the voodoo Mash refers to.

rw

[E-Stat]

about the glorious benefits of bi-wiring loudspeakers. These wire debates never contribute anything really meaningful for anyone except those who sell wires.

I have a couple of questions if you don't mind. It seems you are a Magnepan fan since you have Tympanis and some other smaller model.

1. Why did Magnepan specifically design the 1.6, the 3.6, and the 20.1 to work bi-wired? That wording is found in the owners manuals. Admittedly, they didn't bother with the other models.

2. Why did Magnepan recommend that the 20.1s used in The Absolute Sound review be bi-wired? I heard that specific pair and really liked their sound. Here is the rear view if you're not familiar with them:

<img src="http://home.cablelynx.com/~rhw/audio/mg20_crossover.jpg">

3. Is Jim Winey an incompetent engineer?

Just curious to get your take on these facts.

rw

[Mash]

when someone challenges the Foo-Foo Brigade.. Is this one of your job requirements to be a Hall Monitor at Audio Review?

Magnepan employees’ recommendations for bi-wiring have nothing to do with Jim Winey’s competence, engineering or otherwise. That is bad and even silly logic, Dude. You can do better. Can’t you?

I have not spoken with Jim in some time.

I have talked to some other folk at Magnepan besides Jim, and I have found some …[how do I put this delicately]… interesting commentary with which I was unhappy.

I am used to people doing what I wanted done, not the other way around. During my career I have never kissed a butt, but I have kicked a few. Doing anything to gain the approval of others for any reason is kissing butt, and nothing more.

Magnepan employees, or anyone else for that matter, can recommend anything they wish to recommend, but when it is my money and time I will do what I think is best. This is the philosophy I recommend to you.

I am now retired with
1. a very nice positive net worth,
2. full medical benefits and prescription drug coverage for my wife and I, and
3. a net income that nicely exceeds what we enjoyed when I was working.

You are NOT going to have (1) and (3) piddling your time and money away on useless concerns such as the joys of bi-wiring, regardless (irregardless, even?) of what is in vogue or who might be pushing it.

Anyone who wants a secure and comfortable retirement had better learn to think critically for himself. This was always Skeptic’s point, but I think you missed it to your own injury. Maybe you simply wish to help push the demand for wires. Either way, I don’t care. I got mine, Dude.

[E-Stat]

I have not spoken with Jim in some time.

Others who I know have.


Anyone who wants a secure and comfortable retirement had better learn to think critically for himself. This was always Skeptic’s point, but I think you missed it to your own injury. Maybe you simply wish to help push the demand for wires. Either way, I don’t care. I got mine, Dude.

Is there a direct relation between your retirement investment planning (a noble cause) and that of the technical requirements for high performance loudspeakers? As for me, I use full range electrostats and have no use for biwiring. Neither Magnepan, nor Nola, nor JBL, nor Revel, nor Karma, nor dozens of other speaker manufacturers I'm aware of also sell wire. I'm simply communicating that which the engineers of these and other fine loudspeakers and many an amplifier recommend based upon the investment they place in supporting that capability with their products.

rw

[Mash]

Were you to visit a group of engineers in a design meeting, you might get to see blood on the floor. So one engineer or ten engineers say this or that. Is that gospel? Hell no! Nothing is gospel until the design is built and proven in operation with hard data. The constant competition of ideas amongst engineers drives innovation.

Having some people standing around and listening to various speaker wires that they are watching being “tested” proves NOTHING. This is simply not any kind of reliable performance-verification data. Verified hard data would require a controlled DBT.

Opinions that likely involve marketing considerations more than engineering to optimize performance are worthless.

One racecar driver was asked if he used STP in his engine, since STP was one of his sponsors. “Yes, but not enough to hurt anything” was the answer. So how does providing bi-wiring capability HURT any of those speakers?? It does not, and cannot.

This is NOT the same as saying that bi-wiring HELPS those speakers. If Audiophiles believe that the bi-wiring feature suggests a more desirable high-end speaker, why not provide it? The manufacturing cost is nothing.

And why would you EVER argue with your Audiophile customers who perceive the bi-wiring feature as suggesting a more desirable high-end speaker? Why argue with your customer, and thereby imply to your customer that you think he is stupid or uninformed? Customers do not like to be thought stupid or uninformed, and doing anything that MIGHT imply that you consider them stupid or uninformed is very, very bad for business. Get a clue, man!

Therefore, no matter what you were told, you have no clue how much marketing and how much solid engineering is involved in what you were told. You simply do not know and they will not tell you, but this does not seem to dissuade you from assuming you know. Remember, without real data, you are just another Dude with an opinion.

I have had many disagreements with many engineers, and many engineers did not run their projects as I ran mine, nor did they bring the breadth and depth of knowledge to their projects that I brought to mine. One of my last projects was a simple cycle power plant that could be built in 4 months and would offer 44% baseline efficiency and up to 50% efficiency with options. This was an entirely new concept but was perfect for countries with narrow gage railroads and bridges with limited weight ratings because the components were light and quick to assemble at the site. And another first: all assemblies were tested as 3D models using “Jack-and-Jill” computer-simulated assembly workers.

As a comparison, our advanced bottom cycling steam cooled power plant that I had my fingers in (both arms, actually) offered 60% efficiency and required almost two years to build. The turbine rotors ALONE weighed over 230,000 pounds.

Our goal for this simple cycle power plant was 108MW on a 69F day. Of course, output drops off a lot as the ambient temperature rises above 69F. The first unit was built and run without incident, and produced 108MW on a 94F day. That is just one hell of a home run. And those results were verifiable hard data, not opinions. So I produced a constant-output power plant that was built and run without flaws the first time. Did other engineers agree with my decisions every step of the way? Hell no! But in the end I had hard data, and not hand-waving opinions, that showed a major success.

You will never get hard data in those bi-wire listening sessions, but so what. Bi-wiring will NOT hurt anything, and it IS fashionable. You just cannot prove with hard data that it helps anything. That is the distinction that a critical thinker can appreciate. I really think you need serious tutelage on critical thinking from Skeptic. Now. Your retirement time WILL arrive, and you had better be prepared!

[E-Stat]

And why would you EVER argue with your Audiophile customers who perceive the bi-wiring feature as suggesting a more desirable high-end speaker?

Ah yes, the Great Wire Selling Marketing Conspiracy in action. :)

rw

[Mash]

This is a response to a point that I never made, nor that I even contemplated. So I do not understand it.

I was writing about marketing concerns and engineering concerns being entwined, and that YOU will not know which was preeminent. And I also noted that the people to whom you spoke would not tell you which was preeminent.

I was posting the question: What audio company that wishes to prosper would EVER imply disagreement with their Audiophile customers who perceive bi-wiring as a feature that is needed for a high-end speaker? Why would these companies tell their Audiophile customers who wish to bi-wire that they do not need to bi-wire and thereby imply to their customer that the customer is stupid or uninformed when there is simply no risk to anyone involved?

I knew the man who ran Roper’s Chain Saw Division. He had no problem telling his customers not to do something that was stupid and/or dangerous. Why??? Because those stupid and/or dangerous acts posed a serious risk to the person involved. You can loose large body parts to a chain saw. It is all about Judgment.

You want to understand that if you push or encourage people to spend their time and money for “improvements” that are later found to be meaningless, most people will decide that they want nothing more to do with you.

I have noticed over the years that the FOO-FOO-Dust Mavens often become quite agitated when someone points out why their favored emperor has no clothes. I had not noticed such behavior from the “other side”, or in your world, “the Dark Side”.

[E-Stat]

This is a response to a point that I never made, nor that I even contemplated. So I do not understand it.
Perhaps you might expand on what you meant by these comments:

These wire debates never contribute anything really meaningful for anyone except those who sell wires.


I was writing about marketing concerns and engineering concerns being entwined, and that YOU will not know which was preeminent. And I also noted that the people to whom you spoke would not tell you which was preeminent.
So it is your feeling that the principals and engineers of dozens of different audio companies will ALL lie to you or the press in a heartbeat when it comes to this topic. Hmmm. I've met quite a few designers over the years through my reviewer friends. I don't share your pessimistic view. Do you likewise have no integrity when it comes to your job? If not, then why do you think that everyone else is different?


I was posting the question: What audio company that wishes to prosper would EVER imply disagreement with their Audiophile customers who perceive bi-wiring as a feature that is needed for a high-end speaker? Why would these companies tell their Audiophile customers who wish to bi-wire that they do not need to bi-wire and thereby imply to their customer that the customer is stupid or uninformed when there is simply no risk to anyone involved?
So it is your contention that inept audiophiles, not engineers "concocted" this idea and through broad communication, planted a false seed in all their minds that is totally beyond the ability of knowledgeable manufacturers to counter?


I have noticed over the years that the FOO-FOO-Dust Mavens often become quite agitated when someone points out why their favored emperor has no clothes. I had not noticed such behavior from the “other side”, or in your world, “the Dark Side”.
Who are these "FOO FOO Dust Mavens" to which you refer? Do they wear black masks?

rw

[jneutron]

Bi-wiring will NOT hurt anything, and it IS fashionable. You just cannot prove with hard data that it helps anything. That is the distinction that a critical thinker can appreciate.

If I ever need a 100 Mw powerplant, I'll give ya a call.

I noticed you've not discussed any of the actual math I've posted which clearly defines the difference between bi and mono wiring.. Why?

Cheers, John

Oh, ps...(I don't sell wire)

[Mash]

Let’s see, E-Stat, how hard this is to parse out "These wire debates never contribute anything really meaningful for anyone except those who sell wires."

1. Well, if the wire manufactures were to sell twice as much wire because all Audiophiles became convinced that bi-wiring is “mandatory”, it is obvious that the wire manufacturers will make more money if their prior profit margins were maintained. So, universal adoption of bi-wiring should contribute meaningfully to those who sell wires.

2. Some Audiophiles already bi-wire for whatever justification while others do not. Audiophiles still have debates about whether or not bi-wiring is really beneficial, which says that these benefits have not been proven to the entire Audiophile world. The methods that might provide the required proof is a different question, but they must be transparent. Spending money on a practice not proven to be a benefit to the Audiophile would constitute wasted money for the purchaser, i.e. we cannot now state that the Audiophile does benefit. [An example of something accepted as beneficial: All Audiophiles agree that some kind of amplifier is needed if one wishes to use loudspeakers. No DBT have been documented that prove some kind of amplifier is ‘mandatory’ with loudspeakers, but every time loudspeakers are employed, so is some kind of amplifier.]

3. We will agree that “speaker manufacturers” do not sell wires, so there is no way for them to benefit whether wire sales should increase, decrease, or remain the same.

E-Stat can continue this exercise in the privacy of his bedroom, and no one will know except Homeland Security**.
**Motto: We ask, we tell.

Originally Posted by Mash...I was posting the question: What audio company that wishes to prosper would EVER imply disagreement with their Audiophile customers who perceive bi-wiring as a feature that is needed for a high-end speaker? Why would these companies tell their Audiophile customers who wish to bi-wire that they do not need to bi-wire and thereby imply to their customer that the customer is stupid or uninformed when there is simply no risk to anyone involved?

“So it is your contention that inept audiophiles, not engineers "concocted" this idea and through broad communication, planted a false seed in all their minds that is totally beyond the ability of knowledgeable manufacturers to counter?” E-Stat

Speaker manufacturers already know that if you win the argument with your customer, you will loose the sale.

Teasing aside, E-Stat, we DO consider you our own High-End Audiophile Master. But you posted “inept audiophiles”? That is not nice from our High-End Audiophile Master! Why should you need to push silly words into someone else’s post? Why do you, Master, need to create a "concocted"-this-idea straw man and then beat the crap out of it?

Remember President Carter’s RIF which was “Reading is Fundamental”? Do you read anything besides Audiophile material? There is a book that will answer your questions: “Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds”.

I personally enjoy your pedantic style. I know you will have the last profound word, and everyone will await pronouncements from the guiding High-End Audiophile Master, baited breath and all.

[E-Stat]

1. Well, if the wire manufactures were to sell twice as much wire because all Audiophiles became convinced...
I agree there will always be some guys who buy stuff just because they think they should. I remember one sterling example we (at the audio shop where I worked in college) used to call Al Gear. It was crazy. He bought a pair of DQ-10s from us. Sold them. Bought another pair. Sold them. Bought some Maggies. Sold them. Finally, he bought third pair. All this to listen to his vast collection of twelve records. On the other hand, all of my audio buddies (most of whom are/were reviewers) make choices upon their experience. If it works, use it. If it doesn't, don't. It's that simple. One of them tri- wires his Avalons and the other bi-wires his Nola Grand References (the woofer towers are amplified separately). Virtually all the cables I've purchased (remember I cannot biwire my full range stats) were based upon a thirty day money back trial period. Keep them if you perceive value addressing the complex interactions between your speaker driver(s) and amplifier(s). Take them back if you don't. With my double New Advents, I use short jumpers between the upper and lower speakers. There an engineer over at AA who uses separate runs. He suggests that works better, but I confess I haven't tried it out. Will it require throwing more money at the evil wire industry? No. I've still got about 70' remaining on the spool of the 14 gauge stuff I use for them.


Speaker manufacturers already know that if you win the argument with your customer, you will loose the sale.
You just restated your point and didn't answer the question. You presume that what started the whole issue was audiophile gossip, not the speaker manufacturers (a whole bunch) offering that feature to improve performance, however subtle, in order to sell more of their product, not that of the wire industry.

rw

[jneutron]

[quote=Mash]Math’ would not be transparent proof of a PRACTICAL benefit. /quote]

Given your propensity to expound on how far above your peers you stand, I am shocked to see that you avoid simple math.

If I presented a mathematical analysis on your powerplant "stuff", pointing out how you could pick up an additional 1.5%, you'd say, what...Math’ would not be transparent proof of a PRACTICAL benefit.""

Clearly I made a mistake in assuming you had any desire to discuss the topic, but you would rather take potshots at others.

If you change your mind, and are willing to learn (or at least listen), I will be here.

Sheesh, room temperature rotating machinery...such simplicity. Try doing it at liquid helium temps, or even liquid nitrogen..where the math you used in the past (but now avoid) falls apart, like the materials.

Cheers, John

ps..demeanor chosen specifically to match yours.

[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.

[FLZapped]

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.

Cheers, John

Probably because it is driven by the marketing department, not the Engineering department......

Happy Thanksgiving, John.

-Bruce

[jneutron]

Probably because it is driven by the marketing department, not the Engineering department......

Happy Thanksgiving, John.

-Bruce

Hey there Bruce, long time no talk..Happy thanksgiving to you.

How are you doing? Hope all is well.

I'zis just doin fantastic...still wakin up on the right side of the ground.. Gettin ready ta make the old woodwork shop so'z I can get to the spkr projects.

Course, my time here may be limited...after all, I'zis violatin rule #4..

Dat be:

Please restrict discussion of DBT, ABX and lab measurements to the "The Science Lab"


Oh well..what iz.....iz..I'ziz livin at the discretion of a moderator, I guess..:)

Cheers, John

[FLZapped]

getting a little heated and opinions are coming in. I base mine of facts. Here is a link to a typical bi-wire scheme:

http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~jcgl/Scots_Guide/audio/biwire/Page1.html

Notice the jumpers? It's not like you take two sets of hots/negs and connect the two hots to amp hot and the two negs to the amp neg. You have one wire from the amp pos/neg and then little jumper wires to attach to the speaker terminals. Like I said before, "One signal feeds both" in this arrangement. The xover is what separates the highs from the lows. The amp has nothing to do with splitting the signal. And just because you jump it to the extra terminal doesn't mean that signal changes. It doesn't change until it goes into the xover and that's what bends the signals. So to recap for those hard of getting it. You have an amp, you run a wire from the amp to the speakers. You splice into the wire and add some jumpers and route them to the other terminal. Same signal, same amp, same everything except those little jumper wires going to different speaker terminals.

Bi-Amp has some merit. This is where you take a separate amp for each driver (one for the tweeter, one for the mid, one for the woofer, etc). In a two way speaker this means you need four amps to run a bi-amp. Two amp channels for each speaker. One channel to the tweeter, the other to the woofer in a two way. Why would this help? Well, think about it. The woofer is the power hungry guy. It may take the full 100watts and leave the leftovers for the mid and tweet. Probably driving them into distortion. With 1 amp on the woofer and one on the tweeter you don't have that problem. Just because the woofer distorts doesn't mean the mid or tweeter will because they are on separate paths.

Anyway, I've typed until I'm blue in the face so if you don't get it by now, maybe you will get it in the future or then again, you may never get it. Good luck.

Paul

Paul, you missed a little something here.

Using Scots guide.

Figure 1. Coming from the amp you have both a voltage signal and a current signal.


So in figure 1, you have all the voltage and all the current through a single wire pair being delivered to the speaker.

On to figure 2. While you have the same total load connected to the amp, there are two different paths. So now you have all the volage on both wire pairs, since they are in parallel, but you have two different currents in each wire pair, which is controlled by the properties of each half of the crossover.

-Bruce

[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. :D 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 :D 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....:ihih:

[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. :D 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 :D 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.

[jneutron]

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..

No no no, don't worry about wire heating. a coupla watts over 5 to 10 feet is nothing that'll affect anything.



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. .....

no, no, no. Don't worry about those either...those explanation have nothing to do with reality. They are simply made up garbage that has been foisted on the audiophiles.

THAT kind of reasoning is precisely why high end audio guys are looked down upon, and their concerns pushed aside.

I am applying basic knowledge to simple problems.

Problems which I have no stake in..

Cheers, John

[hermanv]

no, no, no. Don't worry about those either...those explanation have nothing to do with reality. They are simply made up garbage that has been foisted on the audiophiles.
Cheers, John Sorry John. I will happily admit that there is no evidence that any of those effects have anything to do with cable sound, but all those effects are real and can and have been measured, they aren't made up.

[jneutron]

Sorry John. I will happily admit that there is no evidence that any of those effects have anything to do with cable sound, but all those effects are real and can and have been measured, they aren't made up.

You misinterpreted me. Sorry about that, I should have been clearer.

I was referring to affecting cable sound, and how they are "enlisted" to explain something wondrous or bad about somebody's cables...the explanations being foisted are made up, pulled out of a hat..

All of those effects come into play where I work. I have to deal with them daily.

Cheers, John

[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.

[jneutron]

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.

A correct recap. Add in that the numbers are with 8 ohm loads and 120 milliohms of resistive wire, and that it is with equal amplitude orthogonal 4 ampere currents that branch to different 8 ohm loads.

The last line is not saying yes and no. It says that an integral zero power signal is not necessarily visible by methods which look for integrated power.

Any difference of 1.5% with an audio signal must be reviewed for audibility. To make the assumption that that magnitude of error is of no consequence and therefore "of no practical benefit" is quite premature, shall we say??

A signal which is present, but is not visible to the measurement instrument, just cries out "fix the instrument". Well, at least to me it does. Audibility, that's for others.

Kinda like using an AC voltmeter to measure DC...the results are inaccurate and have consequences.

Cheers, John

[Dusty Chalk]

No. Electrons travel at mm per second. According to this page (http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/newton/askasci/1995/eng/ENG51.HTM), I phrased the statement incorrectly. The electrical signal travels at the speed of light. Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Current_(electricity)#The_drift_speed_of_electric_ charges) concurs.

[hermanv]

Over the years I've posted several times about the whole cable sound issue. I'd like to repeat a short form of some of those posts. I am a believer, if you're not, save both of us some pain and skip to the next post.

1. I am an EE by trade, professsionally I was strongly biased against the whole wire has a signature phenominum. I did a little math and quickly concluded the differences between any two reasonable wire choices would be so small as to be inaudible.

2. My dealer recommended I borrow a speaker cable and listen for myself. I invited over several friends to attempt a test. No, it was by no means a blind test.

3. The results surprised everyone in the room, one wire set was clearly cleaner sounding than the other, both were a reasonable gauge 12 and 14 I think (It was many years ago and the smaller gauge was the better sounding).

4. Many years later I had gravitated to fairly expensive wires and decided I just couldn't afford the next step up. So my friend and I set about making our own cables. We did a lot of reading on the various manufacturers sites and soon discovered some clear parallels in what each manufacturer was doing.

5. We made several cables, each step up in sound quality was obtained by emphasizing what the cable manufacturers said would work (low dielectric absorbtion for interconnects, low inductance and large gauge for speakers, we also confirmed that high metal purity and quality connectors were needed to get the best out of any given design).

6. The cables got more complex, the materials cost went up and the quality, as we heard it, kept getting better. It was about at this point that we discovered much to our surprise that the cable vendors were not on the whole ripping anybody off. To make cables as good as their best involved very expensive materials and connectors. Allowing for some profit and mark-up, our best cables cost about half of the commercial competition, but we had no labor, packaging, avertizing or distributor mark up costs..

7. The best commercial cables unfortunately involve construction techniques that simply can't be duplicated at home. i.e very high conductor counts and lots of thin wall teflon tubing or better yet foamed teflon for interconnects and just sheer volume of high purity expensive metals aranged in a Litz wire configration for speakers.

Cables affect the soud of every quality audio system I've ever heard, Although I know some techniques to make cables that sound better, I don't know all the reasons why this should be so.

Borrow some cables and listen for yourself. It costs you only time and might just increase the enjoyment of your system.

[E-Stat]

I cannot prove any scenario, but I cannot disprove it. You cannot prove or disprove it, either!
That's why I don't begin with unsupported assumptions.


I am a speaker manufacturer.
Do your products directly compete with Avalon, Revel, Dynaudio, Nola, Kharma, etc.?


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!
Your commentary is better known as speculation. Debating such is an utter waste of time.


Moral: E-Stat, You may be asking the wrong question.
Then again, I may be asking the correct question. My opinions are devoid of conspiracy theories.

rw

[jneutron]

According to this page (http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/newton/askasci/1995/eng/ENG51.HTM), I phrased the statement incorrectly. The electrical signal travels at the speed of light. Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Current_(electricity)#The_drift_speed_of_electric_ charges) concurs.

Yup. Suprising how slow the little suckers move, yes?

Actually, the electrical signals travel at a prop velocity defined by the media. For free space, it is the speed of light.

For cables, it is V = 1/sqr(LC)

For free space, it is V = c/sqr(mu epsilon).

Unless of course, you revisit that radio-electronics article where the guy claimed faster than light propagation..:confused5:

Cheers, John

[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?

[Resident Loser]

One signal perhaps, but I was under the impresssion it would have multiple frequencies 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?

...prezackly...

As I see it, all freqs travel on all wires (except for the returns, which are post-crossover)...It's at that Xover that certain frequencies are allowed to pass (hence bandpass) or not...IMO biwiring simply eliminates that relatively innocuous jumper and trades it for x-amount of additional wire, adding series resistance and capacitance and doubling the target for the hash...If there is a resultant change in sound, it would seem to be due to the changes effected by that additional wiring on the crossovers' parameters...This happens whether the Xover is located in the loudspeaker cabinet or remotely i.e. closer to the amplifiers outputs.

jimHJJ(...I may be stupid, but I just don't get it...)

[kexodusc]

...prezackly...

As I see it, all freqs travel on all wires (except for the returns, which are post-crossover)...It's at that Xover that certain frequencies are allowed to pass (hence bandpass) or not...IMO biwiring simply eliminates that relatively innocuous jumper and trades it for x-amount of additional wire, adding series resistance and capacitance and doubling the target for the hash...If there is a resultant change in sound, it would seem to be due to the changes effected by that additional wiring on the crossovers' parameters...This happens whether the Xover is located in the loudspeaker cabinet or remotely i.e. closer to the amplifiers outputs.

jimHJJ(...I may be stupid, but I just don't get it...)

Exactly. The only thing siginificant I see biwiring changing is the current in the wires before the speaker terminals. Which then feed the the HP and LP filters. But, wouldn't the current through the crossover components be pretty much the same in both setups (minus affects fromJneutron's 0-1.48% or power losses)?
Gosh, I've seen some speakers that have only 1 terminal, but then inside the single lead between terminal and crossover splits into two runs of 18 gauge wire, one to the LP, one to the HP. Wouldn't that be the same as "internal biwiring"...man, that's speaker marketing!

[Dusty Chalk]

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?All your suppositions are correct. The frequencies travel all together at the same time.

Are you familiar with Visio, or any other graphic editor? You know how you can select multiple objects and group them? After that, you treat the resultant group as one picture. It's the same with the audio signal. As far as the electricity is concerned (and localized air pressure, too), there aren't multiple frequencies, there is one signal. Think of a sawtooth or pulse wave (or a clarinet note or the human voice) -- it's made up of multiple frequencies, but what travels down the wire is a sawtooth or pulse wave.

This divvying up of the audio spectrum into frequencies is a model -- just another way of looking at things. IMHO, the model was beginning to fall apart -- it was turning into a bad way of looking at things -- hence why I spoke up.

[jneutron]

Are you familiar with Visio, or any other graphic editor? You know how you can select multiple objects and group them? After that, you treat the resultant group as one picture. It's the same with the audio signal..

Ah, my friend, this is where you are incorrect...

While voltage and current will do such (add linearly), the dissipations within the wire do not behave that way. Two one amp currents added will dissipate four times the amount of power, not two..to extend your example, if you select two square objects and group them, the expectation is an area twice as large, not four as power dissipation does.


This divvying up of the audio spectrum into frequencies is a model -- just another way of looking at things. IMHO, the model was beginning to fall apart -- it was turning into a bad way of looking at things -- hence why I spoke up.

Who's model is beginnng to fall apart?

Cheers, John

[Resident Loser]

All your suppositions are correct. The frequencies travel all together at the same time.

Are you familiar with Visio, or any other graphic editor? You know how you can select multiple objects and group them? After that, you treat the resultant group as one picture. It's the same with the audio signal. As far as the electricity is concerned (and localized air pressure, too), there aren't multiple frequencies, there is one signal. Think of a sawtooth or pulse wave (or a clarinet note or the human voice) -- it's made up of multiple frequencies, but what travels down the wire is a sawtooth or pulse wave.

This divvying up of the audio spectrum into frequencies is a model -- just another way of looking at things. IMHO, the model was beginning to fall apart -- it was turning into a bad way of looking at things -- hence why I spoke up.

...a complex waveform is a complex waveform, that's a given...but that's not the question...it's basically why would biwiring cause all the required ducks to line up in a row any more sucessfully than that jumper between those nearly-now-ubiquitous biwire terminals on the rear of speaker cabinets...it's the crossover that does the deed whether it's fed by one pair or two...

The fundamental frequency may be passed to the lo-freq driver while the overtones related to it go through the hi-freq passband...if anything, and with certain scenarios, I would venture a guess there might be some sort of time lag induced by the extra wiring of a biwiring scheme, a smearing if you will...Some people also seem to like the "warmth" of tubed electronics, there might be some correlation...Does a square wave look the same going out as it did going in?

jimHJJ(...does biwiring make the signal all warm and fuzzy therefore more amenable to some?...)

[jneutron]

... I would venture a guess there might be some sort of time lag induced by the extra wiring of a biwiring scheme, a smearing if you will...
Smearing..sheesh

Where do you get this stuff???huh??:wink5:

Go home, prep the bird..fuggetabout dis stuff..

Happy thanksgiving..

Cheers, John

[kexodusc]

This divvying up of the audio spectrum into frequencies is a model -- just another way of looking at things. IMHO, the model was beginning to fall apart -- it was turning into a bad way of looking at things -- hence why I spoke up.

I see where you're coming from. My line of thinking kinda needs for the model to consider it though - the model was simple, and fine for demonstration. In practical usuage, there's not a simple 8 ohm resistor at the end of each wire, but rather different filters and drivers with different reactances...so the currents in each wire will depend on the impedance of the connected drivers at the given frequencies. Thus, the net power loss differences would depend on the frequencies as well. A bad way of looking at things? Maybe. But if this is what happens in practice, I'm not sure we can call it bad or just ignore it because it makes for a complicated model.
That kind of selective attention is what speaker companies do when they present consumers with that "nominal impedance" spec. Personally, I like to know how low the impedance dips when I build a speaker, and where. It sure makes designing a good crossover a lot less complicated.

All this to say that if biwiring makes an audible, measurable difference of between 1.48%, and 0% (or course we're omitting other measurable differences if there are any), and most likely a much smaller range, there's definitely reason to question the pracitcal benefits of biwiring. At any rate, the small 1.48% difference would be consistent with what my ears have told me...insignificant differences, too small to reliably develop a preference for. Then again, the cost of adding a bi-wiring option is pretty negligible. Doesn't hurt to try. And we still haven't been able to conclude if one is better. Just that they can be shown to be very slightly different.

[Resident Loser]

Smearing..sheesh

Where do you get this stuff???huh??:wink5:

Go home, prep the bird..fuggetabout dis stuff..

Happy thanksgiving..

Cheers, John

...I musta' confused my bagel and cream cheese with the subject at hand...

Bird-prep is on the morrow, starting at about 6AM...tonight it's some of the sides...

jimHJJ(...but I'll hafta check that on that smearing thing...I could swear it was in one of the handouts when I got my audiophool certification from the IHF...)

P>S> HAPPY THANKSGIVING everyone!!!

[jneutron]

...I musta' confused my bagel and cream cheese with the subject at hand...

Ah, that almost explains it...buuut, was the smearing clockwise...or counterclockwise??? (I didn't forget the mustard.)


A note to the site administrator:

110 posts in this thread alone, whereas the entire month of posts in this forum that are visible when arriving is 88.

And the discussion varies from audible through actual technical discussion.

Tell me again why you have the lab?:confused5:

Perhaps it's time to revisit the previous decision?

Happy thanksgiving.

Cheers, John

[jneutron]

All this to say that if biwiring makes an audible, measurable difference of between 1.48%, and 0% (or course we're omitting other measurable differences if there are any), and most likely a much smaller range, there's definitely reason to question the pracitcal benefits of biwiring. At any rate, the small 1.48% difference would be consistent with what my ears have told me...insignificant differences, too small to reliably develop a preference for.

Do not get hung up with that 1.48% number. It was derived from a specific model, that of 8 ohms and 120 milliohms of loop resistance.

Somebody should have spotted the relationship between the series resistance, the load, and the percentage...I am shocked and dismayed that nobody spotted it..:(

The maximum monowire error turns out to be the cable loop resistance divided by the load impedance..

.120/8 = .015, or 1.5%

If your impedance were to drop to 4 ohms, the error is 3%.

If you run 25 feet of #18awg into a 4 ohm load???

6.5 mOhm per foot times 2 times 25...325 milliohms.

.325/4 = 8.125%

8%...small potatoes..Hey guys, let me know when the error component starts to approach audibility, ok??

In the meantime, somebody explain to me why this stuff hasn't been measured??
(TIC, I know why) (I think):skep:

Cheers, John

[Geoffcin]

A note to the site administrator:

110 posts in this thread alone, whereas the entire month of posts in this forum that are visible when arriving is 88.

And the discussion varies from audible through actual technical discussion.

Tell me again why you have the lab?:confused5:

Perhaps it's time to revisit the previous decision?

Happy thanksgiving.

Cheers, John

Think of it as out own little Guantanimo....

Nice to see you and RL getting along again.

ps. that makes 114 posts!

[hermanv]

Perhaps a simple poll would be useful here.


Do you Bi-wire your speakers?
Have you ever tried it?
Did you notice any difference?
Please catagorize your system:

Normal (Your neighbors rarely comment)
Exotic (Your neighbors say wow!)
Insane (Your neighbors question your ability to make financial decisions)

[kexodusc]

Perhaps a simple poll would be useful here.
Do you Bi-wire your speakers?
No

Have you ever tried it? Yes

Did you notice any difference? No


Please catagorize your system:
Normal (Your neighbors rarely comment)
Exotic (Your neighbors say wow!)
Insane (Your neighbors question your ability to make financial decisions)

My neighbors say wow to the 6 speaker/receiver combos in Sears. They rarely comment on mine. That make my system normal?

[hermanv]

My neighbors say wow to the 6 speaker/receiver combos in Sears. They rarely comment on mine. That make my system normal?Since you are following this thread and posting on this forum any claims of normalcy are automatically suspect. :)

[Mike Anderson]

Do you Bi-wire your speakers?

Yes.


Have you ever tried it?

Obviously yes.


Did you notice any difference?

No - it takes too long to switch out the cables to make a decent comparison. That doesn't mean there's no effect, only that it is comparatively subtle, if there is one.


Please catagorize your system:

Exotic (Your neighbors say wow!)

[hermanv]

Just for the record, if perhaps I wasn't clear.

Yes
Yes
Yes
Exotic

[jneutron]

Think of it as out own little Guantanimo....

He he..


Nice to see you and RL getting along again.

Que??

I was unaware that we were not getting along.. I believe you may be thinking about somebody else.

Hey Resident Loser, do you have any clue what he is referring to???

Cheers, John

[Dusty Chalk]

Ah, my friend, this is where you are incorrect...

While voltage and current will do such (add linearly), the dissipations within the wire do not behave that way. Two one amp currents added will dissipate four times the amount of power, not two..to extend your example, if you select two square objects and group them, the expectation is an area twice as large, not four as power dissipation does.I wasn't talking about adding signals -- I was talking about thinking of a single signal as multiple frequencies added up. That model.
Who's model is beginnng to fall apart?No need to get condescending -- I never stated my model, and have, for the most part, stayed out of this discussion. So certainly the implication -- that my model is falling apart -- is completely false.

[jneutron]

I wasn't talking about adding signals -- I was talking about thinking of a single signal as multiple frequencies added up. That model.No need to get condescending -- I never stated my model, and have, for the most part, stayed out of this discussion. So certainly the implication -- that my model is falling apart -- is completely false.

I recommend you go back and read my post. This time, re-read YOUR statement, and then re-read my response to your statment.

Here is your statement again..
Quote:
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">Originally Posted by Dusty Chalk
This divvying up of the audio spectrum into frequencies is a model -- just another way of looking at things. IMHO, the model was beginning to fall apart -- it was turning into a bad way of looking at things -- hence why I spoke up.
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
And here is my statement:


Who's model is beginnng to fall apart?

Now, within the context of your statement, and my question, how does one read condescension into it?.. I have asked a simple question....who's model are you referring to when you said ""the model was beginning to fall apart""?

It is a very simple question, and one asked to reflect my confusion as to what you were referring.

Sometimes a question is...simply a question.

Cheers, John

[Resident Loser]

...Que?? I was unaware that we were not getting along.. I believe you may be thinking about somebody else.

Hey Resident Loser, do you have any clue what he is referring to???

Cheers, John

...mention it...not a one...Heck, we even have interesting and friendly non-audio banter...

jimHJJ(...I think I got turkey poisoning!!!...)

[Resident Loser]

...no, because I can't...only one set of terms...in fact come to think of it, I don't have a Xover...although back in the 80s, I bought a set of Polk Cobras on an impulse while looking for some DtoDs @ my local hi-fi emporium...they looked cool, but no diff as far as I could tell...although they may have been the reason my amp went poooof! 10ga. jacketed PA wiring afterwards, with no probs...

And some friends and relatives think $5k worth of gear is certifiable behavior...

jimHJJ(...seemed about right at the time...)

[Dusty Chalk]

Okay, I misunderstood your sincere question. I read it as "Now who's model is falling apart." I apologize. Spent > 31 hours driving this weekend, still a little cranky.

And I don't see that it's important who's model it is -- I was just criticizing the model (I try very hard to leave ego out of arguments like this). If you read kexodusc's post (#103), that last post was just trying to answer that question. The fundamental question, "how does a speaker output two sounds at the same time", is the one I tried to answer. From the speaker's perspective, it's not two sounds -- they've already been mixed together at the mixing desk, and are now one sound.

And yes, I'm not saying that model does not have its uses -- absolutely it does! When you're designing crossovers, it's absolutely the only way to go, to think of LRC circuits as high-, low- and band-pass filters and so on. I'm just saying, if one is stumbling across the concept of how two signals can flow across one wire, then maybe it's time to take a step back and reevaluate. You might even come to the conclusion that this is still the appropriate model (especially if you're analyzing it to the level of detail where the skin effect comes into play). After all, I said beginning to fall apart, not that it had fallen apart completely already.

[Dusty Chalk]

Do you Bi-wire your speakers?
Not currently, no. (None of my current speakers support biwiring.)
Have you ever tried it?
Yes. Spendor S3/5's from a single amp -- sometimes a Musical Fidelity A3^CR, sometimes a Jolida JD102B, using Kimber 8TC.
Did you notice any difference?
Well...no, not really. I noticed a bigger difference when I had the speakers jumpered and I moved the speaker wires from the upper posts to the lower ones, and bi-wiring seemed to be somewhere in between, but was not able to A/B as quickly, so it was outside the bounds of the error of my experiment.

On the other hand, I noticed a nice psychological effect -- I could stop worrying about whether to connect the speaker wires to the upper or lower terminals. And that pleased me enough to maintain the arrangement for as long as I kept the speakers.
Please catagorize your system:

Normal (Your neighbors rarely comment)
Exotic (Your neighbors say wow!)
Insane (Your neighbors question your ability to make financial decisions)

Somewhere between Exotic and Insane.

[E-Stat]

...I bought a set of Polk Cobras on an impulse ...although they may have been the reason my amp went poooof!
Quite likely. They were among the first cables to achieve ultra low inductance by trading off high amounts of capacitance -- causing some amps to oscillate. Mind you this was taking place between 1 and 5 Mhz. Nelson Pass investigated this back in the early 80s when the use of this cable caused his amps to blow fuses. He later added a simple damper circuit to respond to this scenario.

rw

[jneutron]

Okay, I misunderstood your sincere question. I read it as "Now who's model is falling apart." I apologize. Spent > 31 hours driving this weekend, still a little cranky..

31 hours...yuck
No problem. simple misunderstanding..lots of that on forums due to lack of face to face or history..


And I don't see that it's important who's model it is -- I was just criticizing the model (I try very hard to leave ego out of arguments like this). If you read kexodusc's post (#103), that last post was just trying to answer that question. The fundamental question, "how does a speaker output two sounds at the same time", is the one I tried to answer. From the speaker's perspective, it's not two sounds -- they've already been mixed together at the mixing desk, and are now one sound..

Who's model is not important with respect to ownership..But I needed you to point a finger at which model you were considering as falling apart.



I'm just saying, if one is stumbling across the concept of how two signals can flow across one wire, then maybe it's time to take a step back and reevaluate..
Well, I'm not exactly stumbling, and I've identified an anomoly which is inconsistent with the currently accepted model of analysis of branches with respect to superposition. Not a violation of superposition, but a situation which does not follow it to the letter at the instantaneous level. And a violation which may be transparent to FFT analysis.


You might even come to the conclusion that this is still the appropriate model (especially if you're analyzing it to the level of detail where the skin effect comes into play). After all, I said beginning to fall apart, not that it had fallen apart completely already.
Skin effect..yuck. I hate approximation models when they are used outside their relevant domain. Talk about your "falling apart"...sheesh.

Cheers, John

[Carl Reid]

Ok It's time to take the plunge into total audiophile insanity and take a crack at bi-wiring...

Frankly I've always thought the concept sounded like total crap...but having read this thread today and having nothing to do and all the equipment on hand to conduct another mad audio experiment, I decided to give bi-wiring a shot...

Since I have ridiculously long speaker wire, and a Rotel RB1080 Amp that has dual binding posts (I assume for either bi-wiring or running a parallel set of speakers)... I cut my speaker wires in half... and ran them from both sets of terminals on my amp to both sets of binding posts on my Mission speakers....

Result:

My sweetspot seems to have expanded.... but it's not a huge difference.... and I must point out that there are several problems with my experiment that may account for the difference rather than bi-wiring... 1) I am now using half the length of cable I was using before from amp to speakers.... 2) I moved my speakers to attach the wire and so my speakers may not be in exactly the same position they were before I bi-wired (though I think they're back to the same position) 3) The fact that my amp had dual speaker terminals may result in a different sound than from hooking two wires to one terminal (no idea whether that's possible) 4) It could just be pyschological... I'll never rule out the possibility that I'm just imagining a difference...

Anyway, in conclusion... I think if you have excess speaker wire lying around, then bi-wiring is worth a shot, but don't expect too much....

[hifitommy]

numerous industry intelligentsia about this who nearly all feel bi-wiring makes an audible improvement in clarity and nearly none of them have had any vested interest in cables.

one day i will conduct my own listening tests and draw my own conclusions. for the here and now i will not endorse nor denigrate biwiring. my spendors support biwiring so it wont be much of a project.

yes i hear differences in cables and greening CDs does make a positive difference. no i dont green my CDs as it is too much of a pain.

[BillyB]

I believe I was in this thread at a much earlier date so I'll try and keep this short.My new Quad 22L's owners manual highly recommends Bi-wiring their speakers.Their theory is that the woofers need much more power to drive them than the tweeters do so separate leads actually helps equalize the power distribution between the higher and lower frequencies thereby improving sound.Of course they go on to say that bi-amping is the better way to achieve this same goal.I'm not an electrical engineer and there have been a couple of guys on this site who are probably more knowledgable than me that have said there are all sorts of holes in Quads theory.I do know current is directional and even connected to the same source two different wires should reduce the power fluctuation between woofer and tweeter unless the heavier draw of the bass speakers actually creates a reverse current flow which I guess is also possible.(in other words maybe bi-wiring reduces the problem as opposed to solving it)I will simply say that since my previous B&W's were bi-wired with Tara Lab Prism Bi-wires it was a no-brainer to bi-wire the Quads.I connected them both ways playing back the same CD and there was a significant improvement in the sound when bi-wired.I'm not the best when it comes to the technical terms for the differences in sound quality but I do have a good ear and they simply sounded better.They are amazing speakers which isn't hurting things any either.My theory for what it's worth is that it truly must be an individual speaker thing because I'm hard pressed to believe that serious speaker manufacturers put the second set of terminals back there just for marketing purposes or to wow the customer.That's a theory that was thrown around a lot on this thread.Sorry as I got long winded after promising not too.

[Dusty Chalk]

I do know current is directional...DC current is directional; AC current flows both ways.
...in other words maybe bi-wiring reduces the problem as opposed to solving it...Most likely.
they go on to say that bi-amping is the better way to achieve this...With good reason. I have a pair of internally biamped (I.E. powered) 12Ls, and even those little guys benefit.

[Carl Reid]

My theory for what it's worth is that it truly must be an individual speaker thing because I'm hard pressed to believe that serious speaker manufacturers put the second set of terminals back there just for marketing purposes or to wow the customer.That's a theory that was thrown around a lot on this thread.

The idea that bi-wiring effects or lack there of are due to individual speaker differences is intriguing.... Too bad I don't have any extra speakers lying around to conduct that experiment with...

As for your belief that serious speaker manufacturers must have a legitimate reason for putting the second pair of binding posts on their designs.... well.... I wouldn't be sure about that one if I was you... Dual Binding posts is practically an industry standard at this stage.... So it's not as if serious speaker companies have to justify having them... HOWEVER.... if a serious speaker company does not have them, then they have to be able to justify to the market, why the chose not to include dual posts... which will likely mean insulting and losing the business of any hardcore bi-ampers/bi-wirers/bi-curious consumers...

So rather than thinking that serious manufactures include the posts because they really believe in bi-wiring, you could just as readily conclude that they are just afraid to lose market share (which is not quite the same as trying to scam customers)...

Interstingly, I've been to several mid to high-end audio stores in the last few months auditioning speakers and was intrigued by the fact that none of them actually had their speakers bi-wired or bi-amped in their listening rooms.... Despite the fact that all the speakers (with the exception of Dynaudio) had dual binding posts...

[Geoffcin]

Is that bi-wiring produces twice the contact area for your cable's connectors. It seems to me that the connection is the weakest link in the chain.

[BillyB]

[QUOTE=Carl Reid]The idea that bi-wiring effects or lack there of are due to individual speaker differences is intriguing.... Too bad I don't have any extra speakers lying around to conduct that experiment with...

As for your belief that serious speaker manufacturers must have a legitimate reason for putting the second pair of binding posts on their designs.... well.... I wouldn't be sure about that one if I was you... Dual Binding posts is practically an industry standard at this stage.... So it's not as if serious speaker companies have to justify having them... HOWEVER.... if a serious speaker company does not have them, then they have to be able to justify to the market, why the chose not to include dual posts... which will likely mean insulting and losing the business of any hardcore bi-ampers/bi-wirers/bi-curious consumers...

So rather than thinking that serious manufactures include the posts because they really believe in bi-wiring, you could just as readily conclude that they are just afraid to lose market share (which is not quite the same as trying to scam customers)...

Interstingly, I've been to several mid to high-end audio stores in the last few months auditioning speakers and was intrigued by the fact that none of them actually had their speakers bi-wired or bi-amped in their listening rooms.... Despite the fact that all the speakers (with the exception of Dynaudio) had dual binding posts...[/QUOTE

You may be right about the marketing part as maybe I'm being naive in thinking the really good speaker companies are so dedicated to their craft they wouldn't needlessly put them there for show.Still unsure on that one.I have noticed the same thing in regard to High end audio shops not having their demo speakers bi-wired.That could easily be about the extra labor and cable cost in running dedicated bi-wiring to all or most of their demos.I'm not positive but wouldn't true bi-amping create all sorts of source and connection issues with their amps,unless their mixing board was literally designed to handle that. If they're not bi-wired they can always sell you on the idea that things can only sound better not worse if you take it to the next level with bi-wiring.(even if they do or don't believe it will make a big difference)Not looking to just be contrary by the way as I figure we're just kicking this subject around a bit and that is how I've learned some neat stuff on this site.