bi-wiring

[pctower]

Actually, I find most people, including my lawyer friends, enjoy a good lawyer joke. Where do you think I getthem all? I see no reason to stop making them. After all, had you not been so insistent on letting all of us know you were a lawyer when you first came here, I doubt it would be an issue. After all, you’re the one making “broad generalizations” that anyone here, myself included, who dares disagree with you is "spewing dogma".

So, are you saying that you are neither? Funny, I thought I was the first “maysayer” on this board. Now you are claiming such status? That’s not what your posts would indicate. As for the past few years, I believe you know full well exactly where I stand on these matters. The fact that you know this simply redoubles my responses to you.

So, are you saying my posts “espouse dogma”? Is that what you call posters that don’t share your beliefs? I don’t see where my initial post in this thread “espoused dogma” any more than yours did. Mine was simply the flip side of the coin.

The fact that you are happy with your choices pleases me. Moreso, the fact that you realize that sighted testing is unreliable puzzles me, though. Whenever someone else mentions this, you jump on them with a curt post. Are they “espousing dogma”?

Now I’m really confused here. You truly sound like those you attack . You acknowledge that attitudes, beliefs and expectations can “color” the results, thereby opening the door to false results. Again, you attack others who put forth this postulation. We do have at our disposal the means to see thru these false results, don’t you? That’s right....

Almost correct. This may be where the problem arises. The placebo effect is just as much an established fact in audio as it is anywhere else. Why would you think audio experts are immune from this? They do. Remember that Dunleavy, 12 gauge and the audiophiles trick?

Now it’s the chicken or the egg thing. This can be an emotional hobby. Looking at that Dunleavy trick with the 12 gauge and the audiophiles shoes exactly how easy it is to talk someone into hearing what they are told to hear, not what they actually hear.

But, You’re right. The believers would swear they hear what they think they hear regardless of whatever scientific proof was against them. Many religions got started this way. As far as the naysayers go, well, when proof comes forth that there are significant sonic differences in cables perhaps then this issue can be revisited. I myself would be interested in seeing (hearing) what they have to offer. …and it will only take a good faith SBT on my side for me to admit I was wrong. And, yes, I am wrong on occasion. Not too often, but it has happened.

After all, I’ve heard improvements in virtually all other areas of audio over my 40+ years in this hobby. I'm still waiting for a similar leap in technology in cables.

I think “naysayers” would, like me, be open to the idea of improving their sound systems if good, solid evidence would manifest itself. As it now stands it’s technobabble, lots of “may result”, “could possibly” and other highly qualified statements, mostly put forth by cable manufacturers and gurus.

I have no problems with cottage industries. I simply want a good reason to give up my hard earned cash to them. I’ve heard/read of more than one company who simply bought bulk cable and made cosmetic changes to it and marked it up an ungodly percentage. The names escape me but I’m sure you’ve read about them as well.

Ass faras cottage industries I see quite a few small amp and speaker manufacturers out there making their contribution. More power to them. Their worth is readily apparant upon listening to their products. Too bad the price disparity between the least expensive andthe most expensive cables is such that it inspires tremendous skepticism. ...as well it should.

Me either. It’s not a life and death situation.

Phil, here’s where the problem arises. You attack all here who fall on the “objectivist” side of the tracks at one time or another. I can’t recall you ever attacking a subjectivist. Now I wonder who’s zooming who here, to quote an old friend.

I’ll not argue the Carl Sagan quotes. Both sides could learn from him. A great man who will be sorely missed. And, he was grew up in the town next to me. For the sake of berivity I’ll not repost them here.

You might find this link interesting. Or maybe not. It might not be exactly what you want but it’s pretty durn close.

http://www.audioholics.com/techtips/...bleFaceoff.htm

Interesting results, eh?

There’s the rub. Even by your own admission above, attitudes, beliefs and expectations play a major part in the preception of sound and these, my friend, all come into play after the eardrum. And yet you choose to conveniently ignore this when it suits you.

And by denying yourself the enlightening experience of even a single blind test for cables with one friend, you’ve chosen to ignore the possibility of proving or disproving either case. I guess ignorance is bliss. It saves having to face ones own demons. And yet you still claim to be sitting on the fence? When I see you treating subjectivests wit hequal vigor, perhaps then I'll change my attitude.

Well Phil, your instant attack of my initial post here trying to hang me with DBT stuff is a pretty good indicator that your preceeding paragraph is total BS.

Where did I ever mention anything about DBT's? And yet you rail about naysayers making "broad generalizations" and "spouting dogma"? And now you cry about my taking a cheap shot with lawyer jokes? You're pretty good at throwing the first punch and then crying when it's returned. It's pretty easy to see where you're coming from.

As far as “the technical side”, it ain't all that difficult. All you ever needed to do is have a friend assist you in a simple single blind test. This was discussed several years ago and yet, nothing happened.

Aside from your actions on this forum and this fine piece of trying to weasel out of them, you’ve just lived up to my expectations. Your actions in this forum fail to meet your grandiose words in this post. You’re just grandstanding for the jury here.

Actions speak louder than words.

I have neither the time nor interest to deal with all your strawdogs. I’ll simply make a few comments.

I didn’t ask you to stop telling lawyer jokes. If you want to sound boorish or have a great need to demonstrate to the world you know how to buy books on amazon.com, be my guest.

I don’t attack the concept of DBTs. I attack people who cite test results that are based on faulty protocol and statistical analysis, and don the mantle of “science” in the process. Personally, I find that an abomination of true science.

I also attack the absolutist, unqualified advice (which is almost always couched as an implied unqualified claim that all cables of similar gauge and length sound the same) that is given newcomers here. My position and reason for my attacks on that have been well documented..

I don’t bother attacking subjectivists here. You and the rest of the grossly one-sided gang here do a great job of that. I do the attacking where it’s needed and where I don’t have the comfort of simply preaching to the choir. Just check out my posts at Prophead. I don’t need to cower behind the shield of anonymity nor do I need the protection of the wolfpack.

The fact that you think that any valid conclusions could be drawn from an amateurish single-blind (or double blind) test simply demonstrates how little you really know about the subject. Participation in such a test is nothing more than an opportunity to make the mistake of reaching a conclusion based on an anecdotal experience.

The reliability of DBT audio tests and the proper protocol and statistical analysis to be applied is an extremely complicated subject that has received almost no scholarly attention from anyone (beyond Dr. Toole’s work with speakers). Yet people like you perpetuate the myth that there have been a number of meaningful or properly conducted tests done on such things as cables.

Just because you claim to believe in science and the scientific method doesn’t mean, as you seem to believe, that you have applied it properly or that you are relying on the work of others who have and are therefore immune from criticism for the conclusions that you have drawn. This is a very simple fact that you and some others on this board simply are incapable of grasping. Just because I attack your specific flawed use of science doesn’t mean I’m anti-science. To the contrary, I’m the one who is insisting on strict adherence to the fundamental principles of the scientific method.

The tired old stories of people being fooled into believing they heard differences that really didn’t exist has been dissected from so many different angles, anyone would be a fool to draw any general conclusions from those stories.

As for actions, I'll stand by mine any day of the week. That's why I make a point of identifying who I am. I have little respect for cowards such as you who talk big, but refuse to asume personal responsibility for a single word you disseminate via the internet.

Oh yeah, one more thing. Your comment about my attacking all of the objectivists here at one time or another. When it comes to a true "objectivist" there is not a single person on this board, including you, that could hold a candle to Steve Eddy. He is scrupulous in his intelectual honesty. Not only have I never attacked him, Risch and his gang of thugs have often accused me of simply being his lapdog. When it comes to someone like Steve, whose powerful intellect, knowledge, experience, consistency, desire to seek the truth wherever that search may lead, and (above all in my book) scrupulous intellecual honesty, I would consider it an honor to be labeled as his lapdog. Not only do I have enormous respect for him, it is people like him who genuinely make me feel humble and insignificant.

Since you apparently have the need to substitute labels for thought (an affliction you seem to share with Jon Risch), perhaps "lapdog for Steve" is a label you would consider trying to pin on me.

[markw]

I have neither the time nor interest to deal with all your strawdogs. I’ll simply make a few comments.

What straw dogs? Oh, now I see… When you argue as subject other than that which was brought up, it’s all well and good. When someone confronts you with on this, suddenly it’s a “straw dog”. Great debating tactic, Phil. Ain’t workin’ here, though. When confronted with facts, act haughty and try to claim the high road… but only after dumping over everyone else.

I didn’t ask you to stop telling lawyer jokes. If you want to sound boorish or have a great need to demonstrate to the world you know how to buy books on amazon.com, be my guest. .

Thanks, I gots a million of them. As I can see from our dealings here, some are based on true facts.

I don’t attack the concept of DBTs. I attack people who cite test results that are based on faulty protocol and statistical analysis, and don the mantle of “science” in the process. Personally, I find that an abomination of true science.

Bull. You use DBT as much, or even more, that those you claim fall back on it. Look at post 4 in this thread. Who brought up DBT? Certainly not me.

But, I notice that subjectivists those who arrive at their conclusions without any testing whatsoever fall beneath your radar.

BTW, Phil, what did you make of that post at Audioholics. One would think a thank you would be in order here. Or did it not meet your needs?

I also attack the absolutist, unqualified advice (which is almost always couched as an implied unqualified claim that all cables of similar gauge and length sound the same) that is given newcomers here. My position and reason for my attacks on that have been well documented.

.

Yet you, yourself have no problem issuing it yourself. Look at the first paragraph in your initial post in this thread. Talk about the patented Pctower pre-emptive strike! Again, see the last sentence in above paragraph, wher esubjectivists seem immune from your attacks.

I don’t bother attacking subjectivists here. You and the rest of the grossly one-sided gang here do a great job of that. I do the attacking where it’s needed and where I don’t have the comfort of simply preaching to the choir. Just check out my posts at Prophead. I don’t need to cower behind the shield of anonymity nor do I need the protection of the wolfpack.

I don’t see myself as part of a wolfpack. I speak my own opinions regardless of whomever else agrees or disagrees. The fact thatyou see me as part of a pack simply points to ypir own paranoia, not to mention a budding messiah complex, which seems to be growing to the point as to rival that of JR.

The fact that you think that any valid conclusions could be drawn from an amateurish single-blind (or double blind) test simply demonstrates how little you really know about the subject. Participation in such a test is nothing more than an opportunity to make the mistake of reaching a conclusion based on an anecdotal experience.

Well, Phil., didn’t you arrive at your own conclusions without even examining them? At least I did question my abilities and preformed single blind tests before offering my results to others. How did you keep your human fralities in check? O, right, you’re above human fallings. You don’t need to question anything. Talk about a messiah complex…

The reliability of DBT audio tests and the proper protocol and statistical analysis to be applied is an extremely complicated subject that has received almost no scholarly attention from anyone (beyond Dr. Toole’s work with speakers). Yet people like you perpetuate the myth that there have been a number of meaningful or properly conducted tests done on such things as cables.

Yeah, bla bla bla. When you even try a simple single blind test I’ll consider your arguments here. As it now stands you are a walking example of hubris maximus. Spouting rhetoric out of both ends simultaneously. Output of either is totally indistinguishable from the other and 100% interchangeable.

Just because you claim to believe in science and the scientific method doesn’t mean, as you seem to believe, that you have applied it properly or that you are relying on the work of others who have and are therefore immune from criticism for the conclusions that you have drawn. This is a very simple fact that you and some others on this board simply are incapable of grasping. Just because I attack your specific flawed use of science doesn’t mean I’m anti-science. To the contrary, I’m the one who is insisting on strict adherence to the fundamental principles of the scientific method.

…and I’m the one saying to listen for yourself.. but question and verify the results. Funny, isn’t it? Who’se on first now?

The tired old stories of people being fooled into believing they heard differences that really didn’t exist has been dissected from so many different angles, anyone would be a fool to draw any general conclusions from those stories.

Take two responses twice daily and call me in the morning.

As for actions, I'll stand by mine any day of the week. That's why I make a point of identifying who I am. I have little respect for cowards such as you who talk big, but refuse to asume personal responsibility for a single word you disseminate via the internet.

My grandson, who was several months old, found a new media for artful expression in his diaper. When we found this out, he had created what, in his eyes, was a masterpiece and was smiling proudly at us.

Oh yeah, one more thing. Your comment about my attacking all of the objectivists here at one time or another. When it comes to a true "objectivist" there is not a single person on this board, including you, that could hold a candle to Steve Eddy. He is scrupulous in his intelectual honesty. Not only have I never attacked him, Risch and his gang of thugs have often accused me of simply being his lapdog. When it comes to someone like Steve, whose powerful intellect, knowledge, experience, consistency, desire to seek the truth wherever that search may lead, and (above all in my book) scrupulous intellecual honesty, I would consider it an honor to be labeled as his lapdog. Not only do I have enormous respect for him, it is people like him who genuinely make me feel humble and insignificant.

I’m not Steve Eddy. I’m merely a guy who, as per advice, tried something for himself. Isn’t that what everyone wants? It would seem that the only results you would be interested in are those that benefit your case. I suggest you re-read those hallowed words by Carl Sagan you like to drag out when it suits you.

Since you apparently have the need to substitute labels for thought (an affliction you seem to share with Jon Risch), perhaps "lapdog for Steve" is a label you would consider trying to pin on me.

Well, I’d say you’ve got your head in someone’s lap. From the way it’s facing, what you are doing, though, is subject to debate.

TTFN. See ya around.

[pctower]

BTW, Phil, what did you make of that post at Audioholics. One would think a thank you would be in order here. Or did it not meet your needs?

The link was dead. I didn't see it..

Yet you, yourself have no problem issuing it yourself. Look at the first paragraph in your initial post in this thread. Talk about the patented Pctower pre-emptive strike! Again, see the last sentence in above paragraph, wher esubjectivists seem immune from your attacks.

The fact that you consider my advice for him to get a broard range of viewpoints to be absolutist couldn't have illustrated better the mindset of many here that I take issue with.

I don’t see myself as part of a wolfpack. I speak my own opinions regardless of whomever else agrees or disagrees. The fact thatyou see me as part of a pack simply points to ypir own paranoia, not to mention a budding messiah complex, which seems to be growing to the point as to rival that of JR.

Of course you're part of a wolfpack. You won't go into enemy territory and fight for your beliefs. It's comfortable here for you where the vast majority agree with you and here is where you stay.

Well, Phil., didn’t you arrive at your own conclusions without even examining them? At least I did question my abilities and preformed single blind tests before offering my results to others. How did you keep your human fralities in check? O, right, you’re above human fallings. You don’t need to question anything. Talk about a messiah complex…

I probably question my listening abilities more than just about anyone. I'm fairly certain I'd flunk most DBTs as I have seen them described. The point you are missing is I have reached no conclusions. I have made purchasing decisions based on what improves my own personal perceptions of my own system. For me at that point it's entirely a hedonistic thing - no science involved whatsoever. Those perceptions remain constant after my purchasing decision, I remain happy and that's all I care about at that level. No conclusions are required there as I'm not trying to figure anything out or make claims I expect others to accept. The fact that you and many others here seem unable to understand that tells me that listening and entertainment is not your primary objectives in this hobby.

Yeah, bla bla bla. When you even try a simple single blind test I’ll consider your arguments here. As it now stands you are a walking example of hubris maximus. Spouting rhetoric out of both ends simultaneously. Output of either is totally indistinguishable from the other and 100% interchangeable.

Telling me I need to personally conduct a test in order for me to express the opinions I do here is like telling mtrycrafts he needs to have a system in order to challenge the claims of golden-ears.

I am careful to approach the subject from what can be verified by reliable scientific test results. I don't rely at all on my own experience when discussing DBTs, so it's irrelevant.

So is yours, BTW, as you present it. Nothing but anecdotal evidence - worthless (to use mtrycrafts' words).

…and I’m the one saying to listen for yourself.. but question and verify the results. Funny, isn’t it? Who’se on first now?

You are along with A&C who make about much sense as you do.

I’m not Steve Eddy. I’m merely a guy who, as per advice, tried something for himself. Isn’t that what everyone wants? It would seem that the only results you would be interested in are those that benefit your case. I suggest you re-read those hallowed words by Carl Sagan you like to drag out when it suits you.

Mark - at least have a little intellectual honesty and tell me exactly what you think my "case" is that I'm trying to benefit.

If you want to try blind tests for your own enjoyment - fine. But don't come here claiming that it provides you any special insight that lends credence to your belief regarding cables. That experience is worth no more than any of mine as far as advancing the state of collective human knowledge regarding this subject.

Valid DBTs conducted in accordance with protocol that is designed by true experts in such field would advance human knowledge in this area. From all I can tell, the "true experts" don't give a rat's behind about testing cables, amps, CD players or anything else of the sort. There is no market driven demand for such tests.

Yet people like you seem to persist in perpetuating the myth that there is a reliable body of DBT research in the non-speaker area of high end audio. There is not and I just wish you and your fellow travelers would get honest and admit it.

[Audio Angel]

PART ONE (original posted elsewhere in this disscussion forum under Bi-Wire topic -- reposted here F.Y.I)

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.

PART TWO (reply to various comments)

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.