to biwire or not.. also seeking alternative to Monster Cable

[stevos2005]

I'm relatively new to picking out cables and i'm only familiar with Monster Cable. I'm plannign to get a decent pair of B&W speakers that have bi-wiring capabilities. What are the benefits of biwiring and is it worth it?

Also, I have Monster Cable M1.2 speaker cable, and was pleased with it, but I was wondering if there's anything that is a little better that will be cheaper, or something at a similiar or slightly lower price, that is significantly better. The Monster Cable M1.2 is placed at $150 for 10 ft. pair of speakers.

Thanks!

[markw]

The audible benefits of biwiring is questionable. Some swear by it, some swear at it. In either case, don't expect miracles. ....but you CAN expect to double your speaker wire costs. At least one manufacturer has stated that they include biwiring capabilities at the insistance of their marketing staff, not their engineering staff.

You might want to solicit other opinoins on the speaker pages since this is more of a speaker issue than one of cables.

As far as "better" speaker cable, well, just let me say that the point of diminishing returns on speaker cables are much lower than the market would have you expect. One might be so bold as to suggest that you might have already crossed it.

[Beckman]

I'm relatively new to picking out cables and i'm only familiar with Monster Cable. I'm plannign to get a decent pair of B&W speakers that have bi-wiring capabilities. What are the benefits of biwiring and is it worth it?

Also, I have Monster Cable M1.2 speaker cable, and was pleased with it, but I was wondering if there's anything that is a little better that will be cheaper, or something at a similiar or slightly lower price, that is significantly better. The Monster Cable M1.2 is placed at $150 for 10 ft. pair of speakers.

Thanks!


There is a debate on this website about higher end speaker cables and if they are worth it. I originaly though that there must be something to cables because there are so many on the market. I figured more expensive cables must produce better sound. The reality is there are a lot of yuppies(don't mean to offend anyone) that are into high end audio and are easy to fool. Most high end cable companies contract out the actual cable assembly to chinease firms and the cables are made for a few dollars. Then they are shipped over here and sold for hundreds of dollars.

12 AWG lamp cord from home depot attenuates the signal 0.4 dB at 20 kHz. The rest of the frequency response is as flat as it gets. Basicly lamp cord that costs $.20/ft. provides a perfect audio signal path.

High end cables either do nothing to improve the sound, or act like low pass filters giving your stereo a warm sound. You can replace (and get the exact same sound) any high end speaker cables with lamp cord, resistors, capacitors and inductors. Or, if you want to be practicle, get an equalizer.

As for biwiring, I tried it once. I though it really improved the sound, more detail etc. I then went back to redgular zip cord and noticed that all the details I noticed before were still there.

I would just use the speaker cables you have. If you want to improve the sound of your B&W's once you get them, try moving them around (away from the wall, further apart, etc.) speaker placement plays a much much much bigger role in how a stereo sounds than most (normal) people realize. Also, if you feel like spending money try room treatments or an equalizer.

[okiemax]

I'm relatively new to picking out cables and i'm only familiar with Monster Cable. I'm plannign to get a decent pair of B&W speakers that have bi-wiring capabilities. What are the benefits of biwiring and is it worth it?

Also, I have Monster Cable M1.2 speaker cable, and was pleased with it, but I was wondering if there's anything that is a little better that will be cheaper, or something at a similiar or slightly lower price, that is significantly better. The Monster Cable M1.2 is placed at $150 for 10 ft. pair of speakers.

Thanks!

B&W likes biwiring. You can read about it at their web site on the FAQ page:

http://www.bwspeakers.com/index.cfm/fuseaction/local.FAQ

You could experiment with biwiring inexpensive zip cord. There also are several direct sources of relatively inexpensive audiophile cables that offer 30-day money back guarantees, so you can experiment, and return their cables if not satisfied. Two examples of these firms are:

http://www.bluejeanscable.com

http://www.signalcable.com

Good luck!

[mtrycraft]

I'm relatively new to picking out cables and i'm only familiar with Monster Cable. I'm plannign to get a decent pair of B&W speakers that have bi-wiring capabilities. What are the benefits of biwiring and is it worth it?

Also, I have Monster Cable M1.2 speaker cable, and was pleased with it, but I was wondering if there's anything that is a little better that will be cheaper, or something at a similiar or slightly lower price, that is significantly better. The Monster Cable M1.2 is placed at $150 for 10 ft. pair of speakers.

Thanks!


Audio is full of hype, bs, voodoo. Why would it be exempt from the rest of the consumer marketplace?
There is no evidence to support bi-wiring. Speaker makers supply the 4 posts so they have a larger market for their products. Wire makers hype it to sell more wire. Gullible audiophiles buy into it. simple.
Monster is expensive. 12 ga to 16ga from Home Depot will do you well. Anything over $.35/ft is audio jewelry.

[stevos2005]

IMHO, from what I've gathered, I believe that speaker cable does make a difference, but there's really no reason to spend the begabucks that some people do on more expensive speaker cables. i.e. When using high end speakers with a high end amp that are very well designed, better speaker cable will make a difference. Personally I feel that the difference between a well designed $100 cable and cheap lamp cord will be much greater than the difference from the $100 cable to an "audiohphile" $1000 cable, but those are my 2 cents.

Since the cable is supposed to deliver the amplified signal from the amp to the speakers, it should be designed to produce as flat a response as possible and have a low characteristic impedance. Some speaker cables may attenuate certain frequencies and that should be avoided. Although I'm pretty sure decent cable can be found at decent prices. I'll check around. Thanks for the advice.

[Beckman]

[QUOTE=stevos2005]Personally I feel that the difference between a well designed $100 cable and cheap lamp cord will be much greater than the difference from the $100 cable to an "audiohphile" $1000 cable, but those are my 2 cents.

Since the cable is supposed to deliver the amplified signal from the amp to the speakers, it should be designed to produce as flat a response as possible and have a low characteristic impedance. Some speaker cables may attenuate certain frequencies and that should be avoided. QUOTE]

But 12 AWG Lamp cord produces a flat response and only attenuates the signal 0.4 dB(undetectable) at 20 kHz. You can't improve upon perfection.

[cam]

If bi-wiring makes you think you are getting the best sound possible from your system I say go for it. Just don't do it with expensive cables. Buy 12 guage just do not spend more then $1.00 a foot. If your mains have 10 foot lengths you only need an extra $20.00 worth of cable. Big deal, aslong as you think you are getting a benefit it only cost you an extra $20.00.

[mtrycraft]

When using high end speakers with a high end amp that are very well designed, better speaker cable will make a difference.

Yet to be demonstrated this to be true.


Personally I feel that the difference between a well designed $100 cable and cheap lamp cord will be much greater than the difference from the $100 cable to an "audiohphile" $1000 cable, but those are my 2 cents.

Yep, it is just a feeling :)

Since the cable is supposed to deliver the amplified signal from the amp to the speakers, it should be designed to produce as flat a response as possible and have a low characteristic impedance.

Well, in speaker cables characteristic impedance is not an issue but resistance and inductance are. But, these are known and the limits of hearing is too. So, it doesn't take fancy design to accomplish this, nor should it cost anywhere near $100, unless you are buying a lot of wire.

Some speaker cables may attenuate certain frequencies and that should be avoided.

Yes, of course:) The attenuation happens from the high frequency first in a uniform roll off.



Although I'm pretty sure decent cable can be found at decent prices. I'll check around. Thanks for the advice.

You are welcome.

[Wrightstuff]

I was skeptical of bi-wiring, or even spending more than $100 on interconnects and speaker cables.
I was even more wary after trying to improve my Sony ES-based system with cables at three times the price above. Slight improvements were there, but the sound still didn't please.
Everything changed for me when I turned my back on do-everything multi-channel receivers and the like and moved into "hi-end" and invested around $10,000 on a strictly two-channel system.
From that point, the benefits of top quality cables have become totally obvious and indisputable. For the first time, I am completely immersed in the music and not listening to the electronics' failings. Fine minimalist amplification and CD playback with high-quality cables (after much auditioning to find the most ideal match ) has brought me never-before-experienced audio satisfaction.
At this level, I can tell you that bi-wiring certainly CAN make a difference. The amount will vary between different components and cables and the only way to see what is best for your system is to audition all options. People who advise you that bi-wiring your system does or doesn't matter are offering you worthless advice. The fact is, it CAN be great in the right combination of parts, or a waste of time in other systems. It's down to what YOUR system does with it, not what mine or someone else's does.
You need a dealer who will loan you cables for audition. You should NEVER buy cables of any kind without auditioning them first.

[Tony_Montana]

People who advise you that bi-wiring your system does or doesn't matter are offering you worthless advice.

Not if those people giving advice are also giving a credible reason why biwiring is or is not worthless.

If you want to look at biwirng issue technically (electrically), one will note that biwiring does not make sense.

If the amp was also biwirable, then it would probably be worth trouble to biwire. But if the amp is not biwirable-since both wires are touching each other at amp's output-then both wires are technically have the same potential electrically. And it doesn't matter if one use one pair or two pair, it doesn't change a thing electrically :)

[mtrycraft]

I was skeptical of bi-wiring, or even spending more than $100 on interconnects and speaker cables.

Then you saw the light.


Everything changed for me when I turned my back on do-everything multi-channel receivers and the like and moved into "hi-end" and invested around $10,000 on a strictly two-channel system.


How else could you justify that kind of outlay for audio but to fall victim to all the audio voodoo. Undertsnadible; human nature.


From that point, the benefits of top quality cables have become totally obvious and indisputable.

Indisputable? I suppose you have indisputable evidence for this claims? I haven't seen any such evidence on record. But who knows.

For the first time, I am completely immersed in the music and not listening to the electronics' failings.

Not at all. You are involved in the components, not the music.

Fine minimalist amplification

With $10k invested that is minimalist? All relative I guess.



At this level, I can tell you that bi-wiring certainly CAN make a difference.


Of course you can tell this. Certainly not based in credible evidence though, right? Perception is funny. Your mind plays all sorts of tricks. Very powerful.

People who advise you that bi-wiring your system does or doesn't matter are offering you worthless advice.


And your advice has merit because you say so? Based on what evidence? Perhaps your advice is worthless. But how would you know? Bias controlled listeing?



You need a dealer who will loan you cables for audition. You should NEVER buy cables of any kind without auditioning them first.


What is there to audition? Your advice would have been better if you told him how to audition, who to avoid the influence of bias and the placebo effect. No small matter to consider. I bet you didn't and are trapped in the hype of audio hi end.

[pctower]

I was skeptical of bi-wiring, or even spending more than $100 on interconnects and speaker cables.
I was even more wary after trying to improve my Sony ES-based system with cables at three times the price above. Slight improvements were there, but the sound still didn't please.
Everything changed for me when I turned my back on do-everything multi-channel receivers and the like and moved into "hi-end" and invested around $10,000 on a strictly two-channel system.
From that point, the benefits of top quality cables have become totally obvious and indisputable. For the first time, I am completely immersed in the music and not listening to the electronics' failings. Fine minimalist amplification and CD playback with high-quality cables (after much auditioning to find the most ideal match ) has brought me never-before-experienced audio satisfaction.
At this level, I can tell you that bi-wiring certainly CAN make a difference. The amount will vary between different components and cables and the only way to see what is best for your system is to audition all options. People who advise you that bi-wiring your system does or doesn't matter are offering you worthless advice. The fact is, it CAN be great in the right combination of parts, or a waste of time in other systems. It's down to what YOUR system does with it, not what mine or someone else's does.
You need a dealer who will loan you cables for audition. You should NEVER buy cables of any kind without auditioning them first.

You're just flapping in the wind over here with talk like that. Very few, if any, of the regulars have ever heard the kind of two-channel system you are probably talking about.

They are not interested in music or equipment. They are interested in mocking people like you. It's a social-psychological thing - nothing to do with home entertainment, music or science.

Nerds need something with which to occupy themselves when they grow up. It all has to do with high school clics and that sort of thing - ie reference: "Mean Girls"; "Revenge of the Nerds".

The biggest joke of all is that these guys think that the people spending big bucks on two-channel audio are yuppies. This just proves how out of touch they really are. No self-respecting yuppie has even heard of two-channel high end audio. True yuppies go for built-in home theaters with stacks and stacks of Adcom electronics and in-wall speakers; they wouldn't be caught dead in a local high end salon or hanging out here, over at AA or at Audiogon.

If it isn't in GQ, the Robb Report or Architechtural Digest, the true yuppie will simply turn up his nose at it. When is the last time you saw an article on two-channel, high end audio in GQ or AD?

No, the guys who spend big bucks on two-channel audio are simply nerds with a lot of money, a lot of debt, no other life or all three.

Of course, that excludes guys like you and me who are the cool ones in the know and rise above all this petty class/socio-economic-warfare and simply enjoy the magic of two-channel high end stereo.

[Beckman]

You're just flapping in the wind over here with talk like that. Very few, if any, of the regulars have ever heard the kind of two-channel system you are probably talking about.

They are not interested in music or equipment. They are interested in mocking people like you. It's a social-psychological thing - nothing to do with home entertainment, music or science.

Nerds need something with which to occupy themselves when they grow up. It all has to do with high school clics and that sort of thing - ie reference: "Mean Girls"; "Revenge of the Nerds".

The biggest joke of all is that these guys think that the people spending big bucks on two-channel audio are yuppies. This just proves how out of touch they really are. No self-respecting yuppie has even heard of two-channel high end audio. True yuppies go for built-in home theaters with stacks and stacks of Adcom electronics and in-wall speakers; they wouldn't be caught dead in a local high end salon or hanging out here, over at AA or at Audiogon.

If it isn't in GQ, the Robb Report or Architechtural Digest, the true yuppie will simply turn up his nose at it. When is the last time you saw an article on two-channel, high end audio in GQ or AD?

No, the guys who spend big bucks on two-channel audio are simply nerds with a lot of money, a lot of debt, no other life or all three.

Of course, that excludes guys like you and me who are the cool ones in the know and rise above all this petty class/socio-economic-warfare and simply enjoy the magic of two-channel high end stereo.

I appologize for anything I might have posted that may have upsetted you.

[woodman]

You're just flapping in the wind over here with talk like that. Very few, if any, of the regulars have ever heard the kind of two-channel system you are probably talking about.

They are not interested in music or equipment. They are interested in mocking people like you. It's a social-psychological thing - nothing to do with home entertainment, music or science.

Nerds need something with which to occupy themselves when they grow up. It all has to do with high school clics and that sort of thing - ie reference: "Mean Girls"; "Revenge of the Nerds".

The biggest joke of all is that these guys think that the people spending big bucks on two-channel audio are yuppies. This just proves how out of touch they really are. No self-respecting yuppie has even heard of two-channel high end audio. True yuppies go for built-in home theaters with stacks and stacks of Adcom electronics and in-wall speakers; they wouldn't be caught dead in a local high end salon or hanging out here, over at AA or at Audiogon.

If it isn't in GQ, the Robb Report or Architechtural Digest, the true yuppie will simply turn up his nose at it. When is the last time you saw an article on two-channel, high end audio in GQ or AD?

No, the guys who spend big bucks on two-channel audio are simply nerds with a lot of money, a lot of debt, no other life or all three.

Of course, that excludes guys like you and me who are the cool ones in the know and rise above all this petty class/socio-economic-warfare and simply enjoy the magic of two-channel high end stereo.

Oh, cut the crap, Phil - you ol' chain-yanker you. If I didn't know better, you'd have me (as well as many others) fooled with your make believe A-A bullsh!t.

You are right about one thing though ... I wouldn't waste a single minute of my valuable time in a "high-end salon" where the elitist snobbery and snake-oil bullsh!t is piled so high that there's no shovel made that is quite big enough to deal with it. I commented on "high-end audio" in another thread here which you never responded to (it was YOUR thread). No need to repeat it here - "you could look it up".

Laughing out loud,

[Wrightstuff]

I wouldn't waste a single minute of my valuable time in a "high-end salon" where the elitist snobbery and snake-oil bullsh!t is piled so high that there's no shovel made that is quite big enough to deal with it.


I have experienced the kind of thing you are talking about several times. Some of the high-end dealers I've experience of are truly horrible to deal with. Some have such a similar style that one can only imagine there is a school somewhere for the development of snobbish, look-down-on-your-customer high-end dealers.
BUT...not all are the same. I have received really good service from one dealer in particular.
In general though, I have to say that my experience of high-end dealers is very negative.

[mtrycraft]

I wouldn't waste a single minute of my valuable time in a "high-end salon" where the elitist snobbery and snake-oil bullsh!t is piled so high that there's no shovel made that is quite big enough to deal with it.


I have experienced the kind of thing you are talking about several times. Some of the high-end dealers I've experience of are truly horrible to deal with. Some have such a similar style that one can only imagine there is a school somewhere for the development of snobbish, look-down-on-your-customer high-end dealers.
BUT...not all are the same. I have received really good service from one dealer in particular.
In general though, I have to say that my experience of high-end dealers is very negative.


A suggestion in posting. If you are quoting from a previous post, please use quotation marks or the cornered brackets with a b at the beginning of th equote and the same brackets with /b in between at the end. This way we can read it better:)

[pctower]

Oh, cut the crap, Phil - you ol' chain-yanker you. If I didn't know better, you'd have me (as well as many others) fooled with your make believe A-A bullsh!t.

You are right about one thing though ... I wouldn't waste a single minute of my valuable time in a "high-end salon" where the elitist snobbery and snake-oil bullsh!t is piled so high that there's no shovel made that is quite big enough to deal with it. I commented on "high-end audio" in another thread here which you never responded to (it was YOUR thread). No need to repeat it here - "you could look it up".

Laughing out loud,

I saw the other post. Just your usual ranting and raving. Nothing worth responding to.

[pctower]

I appologize for anything I might have posted that may have upsetted you.

You didn't upset me. You described your own personal experience and offered some advice based on that experience.

Nothing wrong with that in my book.

I don't toe the party line here so many will paint me as a rabid golden-ear. They totally fail to grasp that one can attack certain parts of an argument on one side of a question without advocating the opposite side of that argument. Nuances are not part of the thought process of the self-appointed "scientists" on this board.

In addition, true gold-ears or yeasayers have enough sense to avoid this board like a plague. Yet these guys here live for the opportunity of arguing with yeasayers. Since very few wonder by and almost none end of staying they have to try and turn people like me into a yeasayer so they have a strawdog to attack.

The fact that you found that bi-wiring or special cables did nothing for you doesn't bother me in the slightest.

[Wrightstuff]

[/b] And your advice has merit because you say so? Based on what evidence? Perhaps your advice is worthless. But how would you know? Bias controlled listeing? [/b]


My advice was to listen for oneself and not accept the arguments of others, either for or against bi-wiring. That goes for agitated advice-givers like yourself too.
By the way, $10,000 is not a huge amount to pay in "high-end" terms. $2000 for an Class A 16w amp, $1000 for a pre-amp, $2000 for the CD and the rest on speakers, stands, cables. Many people are spending as much on very ordinary home-theater systems with boomy subwoofers and extra speakers and if that is what pleases them, fine.
I made the decision to dispense with the likes of 7-channels of Sony amplification, rear speakers, subwoofer, Dolby Pro Logic II etc, tone controls, built-in tuner and anything else that is superfluous to the function of playing my CDs in 2-channel with the best quality I can get for my money. What I hear is a VAST improvement over the receiver-based system I had before. I would consider my current system minimalist, in comparison to the equipment I had before, which featured numerous functions and controls I never used and never needed. My "reward" is listening to the finest reproduction and spatial presentation I have ever heard from my CDs.
You can talk of placebos and other negative aspects of owning equipment that you yourself deem too expensive, but all you are really doing is telling us that to this point, you have failed to experience the top quality sound that is available to us all if we really try to match and balance our equipment for peak performance. Apparently, you blame your lack of such an experience on voodoo of some kind, rather than your own absence of understanding.
There are some folks who would say to you that their transistor radio is as good as
"hi-fi" gets. You'd probably laugh (or cry) at their ignorance.
So you will now know why I laughed when I read your response. You just don't get it. So stick with what you know and don't profess to know any more than that, there's a good fellow.

[mtrycraft]

My advice was to listen for oneself and not accept the arguments of others, either for or against bi-wiring.



Fine. But you fell way short with that advice. You failed to inform about the vagaries of sighetd listening to determine audible differences. It doesn't work too well.You left this out because you yourself don't know? Or, you may be worried about the truth?



What I hear is a VAST improvement over the receiver-based system I had before.

Maybe yes, maybe no.

I would consider my current system minimalist,

Oh, like SET amps? Passive preamps?
LOL.


My "reward" is listening to the finest reproduction and spatial presentation I have ever heard from my CDs.

Maybe yes, maybe no.

but all you are really doing is telling us that to this point, you have failed to experience the top quality sound that is available to us all if we really try to match and balance our equipment for peak performance.

Or, you just think that is what you are accomplishing.

Apparently, you blame your lack of such an experience on voodoo of some kind, rather than your own absence of understanding.

My experience is irrelevant to what your claims are and what can be demonstrated.

[pctower]

My advice was to listen for oneself and not accept the arguments of others, either for or against bi-wiring.



Fine. But you fell way short with that advice. You failed to inform about the vagaries of sighetd listening to determine audible differences. It doesn't work too well.You left this out because you yourself don't know? Or, you may be worried about the truth?



What I hear is a VAST improvement over the receiver-based system I had before.

Maybe yes, maybe no.

I would consider my current system minimalist,

Oh, like SET amps? Passive preamps?
LOL.


My "reward" is listening to the finest reproduction and spatial presentation I have ever heard from my CDs.

Maybe yes, maybe no.

but all you are really doing is telling us that to this point, you have failed to experience the top quality sound that is available to us all if we really try to match and balance our equipment for peak performance.

Or, you just think that is what you are accomplishing.

Apparently, you blame your lack of such an experience on voodoo of some kind, rather than your own absence of understanding.

My experience is irrelevant to what your claims are and what can be demonstrated.
Fine. But you fell way short with that advice. You failed to inform about the vagaries of sighetd listening to determine audible differences. It doesn't work too well.You left this out because you yourself don't know? Or, you may be worried about the truth?

Just as your absolutist advice to newcomers falls way short by failing to explain it is based solely on "not proven". I guess that makes two of you who may be worried about the truth.

Oh, like SET amps? Passive preamps?
LOL.

You are at your finest when you're behaving in an arrogant, condescending manner. Is passive agressive behavior a component of the scientific method?

[BrandonCM]

just my own experience from this so called bi-wiring on my Def Tech 2002TL:
1. used a single 15ft Z monster speaker cable against 2 15ft Z monster speaker cable (bi-wire) on one speaker, if there's a difference, I didn't notice it.
2. used a single 15ft Z monster speaker cable against a 50ft inwall monster cable. again, no audible difference.
notice the Z series are 12 gauge and the inwall cables are 14 gauge.

[mtrycraft]

Fine. But you fell way short with that advice. You failed to inform about the vagaries of sighetd listening to determine audible differences. It doesn't work too well.You left this out because you yourself don't know? Or, you may be worried about the truth?

Just as your absolutist advice to newcomers falls way short by failing to explain it is based solely on "not proven". I guess that makes two of you who may be worried about the truth.

Truth? Please inform us about the truth in audio.

[pctower]

Truth? Please inform us about the truth in audio.
HA! TRUTH YOU SAY?

If you're looking for scientific truth, I'll tell you where you won't find it - Cable Asylum, Jon Risch's website and the bogus, amateur published DBTs you try to foist off on the uneducated, uncritical masses.

If you are looking for scientific truth, look to Steve Eddy and jneutron. They deal almost exclusively with verifiable facts, hypotheses that can be subjected to scrutiny, reason and the scientific method. And isn't it interesting that these two great men of science see the Great Cable Debate as the folly of fools and virtually never try to foist off their "advice" on to others.

Now if you are looking for the transcendental truth of audio as it has been revealed to us mere mortals to date, you must turn to the keeper of all transcendental audio truth - ME, of course.

As of June, 2004, there are two great revealed truths of audio:

1. Anyone who has listened to hundreds or thousands of vinyl and digital recordings on a good system knows beyond any shadow of a doubt that vinyl is far closer to audio truth than digital. Such a person therefore has developed a healthy distrust of numbers and meters - the limit of audio engineering and science as of this time.

2. The vast majority of audiophiles make their decisions without any help from any of us, and manage to log millions and millions of enjoyable listening hours regardless of how hard we who waste our time on audio boards try to dissect and destroy the hobby.

AND THUS THE MASTER HAS SPOKEN.

[Tony_Montana]

Anyone who has listened to hundreds or thousands of vinyl and digital recordings on a good system knows beyond any shadow of a doubt that vinyl is far closer to audio truth than digital.

That is not necessary true.

If you are comparing LP with CDs, you will notice that each format have its shortcoming and advantages. LP may have higher resolution due to being analog, but the [higher] resolution is masked by its inherited negative qualities such as higher noise and low dynamic range.

CDs on the hand have better noise and Dynamic range figure than LPs, but it is lacking slightly in resolution due to its low sampling bit. So saying that either format is closer to true recording is not looking at the whole picture.

But I hope there are no arguments that new [digital] formats such as SACD or DVD-A are leaps and bound ahead of LP and CDs, and are very true to original recording master.


Such a person therefore has developed a healthy distrust of numbers and meters - the limit of audio engineering and science as of this time.

Well if it wasn't for the numbers, measurements and science, we still be listening to AM radio, and/or noisy scratchy 78s and 45s :D

[pctower]

That is not necessary true.

If you are comparing LP with CDs, you will notice that each format have its shortcoming and advantages. LP may have higher resolution due to being analog, but the [higher] resolution is masked by its inherited negative qualities such as higher noise and low dynamic range.

CDs on the hand have better noise and Dynamic range figure than LPs, but it is lacking slightly in resolution due to its low sampling bit. So saying that either format is closer to true recording is not looking at the whole picture.

But I hope there are no arguments that new [digital] formats such as SACD or DVD-A are leaps and bound ahead of LP and CDs, and are very true to original recording master.

Well if it wasn't for the numbers, measurements and science, we still be listening to AM radio, and/or noisy scratchy 78s and 45s :D
CDs on the hand have better noise and Dynamic range figure than LPs, but it is lacking slightly in resolution due to its low sampling bit. So saying that either format is closer to true recording is not looking at the whole picture.

I'm talking about transcendental audio truth. You're talking about geek stuff. That kind of talk isn't allowed in my sound room. My sound room is a pleasure palace - not a science lab.

But I hope there are no arguments that new [digital] formats such as <NOBR>SACD (http://forums.audioreview.com/showthread.php?p=35705#)</NOBR> or DVD-A are leaps and bound ahead of LP and CDs, and are very true to original recording master.

WRONG!

If you don't believe me just spend some time at the HiRez board or the Vinyl board over at AA - there's all kinds of arguments on just that issue. I can tell you that both my dedicated redbook front end AND my vinyl front end run circles around the 2-channel SACD performance of my Marantz 8260 SACD player.

In fact, I have serious questions as to whether 2-channel SACD is any improvement AT ALL over redbook. I think that SACD is driven primarily by economic and patent considerations. But off course, because its specs are better, the placebo effect has led many "scientists" to conclude that it sounds better; just as the numbers comparison between redbook and vinyl has led countless number-cruchers to believe they hear improvement in redbook over vinyl. Unfortunately, most of them are too arrogant in their belief in their superiority that they can't even see that they suffer from the same ABE's that the golden-ears who they despise are suffering from.

Well if it wasn't for the numbers, measurements and science, we still be listening to AM radio, and/or noisy scratchy 78s and 45s

It would be fool-hearty for anyone to claim that numbers, measurements and science don't matter. I used the term "healthy distrust". As much as scientists want the rest of us peons to believe that their quatization of the world is perfect, some of us understand the personal value that a holistic approach to experiencing life can have at times.

When I'm in my soundroom, I'm in the holistic mode - and it is from that source that my transcendental audio truth is derived. I understand that there are those who have virtually no background in philosophy, art, literature and poetry and that all of this is way beyond them.

The truly great scientists such as Einstein understood that life can be approached from many different angles, only one of which requires the quantization of all human experience.

I strongly suspect that both jneutron and Steve Eddy know exactly what I'm talking about. They both seem to me to be people who understand the great value of the discipline that resides in the scientific method, but also are bright enough and experienced enough to refuse to be completely hog-tied by that discipline.

In the final analysis for me, there is one thing that both encompasses truth and is far more important than truth - WISDOM. And I believe that the essence of wisdom is an appreciation of how little we really know and how limited our way of perceiving and experiencing the world may be.

Stephen Hawkings has pushed science to its current limits in attempting to describe and understand the universe. Few people, including me, even have a glimmer of what he is talking about and what he sees. Yet, I suspect that even he retains the humility to allow for his limits.

[Tony_Montana]

Well, I really don't want to get bugged down with the discussion of "philosophy" of human nature and how that relate to audio experience. We will end up running around the circle until the cow come home. So I prefer sticking to the issues :)


If you don't believe me just spend some time at the HiRez board or the Vinyl board over at AA - there's all kinds of arguments on just that issue.

Yes, I did see that thread about Vinyl vs SACD/DVD-A over in AA. They had the same problem-which is not looking at the whole picture. We can argue all day [subjectively] about superiority of Vinyl over CD or SACD, but we can not get away from the facts that each format (especially LP and CD) have its shortcomings.

How can you say that LP is truer to the master recording when master recording have dynamic range of way over 50 dB and extremely low noise, while LP's Dynamic rage is below 50 dB and high S/N (sound to noise) ratio. I know you don't like to get bugged down with the science and numbers, but the knowledge of each formats, their advantage and shortcomings is essentials in evaluating each format correctly.


I can tell you that both my dedicated redbook front end AND my vinyl front end run circles around the 2-channel SACD performance of my Marantz 8260 SACD player.

I own over 500 Lps and been listening to them over last 20 years, and I don't buy that statement for a second (for the reason mentioned above). Although my system is not consider high end (or medium end :D) and don't have a SACD/DVD-A player, but I belive with the right recording that can take advantage of the new formats, they will definitely blow LP and CDs out of water.


I think that SACD is driven primarily by economic and patent considerations. But off course, because its specs are better, the placebo effect has led many "scientists" to conclude that it sounds better; just as the numbers comparison between redbook and vinyl has led countless number-cruchers to believe they hear improvement in redbook over vinyl.

I hope you don't raise that argument with record or audio engineers. They will tell you that SACD or DVD-A are the only format that comes close to true master recording. Why do you think record industry still prevent digital output for above two formats? And the reason is because it is extremely high resolution and so close to master recording that they are afraid it might be used with wrong intention of distributing.

I don't see anybody raisin any eye brow over digital out from CD player (or LP player if it had one), because they are low resolution formats :)

[pctower]

Well, I really don't want to get bugged down with the discussion of "philosophy" of human nature and how that relate to audio experience. We will end up running around the circle until the cow come home. So I prefer sticking to the issues :)



Yes, I did see that thread about Vinyl vs SACD/DVD-A over in AA. They had the same problem-which is not looking at the whole picture. We can argue all day [subjectively] about superiority of Vinyl over CD or SACD, but we can not get away from the facts that each format (especially LP and CD) have its shortcomings.

How can you say that LP is truer to the master recording when master recording have dynamic range of way over 50 dB and extremely low noise, while LP's Dynamic rage is below 50 dB and high S/N (sound to noise) ratio. I know you don't like to get bugged down with the science and numbers, but the knowledge of each formats, their advantage and shortcomings is essentials in evaluating each format correctly.



I own over 500 Lps and been listening to them over last 20 years, and I don't buy that statement for a second (for the reason mentioned above). Although my system is not consider high end (or medium end :D) and don't have a SACD/DVD-A player, but I belive with the right recording that can take advantage of the new formats, they will definitely blow LP and CDs out of water.



I hope you don't raise that argument with record or audio engineers. They will tell you that SACD or DVD-A are the only format that comes close to true master recording. Why do you think record industry still prevent digital output for above two formats? And the reason is because it is extremely high resolution and so close to master recording that they are afraid it might be used with wrong intention of distributing.

I don't see anybody raisin any eye brow over digital out from CD player (or LP player if it had one), because they are low resolution formats :)
Well, I really don't want to get bugged down with the discussion of "philosophy" of human nature and how that relate to audio experience.

Then don't try to carry on a discussion with me right now, because that's what I want to talk about.

We will end up running around the circle until the cow come home. So I prefer sticking to the issues :)

You mean stick with YOUR issues. I'll pass for now.

I hope you don't raise that argument with record or audio engineers. They will tell you that SACD or DVD-A are the only format that comes close to true master recording. Why do you think record industry still prevent digital output for above two formats? And the reason is because it is extremely high resolution and so close to master recording that they are afraid it might be used with wrong intention of distributing.

It's not an argument - it's my holistic truth - BIG DIFFERENCE.

And I'll share that truth with whomever I choose - they can take it or leave it - just as I can take or leave other people's truths. I doubt that you really have much of idea of what most recording engineers would say.

The primary reason for protecting the digital stream is its freedom from pops and clicks, which to the mass market is all that counts. The CPA's and upper management of the big conglomerates could care less about concerns of the high end market - we are a non-entity from an economic point of view.

They will protect what they need to protect to attempt to maintain their grip on the mass market. If they'd stop worrying as much about copy protection and suing college kids and pay more attention to producing and fostering talent and taste they might be more successful. But just like the engineer who dons blinders, they can think of only numbers.

Yeah, I know - I've already swallowed the bait and am discussing YOUR issues.

I don't see anybody raisin any eye brow over digital out from CD player (or LP player if it had one), because they are low resolution formats :)

I'll play your game on this one too.

This just shows how out of touch you are. Don't kid yourself - if they had it to do all over again they certainly would. They have sure tried. SACD is another non-entity from an economic standpoint. It may have been Sony's effort to put the genie back in the bottle - hoping that the mass market would shift to SACD and allow them to copy protect what they would give their right [bleep] to be able to protect with the mass market redbook format. DVD-A was certainly an attempt to do that.

Neither new format has even made a dent in the mass market - and I predict both will either die or remain marginal formats appealing mainly to engineer-types who are slaves to specs. When the Stone's new box set was released, you couldn't find a hint on the box that it was a dual layer release which included SACD. They were affraid the SACD name or symbol would scare prospective purchasers off.

Redbook done well is good enough. I can live with it. It's just that I know that nothing available now (other than good master analog tapes) will equal the reach-out-and-touch-realism, goose-bump-inducing magic that is possible with vinyl.

If I had a half-day of your time in my soundroom you'd come to understand what I'm saying.

[mtrycraft]

If you're looking for scientific truth, I'll tell you where you won't find it - Cable Asylum, Jon Risch's website and the bogus, amateur published DBTs you try to foist off on the uneducated, uncritical masses.

So we can agree on some things in audio? :D

If you are looking for scientific truth, look to Steve Eddy and jneutron. They deal almost exclusively with verifiable facts, hypotheses that can be subjected to scrutiny, reason and the scientific method. And isn't it interesting that these two great men of science see the Great Cable Debate as the folly of fools and virtually never try to foist off their "advice" on to others.

So then they can advise us on audible differences in cables and audio components then?

Now if you are looking for the transcendental truth of audio as it has been revealed to us mere mortals to date, you must turn to the keeper of all transcendental audio truth - ME, of course.

As of June, 2004, there are two great revealed truths of audio:

1. Anyone who has listened to hundreds or thousands of vinyl and digital recordings on a good system knows beyond any shadow of a doubt that vinyl is far closer to audio truth than digital. Such a person therefore has developed a healthy distrust of numbers and meters - the limit of audio engineering and science as of this time.

2. The vast majority of audiophiles make their decisions without any help from any of us, and manage to log millions and millions of enjoyable listening hours regardless of how hard we who waste our time on audio boards try to dissect and destroy the hobby.

AND THUS THE MASTER HAS SPOKEN.

I am trully blessed, if I can say that without lightning sriking, that I live in such a time era to be witness to this master :D
Thanks

[pctower]

If you're looking for scientific truth, I'll tell you where you won't find it - Cable Asylum, Jon Risch's website and the bogus, amateur published DBTs you try to foist off on the uneducated, uncritical masses.

So we can agree on some things in audio? :D

If you are looking for scientific truth, look to Steve Eddy and jneutron. They deal almost exclusively with verifiable facts, hypotheses that can be subjected to scrutiny, reason and the scientific method. And isn't it interesting that these two great men of science see the Great Cable Debate as the folly of fools and virtually never try to foist off their "advice" on to others.

So then they can advise us on audible differences in cables and audio components then?

Now if you are looking for the transcendental truth of audio as it has been revealed to us mere mortals to date, you must turn to the keeper of all transcendental audio truth - ME, of course.

As of June, 2004, there are two great revealed truths of audio:

1. Anyone who has listened to hundreds or thousands of vinyl and digital recordings on a good system knows beyond any shadow of a doubt that vinyl is far closer to audio truth than digital. Such a person therefore has developed a healthy distrust of numbers and meters - the limit of audio engineering and science as of this time.

2. The vast majority of audiophiles make their decisions without any help from any of us, and manage to log millions and millions of enjoyable listening hours regardless of how hard we who waste our time on audio boards try to dissect and destroy the hobby.

AND THUS THE MASTER HAS SPOKEN.

I am trully blessed, if I can say that without lightning sriking, that I live in such a time era to be witness to this master :D
Thanks
So then they can advise us on audible differences in <NOBR>cables (http://forums.audioreview.com/showthread.php?p=35750#)</NOBR> and audio components then?

They wouldn't even try.

Bless you my Brother.

[mtrycraft]

So then they can advise us on audible differences in <NOBR>cables (http://forums.audioreview.com/showthread.php?p=35750#)</NOBR> and audio components then?

They wouldn't even try.

Bless you my Brother.


Oh, thank you. I needed some blessing for a change:)

[Wrightstuff]

My take is very different.
I have hundreds of CDs and I came to a point where I realized there were dozens of hours of music in that collection that I can't stand. Tracks that I never wanted, stuffed in with the few I like on each CD.
So, with the best 2-channel system I could afford and some high-quality sound editing equipment, I've been creating my own CDs, filled only with music I love, "remastered" by me in the order I like, with perfect segues and many glitches (clicks or poor fades etc) cleaned up. I can compile, by artist, style, instrument, mood, anything I like.
When I now put a CD on, I know that not a minute is wasted listening to stuff I would otherwise only listen to because it is taking up space on an otherwise valued CD. Sure, one can program CDs, but often I might only like 15 minutes of the CD. Good editing could mix three or four such albums into one fine hour-long CD.
I enjoy the actual editing and mixing and can get special pride from the end results.

Try doing any of this with SACD. Or DVD Audio. Bad luck. You're stuck. You have to listen to what you are told. SACD/DVD-A is a joke. Of my hundreds of CDs, only two are available on SACD. Should I buy music I wouldn't normally want because on SACD it might sound 5% better? I've heard SACD versus redbook on the same player and SACD wins. Listening to the same SACD performance against a WELL-CHOSEN 2-channel system playing redbook, there was only a slight difference...but that was in favor of redbook. Yes, the 2-channel system was twice as expensive and SACD can do the surround gig, but SACD is absolutely valueless to me.
I have just finished editing my CDs of Monteverdi's L'Orfeo. Running half the length of the original, my edit features only the scenes and voices I enjoy listening to, and it is edited beautifully if I say so myself. It is MY recording, the way I want to listen to it, with no jarring moments that aren't to my taste and that I'd otherwise have to suffer every time I play it.
It took me three nights to get it the way I wanted it, and I love listening to it.
Of course, I COULD wait five years for it to come out on SACD, and I COULD force myself to listen to the parts I don't like, and I COULD program the tracks and listen to what the track listing says I can choose from.
But I prefer to listen to the music I like, rather than worry about how good music I don't care about sounds on SACD.

[Beckman]

I've been creating my own CDs, filled only with music I love, "remastered" by me in the order I like, with perfect segues and many glitches (clicks or poor fades etc) cleaned up. I can compile, by artist, style, instrument, mood, anything I like.


Good way to get the most out of ones listening time:)

[FLZapped]

HA! TRUTH YOU SAY?

Now if you are looking for the transcendental truth of audio as it has been revealed to us mere mortals to date, you must turn to the keeper of all transcendental audio truth - ME, of course.


Geez, I need to get those waders out again....maybe a shovel or two as well....

-Bruce

[SHAWNSY]

If You Want Better For Cheaper.......................

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear A/V Friend,

Better for cheaper is easy in my opinion. I had a 13ft pair of Tara Labs Prism Bi-wire cable set up for single run. I paid $180 for the pair 7 years ago. Last month I bought a 100ft. roll of CL rated XPHP from Best Buy (click on link below). I ran a single cable of this stuff to my surrounds and a double run to each of my main speakers and center channel speaker. Of course I used Monster Banana Jacks and Flexi-Pins too. The double run of this cable to my main speakers blew away my $180 Tara Labs Prism Bi-wire. I couldn't believe it! What a difference. Even my wife who doesn't have an audiophile ear could tell a BIG difference. This compact In-wall/Out-of-wall design employs nearly all of the significant technology of the more expensive Monster Cable. I'd bet a double run (i.e. a single cable for ea. "+" and "-") to each Main speaker,of this stuff, would blow your M1.2 away! As for actually bi-wiring your speakers, I think using a double run of speaker cable to each speaker would do just as fine a job as actually bi-wiring them. For $129 for the wire and maybe $100 for 5 sets of jacks you can't go wrong. Oh yea, it'll take you 30 minutes per cable to install the banana jacks to the cable carefully. Also, just so you know how much mark up there is on Monster Cable products, my nephew gets a 60% discount on all Monster Cable products as he is a Best Buy employee. High end stereo stores that sell Monster products have room to deal--believe me! My whole project cost was less than $100 because I knew someone at Best Buy. Best hundred bucks I have ever spent in my life. The sound quality difference was breathtaking. I bet Monster wouldn't like this cheap secret to get out that a double run of their cheaper cable sounds better than a single run of their more expensive stuff. Hope this helps. I can't imagine you could go wrong with this advice. Remember to click the link below so you know exactly what monster cable I'm talking about. There is a cheaper version of this cable that looks similar but uses a smaller gauge wire. I wounldn't want you to confuse the two. Good luck and tell me what you decide.

Sincerely,
Shawn Watson
http://monstercable.com/custom_inst...CI.asp?pin=1447

[SHAWNSY]

I'm relatively new to picking out cables and i'm only familiar with Monster Cable. I'm plannign to get a decent pair of B&W speakers that have bi-wiring capabilities. What are the benefits of biwiring and is it worth it?

Also, I have Monster Cable M1.2 speaker cable, and was pleased with it, but I was wondering if there's anything that is a little better that will be cheaper, or something at a similiar or slightly lower price, that is significantly better. The Monster Cable M1.2 is placed at $150 for 10 ft. pair of speakers.

Thanks!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear A/V Friend,

Better for cheaper is easy in my opinion. I had a 13ft pair of Tara Labs Prism Bi-wire cable set up for single run. I paid $180 for the pair 7 years ago. Last month I bought a 100ft. roll of CL rated XPHP from Best Buy (click on link below). I ran a single cable of this stuff to my surrounds and a double run to each of my main speakers and center channel speaker. Of course I used Monster Banana Jacks and Flexi-Pins too. The double run of this cable to my main speakers blew away my $180 Tara Labs Prism Bi-wire. I couldn't believe it! What a difference. Even my wife who doesn't have an audiophile ear could tell a BIG difference. This compact In-wall/Out-of-wall design employs nearly all of the significant technology of the more expensive Monster Cable. I'd bet a double run (i.e. a single cable for ea. "+" and "-") to each Main speaker,of this stuff, would blow your M1.2 away! As for actually bi-wiring your speakers, I think using a double run of speaker cable to each speaker would do just as fine a job as actually bi-wiring them. For $129 for the wire and maybe $100 for 5 sets of jacks you can't go wrong. Oh yea, it'll take you 30 minutes per cable to install the banana jacks to the cable carefully. Also, just so you know how much mark up there is on Monster Cable products, my nephew gets a 60% discount on all Monster Cable products as he is a Best Buy employee. High end stereo stores that sell Monster products have room to deal--believe me! My whole project cost was less than $100 because I knew someone at Best Buy. Best hundred bucks I have ever spent in my life. The sound quality difference was breathtaking. I bet Monster wouldn't like this cheap secret to get out that a double run of their cheaper cable sounds better than a single run of their more expensive stuff. Hope this helps. I can't imagine you could go wrong with this advice. Remember to click the link below so you know exactly what monster cable I'm talking about. There is a cheaper version of this cable that looks similar but uses a smaller gauge wire. I wounldn't want you to confuse the two. Good luck and tell me what you decide.

Sincerely,
Shawn Watson
http://monstercable.com/custom_inst...CI.asp?pin=1447

[SHAWNSY]

[FONT=Tahoma][SIZE=6][COLOR=Purple]
I'm relatively new to picking out cables and i'm only familiar with Monster Cable. I'm plannign to get a decent pair of B&W speakers that have bi-wiring capabilities. What are the benefits of biwiring and is it worth it?

Also, I have Monster Cable M1.2 speaker cable, and was pleased with it, but I was wondering if there's anything that is a little better that will be cheaper, or something at a similiar or slightly lower price, that is significantly better. The Monster Cable M1.2 is placed at $150 for 10 ft. pair of speakers.

Thanks! Better For Cheaper Is Easy...........................

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If You Want Better For Cheaper.......................

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear A/V Friend,

Better for cheaper is easy in my opinion. I had a 13ft pair of Tara Labs Prism Bi-wire cable set up for single run. I paid $180 for the pair 7 years ago. Last month I bought a 100ft. roll of CL rated XPHP from Best Buy (click on link below). I ran a single cable of this stuff to my surrounds and a double run to each of my main speakers and center channel speaker. Of course I used Monster Banana Jacks and Flexi-Pins too. The double run of this cable to my main speakers blew away my $180 Tara Labs Prism Bi-wire. I couldn't believe it! What a difference. Even my wife who doesn't have an audiophile ear could tell a BIG difference. This compact In-wall/Out-of-wall design employs nearly all of the significant technology of the more expensive Monster Cable. I'd bet a double run (i.e. a single cable for ea. "+" and "-") to each Main speaker,of this stuff, would blow your M1.2 away! As for actually bi-wiring your speakers, I think using a double run of speaker cable to each speaker would do just as fine a job as actually bi-wiring them. For $129 for the wire and maybe $100 for 5 sets of jacks you can't go wrong. Oh yea, it'll take you 30 minutes per cable to install the banana jacks to the cable carefully. Also, just so you know how much mark up there is on Monster Cable products, my nephew gets a 60% discount on all Monster Cable products as he is a Best Buy employee. High end stereo stores that sell Monster products have room to deal--believe me! My whole project cost was less than $100 because I knew someone at Best Buy. Best hundred bucks I have ever spent in my life. The sound quality difference was breathtaking. I bet Monster wouldn't like this cheap secret to get out that a double run of their cheaper cable sounds better than a single run of their more expensive stuff. Hope this helps. I can't imagine you could go wrong with this advice. Remember to click the link below so you know exactly what monster cable I'm talking about. There is a cheaper version of this cable that looks similar but uses a smaller gauge wire. I wounldn't want you to confuse the two. Good luck and tell me what you decide.

Sincerely,
Shawn Watson
http://monstercable.com/custom_inst...CI.asp?pin=1447

[Pat D]

Fine. But you fell way short with that advice. You failed to inform about the vagaries of sighetd listening to determine audible differences. It doesn't work too well.You left this out because you yourself don't know? Or, you may be worried about the truth?

Just as your absolutist advice to newcomers falls way short by failing to explain it is based solely on "not proven". I guess that makes two of you who may be worried about the truth.
Absolutist advice? What is this, Phil, argument by making up a phrase, attaching an adjective to a noun? It looks like another misrepresentation. We do not maintain the null hypothesis is proven, never have, and yet you continue to make the false allegation that we do. You imply that we do not want larger scale studies to increase reliability, to reduce the likelihood of Type II errors, which is false, and you know it. Of course, if one does not conclude the null is proven, then one avoids making Type II errors. None of this deters you, Phil, for you keep on making the same false allegations.


Oh, like SET amps? Passive preamps?
LOL.

You are at your finest when you're behaving in an arrogant, condescending manner. Is passive agressive behavior a component of the scientific method?
You are referring to Wrightstuff, of course! In any case, mtrycrafts manner is irrelevant to whether interconnects and speaker cables make an audible difference and under what conditions.

[pctower]

Absolutist advice? What is this, Phil, argument by making up a phrase, attaching an adjective to a noun? It looks like another misrepresentation. We do not maintain the null hypothesis is proven, never have, and yet you continue to make the false allegation that we do. You imply that we do not want larger scale studies to increase reliability, to reduce the likelihood of Type II errors, which is false, and you know it. Of course, if one does not conclude the null is proven, then one avoids making Type II errors. None of this deters you, Phil, for you keep on making the same false allegations.


You are referring to Wrightstuff, of course! In any case, mtrycrafts manner is irrelevant to whether interconnects and speaker cables make an audible difference and under what conditions.You imply that we do not want larger scale studies to increase reliability, to reduce the likelihood of Type II errors, which is false, and you know it.

The only misrepresentation around here is your mis-characterization of what I have said. When referring to mtrycrafts "absolutist" advice, I did not say or imply that you, mtrycrafts or the Pope don't want better tests. I have never come close to inferring that (although I have raised any number of unanswered questions regarding the test results that are often cited on this board). That was not the subject when I addressed the way in which mtrycrafts give advice. The subject was the advice mtrycrafts gives to newcomers, without any explanation as to how he arrived at his absolutist type advice.

None of this deters you, Phil, for you keep on making the same false allegations.

I am not detered by your constant mis-characterization of what I have said in your effort to set up a stawman with whom you can argue. Why don't you show some guts and go over to AA and take on Curl and Reisch like I do.

mtrycrafts manner is irrelevant to whether interconnects and speaker cables make an audible difference and under what conditions

And of course I never suggested or implied that it does. In your one dimensional world the only subject that can be discussed is DBT's. There are other issues that non-Spock type people are interested in - such as inter-personal communication and attitudes.

[Thatch_Ear]

Since this thread is about biwiring I would think that if the wire is better than the jumper on the speaker then it will sound better. The more brass you keep out of the signal path the better off you will be.
Now the question is if you change the jumpers to copper cable will it be as good as biwiring? Probably so. I believe that the largest problems with cabling is not the cables but the terminations.

[Pat D]

You imply that we do not want larger scale studies to increase reliability, to reduce the likelihood of Type II errors, which is false, and you know it.

The only misrepresentation around here is your mis-characterization of what I have said. When referring to mtrycrafts "absolutist" advice, I did not say or imply that you, mtrycrafts or the Pope don't want better tests. I have never come close to inferring that (although I have raised any number of unanswered questions regarding the test results that are often cited on this board). That was not the subject when I addressed the way in which mtrycrafts give advice. The subject was the advice mtrycrafts gives to newcomers, without any explanation as to how he arrived at his absolutist type advice.

None of this deters you, Phil, for you keep on making the same false allegations.

I am not detered by your constant mis-characterization of what I have said in your effort to set up a stawman with whom you can argue. Why don't you show some guts and go over to AA and take on Curl and Reisch like I do.

mtrycrafts manner is irrelevant to whether interconnects and speaker cables make an audible difference and under what conditions

And of course I never suggested or implied that it does. In your one dimensional world the only subject that can be discussed is DBT's. There are other issues that non-Spock type people are interested in - such as inter-personal communication and attitudes.
"Absolutist advice," again! Whatever does this phrase mean, PC? Do you think just attaching an adjective to a noun establishes the reality of something or other? All I can see is that you would prefer to have us give bad advice and mislead newcomers.

You already have your own answers for your questions, PC, so they are not "unanswered.":rolleyes:

Let's talk about consequences. What happens if a Type I error is made? A true null hypothesis is improperly rejected. Well, it could cost someone a lot of money buying cables, a consequence of some significance.

What if a Type II error is made? A false null hypothesis is not rejected. Well, as your reference, Prof. Leventhal, will tell you, one could conclude the differences missed are very small. So, one would not achieve a tiny audible difference in the sound, a very insignificant consequence. It isn't as though someone is incorrectly sent to jail or the military incorrectly chooses to shoot down a commercial airliner.

[pctower]

"Absolutist advice," again! Whatever does this phrase mean, PC? Do you think just attaching an adjective to a noun establishes the reality of something or other? All I can see is that you would prefer to have us give bad advice and mislead newcomers.

You already have your own answers for your questions, PC, so they are not "unanswered.":rolleyes:

Let's talk about consequences. What happens if a Type I error is made? A true null hypothesis is improperly rejected. Well, it could cost someone a lot of money buying cables, a consequence of some significance.

What if a Type II error is made? A false null hypothesis is not rejected. Well, as your reference, Prof. Leventhal, will tell you, one could conclude the differences missed are very small. So, one would not achieve a tiny audible difference in the sound, a very insignificant consequence. It isn't as though someone is incorrectly sent to jail or the military incorrectly chooses to shoot down a commercial airliner.
I don't need to ask Leventhal about the magnitude of differences. He has already answered that question:

“Regarding old conclusions, published listening studies employing a small number of trials or listeners (small N) typically fail to produce statistical significance at the 0.05 level. Many readers reach the conclusion: "there were no audible differences." My paper suggests a more accurate conclusion: "there were no large audible differences, but judgment should be withheld about small or moderate audible differences because the studies were not sufficiently powerful (sensitive) to find them when they occur." Professor Shanefield and others interested only in large audible differences will find no practical difference between the conclusions. But those interested in small or moderate audible differences will find the conclusions to be different. <?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p>

<o:p></o:p>

Regarding engineering usefulness, even engineers interested only in large audible differences should find the paper useful. First, it discusses statistical assumptions and design considerations for listening studies, Published listening studies often founder on one or both of these requirements. Second, an engineer designing a listening study can use Table 3 to find the minimum N to employ before the risk of overlooking large differences becomes unacceptably large. For example, assume it important to keep type 1 and type 2 error risks small and approximately equal. Table 3 shows that one interested only in large differences (p _> 0.9) can employ merely 10 trials or listeners (N = 10) and require eight correct for significance at the 0.06 level (actual type 1 error risk, that is, exact significance level = 0.0547).]° Here the risk of over- looking an audible difference (type 2 error) when the difference is large is 0.0702. Thus type 1 and type 2 error risks are reasonably small and approximately equal (FC0.0 = 0.0547/0.0702 = 0.78). So Table 3 shows that an equal-error listening study looking only for large differences can employ an N of 10 and that most published studies, because they use N greater than 10, are needlessly long for this purpose. The third way the paper is useful is that an engineer reading a study with nonsignificant results can use Table 3 to find whether N was sufficiently large to uncover large audible differences when they occur. Since most studies employ an N greater than 10, they can uncover large differences and, with Table 3, the engineer will know why.

<o:p>J. Audio Eng. Soc., Vol. 35, No. 7/8, 1987 July/August, page 569</o:p>

[skeptic]

" Anyone who has listened to hundreds or thousands of vinyl and digital recordings on a good system knows beyond any shadow of a doubt that vinyl is far closer to audio truth than digital."

Now who is being absolutist? Anyone who has listened to as may recordings as you claim to have knows that there are excellent and miserable recordings in both media. And anyone who has experimented with making their own cd dubs of vinyl records knows that even in a home setup, you can come extraordinarily close. We had someone post here less than a year ago who did just that. It is unfair to compare vinyl records with a re-releases on cd made 20, 30, even 40 years later by different people using entirely different equipment and expecting an equal or superior product, especially when it is often a low budget project targeted at a nostalgia niche part of the larger market. Your absolutist statements are absurd.

As for vinyl being closer to audio truth than cds, the entire arguement is a joke. For a accurately reproducing the sound of a single instrument such as a guitar, nickelodeon, or drums, Acoustic Research went to extraordinary efforts to produce successful live versus recorded demos in the 60's and 70's under the most contrived conditions. Most other companies which tried it failed miserably. As for commercially produced recordings, at most, small ensembles or soloists can be SUGGESTIVE of live music but as for "TRUTH", it's a real laugh. When you get to bigger groups heard in large venues such as symphony orchestras, choral works and organ recitals heard in cathedrals, operas, neither cds nor vinyl recordings given the current state of the art are even remotely close. Anyone with normal hearing can easily tell the difference between those performances and electronic playback of a recording in a home no matter what the recording or playback technology or equipment used.

[Pat D]

I don't need to ask Leventhal about the magnitude of differences. He has already answered that question:

“Regarding old conclusions, published listening studies employing a small number of trials or listeners (small N) typically fail to produce statistical significance at the 0.05 level. Many readers reach the conclusion: "there were no audible differences." My paper suggests a more accurate conclusion: "there were no large audible differences, but judgment should be withheld about small or moderate audible differences because the studies were not sufficiently powerful (sensitive) to find them when they occur." Professor Shanefield and others interested only in large audible differences will find no practical difference between the conclusions. But those interested in small or moderate audible differences will find the conclusions to be different. ffice:office" /><o ="">:p></o>:p>

<o ="">:p></o>:p>

Regarding engineering usefulness, even engineers interested only in large audible differences should find the paper useful. First, it discusses statistical assumptions and design considerations for listening studies, Published listening studies often founder on one or both of these requirements. Second, an engineer designing a listening study can use Table 3 to find the minimum N to employ before the risk of overlooking large differences becomes unacceptably large. For example, assume it important to keep type 1 and type 2 error risks small and approximately equal. Table 3 shows that one interested only in large differences (p _> 0.9) can employ merely 10 trials or listeners (N = 10) and require eight correct for significance at the 0.06 level (actual type 1 error risk, that is, exact significance level = 0.0547).]° Here the risk of over- looking an audible difference (type 2 error) when the difference is large is 0.0702. Thus type 1 and type 2 error risks are reasonably small and approximately equal (FC0.0 = 0.0547/0.0702 = 0.78). So Table 3 shows that an equal-error listening study looking only for large differences can employ an N of 10 and that most published studies, because they use N greater than 10, are needlessly long for this purpose. The third way the paper is useful is that an engineer reading a study with nonsignificant results can use Table 3 to find whether N was sufficiently large to uncover large audible differences when they occur. Since most studies employ an N greater than 10, they can uncover large differences and, with Table 3, the engineer will know why.

<o ="">:p>J. Audio Eng. Soc., Vol. 35, No. 7/8, 1987 July/August, page 569</o>:p>
What constitutes large, medium, and small? No quantification, so essentially a meaningless distinction.

You simply avoid the question of the consequences of errors, either Type I or Type II? What are they? Why worry about the Type II errors? What significant happens if there is a Type II error? Don't expect Leventhal to answer because that is not a mathematical question, which is why I mentioned sending people to jail, shooting down commercial airplanes, costing lives, things which don't happen in audio. You have simply been picking at nits.

[pctower]

What constitutes large, medium, and small? No quantification, so essentially a meaningless distinction.

You simply avoid the question of the consequences of errors, either Type I or Type II? What are they? Why worry about the Type II errors? What significant happens if there is a Type II error? Don't expect Leventhal to answer because that is not a mathematical question, which is why I mentioned sending people to jail, shooting down commercial airplanes, costing lives, things which don't happen in audio. You have simply been picking at nits.
Pat:

I just returned from spending 4 days on a houseboat on Lake Powell. If I ever saw any value in attempting to carry on a dialog with you, my perception of that value left me within the first day on the lake.

[mtrycraft]

Pat:

I just returned from spending 4 days on a houseboat on Lake Powell..


You mean there is still water left in the lake to enjoy? Or to cry over its past glory.

[pctower]

You mean there is still water left in the lake to enjoy? Or to cry over its past glory.
Down 50% and some say if the drought continues two more years without major snowfall in Utah and the western slope of the Rockies in Colorado the lake will be unusable for recreation.

In addition, the Sierra club remains as determined as ever to get the lake drained and blow up Glen Canyon Dam. A lot of very expensive houseboats, including the one my friend owns and on which I was staying, may become totally worthless.

I've been on the lake when it was full. At 50% it still is awesome.

[mtrycraft]

Down 50% and some say if the drought continues two more years without major snowfall in Utah and the western slope of the Rockies in Colorado the lake will be unusable for recreation.

In addition, the Sierra club remains as determined as ever to get the lake drained and blow up Glen Canyon Dam. A lot of very expensive houseboats, including the one my friend owns and on which I was staying, may become totally worthless.

I've been on the lake when it was full. At 50% it still is awesome.


Thanks. I see news reports from time to time. Not good. Not sure why Sierra is trying to do that. They probably would have nothing flowing down river in drought years and kill all the fish.

[Resident Loser]

...for some info re: Lake Powell and Glen Canyon:

http://www.backpacker.com/article/1,2646,6905__1_6,00.html

Like everything else in the world, I'm sure these folks have a certain bias but, like audio everyone has their own POV...

jimHJJ(...and PCT, please don't shoot the messenger...strictly FYI from a disinterested third party...)

[pctower]

...for some info re: Lake Powell and Glen Canyon:

http://www.backpacker.com/article/1,2646,6905__1_6,00.html

Like everything else in the world, I'm sure these folks have a certain bias but, like audio everyone has their own POV...

jimHJJ(...and PCT, please don't shoot the messenger...strictly FYI from a disinterested third party...)
Thanks for the article. As an Arizona native, who well remembers when Glen Canyon Dam was built, I'm pretty well aware of the history and issues.

I understand the environmentalist's concerns. However, the massive explosion of population in the Southwest was inevitable and political decisions over water have largely been dictated by that inevitability.

The fights over Glen Canyon are but one chapter in a long history of Southwestern water disputes. The longest oral argument the U.S. Supreme Court ever heard was in the lawsuit between California and Arizona which affirmed Arizona's priority over critical portions of Colorado River water and laid the foundation for the billion dollar Central Arizona Project which pumps massive amounts of water from the river into Phoenix and other parts of the state.

Phoenix is now the fifth largest city in the country and projected to eventually climb to number 3. Water from the federal reclamation projects stemming from Teddy Roosevelt days and the massive Central Arizona Project (which was the crowning achievement of Carl Hayden's life of service as a United States Senator) have provided a secure water source that has and will continue to feed that growth - provided, that is, the current drought does not last as long as some now predict.

I seriously doubt that the environmental conerns over Glen Canyon will prevail over the voracious appetite for water that feeds this continual growth. Of course, nothing is simple and there probably are legitimate questions as to how necessary the dam and lake really are.

I'm not trying to defend Glen Canyon Dam and Lake Powell - merely trying to put the matter into some prospective that is not necessarily reflected in that particular article.

Nature may end up having her own way and put an end to both the lake and the massive population influx that has become a defining characteristic of Arizona and the Southwest. However, for the time being at least, the lake is a reality; and even though it is now a shadow of what it was five years ago, it is still one of the most magnificient sights I have ever seen.

[Resident Loser]

...of the history...didn't think mtry was...I had recently read that article in the mag I purchase once in a while and thought I'd point to the site...

What I find in many of these cases is that we(the collective) tend to screw up things by going where we shouldn't be...whether it's building a house adjacent to a forest and then losing the place to a forest fire or complaining about the wildlife that was there well before we settled in or moving into a sub-division on farmland and then compaining about the smell of manure when the wind is just right...that sorta' thing...and then, of course there's the growth in Florida and the Everglades...Army Corps of Engineers did what they did and now they're lookin' for ways to undo it because the eco-structure is in trouble...

jimHJJ(...funny old world...perhaps nature will have it's way after all...)

[mtrycraft]

...of the history...didn't think mtry was...I had recently read that article in the mag I purchase once in a while and thought I'd point to the site...

What I find in many of these cases is that we(the collective) tend to screw up things by going where we shouldn't be...whether it's building a house adjacent to a forest and then losing the place to a forest fire or complaining about the wildlife that was there well before we settled in or moving into a sub-division on farmland and then compaining about the smell of manure when the wind is just right...that sorta' thing...and then, of course there's the growth in Florida and the Everglades...Army Corps of Engineers did what they did and now they're lookin' for ways to undo it because the eco-structure is in trouble...

jimHJJ(...funny old world...perhaps nature will have it's way after all...)

No I wasn't, thanks:) Big country. 40 years is a long time ago:)
Man changes the landscape as does nature. Who is right? The planet is becoming a desert more and more every year as I am just reading this. Just wait when over population and hungry masses get angry, really angry.

[Audio Angel]

If you are really interesting in audible results from Bi-Wiring or Tri-Wiring the secret is to remove the crossover from the inside of the speaker and place it very near your amplifier output terminals. Run a short wire from the amplifier output to the crossover input. Run seperate and seperated wires from the crossover outputs to each speaker element.

No matter how many wire runs you may make, running seperate wires from the amplifer to a distant crossover produces questionable improvements because the filtering action is after the wire runs.

Try this simple test. Take two straight pins and connect wires from each pin to the (+) and (-) terminals of one of your speakers. Connect the other speaker using the standard bi-wire hookup. Poke the pins through the insulation of each of the wire runs going to the LF and HF elements of the speaker. You will hear the same signal coming down either wire run. It does not matter which speaker element wire you may listen to, as the filter components are at the speaker end of the wire. The above empirical test should dispell the back EMF theory as you can hear a full-range signal anywhere along the wire run to either speaker element. The back EMF signal has all that cable with which to interact. Some chocking of the EMF signal will occur -- the more resistance (smaller the wire) the more chocking due to the higher resistance, or in AC terms reactance. If you are using a heavy guage wire, the back EMF from the LF element just travels back to the amplifier where it reacts with the output stage and then back to the HF element along a long wire run before the crossover filter. This is why a high damping factor is important. A high damping factor does just that, it dampens the back EMF. Most transistor amplifier output stages have very high damping factors.

Doing the same pin poking test with the crossover near the amplifier with seperate wire runs to each of the speaker elements will produce quite different results since this places the filter components and filter action at the proper end of the wire run. Now poking the pins along any pair of wires will produce bass for the LF element, mid-range for the MF element and treble for the HF element. The back EMF phenomena is now isolated back to the crossover. Any EMF produced as the woofer recovers is now filtered from the mid-range and/or tweeter before it can interact in a long wire run.

Keep the connection length between the amplifier and the speaker's crossover as short as possible because you want the amplifier to "see" the crossover and the action of its filtering components with as little added wire resistance, inductance, and capacitance as possible. After the full-range signal is split into the approprate ranges for each of the speaker elements, the interaction of each speaker element will not find its way back to the amplifier as readily by way of seperate wire runs connected to a common point (the amplifier output terminals).

Try to keep each speaker element wire run seperated from the other wire runs by a few inches or so. If the wires become close enough to each other they will couple though their respective magnetic fields and defeat the purpose of Bi- or Tri-Wiring. Don't bind the speaker wires together. In this case, neat appearance is not approprate for good sound. Remember, preamps produce voltage gain, whereas power amplifiers produce current gains. It is the current factor in the signal that generates magnetic fields in the speaker wire. Given a long run with the wires parallel for several feet, a fraction of one signal will couple to the other wire. Best to just let them hang/lie loose and sort of go along in a random path. Don't get too hung up on this, but just don't tie all your speaker cables together.

If you are fusing any of the speaker elements, the fuse should be placed as physically close to the speaker as possible. The speaker fuse should not be at the amplifier terminals, it should be at the speaker terminals -- and it should be placed in the (+) positive side of the cable. This means a seperate fuse for each speaker element. I find that a powerful amplifier, capable of destroying the speaker, will control the speaker much better than an amplifier whos power rating is equal to the maximum the speaker will take. Use an over-powered amplifier and fuse the speaker to protect it from accidental burn-out. Think of it in these terms. If someone were to grab you and shake you who would be able to exibit more control over your body, someone of your weight or someone twice your weight? You see the more powerful amplifier will make the speaker cone go where the signal says, hence more dynamic and accurate reproduction, less back EMF distortion, much improved transient response and operation in a more linear part of the amplifier specification.

Place the crossover near the amplifier, seperate the wire runs, use a big amp and fuse the speaker at the speaker. The resulting realism is well-worth the occasional blown fuse and trouble of moving the crossover.

[RobotCzar]

"If you are really interesting in audible results from Bi-Wiring or Tri-Wiring the secret is to remove the crossover from the inside of the speaker and place it very near your amplifier output terminals. Run a short wire from the amplifier output to the crossover input. Run seperate and seperated wires from the crossover outputs to each speaker element."

Let me just say that it is just this kind of technobabble that is so damaging to audio reality. Let me say that Audio Angel's advice makes no sense to me, and I strongly recommend anyone intersted seek advice from a electrical engineer, or better yet a physical scientist with an advanced degree.

Bi-wiring has no theoretical audio or electircal benefits. The electrical effect is identical to adding more wire to your system (gee, maybe because you ARE adding more wire to your system).

From a psychological or electrical standpoint, one would be quite foolish to simply biwire and listen to the result. You may end up hearing simple differences in volume and assuming there is a "quality improvement"-- that error is the source of, I guess, around 99% of all highend tweako "improvements" in their super-"resolution" systems. Second, your mind is very prone to hear what it wants to hear or expects to hear--this perceptual bias is extremely well established and cannot be ignored.

When the above factors are controlled in tests, no high-end golden ear has been able to demonstrate he can hear most of the "huge improvements" they often claim for all kinds of things from green marker to biwiring. The skinny is that there is zero evidence for audible improvements (or even quality differences) in biwired systems. A lot of people claiming otherwise or writing lengthy technobabble does not constitute evidence.

[theaudiohobby]

RobotCzar,

Did you try Audio Angel suggestion before you sent in your reply, there are theoretical differences between a biwired speaker and a non-biwired speaker. Secondly, something I notice that most of the guys that are against biwiring and other tweaks overlook is that most of their arguments really only hold for a perfect theoretical implementations i.e. that the physical realisation perfectly follows the theory and that my friend is a pipe dream, which is why we always have technological advances. Science is a journey of discovery and even in audio, perfection and science are still mutually exclusive terms.

[Resident Loser]

RobotCzar,

Did you try Audio Angel suggestion before you sent in your reply, there are theoretical differences between a biwired speaker and a non-biwired speaker. Secondly, something I notice that most of the guys that are against biwiring and other tweaks overlook is that most of their arguments really only hold for a perfect theoretical implementations i.e. that the physical realisation perfectly follows the theory and that my friend is a pipe dream, which is why we always have technological advances. Science is a journey of discovery and even in audio, perfection and science are still mutually exclusive terms.

...thus spake the gods...

That suggestion makes no sense whatsoever unless after you remove the Xovers you then bi-amp or tri-amp properly with electronic crossovers BEFORE final amplification...all the suggested scheme will accomplish is to load the circuit with resistance and capacitance...will it sound different?...maybe, but that's really all it will accomplish...and difference is just that. Improvement?...well, that's just an opinion and YMMV...

jimHJJ(...yoiks...)

[theaudiohobby]

...thus spake the gods...

That suggestion makes no sense whatsoever unless after you remove the Xovers you then bi-amp or tri-amp properly with electronic crossovers BEFORE final amplification

Closedmindedness speaks in many ways and many closed minds have been scientists and engineers who cannot think outside the box...so you doubt that a designer can optimise crossover circuits for biwiring purposes, or to put it more pointedly you think that there are no differences between two crossover circuits in series with each other and two crossover circuits in series with the amplifier but in parallel with each other.

[FLZapped]

If you are really interesting in audible results from Bi-Wiring or Tri-Wiring the secret is to remove the crossover from the inside of the speaker and place it very near your amplifier output terminals.

Why?

If anything, all you're doing is raising the apparent impedance the crossover sees to the speaker slightly, while conversly lowering the crossover impedance presented to the amplifier slightly. However, the total load remains the same.

I would defy you to show where any difference caused by sliding the crossover network around in the circuit would even be theoretically audible.

-Bruce

[Audio Angel]

Thank you all for your lively return comments. I will try to dispel your doubts.

First of all the improvement for this crossover approach to Bi- or Tri-Wiring is audible and not just one of those improvements you have to strain to hear or think you hear because you spent a ton of money and time making the so-called improvement. You hear a difference and to us experienced listeners (I count everyone posting here) the difference is definitely an improvement in the things we value in our reproduction systems, clarity, dynamic impression, openness, reduced fatigue, etc.

When I first started using this technique, I ran listening tests by converting one of the two stereo speakers while leaving the other unchanged. A third party placed both speakers close together through a sheet over them both and feed them a mono signal. Only the third party knew which how each speaker was connected. Acoustic levels were matched using an SPL meter. Switching (or having someone else switch) between one or the other speaker gave sonic evidence to even the most inexperienced listener that something had changed in one speaker for the better. I've tried this on several different speaker models of different manufactures and always hear an audible result for the better. I can't say the same for similar trials with convention Bi-Wiring.

I will be the first to agree that Bi-Amplification is superior to Uni-Amplification. But this technique is about Bi-Wiring or Tri-Wiring; that is, using one amplifier driving a multi-element speaker system. We assume the amplifier to speaker connection requires 10 to 15 feet of cable. We further assume the cable is common copper cable with parallel conductors; nothing esoteric.

In order to understand that the benefits cited are not just technobabble let us first consider what the amplifier "sees" when connected to a loudspeaker. Most loudspeakers are coil and cone types, that is, linear motors. As such, the load on the amplifier is not just resistive but reactive and further varies with frequency. As the voice coil is driven it also returns to the starting point. The return motion of the coil through the magnetic field of the magnet gap produces back EMF into the amplifier. This should be taken into consideration when analyzing the effects of cable resistance, inductance and capacitance on the amplifier. The load may mathematically seem to be the same wherever the crossover is placed, but the reactance is not. At a given frequency the impedence load will be the same, but the load does not take into consideration the reaction of the speaker coil over (recovery) time, i.e., reactance. The effect of the connecting cable should not be viewed with respect to the speaker as much as with respect to the amplifier.

The differences in the impedance of any speaker in a multi-speaker system will run between 6 to 25 ohms in the audible range. The connecting cable (~1 ohm) and the output impedance of the amplifier (.01 ohm) is larger if the crossover is placed at the far end of the connecting cable. This makes the amplifier more dependent on the cable characteristics of capacitance and resistance. That is why hearing any improved performance with convention Bi-Wiring is so questionable. All you are doing in effect is using a heaver gauge wire, as someone correctly pointed out.

Moving the crossover close to the amplifier causes the amplifier to react less with the connecting cable because the final filtering does not reflect the speaker's inductive reactance back to the amplifier through coupling in the connecting cable.

The concept of Bi-Wiring is to give separate pathways for the various bandwidths provided to each driver of a multi-element speaker system by the crossover network. Separate cable runs from a common amplifier output to each filter section's input does not meet this goal. The virtues of the Bi-Wire scheme are only realized in concept if the multiple and separate pathways to each speaker element are after the filtering action of the crossover network. Only in this way will each speaker driver's reactance remain separated from other driver's reactance with respect to the commingling of back EMF forces in the multiple connection cable.

With the crossover at the far end of the speaker connecting cable, no matter how many multiple pathways the cable(s) may take, it is the interaction of the cable with the one amplifier and the crossover that is in play. Because of the common amplifier connection, back EMG and cable characteristics will remain un-separated.

With the crossover at the near end of the speaker connecting cable, it is the multiple bandwidth-restricted pathways that interact with the crossover and speaker. The effect of the connecting cable on the amplifier is minimal because the output stage is looking directly into the crossover filters, not down a connecting cable with additional resistance, inductance and capacitance characteristics.

Actually, if you think about it, the crossover network is not -- NOT -- part of the speaker; it is the final circuit topology of the amplifier. We tend to think of it as being a function of the speaker, but only because differences in speaker design require the manufacturer to place the final filters in the speaker box. Filters (passive or active) should really be on the amplifier chassis as close to the amplifier stage they are filtering as possible. If you are going to split up the amplifier components, it makes as much sense to put the last amplifier stage in the speaker box too! Why stop at the filters? Or how about using Bi-Amplification and placing all the active crossover elements in the speaker box with cables running back and forth between the box and amplifiers. It makes no sense, electrically. The filters are a component of the output circuit, not a speaker part.

Bi-Amplification is supposed to help the performance of the speaker, but it really is a help to the amplifier if you place the final filter components before the connecting cables. This is because a loudspeaker is a reactive device. The reactance reaching the final amplifier stage is more defined by the connecting cable if the cable is before the final filter configuration than if it is after filtering. The consequence of moving the crossover closer to the amplifier is better amplifier performance -- and that reflects into the performance of the speaker -- but, it is the amplifier that is really receiving the benefit.

Other considerations for moving the crossover from the speaker box to the amplifier include eliminating the microphonic effect of the high acoustic (physical vibration) levels within a speaker enclosure on the capacitors. As you may know, capacitor noise is the primary cause of blurring when they are inserted into a circuit. Vibrations can cause microscopic holes to develop in metallized polypropylene capacitors. Even if self-healing, noise is produced. A good reason why foil and polypropylene capacitors sound cleaner than the metallized types. You may think this is the real technobabble, but when you get into high-resolution systems this sort of thing becomes audible.

Likewise, but more in theory, the influence of the magnetic fields within a speaker enclosure will interact with the inductive elements of the crossover. Since the magnetic fields fluctuate, this interferes with the coil characteristics and ultimately interferes with the correct operation of the crossover.

I too used to be one of the unbelievers in Bi-Wire benefits. I had trouble hearing any difference and could not technically explain why there should be any change. It seemed a marketing ploy more than anything. It wasn't until I tried moving the crossover that I heard any improvement to the fidelity. Further study made me realized there was more going on than I had previously understood (like most things in life) so that now I know if I move the crossover; I can expect a margin of improvement. Not an AM to FM improvement, nothing that vast, rather a slight advance -- one more notch up the ladder to better reproduction.

I'm not here to debate the issue. I am here to share my findings with you. I am not a casual listener but rather a dedicated one capable of discerning sonic value. I know what my experience has told me. All I can say is that if you are going to buy into this Bi-Wire thing, try it this way. The cost is about the same, but the results are, at least in my opinion, audible and welcome.

[pjaizz]

I'm relatively new to picking out cables and i'm only familiar with Monster Cable. I'm plannign to get a decent pair of B&W speakers that have bi-wiring capabilities. What are the benefits of biwiring and is it worth it?

Also, I have Monster Cable M1.2 speaker cable, and was pleased with it, but I was wondering if there's anything that is a little better that will be cheaper, or something at a similiar or slightly lower price, that is significantly better. The Monster Cable M1.2 is placed at $150 for 10 ft. pair of speakers.

Thanks!

Wow, so much baloney and cheese here...

I have the same Monster M series speaker cable you have and I found their less expensive Z-1 cable sounded better in my system. Don't be afraid to try some different cables in your system and see how they work for you.

I have Maggies that are made for bi-wiring and it most certainly makes a difference in my system. I know a lot of folks here wish zip cords and stock interconnects sounded great, but in my experience that is not the case, especially as your equipment improves. There are a few companies that let you try cables in your home for a reasonable period. Try them out and make your own choices...

[musicoverall]

I know a lot of folks here wish zip cords and stock interconnects sounded great, ..

I'm one of those wishful thinkers! I could have saved some money! But I found their colorations to be significant enough to warrant better cables. But I spent less than a grand on 8 ft of speaker wire and 3 sets if 1 meter interconnects so I don't feel I went overboard. The wire I ended up with made a subtle but noticeable improvement and worked the best of all the varieties I tried.

[Lee Keith]

Let's watch the language there, Woodman. Yours is out of line.

[musicoverall]

Let's watch the language there, Woodman. Yours is out of line.

What language? I don't see a post by Woodman.

[Geoffcin]

Let's watch the language there, Woodman. Yours is out of line.

Please send offending comments to the moderator.

[hermanv]

Guys, it's a forum not a shooting gallery.

A couple of points:
1. Back EMF is significant with woofers, almost non-existent with midrange and non-existent with tweeters. Why? Because the cones move less as the frequencies go up. (because at higher frequencies the cone diameter becomes a significant percentage of the acoustic wavelength, this is never true for woofers) Woofers easily displace a 1/4 inch or more mids just vibrate a little and tweeters appear not to move not at all. So back EMF as a percentage of the signal applied to the driver becomes less and less as frequency goes up. This doesn't have anything to do with the proposition that bi-wiring sounds better before or after the crossover it just implies that back EMF has little to do with the reason.

2. As an analog electrical engineer I assure you that the resistance, capacitance and inductance of speaker cables has very little effect on the sound, because the math just doesn't support an audible change ( I've seen calculations of a "bad" 8 ft. cable acheive a 0.5dB error - wow, if only any of our speakers were that good). Even relatively small gauge wires will tend to effect all frequencies by a similar amount possibly lowering the volume a couple of tenths of a dB. Yet, I spent good money on my cables, why? Because they sound better.

3. Good speaker cables sound better in my system than bad ones. I have tried large gauge wire (10 AWG), it doesn't come close to quality cables. If anyone knows why, they are not telling. The engineers I know, dismiss cable sound as an imaginary phenomina - I disagree. On my first quality system it made next to no difference, I continued to upgrade, as the price of the electronics went up the cables became more and more important. Remember I am an engineer and was strongly biased against the whole idea.

4. Bi-wiring is supposed to keep very high woofer currents from modulationg the mid/tweet signals. I have heard systems where there was no noticible effect and I have heard systems where there was a clearly audible effect. In one case, someone came in from another room and asked "What did you do to the sound? It's much clearer now." Why not try it instead of spending all this energy dismissing the other's point of view? If it does nothing in your system pat yourself on the back for all the money you saved. If it helps congratulate yourself on acheiving better sound. Who looses in this propsition?

Lighten up, its a hobby.

[slbenz]

I'm relatively new to picking out cables and i'm only familiar with Monster Cable. I'm plannign to get a decent pair of B&W speakers that have bi-wiring capabilities. What are the benefits of biwiring and is it worth it?

Also, I have Monster Cable M1.2 speaker cable, and was pleased with it, but I was wondering if there's anything that is a little better that will be cheaper, or something at a similiar or slightly lower price, that is significantly better. The Monster Cable M1.2 is placed at $150 for 10 ft. pair of speakers.

Thanks!

Stevos2005,

I tried biwiring on both my B&W CDM7SEs and Magnepan 0.5 speakers, neither seem to give me any additional benefit over a single run of high quality 10AWG speaker wire. I was using MIT Terminator 4 biwire speaker wire to compare. You may be better off using a small amount of speaker cable to replace the jumper plate on the B&W. That seemed to smooth out the highs and increase the air around instruments better than biwiring did. Much less expensive to do as well.

[Audio Angel]

Thank you HERMANV for your return comments. I will add these to the discussion. . .

The back EMF developed and delivered in reverse direction back to the amplifier is indeed greater from the woofer due to its large excursions, but then so is the signal coming from the amplifier greater too. The back EMF developed from each driver element of a 2-way or 3-way system is proportional to the signal coming from the amplifier. Thus, each element is affected, in proportion, by the back EMF it develops. More signal going to the woofer -- more back EMF in return. Less return for the squeaker and tweeter units, but still back EMF in proportion to the signal, and thus able to affect the fidelity each unit reproduces. Just because it measures greater in the woofer than in the tweeter does not mean the back EMF is only a culprit in the woofer. The subtleties of high-frequency reproduction by the tweeter are just a susceptible to the back EMF it generates -- each in proportion to the strength of the input to each driver element.

However, the argument for bi-wiring is not about individual back EMF, but about how the back EMF from the low-frequency elements can impose its back EMF waveform onto the signal going to the mid- or high-frequency elements, modulate (by brute force) the input signal to these more delicate units and cause distortion to the reproduction. What I am saying, and what my listening experience reveals is that (say, in a 2-way system) the back EMF from the woofer will "imprint" on the tweeter signal by way of the cable run even if two cables are used before the filtering action of the crossover network. It seems quite obvious because if you interrogate the signal at any point in a conventional bi-wire system (by sticking pins in the wire, connect a speaker and listening) you hear both the woofer signal and the tweeter signal. Therefore, in this bi-wiring scheme the back EMF from the woofer will "imprint" on the signal going to the tweeter because it is done before the filter.

Move the filter close to the amplifier, make the cable runs after the filtering action of the crossover, and keep the back EMF from the woofer out of the cable to the tweeter. Thereafter, no modulation ("imprinting") of the tweeter signal by the back EMF of the woofer will be experienced. If you again conduct the same listening tests using pins in each cable run, obviously you will hear only the LF signal in one cable and the HF signal in the other cable -- the two do not mix and the full potential of the bi-wiring principle is reached.

((By the way, an example of the transfer of signals into cables is evident in RFI induction at low line levels, which of course will also cause distortion in reproduction. The "imprinting" of one signal upon another is only evident in sound reproduction systems in the large current flow section of the system -- the speaker wire.))

My suggestion here is to say that in and of itself, conventional bi-wiring of a speaker only adds more copper to the cable run. It does not live up to the theory of its principle-of-operation, which is to separate and keep the low frequencies from influencing the high frequencies in the cable run. That idea only comes into play if you move the crossover network close to the source amplifier and make the long speaker cable runs after the network. Only then does bi-wiring make sense and sound any better . . . in my experience.

The reason so-called "good" speaker cables sound better than heavy gauge copper cables is that the designers of such cables attempt to separate, to some degree, the influence the low frequencies have on the high frequencies as they travel down the wire run. Various schemes are employed and seem to work at reducing the phenomena of "imprinting" and offer "cleaner" sound. However, if you move the crossover network close to the source amplifier, then run the cables to the speakers, you can do what these expensive cables attempt to do to a much higher degree. It's cheaper too. Try it -- you may be pleasantly surprised. ~~ Above all else, enjoy the music.

[burninauthor]

I agree with Angel's comments here in theory what he states about the EMF make spletny of sence to me (a beginnner). naive? maybe but in my mind separation of frequencys high's and lowsjust makes sence. Question though will a beginner be able to pull out this crossover and reconnect it on the other end?

[Billiam]

You originally asked about bi-wiring speakers. The crossovers in speakers are designed such that two input sources are needed. That is why four posts are placed on the back of the speaker instead of two. Most speaker manufacturers will add a brass bar from the usual imput posts to the second set of posts (to provide that second input). Now, is brass as good a conductor as copper. No. Could you hear the difference if you removed that brass bar and put in it's place speaker wire from Home Depot? Perhaps. I have bi-wire speakers and I tried it both ways, with the bar and with speaker cable. I could not hear any difference. This is not to say that you won't. This is up to you to decide. If you decide it is worth spending some money on speaker cables, I would suggest something other than Monster. Perhaps Vampire, XLO, or some others. :)