-
Bi-wiring The question that can't be answered?
I have read I don't know how many articles about whether bi wiring works or not.I want o know if it makes an audible difference
I have Cambridge Soundworks M80 3 way bookshelf speakers and a Onkyo TX-8511 100 watt receiver I only play cd's. Has there been any concrete proof that it makes a noticeable diiference or is the jury still out on this.? or is it going to be a "what ever sounds good to you " answer. What's the latest!!!!!!!!!!!!
Thanks Pete
-
At best, there might be a very subtle difference in areas of imaging depth and perhaps ambiance. But is it worth all the extra cost? I have never found a justification for the added outlay IMHO.
You may also find this interesting reading from B&W's findings here:
http://www.bwspeakers.com/index.cfm...67F00D0B7473B37
Also, this article may help:
http://www.sonicdesign.se/biwire.html
I am sure other members may well disagree, but then, this what makes this hobby so rewarding. :-) <!-- / message --><!-- sig -->
-
I didn't know that biwiring was an "outlay" of money; it's just a specialized speaker wire or you just use four separate speaker wires from whereever.
-
It costs more because you're buying twice as much cable. If you insist on super-fancy cable, that can be very expensive.
Personally, I use magwire, so it isn't that much more expensive to bi-wire. So I just do it, and don't worry about how/whether it makes the sound better.
-
If it were my decision I would NOT bi-wire, but instead use that money on some really good speaker wires, like the PS Audio xstreams that I use...they are super-rediculously thick, but have great response time and have really helped bring definition into my system over the AudioQuest GR-8's that I had prior, which were bi-wired.
-
On one of my previous systems, I chose to bi-wire to eliminate confusion. I was confused over whether I should connect my speaker wire to the upper jumpers, or to the lower jumpers (or something else). If I biwired, it was a non-decision, so that's what I did.
-
Here's how it works...
What is biamping and bi-wiring? When you biamp, you have an amp for each driver. If it's a three way then you will need 6 amp channels to bi-amp the three-way. If you have a 2 way then you will need 4 amps instead of two. So, what is going on when you do this? I mean sure it sounds cool, but wouldn't you really rather understand what is going on?
To that end, here is what is going on so that everyone can understand. To keep it simple I will be basing my assessment on a typical 2 way speaker. In a two way design you have a low pass and a high pass crossover. One to route to the woofer and the other to route signals to the tweeter. The usual method is to connect the two crossovers on a board and tie it into the pos and neg legs. In this design, you only have 1 set of speaker terminals. In the bi-amp scene, the designer choose to keep the two crossovers separate and provide two sets of terminals, normally connected via a jumper so that only 1 set would be needed. If you wanted to use it then you take the jumper out and connect the tweeter to one amp and the woofer to another amp. Of course being fed the same signal. You must adjust the volume of each amp so that both drivers sound level matched. This is why most people do not bi-amp. It's a pain to set the signals everytime.
Now on to bi-wiring. The network is still separate and you have the two terminals connected by a jumper. In bi-wiring you are only taking the neg. leg of the amp and connecting it to both negs. on the terminals. Same with the pos leg. Now you tell me, will this make any difference? I highly doubt it at all. This is not what it was made for. Bi-amping has been used in the pro. industry for years. Now they are trying to sell it as some new innovative idea to the consumer market via bi-wiring. No one in their right mind would add more wire to end up with the same thing. Do you understand what I mean? Bi-amp makes sense. You can drive a hugh woofer with a separate amp and use a lower powered amp for the tweeters and mid.
So, does bi-wiring make an audible difference. I doubt it and I really don't even care to try it. It's a waste of cable and money IMHO. No bi-amping has some benefits.
Hopefully, I have shed some light on this topic as it seems to be a common misunderstanding.
Paul
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by poneal
..edit...
So, does bi-wiring make an audible difference. I doubt it and I really don't even care to try it. It's a waste of cable and money IMHO. No bi-amping has some benefits.
Hopefully, I have shed some light on this topic as it seems to be a common misunderstanding.
Paul
While it is true that below a certain price point bi-wiring does next to nothing because that's just not the weakest link. Above those prices, Bi wiring can and does help, there is no confusion, just ill informed folks who try and hear with theory instead of their ears.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by poneal
So, does bi-wiring make an audible difference. I doubt it and I really don't even care to try it. It's a waste of cable and money IMHO. No bi-amping has some benefits.
I agree with you. Bi amping make sense, but bi wiring doesn’t sense electrically or theoretically.
Theoretically, once two wires (woofer and tweeter connection) from the negative or positive leg of speaker connection touch each other at the amps terminal, they become electrically equivalent. Which mean both high and low wires will have the same node* at any point along both wires.
So if replace two wires that have same node with only one wire, nothing has changed electrically :)
*node: electrical property of junction in a circuit.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smokey
I agree with you. Bi amping make sense, but bi wiring doesn’t sense electrically or theoretically.
Theoretically, once two wires (woofer and tweeter connection) from the negative or positive leg of speaker connection touch each other at the amps terminal, they become electrically equivalent. Which mean both high and low wires will have the same node* at any point along both wires.
So if replace two wires that have same node with only one wire, nothing has changed electrically :)
*node: electrical property of junction in a circuit.
Your opinion is based on the belief that wires have no properties, characteristics or parameters such as ohms, capacitance or inductance all of which and more wires do have..
Once you assign all of these properties to a wire you will see that the node of which you speak is in fact seperated by a multiple of parametric devices and that one point on the wire is not in fact identical to any other point on the wire.
So you are theoretically incorrect. That's not very important, what is important is that you form your opinion by listening.
-
Hi Hermanv
You make good point regarding node point along the wires and that is correct. My point was regarding as how amplifier's output terminal see speaker woofer and tweeter cross over terminals (high and low pass filter). In biwiring, instead of having the connection at the speaker end of the cable, it is made at the amplifier terminal.
So in biwiring, the equivalent speaker cross over circuitry that amplifier sees stay the same. The only that have changed is cable property via doubling it :)
-
Hi Smokey;
While the effects of wire on the sound of an audio signal seem to be not fully understood, there is little doubt that different wires do make an impact beyond what conventional theory might have us believe.
It is precisely this idea that the mid/tweet signal does not travel in the same wire that is carrying the heavier woofer currents that is the advantage of bi-wiring. As an engineer my proffesional training gives little or no explanation for many of these effects. They should be so small as to be inaudible, but my ears tell me differently.
Whether it's speaker cable of interconnect cable my system has suffucient resolution to tell that various wires sound different. It's not allways possible to tell which is better or more accurate, but I can usually pick the one that suits my personal prefference.
I have heard speakers where bi-wiring had no effect at all, and others where the sound "opened up" considerably. I have never heard a case where bi-wiring made things worse. So I say, as always; try it, listen and then decide.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by hermanv
Hi Smokey;
While the effects of wire on the sound of an audio signal seem to be not fully understood, there is little doubt that different wires do make an impact beyond what conventional theory might have us believe.
It is precisely this idea that the mid/tweet signal does not travel in the same wire that is carrying the heavier woofer currents that is the advantage of bi-wiring. As an engineer my proffesional training gives little or no explanation for many of these effects. They should be so small as to be inaudible, but my ears tell me differently.
Whether it's speaker cable of interconnect cable my system has suffucient resolution to tell that various wires sound different. It's not allways possible to tell which is better or more accurate, but I can usually pick the one that suits my personal prefference.
I have heard speakers where bi-wiring had no effect at all, and others where the sound "opened up" considerably. I have never heard a case where bi-wiring made things worse. So I say, as always; try it, listen and then decide.
This is not really true in bi-wiring. You see that is the problem. Both wires carry the same signal. The second wire is nothing more than a jumper wire connected to the other terminal. Both wires are carrying the same signal. The crossover is what separates the lows and highs (nothing to do with the wire--it's just a wire). In bi-amping, you can send different signals if you're using an active crossover. If not then you're still just sending the same signal to another amp and then using that amp to power the woofer or tweeter whichever one it is connected too.
Wires are like that snake oil they tell you to put in your cars engine to extend it's life. It usually doesn't work and gums up the inside. Sure manufactures can do things to wires to change the impedance, etc which will make it sound different. The question becomes do you want the manufacturer changing the original source signal in the first place? I don't. I want my signal to be reproduced as it was originally intended. Good old 14/2 zipcord works just as good as the mega dollar cables and doesn't change the signal as much.
Paul
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smokey
I agree with you. Bi amping make sense, but bi wiring doesn’t sense electrically or theoretically.
At least that you are aware of. There are dozens of speakers and amplfiers that support biwiring. Before you counter with "they just do that to placate stupid audiophiles", I suggest you actually talk to one of their designers so that you may understand the engineering reason(s).
As for me, I am neutral on the topic because I use full range electrostats.
rw
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by poneal
This is not really true in bi-wiring. You see that is the problem. Both wires carry the same signal. The second wire is nothing more than a jumper wire connected to the other terminal. Both wires are carrying the same signal. The crossover is what separates the lows and highs (nothing to do with the wire--it's just a wire). In bi-amping, you can send different signals if you're using an active crossover. If not then you're still just sending the same signal to another amp and then using that amp to power the woofer or tweeter whichever one it is connected too. Paul
This is important, both wires do not carry the same signal, that's the point. The woofer current flows in one pair of a bi-wired set and the mid/tweet current in the other pair so with varing frequency they certainly do not carry the same current, so therefore they don't carry the same signal at all. While the signal at the amplifier terminals starts out being identical, with bi-wiring by the time it reaches the speaker jacks it's no longer identical.
Quote:
Originally Posted by poneal
Wires are like that snake oil they tell you to put in your cars engine to extend it's life. It usually doesn't work and gums up the inside. Sure manufactures can do things to wires to change the impedance, etc which will make it sound different. The question becomes do you want the manufacturer changing the original source signal in the first place? I don't. I want my signal to be reproduced as it was originally intended. Good old 14/2 zipcord works just as good as the mega dollar cables and doesn't change the signal as much.Paul
You build your own speakers but can't hear the differences between various wires? What makes you think that zip cord is the most accurate, why isn't it just as likely it's the least accurate? You seem to believe wire can change the signal, so when someone (such as Cardas) uses a far heavier gauge, ultra pure copper, low inductance construction and Litz wire (flat to much higher frequencies) you suspect they are changing the signal - for the worse, huh?
A lot of zip cord is an alloy of copper and steel (makes the wire stronger) steel is magnetic and has hysteresis, some zip cords sound so bad even a boom box will let you hear the difference. Zip cord is made the way it is not because that's the best way to carry a signal, but because that's the cheapest possible way to make a wire pair.
Some people get an idea sort of locked in their brain and turn off all ability to think. Just listen is all I ask.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by hermanv
This is important, both wires do not carry the same signal, that's the point. The woofer current flows in one pair of a bi-wired set and the mid/tweet current in the other pair so with varing frequency they certainly do not carry the same current, so therefore they don't carry the same signal at all. While the signal at the amplifier terminals starts out being identical, with bi-wiring by the time it reaches the speaker jacks it's no longer identical.
Except...wire is a conductor, and what flows out of the amplifier is electricity, and electricity flows at the speed of light. If we were talking about bi-amplification, I'd agree with you, but I don't think this is the case with bi-wiring.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by PAOGORMAN2001
I have read I don't know how many articles about whether bi wiring works or not.I want o know if it makes an audible difference
I have Cambridge Soundworks M80 3 way bookshelf speakers and a Onkyo TX-8511 100 watt receiver I only play cd's. Has there been any concrete proof that it makes a noticeable diiference or is the jury still out on this.? or is it going to be a "what ever sounds good to you " answer. What's the latest!!!!!!!!!!!!
Thanks Pete
The absolute answer is yes, it makes a difference. However, the question that matters, which you correctly asked: Does it make an audible difference? Well, maybe. There are so many variables to take into account that it is totally system dependant.
Allow me to list some:
The amplifier impedance over frequency
The wire impedance over frequency
The impedance characteristics of each driver over frequency
The effects of the crossovers over frequency
Bi-wiring essentially adds the small amount of wire impedance into the total impedance of the speaker system connected to the amplifier, assuming the amplifiers is of low enough output impedance, in order to attempt to increase the effectiveness of the crossover.
-Bruce
-
Personally...
...I don't give a rats @$$ about this constant, goes-nowhere debate...however...
Inside your loudspeaker there are short, isolated lengths of wire that go from the appropriate points of the Xover circuit board to the appropriate drivers...if so equipped, there is a jumper that joins the LF and HF sections of said Xover...
Now, if you bi-wire, you are essentially taking those short, relatively protected wires and extending them outside of their little cabinet-style home and exposing them to all manner of EFI/RFI/EIEIO...not to mention adding a bit of resistance and capacitance which changes the make-up of the specifically designed crossover...
jimHJJ(...you do the math...)
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by poneal
This is not really true in bi-wiring. You see that is the problem. Both wires carry the same signal.
Paul
That would be incorrect.
Quote:
Originally Posted by poneal
Good old 14/2 zipcord works just as good as the mega dollar cables and doesn't change the signal as much.
Paul
Nothing you have posted yet supports that assertion.
Cheers, John
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smokey
So in biwiring, the equivalent speaker cross over circuitry that amplifier sees stay the same. The only that have changed is cable property via doubling it :)
That is also incorrect.
Cheers, John
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by E-Stat
At least that you are aware of. There are dozens of speakers and amplfiers that support biwiring. Before you counter with "they just do that to placate stupid audiophiles", I suggest you actually talk to one of their designers so that you may understand the engineering reason(s).rw
The designers will not have correct engineering reasons. None of them ever do. Talking with them will be useless.
That doesn't mean biwiring is incorrect, just that they do not understand.
Quote:
Originally Posted by E-Stat
As for me, I am neutral on the topic because I use full range electrostats.
rw
Perhaps you should add some rear firing tweeters to bring those "(darn, can't remember what the word was..insert something witty here)" panels up to bare minimal audiophile standards..:cornut:
How's it going? Just figured I'd drop in and add some negativity..
Cheers, John
-
Just...
Quote:
Originally Posted by jneutron
That would be incorrect.
Nothing you have posted yet supports that assertion.
Cheers, John
...what do you think this is young man, the Audio Lab?
What's up? How goes the trials and tribulations of home owning?
jimHJJ(...my contribution: good fences make good neighbors...)
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Resident Loser
Now, if you bi-wire, you are essentially taking those short, relatively protected wires and extending them outside of their little cabinet-style home and exposing them to all manner of EFI/RFI/EIEIO...not to mention adding a bit of resistance and capacitance which changes the make-up of the specifically designed crossover...jimHJJ(...you do the math...)
Oh NO!! Not EFI/RFI/EIEIO:confused:
Math...math....hmmm, what's that??
Cheers, John
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by jneutron
The designers will not have correct engineering reasons. None of them ever do. Talking with them will be useless.
Omniscient, are we?
Quote:
Originally Posted by jneutron
Perhaps you should add some rear firing tweeters to bring those "(darn, can't remember what the word was..insert something witty here)" panels up to bare minimal audiophile standards..:cornut:
Skeptic/Soundmind's attempted derogatory term is "dressing screens". :)
Quote:
Originally Posted by jneutron
How's it going? Just figured I'd drop in and add some negativity..
Aside from some rain, things are doing well here in AR. Negativity? I rather appreciate it when knowledgeable folks correct the simple conclusions made by armchair audio engineers.
rw
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Resident Loser
...what do you think this is young man, the Audio Lab?...
Oh jeeze, I ended up in the wrong place..no wonder there were new posts here...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Resident Loser
...
What's up? How goes the trials and tribulations of home owning?
jimHJJ(...my contribution: good fences make good neighbors...)
Not bad. Patio is done just in time for the leaves to drop.
Bedroom is done, carpeted, in ceiling speaks, closet done. Right now, lookin at LCD's. I think I'll be goin wit the sharp 42D62U unit, second choice the 37D90U.
Once that puppy is in and runnin, I'm headin to the basement to make the workshop.
That, I cannot wait for...chompin at the bit..
Oh, almost forgot, wuz at the Blue Note on 3rd street last Friday, Chick Corea played.
The bassist? Holy mother of (insert diety)....I have never seen such talent at the bass..unbelievable.
Then Sat, at Iridium, solo guitarist..very good also.
Yourself??
Cheers, John
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by E-Stat
Omniscient, are we?
rw
Don't know..gotta look that up. It certainly isn't in my copy of Jackson.
Edit: ah, I realized a better word than Omniscient.. Historian. As in, so far, to date, I've not seen an explanation which holds water. Those who explain why it does either misconstrue existing concepts, extend out hearing ability far beyond reasonable, or make stuff up as they go along. Reasons why it can't work have not historically hit the target either..
So, no, not Omniscient. (end of edit)
I can't believe nobody's followed up on the dissipation angle, it's just so darn simple. Sheesh, I posted it what, two years ago?
Quote:
Originally Posted by E-Stat
Skeptic/Soundmind's attempted derogatory term is "dressing screens". :)rw
Ah yes, dressing screens..well, they probably still need rear firing tweets..:) Take it from me...my coffee cup has rear firing tweets, and the coffee tastes so much better..
Quote:
Originally Posted by E-Stat
Aside from some rain, things are doing well here in AR. Negativity? I rather appreciate it when knowledgeable folks correct the simple conclusions made by armchair audio engineers. rw
When I find someone who is knowledgeable, I'll send them here..till then, all ya gots is me..I post in between sweeping the floors and cleaning the bowls..
Cheers, John
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by jneutron
Ah yes, dressing screens..well, they probably still need rear firing tweets..:)
My big a$$ dipoles have thirty square feet of 'em!
While "rear firing tweeters" was the title of the post, what really floats SM's boat is spraying HF at the ceiling using three tweets crossed over at 6 khz. Yes, you heard me correctly.
rw
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by E-Stat
My big a$$ dipoles have thirty square feet of 'em!
While "rear firing tweeters" was the title of the post, what really floats SM's boat is spraying HF at the ceiling using three tweets crossed over at 6 khz. Yes, you heard me correctly.
rw
Ah. Honestly, when I see both of your monikers, I have little desire to delve into the sub thread...again, a historical consideration, nothing more..
Cheers, John
-
Good one!!!
Quote:
Originally Posted by jneutron
Oh jeeze, I ended up in the wrong place..no wonder there were new posts here...Yourself??
Other than trying to keep neighbors and their relatives, contractors, tenants and other non-descript associates thereof from using my driveway as their own private passage to India, not much...'ceptin leaves, which I don't mind so much...I'm fond of mindless endeavors, like visiting audio sites...
Replaced the muffler and tail-pipe on my Jeep...heads were a-turnin' and it wasn't because I'd won a concours d'elegance...yet another use for the ol' Sawzall...what a wonderful, constructively destructive tool! Steel casement windows, tree limbs, tail-pipes...do it's uses never end?
A new Diehard, serpentine drive belt, and 6qts of 10W-30 Mobil1 and I'ze winterized...
The high point was baking a coupla' loaves of bread...I'm gettin' purty good at it...
Also managed to get a few CDs at the Tower Records near Roosevelt Field...sad, another old name bites the dust...
jimHJJ(...good luck with the shop...)
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Resident Loser
The high point was baking a coupla' loaves of bread...I'm gettin' purty good at it...
Bein gluten-intolerant, I can understand that. I'm gonna buy one of dem bread makin thingy's, a friend made some and holy mackeral, do I miss bread..there's some awful nice wheat free bread mixes out there which mimic reglar bread quite well...without the consequences.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Resident Loser
Also managed to get a few CDs at the Tower Records near Roosevelt Field...sad, another old name bites the dust...
jimHJJ(...good luck with the shop...)
You near there, eh? I'm goin to get the lcd at 6th ave electronics I believe.
Sawsalls are great, aren't they?
Yah, havin a workbench for the woodworking is something I miss terribly. This time, I'm gonna add dust collection to it.
Cheers, John
-
In ceiling speaks? In ceiling speaks !#**\\!
I recommend banishment from the site. :)
Will you at least bi-wire them? :ihih:
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by hermanv
In ceiling speaks? In ceiling speaks !#**\\!
I recommend banishment from the site. :)
Will you at least bi-wire them? :ihih:
No.
(Think Richard Crenna in that comedy spoof of first blood..)
Each is fed by about 100 feet of 14 guage...
That 14 guage is bundled with 7 cat5e cables, two thermostat cables, 1 75 ohm cable, two 1/2 inch copper pipes, and comes through the same stud bay as 2 romex runs.
Each speak is five inch.
Each has a 3/4 inch cone tweet.
Each are placed asymmetrically in the ceiling.
The x'overs are stock.
In the basement, the wires are stripped and twisted to the feeds from the RECEIVER. (note, I did remember to connect red to red, black to black..)
The connections are dangling from a floor joist.
They are dangling two feet from a central air unit.
The cd's are burned copies made with mp3 at 128..
Had enough?? Gonna spill your guts?? Hmmm??:)
They met the need.
Cheers, John
Almost forgot..Bdrm, kit, and living room speaks all tie into a pushbutton selector box with those strip and push type connections, and most of the wire conductors are actually in the connector.. (ewwww)
-
Getting back to the discussion:
The goal is the "best" possible sound from a system. Best of course is a subjective description, but only I have to be pleased with my own end results.
First I need to back up a bit. My audiophile friend and I decided to build our own speakers because we just couldn't afford those commercial ones we liked. It took 7 years and $7,500 (assuming free labor), but we have built some three way speakers that are as good or better than any speakers we have heard. We are currently working on the second set for me, most parts were purchased in sets of 4 so most of the money has been spent.
All of this is relevant because of the things we learned about wiring. As the speakers were being developed and the quality gradually improved, we learned that exotic and expensive passive parts (silver coils, tin foil and polypropylene capacitors) sounded considerably better than the cheaper mass market parts. We ended up replacing all the wires and the rest of an already decent system with better electronics and cables to enable the drivers to perform to their fullest.
Now finally, the speaker wiring: We tried all kinds of arrangements with several brands of specialty wires. In the end we found a couple of trueisms. 1. A larger gauge always sounded better. 2. Silver was better than copper but the difference was inaudible (to us) on the woofer. In playing around with various configurations we found a winner.
We moved the crossover to be right at the back of the power amp and ran longer seperate wires to each driver. We used 9.5 AWG Cardas copper for the woofer, it's fairly cheap and nice and big. We used 5 wires of 11.5 AWG arranged in a low inductance ribbon for the Mid, silver sounded a bit cleaner but we just couldn't afford that much silver (about 9 AWG aggregate) and finally becase the current and power are low we were able to use 5 silver 21 gauge wires for the tweet also arranged in a low inductance ribbon (about 17.5 gauge aggregate). All the wire was made by Cardas, whose stories read better than most. All the wires were Teflon insulated and (damn it) sounded better when they were raised off the floor.
We concluded that at the extremes of audio performance tiny details are audible and make a difference. Remember that a CD has a dynamic range of 96dB, that means the smallest signal being captured is very, very small so effects that do not show up in first order measurements can easily influence the end result. Put another way, if you are listening at around 4 watts average level which is near normal active listening levels, then the smallest signal would be around 600 microwatts perhaps smaller if you allow for over sampling.
-
You state "low inductance" for your various wires.
What were the measured LCR's for them?
Cheers, John
-
OK, this is my last post on this topic as it seems to be
getting a little heated and opinions are coming in. I base mine of facts. Here is a link to a typical bi-wire scheme:
http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~jcgl/Sc...ire/Page1.html
Notice the jumpers? It's not like you take two sets of hots/negs and connect the two hots to amp hot and the two negs to the amp neg. You have one wire from the amp pos/neg and then little jumper wires to attach to the speaker terminals. Like I said before, "One signal feeds both" in this arrangement. The xover is what separates the highs from the lows. The amp has nothing to do with splitting the signal. And just because you jump it to the extra terminal doesn't mean that signal changes. It doesn't change until it goes into the xover and that's what bends the signals. So to recap for those hard of getting it. You have an amp, you run a wire from the amp to the speakers. You splice into the wire and add some jumpers and route them to the other terminal. Same signal, same amp, same everything except those little jumper wires going to different speaker terminals.
Bi-Amp has some merit. This is where you take a separate amp for each driver (one for the tweeter, one for the mid, one for the woofer, etc). In a two way speaker this means you need four amps to run a bi-amp. Two amp channels for each speaker. One channel to the tweeter, the other to the woofer in a two way. Why would this help? Well, think about it. The woofer is the power hungry guy. It may take the full 100watts and leave the leftovers for the mid and tweet. Probably driving them into distortion. With 1 amp on the woofer and one on the tweeter you don't have that problem. Just because the woofer distorts doesn't mean the mid or tweeter will because they are on separate paths.
Anyway, I've typed until I'm blue in the face so if you don't get it by now, maybe you will get it in the future or then again, you may never get it. Good luck.
Paul
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by jneutron
That would be incorrect.
Nothing you have posted yet supports that assertion.
Cheers, John
OK, one last time for the slow learner. In bi-wiring you have a single wire just like you do without bi-wiring from the amp. At the terminals, you make some jumpers and plug them into the other terminal. Same signal, same amp, same everything except a smidgen of added wire. The signal does not get changed until it reaches the passive components in the xover. The woofer gets the same signal as the tweeter, the tweeter the same as the woofer. The xover is what filters out the highs or lows. That's all there is to it. Nothing magical, nothing complicated, it's just the way it works. One more time, the signal doesn't get changed until it hits the passives in the network. You still have the same old problems as with reg. wiring. If your woof takes up the full 100watts then whatever is left over goes to the tweeter and mids. Probably distorted. One way to solve this is bi-AMPING but bi-wiring is nothing. I mean come on. Look at the diagram. All they did was separte the xovers. I've built designs like this. I don't use it for bi-wiring but it sure does help out when measuring. Hook one xover up to one and the other to the other and then all you have to do to measure the other is to switch the speaker wire. This is not complicated, it's so simplistic, oh nevermind.
Paul
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by poneal
getting a little heated and opinions are coming in.Paul
Heated??? Where? What thread are you reading?
Quote:
Originally Posted by poneal
I base mine of facts.
No, actually you haven't
You have only stated opinions, and now, you link to the opinion of others.
Go through Jim's calculations, and find me where he calculates the difference in dissipation between biwiring and normal.
Quote:
Originally Posted by poneal
So to recap for those hard of getting it. You have an amp, you run a wire from the amp to the speakers. You splice into the wire and add some jumpers and route them to the other terminal. Same signal, same amp, same everything except those little jumper wires going to different speaker terminals.
Well, where's the wire dissipation component??
If you wish to explain to us why biwiring is not effective, then you must come up with something better than what you have posted. You're not floatin my boat.
Quote:
Originally Posted by poneal
Anyway, I've typed until I'm blue in the face so if you don't get it by now, maybe you will get it in the future or then again, you may never get it. Good luck.
Paul
Silly.
If you wish to "get it, just ask. I would be happy to explain what you are missing.
If you just want to slap and run, do so. You won't learn anything that way, however.
Now, pay attention.
10 feet #14 awg, 6 mOhms per foot, 60 milliohms total.
Two sets connectors, 15 milliohms per contact, another 60 milliohms...total insertion, .12 ohms.
Now, single wire to crossover...two signals...lets make the math easy...8 ohms. 4 amps peak is 16 times 8, or 128 watts peak.
now, two signals...4 amps bass, 4 for highs. When both signals are at peak current, wire sees 8 amperes. Losses in the wire, I squared R, 64 times .120, or 7.68 watts dissipative loss in the wires.
Now, seperate them...each wire sees 4 amps peak..I squared R for each wire peaks at 1.92 watts....times 2, is 3.84 watts.
So, single wire has twice the peak loss as a pair of the same resistance. The most important aspect is not the total power loss, but how it happens. The peak loss is a function of the multiplication of the two currents, not summation as biwiring does. And the difference is 3.8 watts out of a sum of 256, or 1.48% of the total..can you hear 1.48 % distortion??Hmmm?
I could post the equations, I could post the graphs....but from your demeanor, I fear I would be pissin in the wind. You seem not to want to learn..
Perhaps I misread you?? If so, I apologize...if not, take it elsewhere..It gets tiring explaining the simple stuff to those who don't care..
Cheers, John
-
1 Attachment(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by poneal
OK, one last time for the slow learner.
Paul
Paul, you've no idea. I'm being gentle..
Quote:
Originally Posted by poneal
This is not complicated, it's so simplistic, oh nevermind.Paul
Read my last post. When you are ready, ask questions.
You seem to believe that others do not know what you are talking about..Stick around, you'll get over that quickly.
Oh, btw..I've never heard the difference between regular and biwiring...simply because it is of no concern to me. However, what you've said so far certainly doesn't prove your point.
Cheers, John
Ps..I've attached a nice little graph for you to think of..
Dark blue is the dissipation envelope of the lows.
Magenta is the dissipation envelope of the highs.
Yellow is the summation of the two, this is biwire dissipation.
Light blue is the dissipation envelope of both signals when they are in one wire.
Brown is the dissipation discrepancy between mono and biwire.
Notice it is not zero??
Notice it goes negative??
It is a class of signals which cannot be viewed by an FFT, as it is a zero power signal.
Buuuut, it's there for all the world to see..
Questions? Or, are you still gonna call me a slow learner..
-
Hi poneal;
There is some confusion, (from your post #35), in the bi-wire scheme there is no jumper at the speaker ends. Although doubling up the number of wires with the jumpers may help, that doesn't seperate the signal currents as a conventional bi-wire scheme does. In following your own link to end the author proposes and supports that bi-wiring does make a small mathematical diffenence. Small differences is what we are talking about, the link you chose doesn't seem to support your own conclusions.
Hi jneutron;
We did measure the inductace, it was a while ago and I no longer remember the answer something in the nanohenries per foot probably. As far as I know the ribbon (flat, side by side) configuration (return, hot, return, hot, return) gives the lowest practical inductance given some physical space considerations.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by hermanv
Hi jneutron;
We did measure the inductace, it was a while ago and I no longer remember the answer something in the nanohenries per foot probably. As far as I know the ribbon (flat, side by side) configuration (return, hot, return, hot, return) gives the lowest practical inductance given some physical space considerations.
Ah, tis a shame..
It would have been nice to calculate the effective dielectric constant and characteristic impedance from your geometry.
LC = 1034 EDC, L in nH per foot, C in pf per foot...
Z = sqr(L/C)
Cheers, John
|