-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Resident Loser
...for some info re: Lake Powell and Glen Canyon:
http://www.backpacker.com/article/1,...5__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.
-
I figured you might be aware...
...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...)
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by 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...)
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.
-
How To Bi-wire Correctly
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.
-
Angel or ??
"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.
-
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.
-
And so...
Quote:
Originally Posted by 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.
...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...)
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Resident Loser
...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.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by 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.
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
-
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.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by 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!
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...
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by pjaizz
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.
-
Let's watch the language there, Woodman. Yours is out of line.
-
???
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee Keith
Let's watch the language there, Woodman. Yours is out of line.
What language? I don't see a post by Woodman.
-
This forum is moderated.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee Keith
Let's watch the language there, Woodman. Yours is out of line.
Please send offending comments to the moderator.
-
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.
-
Tried It On My B&W and Magnepan Speakers
Quote:
Originally Posted by 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!
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.
-
Back EMF and "Imprinting"
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.
-
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?
-
The need to bi-wire?
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. :)
|