Bi-Wiring (I want to do this for the sound quality for my B&W 705 speakers connected to my Denon 2807):
When using speakers set up & created for bi-wiring [the separate drivers], please advise me for what truly will give the best sound possible. Should I take my two sets of pureav Belkin cables, plug them into the same receiver outputs, then put them separately into the two sets of speaker terminals, or is it actually impotant to purchase biwire speaker wire (one set of + & - on one end, and two sets on other end)? Also, since my receiver (like most) has a speaker A and speaker B output, if I should use two sets of non-specialized-bi-wires, how would it compare to use the above described method vs. putting each separate cable from the receiver into the A and B slots? (Note: Denon AVR-2807 has Audyssey setup, which I hope will not get confused if I were to use the A and B slots to actually do biwiring into a total of 2 speakers.)

Banana plugs/clips/etc.: What is the advantage & disadvantage of using these?

_IF_ you feel that bi-wiring will actually improve something, here's how you'll want to do it:

1) Hook up both cables to the same terminals on your receiver. NEVER use the A & B outputs together driving the same speaker!
2) Hook up 1 pair to the upper terminals and 1 pair to the bass terminals. Remove the metal bridges between the 2 sets of binding posts.
3) 'Special' bi wire cables are merely 2 sets of cables in the same jacket (terminated to 1 set of connections at the end).

Banana plugs are nice for quick-changes. Spades give you a strong connection at each end. With fancy terminations make sure that they fit the spacing on your equipment and speakers (i.e. amp terminals are not too close together, etc.). Also note that spades come in 2 different sizes... make sure you get the right size for your binding posts.

Since you already own the cables you should experiment between bi-wire and normal wiring methods (swap, listen, etc.). May I also suggest replacing the metal bridges between the 2 sets of binding posts with actual cable (when using 1 pair of wiring, not bi-wiring). Often a perceived difference when biwiring can be traced back to loose connections on the binding post bridges.

Use the search engine and do a search on Bi-wiring. There was substantial dialog on this about a month ago. I wouldn't think everyone wants to rehash that discussion. It was pretty painful.

..Doyle

NEVER use the A & B outputs together driving the same speaker!

Actually, if it's like most receivers, and the "B" outputs are simply extra binding posts from the same amps as the "A" channel, then it's perfectly fine to use the A+B posts to bi-wire.

This particular Denon's A+B outputs, indeed, are like that. The amps will still see an 8 Ohm load (if that's what these speakers are) if they're used to bi-wire in this fashion. It's when the "B" posts are used to drive another pair of speakers that are also 8 Ohm that the amps see a 4 Ohm load.

the "B" outputs are simply extra binding posts from the same amps as the "A" channel,

Are they in parallel? Series? Where's the switch in the circuit? Do they use build out resistors?

Are they in parallel? Series? Where's the switch in the circuit? Do they use build out resistors?
On this Denon, they're simply an extra set of binding posts (Is that parallel or series, I forget?). I clarified this a bit in my edit of the original post.

(quit stalking me! :p )

(Is that parallel or series, I forget?).

Big difference...but then, you probably don't know.

(quit stalking me! )


Heh, you think highly of yourself, unnecessarily.

Big difference...but then, you probably don't know.

I know that my explanation of the load that the amps on this Denon see when used to bi-wire in this fashion, or when used to drive another pair of speakers, is correct.

So you figure it out; is it parallel or series?

So you figure it out; is it parallel or series?

Again, this is way over your head.

I know that my explanation of the load that the amps on this Denon see when used to bi-wire in this fashion, or when used to drive another pair of speakers, is correct.


right...without actually knowing how the're connected....

If you want to inanely argue (or whatever it is you call it) with me, Targus, do it via PMs. If you have something to add that helps the OP, then, by all means, shoot.

Otherwise, I stand by what I posted in Post #4.

If the owner's manual is to be believed then this model does not simply have an extra set of B speaker terminals.

Page ten of the manual has instructions for driving the B terminals with the back surround amplifier for use with bi-amplified speakers (presumably with the speaker's on-board passive crossover).

So there is a switch/relay in there somewhere. The manual suggests speakers of 8 to 16 ohms, and cautions against 4 ohm drivers. I'll put my money on A+B as a series hookup. Is it a good bet Targus? ;)

Otherwise, I stand by what I posted in Post #4.


Of course you would, you don't understand what's going on.

Read Trekguys post for a clue.

Omray, there is no scientific support for bi-wiring. So, if you already have the extra wires, go ahead and try bi-wiring your speakers. You are unlikely to damage them. But you are even more unlikely to actually get any improvement in your sound. If you don't already have the extra wires, then don't bother. And I hope you are using nothing more expensive than 12-gauge wire that sells for 30 to 40 center per foot. Anything more expensive than that is also a waste of money (scientifically speaking).

Now, bi-amping may improve your sound, depending on your speakers and amps, and that does require bi-wiring. But that is a whole other concept and the benefit comes from the extra amps not the extra wires.

As to your question about banana plugs, etc., they just make it easier to move equipment around, change connections, etc.

If the owner's manual is to be believed then this model does not simply have an extra set of B speaker terminals.

Page ten of the manual has instructions for driving the B terminals with the back surround amplifier for use with bi-amplified speakers (presumably with the speaker's on-board passive crossover).



Of course you would, you don't understand what's going on.

Read Trekguys post for a clue.

I DO know what's going on. The receiver allows you to assign the extra 2 amps (if you have them, ie. 5 channel setup) to the front "B" terminals for bi-amping, but the receiver also allows you to simply use the front "B" terminals to connect an extra set of front speakers to the front L+R amps that are used to drive the "A" front speakers. There's a reason that the manual cautions against using 4Ohm speakers in this configuration; 2 pairs of speakers driven by the 2 amps (not 4 amps), front L+R.

So, I don't care what it's called, series or parallel; I know how it works.

HERE (http://usa.denon.com/AVR-2807-OM-English-EU.pdf) is the receiver's manual. You can see if you can find within it the answer to whatever it is that's troubling you.

[QUOTE=sivadselim]

So, I don't care what it's called, series or parallel; I know how it works.
QUOTE]


If you know how it works then you should know the difference between series and parallel.

I DO know what's going on. The receiver allows you to assign the extra 2 amps (if you have them, ie. 5 channel setup) to the front "B" terminals for bi-amping,

OK, the thread title is: "Biwire"...whay are you going on about biamping?

So, I don't care what it's called, series or parallel; I know how it works.

In this case, it's neither....but you knew that...right? ;)

You can see if you can find within it the answer to whatever it is that's troubling you.

Once again, your confusion overcomes you.
I do know what's going on....you're one of those who doesn't.

I looked at the manual also and it does not allow you to send the surround amp output to the B terminals when biamping. What it does is allow you to send the signal that is present on the A/B terminals to the surround amp. You then have the A/B terminals driving one biamp speaker and the surround terminals driving the other half of the biamp speaker. Two stereo amplifiers one driving the upper and one driving the lower of a biamped speaker. Obviously you lose your ability for 5.1 sound if you use your surround amp to do this. As to what is happening with the A/B or A+B, it really is not clear when you read the manual. The only clue comes on the spec page where it talks about Speaker terminals and says for A or B the spec is 6-16 ohms and for A+B the spec is 8-16 ohms. I would interpret that as implying the connections are in parallel and based on that they do not want individual speaker connected in parallel that are less than 8 ohm as that would put a load of less than 4 ohms on the amp and cause overheating. With A or B they allow 6 ohms as the low impedance. My vote is for a parallel connection but one never knows the way these manuals are often written. All that being said, don't expect to hear a difference from BiWiring. Just more wires to fuss with for no sonic improvement.

..Doyle

I did not see the very clear diagram and instructions on pg 54 :o and will plead that I was mislead by page 10 that said,
Front A, Front B: Assign to use the 'Front A' (or the Front B') speakers with bi-amp connections.

Without reading pg. 54 and without stopping to consider how rear surround amps are generally used for two zone setups, I assumed that assignment was specifically made to A or B and that internal output switching was the only way to make sense of that.

Series? Well I guess I just assumed that they were looking for a total load of minimum of ~8 ohms, and two eights in parallel won't do it. 16 ohm speakers in home use are rare now I think.

Well Doyle I thank you for the reminder that it pays to read the instructions. ;)

I am having a quiet day at work and dialog is a little slim over at the Winemaking forum so I had a little time to chew through that manual. What ever happened to manuals that had schematics in them? I am sure a lot of people get these units and go through the Quick Start or Quick Setup and never get into all of the built in bells and whistles.

..Doyle

As to what is happening with the A/B or A+B, it really is not clear when you read the manual. The only clue comes on the spec page where it talks about Speaker terminals and says for A or B the spec is 6-16 ohms and for A+B the spec is 8-16 ohms. I would interpret that as implying the connections are in parallel and based on that they do not want individual speaker connected in parallel that are less than 8 ohm as that would put a load of less than 4 ohms on the amp and cause overheating. With A or B they allow 6 ohms as the low impedance. My vote is for a parallel connection............
Exactly. Thank you.

This receiver's front channel "B" posts work like every other manufacturer's mainstream, entry to mid-level receiver's front channel "B" posts work. Be that Yamaha, Denon, HK, Pioneer, ..........................you name it.

The receivers aren't that advanced nor complicated; no reason at all to to make this discussion complicated.

So, I don't care what it's called, series or parallel; I know how it works.

The receivers aren't that advanced nor complicated; no reason at all to to make this discussion complicated.

Why couldn't you answer such a simple question about these uncomplicated devices you know so well?

Why couldn't you answer such a simple question about these uncomplicated devices you know so well?
A better question would be "why couldn't you?", Mr. Omniscient Engineer Know-It-All A-hole? :)

A better question would be "why couldn't you?",

Bacause I haven't seen a schematic....oh, by the way, I posed the question to you....and now you're attempting to deflect from the fact that you spouted off about things you know nothing about...pathetic, but expected from you. ;)

I picked up a used set of mit terminator bi wire cables on ebay. They have one pair of wires that conect to the amp speaker output. There is some kind of circuitry that the signal passes thru (a large rectangular box aprox 2/3 of the way down the length of the cable) and there are 2 pairs of wires that hook up to the speaker binding posts. One is for hf, the other for lf. I have a yamaha reciever and definitive technology bipolar speakers. It is my OPINION that I hear a more focused soundstage with theese cables.

Omray, there is no scientific support for bi-wiring.

Hmm..there isn't?

Cheers, John

There is some kind of circuitry that the signal passes thru (a large rectangular box aprox 2/3 of the way down the length of the cable)

The 'circuitry' is called a capacitor, it retails for about $0.05, it forms a low pass filter, it's not magical. The cables you bought, distort the signal being passed through them...very poor design.

omray..

you might like to look at these 2 links

the first discusses theory benefits of bi-wiring the how to..

http://www.soundstage.com/synergize/synergize031998.htm

the second echoes the results of bi-wiring for me...improved
definition all the way around ..

here is another audio buff's experinece,

http://www.audiokarma.org/forums/showthread.php?t=111077&page=3

with decent inexpensive wires the payoff is rather nice if a 2nd amp
or the funds for a second amp aren't available.

Give it a go ...then please post follow up regardless of a positive
or not so positive result...ymmv

Have fun
Enjoy !!

omray..

you might like to look at these 2 links

the first discusses theory benefits of bi-wiring the how to..

http://www.soundstage.com/synergize/synergize031998.htm

the second echoes the results of bi-wiring for me...improved
definition all the way around ..

here is another audio buff's experinece,

http://www.audiokarma.org/forums/showthread.php?t=111077&page=3

with decent inexpensive wires the payoff is rather nice if a 2nd amp
or the funds for a second amp aren't available.

Give it a go ...then please post follow up regardless of a positive
or not so positive result...ymmv

Have fun
Enjoy !!



Why are you wasting his time and money when both of those links have ZERO science behind them? The mods need to close these BS threads down and send all you people over to the Audio Asylum where science is not allowed and snake oil is the water of choice.

Interesting links.

The first is great for how to do it, and they do expound correctly on going bi-amp as a better step. Their description of how biwiring affects the sound is interesting, especially the woofer back emf part..they of course have no test results which can back this claim up..nor, do the opponents of biwiring have anything to show it is erroneous.

Don't know what to make of their description of how it affects the sound, as it isn't very technical sounding..

The only troubling aspect to these biwiring threads is the attempt to shut them down by individuals who cannot discuss civilly. Tis a shame..

Cheers, John

jneutron,


You are absolutely correct...in fact if I were the forum moderator I
would remove several of the posters on this thread...as their only intent
is to flame those who would like to dialogue and share experriences that
at a minimum can further help.

Some people don't know the science of civility..

Particularly and apparently they didn't READ the whole of what I included
and was intended omray use..and others who may be interested..

Also for those interested there is good quality wire available from
Canare or Belden from $1.00 or /ft to about .81 cents /ft

Mr moderetor in the interest of real conversation..please monitor
and even expel flamers from the forum..

There is no excuse for this type of behavior on this type of forum....

Thank you

jneutron,


You are absolutely correct...in fact if I were the forum moderator I
would remove several of the posters on this thread...as their only intent
is to flame those who would like to dialogue and share experriences that
at a minimum can further help.

Some people don't know the science of civility..

Luckily, I am not saddled with that decision. I really don't care for censure, it can be an ugly thing.

While I personally do not know one way or another if biwiring is audible, a call to a moderator to shut down what one doesn't wish discussed, is just that...censorship.

Cheers, John

jneutron

A call to the moderator for the expulsion for improper behavior is not
censorship...people can agree to disagree with civility...without the derogatory
verbage...it is not the opposing viewpoint but rather the uncalled for ugliness.

If you read the second included link on my previous post on the bi-wired
Infinity quantum 2s there is a humble sincere post ( not mine) of someone
who did encounter success with bi-wiring...I know it worked for me...
of course the optimum would be bi-amping but untill the $$$ are there..
then this option helped me..

Of course your mileage may vary depending a particular system an the
environment it is located in...

Enjoy!!

Although Jneutron has made some valid points regarding the mathematical analysis of biwiring, the measurable effects are still in question. I can't say the same for the theory presented in the first link. Paragraphs like the following from the first link,
-----------------------
"Biwiring also affords you another grand luxury. Aside from helping to eliminate distortions, it also permits you to select specific wires for each frequency application. If you have been in this hobby/sport/disease for any length of time, you will have at least heard by now that all wires, both loudspeaker and interconnect, possess their own characteristic sound. When biwiring, you have the ability to match a wire that is open and airy, but is perhaps lean in the bass region, to the tweeter. By the same token, some of the best bass performance is delivered from wires that aren’t so revealing or extended in the high frequencies. So hitch up the low-frequency drivers with that wire. Now you’ve got the best of both worlds!"
--------------------------
I got the impression the author was more trying to fill his article than to present any kind of technical reasoning. I can hardly consider trying to pick wires because of their filtering characteristics a GRAND LUXURY. The second link was equally troubling with the discussion of reduced noise floor and a nice black background.
---------------------------
"I'm impressed. Still need more listening to understand the differences (if any ), but my first impression was that the noise floor was way lower. The music seems more pure, with a nice black background."
---------------------------
My personal take on Bi-wiring is that it will never be one of those things that I am willing to put any effort into because the benefits have not been demonstrated to be significantly measurable. There is obviously another camp that believes it is a worthwhile option for those not able to go for Bi-amping. I also think it unlikely that many would move from one camp to the other. You look around and see who is in your camp and decide if that is the camp you want to be in. Not a lot different from other decisions we all make. Almost like the movie Colors.

..Doyle

jneutron

A call to the moderator for the expulsion for improper behavior is not
censorship...people can agree to disagree with civility...without the derogatory
verbage...it is not the opposing viewpoint but rather the uncalled for ugliness.


Agreed. I was not referring to your request to expunge non civil posts, I agree with you. I was referring to the request made of the mods (by spec) to shut down the entire thread.


If you read the second included link on my previous post on the bi-wired
Infinity quantum 2s there is a humble sincere post ( not mine) of someone
who did encounter success with bi-wiring...

I did read it. The positive results could indeed be accurate, or they could be the result of expectation bias. I cannot say one way or another. But I wouldn't ask the moderators there to shut the thread down because I disagreed..nor would I call the poster a clown or an idiot spouting BS.

Cheers, John

I don't think anyone's measured this back EMF, John.

As far as this thread being contentious and a reason for posts or posters to be censored, as far as I'm concerned, this is pretty mild. Certainly nothing like this: http://www.jokeroo.com/funnyvideos/politicians_fight_during_debate.html

I'm pretty sure Hef's girs are biwired and that's made for some improvements in the old sack.

My personal take on Bi-wiring is that it will never be one of those things that I am willing to put any effort into because the benefits have not been demonstrated to be significantly measurable.
..Doyle

We agree completely. While the math does show a difference, I also am unwilling to put any effort in. For me, it would require carrying twice as much wire, with no audible benefit for the application I would consider it for, that of stage reinforcement.

The depiction of wire as possessing "open", "airy", or "revealing" characteristics is indeed problematic.. For some reason, I am unable to find those attributes in the Belden catalogue, perhaps they forgot to include it? Most I'd look for would be R, L ,C, characteristic impedance, and prop speed. (and no, not because the highs will get there faster, but because the LC product is related to the velocity.)

Cheers, John

I don't think anyone's measured this back EMF, John.
.
Back EMF is just an attempt to return energy to the source...but it gets a little interesting when the source is zero ohms. It does add a component to the wire dissipation with a monowire setup, but it makes the eq's a bit more complex.. It's bad enough when one considers only resistance or coupled inductance.. That is why I have worked only with the resistive component.

Cheers, John

At the driver's resonance, which is when this back EMF will be at its greatest, it'll be in phase with the signal driving it resulting in that very high impedance that one observes in FR charts. I sure wouldn't want to hang my hat on that explanation as to the efficacy of biwiring. The thing is, on the web, you can write anything and there'll be a cadre of people who nod their heads in agreement. These articles that are written aren't vetted for accuracy but are designed to attract certain segments of the buying public to the respective websites.

I got the impression the author was more trying to fill his article than to present any kind of technical reasoning. I can hardly consider trying to pick wires because of their filtering characteristics a GRAND LUXURY. The second link was equally troubling with the discussion of reduced noise floor and a nice black background.



Exactly Doyle. The articles if you can call then that are full pf puff and fluff. And not one serious real world speaker designer, say a John Meyer. Have ever put forth this BiWire BS. Only the cable companies and not even the real ones of those just the high end snake oilers.

Why are you wasting his time and money when both of those links have ZERO science behind them? The mods need to close these BS threads down and send all you people over to the Audio Asylum where science is not allowed and snake oil is the water of choice.
Exactly Doyle. The articles if you can call then that are full pf puff and fluff. And not one serious real world speaker designer, say a John Meyer. Have ever put forth this BiWire BS. Only the cable companies and not even the real ones of those just the high end snake oilers.
Why does it get your panties in such a wad?

If someone wants to bi-wire, let 'em. It really doesn't waste very much time nor money. Who cares whether it's snake-oil or not? If someone "thinks" it makes their system sound better, then maybe they'll sleep better and be happier with their system.

But YOU certainly shouldn't lose any sleep over it.

Why does it get your panties in such a wad?

If someone wants to bi-wire, let 'em. It really doesn't waste very much time nor money. Who cares whether it's snake-oil or not? If someone "thinks" it makes their system sound better, then maybe they'll sleep better and be happier with their system.

But YOU certainly shouldn't lose any sleep over it.

Well put. Thanks


Cheers, John

Bi-Wiring (I want to do this for the sound quality for my B&W 705 speakers connected to my Denon 2807):
When using speakers set up & created for bi-wiring [the separate drivers], please advise me for what truly will give the best sound possible.

I think if we all go back to the OPs first sentences, he states he wants to Bi-wire to achieve a sound quality improvement.

If he wants to do it just because he feels it will help, I don't think any of us have a problem with that but that is not what he stated. It seems that a number of us feel that there will be no measurable improvement. It might be good at this point to hear from the OP to see where he stands as this thread is now going into 3 weeks of Pros and Cons.

..Doyle

I think if we all go back to the OPs first sentences, he states he wants to Bi-wire to achieve a sound quality improvement.

If he wants to do it just because he feels it will help, I don't think any of us have a problem with that but that is not what he stated. It seems that a number of us feel that there will be no measurable improvement. It might be good at this point to hear from the OP to see where he stands........................
I think it's worth mentioning, whether BS, snake-oil, or not, that the manufacturer of his speakers, B&W, may have put this idea in his head, as they address the "benefits" of bi-wiring on their website and I presume in the product literature that came with his speakers.

Well, you've only got a certain amount of time to have the speakers before you can't return them. Anything the manufacturer can do to ensure you keep them in your house longer, increase the probability that you'll keep them. Returns are a no-win situation on the selling side.

Well, you've only got a certain amount of time to have the speakers before you can't return them. Anything the manufacturer can do to ensure you keep them in your house longer, increase the probability that you'll keep them. Returns are a no-win situation on the selling side.
I'm not looking for or questioning any reason WHY a speaker manufacturer might recommend bi-wiring or a break-in period.

I just think it's worth mentioning regarding, as DoyleS brought up, what is motivating the OP.

Well, the thread had digressed so I figured I'd go with the flow :D

Why does it get your panties in such a wad?

If someone wants to bi-wire, let 'em. It really doesn't waste very much time nor money. Who cares whether it's snake-oil or not? If someone "thinks" it makes their system sound better, then maybe they'll sleep better and be happier with their system.

But YOU certainly shouldn't lose any sleep over it.

Why? Because as someone who cares about helping people not get taken for a ride the truth needs to be known. Why continue to let these myths go on?Why let these devious sellers get away with lies? Why not put a stop to them and save people money and time and help them do things to make the system sound better that work? Things like room treatments, fixing ground loops, or any other thing that is based in fact not fiction.

Why? Because as someone who cares about helping people not get taken for a ride the truth needs to be known. Why continue to let these myths go on?Why let these devious sellers get away with lies? Why not put a stop to them and save people money and time and help them do things to make the system sound better that work? Things like room treatments, fixing ground loops, or any other thing that is based in fact not fiction.
I'm sure, especially after participating in this thread, that the OP knows all about all of the criticisms and caveats that exist regarding something as controversial as bi-wiring.

If he still wants to bi-wire, ............................... :)

I don't think that any campaign you mount is going to stop bi-wiring, whether myth or fact. I think this one is here to stay. Quite a bit of effort has gone into discrediting the idea for years, yet it still remains with us.

I know it's hard, but in this case, I think you just gotta let it go. :(

Quite a bit of effort has gone into discrediting the idea for years, yet it still remains with us.
:(

So that makes it right? Or ok that companies lie? It remains with us because of snake oil salesmen not because of any benefit.

Why? Because as someone who cares about helping people not get taken for a ride the truth needs to be known.

"Truth"..interesting... :p

The truth is, there has not been a credible scientific analysis which proves biwiring is ineffective or useless.

Harping on as you do, also does nothing to dispel it.

The closest analysis which was intended to do such, was going very very well up to the point where the person violated the first law of thermodynamics to complete his proof. He did well prior to that, parroting exactly what I presented..but then, poof, he had to jump ship to avoid confirming my analysis..

Since you are so sure it is a myth, explain in technical details why you say such.

Links to another's work is insufficient....YOU tell us, in your own technical words.

Why continue to let these myths go on?

Pony up or shutup. Detail to us why it's a myth.

Acting arrogantly is not proof of your assertion.

Cheers, John

John, haven't you implied, or perhaps even said, that you doubted the audible benefits of biwiring even though theoretically it could make a difference in some situations?

The closest analysis which was intended to do such, was going very very well up to the point where the person violated the first law of thermodynamics to complete his proof.

Interesting.

I'd like to see te paper or study you're mentioning here. Is it possible?

It is true biwiring provides a real electrical difference. The problem is to determine whether the difference is audible or not. IMO it is not audible.

Someone posted this schematics a while ago. I can't remember the author, but I think it may help:

"Truth"..interesting... :p

The truth is, there has not been a credible scientific analysis which proves biwiring is ineffective or useless.


Cheers, JohnIsn't that trying to prove a negative? Wouldn't we want to prove that biwiring did make an (audible) difference?

I don't know enough about the math John. What I learned, I've not used and many things are fuzzy. What I do know is just because there's a mathematical difference in two scenarios that it doesn't necessarily rise to an audible difference. After all, mathematically, there's a finite difference between 4 and 3 meters of wire. What I do know from digging past the people who write ad and marketing copy and going to the engineers who actually work on making the speakers is that the extra set of binding posts is put on at the insistence of bean counters. When it comes to sales, marketing generally trumps science. Now the problem of talking to an engineer becomes confounded when the designer is also the lead person in hawking the company's wares.

Now, the way I look at biwiring is not going from running 1 set of cables to the speaker vs 2 sets of cables to the speaker and then removing the plate or jumper at the speaker end. I look at it as running two sets of cables to the speaker and either the jumper is there or it isn't. To my mind, I see essentially no difference whether that plate is located at the speaker itself or slid back if you will to the amp.

Even so, I myself have been curious as to whether I've missed something. Whether my assumption that the difference really is insignificant is erroneous. So, I have an experiment. It's simple and regretfully it's not DBT but here it is.

There is a rather simple test that can be performed by any and all users who are presently biwiring and/or contemplating it to see if you can actually tell if there is an audible effect from biwiring as opposed to single wiring. Rather than debate the theories, of which there are many, do the experiment.

Understand this is a single blind test...not as good as a DBT, but far easier to implement since hopefully we have two other people we can rely on.

Choose the musical passage you'll be evaluating. Let it be something you're familiar with (or not...your choice). Have you and the two other people listen to it first of all single wired and then biwired (the explanation of what that is follows). Listen as many times as you like to familiarize yourselves.

Setup your biwires but leave the jumpers connected to one of the binding posts on both the left and right speakers (top or bottom doesn't matter).

You, the listener, sit down in your favorite listening position. Place a blindfold over your eyes. You'll also need the aid of two assistants. Have one of the assistants flip a coin say 10 times...20 is better...the more times the better, and record the results, H or T, on two pieces of paper. H can represent biwired...T can represent single wire. Or the other way whatever the assistant wishes.

Each assistant then gets in back of each speaker with their paper that indicates whether the test they will be performing will involve biwiring or not. As stated previously, T was single wire and H biwire for the purposes of this example. Say the first test is T. The assistants will then simultaneously rotate the jumpers into position. This shorts out the HF and LF speaker binding posts and creates a single wire configuration where the only thing different is that the speakers are now single-wired. The overall gauge is the same...the lengths are the same...the materials are the same...the speaker wires haven't moved, etc. etc. etc.

You, the listener, record your results after listening to whatever musical passage it was after each of the tests. No, don't take off your blindfold...Just say biwire or single wire...let the assistants write down what you said.

Then, since you have two other people, let assistant A be the listener and you take his/her place. Repeat the test with a new set of coin flips. Then finally once more with the assistant that was not tested etc.

This is a little bit of work but if you bring pizza and beer, maybe everyone will learn a little something.

People say a lot of things ranging from biwiring works to ESP is real. On either side of my radical juxtaposition you'll find a vocal crowd that ascribes to that position. In the latter example, the nobel laureate in physics, Dr. Brian Josephson has taken the position that there must be something to ESP and is examining what he knows about physics to search for explanations that lend credence to the ESP-philes. What he hasn't done though is vetted the information that's out there for accuracy or validity. However in his mind, quantum mechanically speaking, there's enough to draw parallels to ESP and that things can travel over a distance like thoughts.

Now I and others have done my experiment and we've always had a null result. I can't test everyone nor can I test every speaker that's out there. Were I a designer though, I'd toss that extra set of binding post up there. I'd do it not because I think there's something to it, but because I'd be in this business to make money. If I'm not, why the f*ck am I in it? I'd not want to alienate the crowd that wants to biwire or biamp. I'd want my speakers to stay in the purchaser's hands as long as I could. That'd maximize the probability that they'd keep them. It'd also minimize returns. No dealer or manufacturer wants to have to eat into their profits or sales. I'd not want to alienate the hi-end wire crowd. What vendor of speakers wants to turn those potential allies into enemies? God, if I were to publically call them thiefs and charlatans I'd become an outcast of the 'good old boy' network. There must be honor among thieves. If not, they'll find something I've said that's questionable and make it public. Those reasons to my mind vastly trump whatever small, finite, might be audible under a very specific set of conditions that don't exist when listening to music, may exist.

John, haven't you implied, or perhaps even said, that you doubted the audible benefits of biwiring even though theoretically it could make a difference in some situations?

I directly stated that I have never heard a difference, and for all my needs, do not feel biwiring justifies the extra cables I would have to carry. But yes, I pointed out one aspect of the theoretical difference, that being the simple resistive loss characteristic of mono vs bi.

If there is an audible difference, it certainly would be small, otherwise everybody'd hear a diff..apparently, any effect is small enough that dbt's cannot reliably detect it, that's pretty small in my book, and if it's that small, it probably would only be detectable from the sweet spot. I don't spend much time listening to music that critically. Nor carrying around double the wire for such a relatively small improvement.

Cheers, John

Interesting.

I'd like to see te paper or study you're mentioning here. Is it possible?

Jim Leseuf did it on his web page, the scot's guide. Keyword modulation muddle. His first attempt actually built a strawman to debunk...when I pointed that out, he kept the strawman up, and added a second page..on this one, he duplicated my entire analysis up to the point where he claimed the crossover compensated for the wire dissipation differences.
It is true biwiring provides a real electrical difference. The problem is to determine whether the difference is audible or not. IMO it is not audible.

I have nothing to prove your assertion either correct or incorrect.

Someone posted this schematics a while ago. I can't remember the author, but I think it may help:

Thanks. But what is of note, is that all the elements in that schematic dissipate the exact same dissipation profile, that of I squared loss. With a crossover splitting the spectra, each speaker dissipates only what gets to it, but the common wire dissipates as the sum of the woof/tweet signals. If woof is signal A, tweet signal B, the wireloss is proportional to (A+B) squared, or Asquared plus B squared plus 2AB. The 2AB loss is inconsistent with the individual driver losses, and inconsistent with seperate wire losses.

Cheers, John

Isn't that trying to prove a negative? Wouldn't we want to prove that biwiring did make an (audible) difference?

It has been asserted that it is scientifically proven that biwiring makes no difference. All arguments against have used that schtick.

So, where is that science?

You are correct that in the end, one must prove audibility. But science does not show that there is no difference...ie that the drivers receive the same signal regardless of the wiring scheme.

Cheers, John

It has been asserted that it is scientifically proven that biwiring makes no difference. All arguments against have used that schtick.

So, where is that science?

You are correct that in the end, one must prove audibility. But science does not show that there is no difference...ie that the drivers receive the same signal regardless of the wiring scheme.

Cheers, John
But arguing about the science seems to be more of an academic exercise than a practical one if it is not audible. I think most people come and post for practical advice -i.e. should I bi-wire or not. While it is true that if one bi-wires and hears a difference then a "go for it" attitude might be the best advice; however, objective types like to point out that bias is a real thing that can affect our judgement.

I think I saw the OP over at Starbucks this morning reading an algebra book. :)

..Doyle

But arguing about the science seems to be more of an academic exercise than a practical one if it is not audible. I think most people come and post for practical advice -i.e. should I bi-wire or not. While it is true that if one bi-wires and hears a difference then a "go for it" attitude might be the best advice; however, objective types like to point out that bias is a real thing that can affect our judgement.

Practical advice is of the form:, "should you biwire", or if you wish to do so, "how to biwire", or even "if it makes an audible difference, it's a quite small one".


Practical advice is not of this form: "Biwiring is nothing but BS, it's a hoax, pushed by liars and snake oil salesmen..this thread and all like it should be shut down by the moderators...""

I have pointed out (in this thread) the possibility that perceived improvement may be expectation bias...that any effect would be small (because it has not reliably detected via dbt, it is mathematically small, is easily reduced by simply increasing guage, and the recorded stimulus does not have the correct localization parameter set). I also say that for my apps, it does not provide any advantage, either audibly (if an advantage even exists), or practically (wire volume and weight).

I have not provided the scientifically based analysis of biwire dissipation as a practical answer to the questions "how" or "why", but only to show that it is not scientifically proven that it doesn't make a difference. Quite the contrary, there is an actual difference. But audibility is in the ear (or mind :confused: ) of the beholder. It is not practical to browbeat others into adopting a personal worldview just because one does not understand the technical arguments.

Cheers, John

I don't know enough about the math John. What I learned, I've not used and many things are fuzzy. What I do know is just because there's a mathematical difference in two scenarios that it doesn't necessarily rise to an audible difference. After all, mathematically, there's a finite difference between 4 and 3 meters of wire.

The level of difference between mono and biwiring is the exact same level of the dissipation losses within the wires. If you lose 5% of the power to the wires, then with a monowire set into a two way, the losses will vary from 0% to 10%, averaging of course, 5% (no change in RMS losses). That loss variation is the product of the lows times the highs..

Lower the guage of a monowire, that relationship still holds, but the levels drop. (Easiest way).

I'm confident you are correct, many speak builders add biwire capability for market reasons, they're not dumb. I can't be bothered with the ad hype "science" though, most of that is just made up to convince the customer.

If I wanted to test biwiring, I'd get music that was closest to produceing a great soundstage. Then I'd study the music to get a feel for the image placement. A real good feel for that. Also, the clarity of the images.

Swap to biwire (it may be that changing only one channel is the best for this test), then over time (human interpretive latency), re-learn the image placement and clarity.

The issue is one of the human brain re-learning the stimulus parameters. That is not currently addressed in dbt structure.

(gotta go to lunch...we can talk later..)

Cheers, John

Luckily, the local Chrylser dealer had a buffet set up, so lunch was good. I saved enough to go biwire!

John, did what you say apply to the way I look at biwire? IOW, have two sets of wires running to the speakers but in the biwire scenario, remove the jumpers?

I have Jneroon on ignore but I see quotes from him asking for tests. I and a local AV installer friend did a SMAART of a Energy RC-30(if I remember correctly). He was under the impression that he would get extended high end out of it. And that he could hear it. So I said ok lets do this if you hear it then I can see it on the graph. He ran 3 meters of Cobalt ultimate that he sells. Hooked it up non bi wire and said hear how flat it is? Then we took a shot of it. He then laid in another 3 meter for the bi wire and was giddy as it came to life he said. Soooo I took a pic of that freq response and well....... Same look as non bi wire. Needless to say Peter was a bit downfaced and replied that he must have something wrong in his hookup. Yet before the measurement he heard it? I still give Peter some help from time to time, but he is not as quick to biwire when I am looking at his work.

I will post the freq responses as soon as I can find the folder I stashed them in.

John, did what you say apply to the way I look at biwire? IOW, have two sets of wires running to the speakers but in the biwire scenario, remove the jumpers?

With both wiresets in and the jumper in place, the non bi setup will have half the effective resistance of the bi set, so is not an exact test.

As I pointed out waaaaay early on, it's usually just easier to drop the guage of a monowire rather than go to the bothere of biwiring.

Honestly, if I were trying it, I'd go to #22 mono on one side, #22 bi on the other, and listen.. ( It's too small a guage actually, but it increases the difference). If the imaging goes all weird with that unbalanced #22 setup, go to the next larger guage...repeat this until the audible difference goes away.. That gives you a threshold of effects.

If nothing at all is audible even at #22 awg, then it's just not audible..

Cheers, John

I have Jneroon on ignore but I see quotes from him asking for tests.

So much for the ostrich act, eh?? Kids, sheesh.. Stop looking outside at the playground from the classroom, and come out to play..you solve nothing with tantrums. (neroon...sheesh, I thought you were an adult..sigh)

I and a local AV installer friend did a SMAART of a Energy RC-30(if I remember correctly). He was under the impression that he would get extended high end out of it. And that he could hear it. So I said ok lets do this if you hear it then I can see it on the graph. He ran 3 meters of Cobalt ultimate that he sells. Hooked it up non bi wire and said hear how flat it is? Then we took a shot of it. He then laid in another 3 meter for the bi wire and was giddy as it came to life he said. Soooo I took a pic of that freq response and well....... Same look as non bi wire. Needless to say Peter was a bit downfaced and replied that he must have something wrong in his hookup. Yet before the measurement he heard it? I still give Peter some help from time to time, but he is not as quick to biwire when I am looking at his work.

I will post the freq responses as soon as I can find the folder I stashed them in.

Good info.. So, based on one discombobulated impression (not EVEN a sighted anecdotal account...just an impression??), the mathematical analysis is, ummm, what?

Now, how does the system analyze the signals?? FFT?

How does the FFT algorithm calculate a power product of two bipolar signals? Specifically, the 2AB product caused by the branch dissipation difference? Is the machine even capable of discerning a Sine amplitude modulated sine (SAM) which is buried within the two drive sines?? The error component in a monowire setup is a product of two sines, and a product of two sines has ZERO integrated energy...what do you think an FFT looks for?

And, what kind of printout does the machine produce to display localization parameter shifts?

While your scenario certainly questions the use of sighted anecdotal accounts as valid, it is limited to that, and that alone..

It certainly does raise the spectre that the SMAART system is incapable of seeing what is being discussed...because of mathematical limitations of the software algorithms.

Cheers, John

I truthfully could never hear a difference when bi-wiring. Now bi-amping? That's another matter.

Try all combinations... see what sounds/works best in your aural opinion. ;)

So much for the ostrich act, eh?? Kids, sheesh.. Stop looking outside at the playground from the classroom, and come out to play..you solve nothing with tantrums. (neroon...sheesh, I thought you were an adult..sigh)


Good info.. So, based on one discombobulated impression (not EVEN a sighted anecdotal account...just an impression??), the mathematical analysis is, ummm, what?

Now, how does the system analyze the signals?? FFT?

How does the FFT algorithm calculate a power product of two bipolar signals? Specifically, the 2AB product caused by the branch dissipation difference? Is the machine even capable of discerning a Sine amplitude modulated sine (SAM) which is buried within the two drive sines?? The error component in a monowire setup is a product of two sines, and a product of two sines has ZERO integrated energy...what do you think an FFT looks for?

And, what kind of printout does the machine produce to display localization parameter shifts?

While your scenario certainly questions the use of sighted anecdotal accounts as valid, it is limited to that, and that alone..

It certainly does raise the spectre that the SMAART system is incapable of seeing what is being discussed...because of mathematical limitations of the software algorithms.

Cheers, John

Ok John here I am. Now if you understood SMAART, which it seems you dont, then again it wouldnt matter what your math says,which so far is all you seem to have. If you can hear it can be measured by it. Because if you hear it then its at least 2-3db different than the other signal. I can measure down to the 100th of a db, so we can see it. Again we measured the freq response of the speakers wired the 2 different ways.

Now please feel free to email Jamie Anderson at JBL/SIA to claim the software wont work for this or John Meyer at Meyer sound to tell him his SIM3 isnt a valid tool either.

And please how my impression is discombobulated? Why do I need a sighted test? When I can clearly hear and see that it was bogus? And why again do none of the real speaker companies in the world propose biwire? Why only the snake oil salesmen?

You are an odd duck John you claim on one hand it doesnt make a diff then you defend it to the bone.

Like I have said before John, if you have all the answers step up give a paper at AES.I deal with real audio for a living and have worked with guys with more brains than 10 of us put together. If you have some breakthrough on grounding or biwire then put it to the pros not some free board on the internet where every goober will buy into the BS that joe blow cable seller throws at them. Otherwise you are just pissin in the wind.

Ok John here I am.

Good. The "na na na I can't hear you" schtick was rather undignified.


Now if you understood SMAART, which it seems you dont, then again it wouldnt matter what your math says,which so far is all you seem to have.

Hmmm, which part of FFT did you not understand? According to the webpage, this is the basis for the instrument package.

Explain to us how an FFT can see a zero power signal.

Explain to us how an FFT describes a SAM waveform superimposed on the basis sines.

Explain to us how an FFT describes an SPM waveform superimposed on the basis sines. (SPM is sine phase modulation).


If you can hear it can be measured by it.

Measuring is limited to the ability of the measurement system. You have it backwards, and assume that your measuring tools are the cat's meow..

That is a luxury of yours that I cannot enjoy, as many times I have to create the tools because they do not exist.

Because if you hear it then its at least 2-3db different than the other signal.

Apparently you have not read much about jnd's.

I can measure down to the 100th of a db, so we can see it.

I can measure DC in the nanovolt regime..unfortunately, I cannot assume that meter will tell me anything about an AC signal, as it will say zero volts if I give it an AC wave. The DC meter was not designed to look for AC.

Again we measured the freq response of the speakers wired the 2 different ways.

An excellent thing to do. At this time, that is basically all you can do. Unfortunately, a sweep will not distinguish between monowire and biwiring since it requires the branching for the dissipation product, and a broadband spectral analysis still requires the FFT pick up what it is not designed to look for, that being zero integral power signals.

Now please feel free to email Jamie Anderson at JBL/SIA to claim the software wont work for this or John Meyer at Meyer sound to tell him his SIM3 isnt a valid tool either.

Why? People like you are more than happy to buy their stuff without questioning the basis of the analysis algorithms. So what is to be accomplished?

Their product meets your needs, period. The fact that your needs neglect the needs of a few audiophiles is not Jamie's or John's problem, they have a target market.
And please how my impression is discombobulated? Why do I need a sighted test? When I can clearly hear and see that it was bogus?

You have a severe reading comprehension problem. Indeed, this is the primary reason we got off on the wrong foot in the first place.

You said of your friend.... "he was under the impression" that he would get extended high end out of it. YOU discombobulated that impression, flat out showing his impression incorrect.

Do us all a favor, and read the posts slower.

I also concur that biwiring should not affect the frequency response of a speaker when a swept sine is used. Alteration of the localization parameters, that is a different and far more complex issue.

And why again do none of the real speaker companies in the world propose biwire? Why only the snake oil salesmen?
Define "real". If you limit it to manufacturers that you would buy from, it's simple...they see no perceived benefit, you see no perceived benefit, so why should they even consider it.

Esotheric, small companies can't be bothered with you, nor you them..they have their own target market, and they need to distinguish themselves, or adapt to the interests of their consumers. Biwiring is one of those distinguishing features, completely seperate from actual audibility.

You are an odd duck John you claim on one hand it doesnt make a diff then you defend it to the bone.

Actually, I claim that even though it may be audible, I have no desire to double the number of wires I carry, and my application would not benefit from it even if there is an audible difference. I also take issue with the garbage explanations foisted upon the non-technical audiophiles by the vendors...and, as you are well aware, I also take issue with incorrect explanations presented by engineering types like you. I am an equal opportunity kinda guy. :p

As for me being an "odd duck"...we concur.. :p

As for defending to the bone...my customers measure subatomic particles out to 1 part in 10 to the 16th (some of them antimatter), and you think I'm a nitpicker???sheesh.. :)

Like I have said before John, if you have all the answers step up give a paper at AES.

Again, why? So far, the AES is dismally behind the times with respect to ground loops, dismally behind the times with respect to localization characterization, dismally behind the times with respect to star ground techniques and noise abatement....what kind of a target audience is that?

One of your high level AES members claims that skin effect causes temporal smearing, and that some 50 hz information travels along the wire at 2.93 meters per second. All that from the incorrect application of the depth penetration approximation equation to a wire pair...

And I do not have all the answers, but I do have some interesting questions, eh? As for the FFT's inability to detect monowire problems, I suspect wavelets are actually better suited...unfortunately, that technology is not yet ready for prime time.

You on the other hand, have a hammer, and see everthing as a nail.. I caution against that worldview, as sometimes the guy in the middle of the highway yelling it can't be done, is run over by the tractor trailor of someone who did it.

I deal with real audio for a living and have worked with guys with more brains than 10 of us put together. .

I assume you'r speaking for yourself and your peers, and not me... (hadta toss that in.. :p .)

My peers don't use textbooks, they start with maxwell's equations and go from there..(believe it or not, that is because they don't want to worry about the errors in the textbooks..) Course, the last 50 page derivation done to prove I was correct, well...halfway down the first page, I had no idea what he was doing.. :eek:

If you have some breakthrough on grounding or biwire then put it to the pros.

So I take it, you are not considering yourself as one of the pro's? Hmmm.

Honestly, I present it, and anybody who wishes to persue it can. I have no problem with a collaborative effort with anybody.

not some free board on the internet where every goober will buy into the BS that joe blow cable seller throws at them.
Your efforts to enlighten those "goobers" is actually the pissin in the wind. Calling everybody idiots or clowns, do you think that helps convince those "goobers"? Do you think calling them "goobers" is going to help your cause???

Otherwise you are just pissin in the wind.

I've tried to teach you about magnetic coupling effects, and balance of energy equations, yet you do not learn them. That is indeed pissin in the wind.

I expect better of you than the arrogance you have displayed, and hope you can temper it down.

Cheers, John

Well the AES is not the only place where researchers do investigations into localization although I doubt any have looked at it from this point of view. John, I think we can find quacks, weirdos, and other nutjobs in just about any field, don't you think? Like that former Harvard professor, now dead, who was pretty sure about alien abductions?

Well the AES is not the only place where researchers do investigations into localization although I doubt any have looked at it from this point of view.

Honestly, I believe they shy away from delving into this line of research because of the nutjobs in audio who profess ridiculous claims. I cannot blame the researchers.

John, I think we can find quacks, weirdos, and other nutjobs in just about any field, don't you think?

I believe I am one such nutjob.. :p

The AES guy I spoke of is an absolute monster in his chosen field, however. In reading some of his recent work, I stand in awe. With time, I could certainly learn enough to be able to understand what he writes on currently, but cannot now. Excellent work from what I can understand.

Cheers, John

I don't know if they shy away John (but your point regarding the nutjobs is well taken!) so much as there are journals more appropriate to their work. For example, in technology that seeks to use engineering to help people with various sensory limitations, publishing in such journals that'll get widespread attention can help people with very real problems and they ain't wires! There's something to 'borg' engineering I think. My sister-in-law's sister (don't know what the correct term here is) is completing her doctorate in some bioengineering field. Don't know if she'll teach or work for a company that looks to make limbs that better hook into the brain to help people who've lost them.

There's certainly a lot of tools one could use to test issues of audibility. What do you think about modeling a loudspeaker using resistors, capacitors, and inductors...adding the biwire connections in the appropriate place, and then recording the output for subsequent comparison/subtraction?

I don't know if they shy away John (but your point regarding the nutjobs is well taken!) so much as there are journals more appropriate to their work.
You may be correct. A couple of years back, I contacted several researchers prominent in the field, and they wanted nothing to do with testing of the audibility of wires, they are well aware of the nutjobs out there, and they do not wish to be associated professionally with them. (Last weekend at Lincoln square, I think I spotted one of them running the other way, looking over his shoulder at me.. :p )


There's certainly a lot of tools one could use to test issues of audibility. What do you think about modeling a loudspeaker using resistors, capacitors, and inductors...adding the biwire connections in the appropriate place, and then recording the output for subsequent comparison/subtraction?

Modelling, hmmm. I'm not sure if the model math is good enough...

How bout actual circuit?

Cheers, John

I've also contacted researchers. One was a woman, I forget her name but I think she was from Northwestern. I'd contacted her because her name was mentioned I believe in Stereophile (might've been a letter?) and the person was using her work to justify some strange, and IMO, bogus point. Anyways, she wrote back and in as polite a manner as possible essentially said she had serious reservations about the claims of golden ears. In general I've found that many researchers and even professors respond positively when you contact them directly. Maybe it makes them feel a little like 'rock stars'!

The reason for modelling the speaker with circuitry, and that includes the crossover, is that you want to be able to to make sure you can present a realistic load and hence realistic voltages and currents.

The reason for modelling the speaker with circuitry, and that includes the crossover, is that you want to be able to to make sure you can present a realistic load and hence realistic voltages and currents.

Um.....I knew that. But I guess the fact that I used the wrong word (duh) :o ....oh nevermind... ;)

Yes, the circuit I presented is a model of a simple two way first order.

The simplicity is, if there is any difference whatsoever between the two schemes, it will show up as a voltage difference. This setup spots any difference at all, be it temporal or amplitude, without even thinking about whether or not an FFT is capable of seeing the desired signal.. All that is needed is matching the tweeter load resistances and the capacitors. The inductors don't even have to be matched. In fact, the upper circuit doesn't even need the inductor or LF load.

After nulling the error with a HF signal only, introduce the LF If the error output changes when the LF is introduced, poof..dere it is..

If you gate the scope using the HF signal, or use the HF drive signal itself as channel two of the scope, you can use it as a reference time for temporal looky-see.


Cheers, John

Here John let me make it simple for you. If someone says they can hear something different in setup A VS setup B. I can measure it with SIM or SMAART or room EQ wizard even. I dont have to understand the fine math that goes into it, engineers that designed it have done that for me.So if this biwire does anything we can measure it. Your right I dont understand all the math that goes into FFT, I am very well versed in how to use the systems and have been in some very nice halls tuning them and been trusted to do the job.

You blow alot of wind but each time I have asked you to take it to the people you say are so behind the times etc. You wont do it.

Here are some real product makers. VDOSC, Meyer Sound, EAW, Danley Labs,Nexo. Not one of these companies preaches bi wire. Even on the energy speakers we tested in the manual it simply says ask yuor dealer about it. Why would they just not tell us?

Again I am done with you. Hiding my head in the sand even, because you seem to have all the answers but when pressed, say that those who would benifit from your breakthroughs couldnt understand them. The whole audio world is wrong but you couldnt teach them. Have a nice life.

Here John let me make it simple for you. If someone says they can hear something different in setup A VS setup B. I can measure it with SIM or SMAART or room EQ wizard even.

No, not necessarily. Tell us how your measuring tools measure the location of an image within the soundstage.

You cannot.. you have neither the understanding of how an image is formed, how it is shifted, how to detect that shift, nothing.

All you can talk about is how the TOOLS you are handed can measure it. You do not understand the basis for those tools. So you do not understand the limitations of those tools.

I dont have to understand the fine math that goes into it,

Typically, I hear that from one who cannot understand the math.

engineers that designed it have done that for me.

Yes, I know. I am one of those "engineers". And worse than that, I've given enough lectures, tours, and classes to know when I am dealing with someone who cannot even ask the right questions.


So if this biwire does anything we can measure it.

No, you cannot. You do not understand why your tools fail you.

Your right I dont understand all the math that goes into FFT, I am very well versed in how to use the systems and have been in some very nice halls tuning them and been trusted to do the job.

I worked with a guy once who had memorized all the mil specs for semiconductor device screening and testing. He also was unable to understand what was really going on, he was merely a parrott of what others taught him. (He was easily replaced by a set of books).

You blow alot of wind but each time I have asked you to take it to the people you say are so behind the times etc. You wont do it.

So why don't you contact them, tell them this guy is spoutin stuff that makes no sense.. It would be great to discuss with them on forum, what I am talking about...course, your errors would also come out in the wash. Things like levels have to change 2 to 3dB to be audible, that you can measure to .001 dB, romex doesn't broadcast magnetic fields. Why do you not answer the simple questions???

Hey, there's a McDonalds french fry convention in town, maybe I could give a presentation on ohms law to them...that'll send them down the right path..

Here are some real product makers. VDOSC, Meyer Sound, EAW, Danley Labs,Nexo. Not one of these companies preaches bi wire. Even on the energy speakers we tested in the manual it simply says ask yuor dealer about it. Why would they just not tell us?

Because they do not understand it. Just like you. Nor, do they care. Just like you.

If their target market is anything like you, they can simply feed you updated technology at their pace, as your understanding is limited to what they understand..you are not driving their understanding, they are..yours.

Again I am done with you. Hiding my head in the sand even, because you seem to have all the answers but when pressed, say that those who would benifit from your breakthroughs couldnt understand them. The whole audio world is wrong but you couldnt teach them. Have a nice life.

Ah, you are such a child.

When you get over your own arrogance, I'll be here.

Course, you could make it easy on yourself and stop being so condescending to others here.. I'd have left you alone had you been reasonable, as I gain nothing by showing your knowledge level to be that of a sound techie.

Cheers, John

Let me see if I understand this correctly. John, you're saying, postulizing, hypothesizing based upon your mathematical treatment of the situation, which focusses to some extent on looking at the non-linearities of the crossover components under certain situations ('course, drivers are only 'linear' over very small, finite ranges, right?) that if speakers are biwired this can affect, to a small degree, the components. Enough so that there will be a finite difference between the two scenarios that will most likely manifest itself in such a way that the localalization changes. IOW, the 'image' shifts somewhat. In order to hear that localization would probably require a very unique set of conditions, either with specific test tones or music and the listener sitting very precisely in the sweet spot which hopefully is not the wet spot from last night.

Further, I think you're also saying that many of the claims which either people, writers, vendors make (better highs...better bass...better whatever) are only intuitive to them yet their intuition is wrong as it is based on an overall superficiality of their understanding. IOW, the facts suggest otherwise.

Further still, you're saying the use of certain tools such as SMAART and the like, while useful for certain things, are not the right measurement tools to pick up on this localization.

How close am I to understanding what it is that you've been saying?

you're saying, postulizing, hypothesizing based upon your mathematical treatment of the situation, which focusses to some extent on looking at the non-linearities of the crossover components under certain situations ('course, drivers are only 'linear' over very small, finite ranges, right?) that if speakers are biwired this can affect, to a small degree, the components.

The first assumption is that all the components are linear... the wire, the cap/inductor, and the drivers. While not strictly true for any of those, non linearities in those is a very very low level effect (cept drivers, but we don't worry bout that as both mono and biwire use the same ones.).

The thing that is non linear, is power dissipation. For a biwire setup, the dissipation in the wire is exactly the same as that of the drivers, (scaled according to the actual resistance of course).

For a monowire setup, because the common wire has two currents which add in the wire, the powerloss changes in a subtle way.

So, it's actually not a change in the components

hmmm, postulating, hypothesizing...ah...guess I didn't detail on this forum,..

I did audibility tests coupla years ago for this, using contrived signals rather than music. And, did ele measurement tests a year or so later. The math and theory was a followup..

And, I started the audibility testing after a visit to MSG, the small room (5K people, Jewel, James Taylor, etc..), when I heard a very interesting effect from the house system.

Enough so that there will be a finite difference between the two scenarios that will most likely manifest itself in such a way that the localalization changes. IOW, the 'image' shifts somewhat. In order to hear that localization would probably require a very unique set of conditions, either with specific test tones or music and the listener sitting very precisely in the sweet spot which hopefully is not the wet spot from last night.

I believe that is the most sensitive measure, image clarity. And, what you do in your listening room....stays in your listening room.. :p



Further, I think you're also saying that many of the claims which either people, writers, vendors make (better highs...better bass...better whatever) are only intuitive to them yet their intuition is wrong as it is based on an overall superficiality of their understanding. IOW, the facts suggest otherwise.

Their claims of superior sound may or may not be incorrect.. The scientific reasonings are quite wrong, so making scientific claims without the background knowledge is more consistent with science fiction than fact. But I cannot discount the possibility that they have heard something, I can only disagree with the explanations forwarded when they conflict with what I know.

Further still, you're saying the use of certain tools such as SMAART and the like, while useful for certain things, are not the right measurement tools to pick up on this localization.

If a tool is not sensitive to an entity, it is not logical to use that tool to say the entity does not exist. I cannot use a tape measure to measure a color. The tools such as SMAART, are excellent tools, and in the right hands, provide excellent results. But the caveat is, can they measure what we speak of?

I have presented a TESTABLE hypothesis, I have presented easily understood math, have presented exactly what the error signal is, I have shown that it is of a form that is most likely impossible to see using typical FFT analysis. And, I have provided a test configuration to find it.....the only thing I have speculated on is the possibility that it is discernable through localization.


How close am I to understanding what it is that you've been saying?

You understand it well.

Cheers, John

So, it's actually not a change in the components...
OK, so it's the power dissipation differences in the two scenarios which may (do?) result in localization differences which require certain constraints both in program material and listening technique to maximize the probability that it can be heard reliably.

I cannot use a tape measure to measure a color.
Pass the 'color' through a prism whose dispersion pattern has been previously determined on a wall and then marked off in distance from an arbitrary point. Looks like smoky rose with a hint of estonian plum to me.

OK, so it's the power dissipation differences in the two scenarios which may (do?) result in localization differences which require certain constraints both in program material and listening technique to maximize the probability that it can be heard reliably.

Yes.


Pass the 'color' through a prism whose dispersion pattern has been previously determined on a wall and then marked off in distance from an arbitrary point. Looks like smoky rose with a hint of estonian plum to me.

Very good..Gotta get up pretty early to get on over ya, eh? :p


It may be possible to gate an FFT to find the dissipation error signal, but it would require the two signals be locked in phase as multiples. Then, one could analyze the error of the hf over various points in the lf cycle.


Cheers, John

Forgive me for barging in late, but this is an interesting discussion on a subject I know little about (and have no particular axe to grind).


The thing that is non linear, is power dissipation. For a biwire setup, the dissipation in the wire is exactly the same as that of the drivers, (scaled according to the actual resistance of course).

For a monowire setup, because the common wire has two currents which add in the wire, the powerloss changes in a subtle way.

I don't understand about the power dissipation being non-linear in the wire. Is it:

(1) Non-linear in amplitude, so the waveform gets slightly distorted (e.g. a little clipped) after it traverses a length of wire? That is, the transfer function of the wire is non-linear?

Or

(2) Non-linear in the sense of having a non-uniform effect over frequency, not amplitude? That is, the lumped L's, R's, and C's in the wire will have some small filtering effect on the signal?

In the case of 1, I can understand how biwiring would make a difference. But for 2, it shouldn't, because two identical wires would process signals exactly the same as they would be if summed over a single wire.

Or is it some other case, like:

(3) The complex source impedance seen by two drivers looking back toward the amplifier will be different for a single wire vs. separate wires? Hence there could be different frequency/time responses for the two cases (two different filter configurations). But then I don't know what this has to do with non-linear power dissipation, because the circuits in both cases would be linear.

Thanks,
Terry

Terry this was interesting read.

http://www.audioholics.com/education/cables/bi-wiring-part-2-the-cable-conundrum

Terry this was interesting read.

http://www.audioholics.com/education/cables/bi-wiring-part-2-the-cable-conundrum
Thanks. Will print this out for my bedtime reading tonight!

Regards,
Terry

Well, I read the article referenced, and think I understand that the claim of the OP now. There is an alleged non-linearity (in the standard sense of linear systems theory) in the speaker wire of a non-bi-wired circult. This is bogus. A linear system by definition cannot have terms which have non-linear cross-product frequencies. Frequencies remain orthogonal. This is merely EE 101, that I took when I was a little baby engineer (actually, I took 6.01 at MIT -- "course 6" is the EE department).

By definition, a pure L or C cannot dissipate energy. There must be resistive elements for this. And all of these behave linearly. Any alleged violation of this would actually violate conservation of energy. Of course, an L or C will displace energy in time (temporily store it). For example, an electrically oscillating capacitor has 0 current flow at its voltage maximum, and 0 voltage across it at is current maximum. You might erroneously conclude that that since I times V is power, that the power was zero. To analyze this time behavior you need to use complex arithmetic, not the standard "counting on your fingers" kind.

If a circuit is linear, the voltages and currents are all linear, and the power must always be non-linear because squaring I or V is a non-linear mathematical operation. But this is completely irrelevant, because the fundamental quantities of electronic circuits are voltage and current, not power. Energy remains conserved, electronic devices work. There is no apocalypse which voids the basic laws of physics, and no "dogs and cats living together" -- Bill Murray, Ghostbusters. :D The universe (or is it multiverse?) goes on ...

Regards,
Terry

Forgive me for barging in late, but this is an interesting discussion on a subject I know little about (and have no particular axe to grind).


I don't understand about the power dissipation being non-linear in the wire. Is it:

(1) Non-linear in amplitude, so the waveform gets slightly distorted (e.g. a little clipped) after it traverses a length of wire? That is, the transfer function of the wire is non-linear?

Or

(2) Non-linear in the sense of having a non-uniform effect over frequency, not amplitude? That is, the lumped L's, R's, and C's in the wire will have some small filtering effect on the signal?

In the case of 1, I can understand how biwiring would make a difference. But for 2, it shouldn't, because two identical wires would process signals exactly the same as they would be if summed over a single wire.

Or is it some other case, like:

(3) The complex source impedance seen by two drivers looking back toward the amplifier will be different for a single wire vs. separate wires? Hence there could be different frequency/time responses for the two cases (two different filter configurations). But then I don't know what this has to do with non-linear power dissipation, because the circuits in both cases would be linear.

Thanks,
Terry

It is none of the above.

First pic:
Examine the node between the monowire case and the biwire. On the left of the node, the currents sum (Kirchhoff). On the right, they are independent.

Two currents, A and B, sines, non correlated.. On the right, dissipation is proportional to either A squared, or B squared.

On the left of the node, current is (A +B). Power is (A + B) squared, or A sq plus B sq plus 2AB.

Second pic: One amp, and two systems on the right. If you assume the systems on the right receive the EXACT same signal at all instants, and with one amp, then you cannot account for the 2AB dissipation error within the monowire. To be identical, the two wire schemes must dissipate the same energy, but the biwire dissipates A sq plus B sq, while the monowire dissipates an additional 2AB.

Note that 2AB is a zero power integral entity. It says that the RMS dissipation is exactly the same, and the 2AB does not exist by itself, it cannot be isolated (half the time it is negative dissipation, and is a modulation of a real component, that being the two other terms.

To assume that both speaker systems receive the exact same energy at the exact same time, makes the assumption that the 2AB component is not there, but linear algebra shows that it is. To neglect the 2AB as not there violates energy conservation, as there is no energy storage associated with resistive dissipation. Nuttin cools down..

Cheers, John

As I explained above, power is an inherently non-linear quantity in a linear circuit. This does not imply that there are any non-linear interactions going on, or even permitted.

To take the simplest possible example, consider a circuit consisting of only a pure resistance R. I drive this with a single pure sine wave from an oscillator. I measure the voltage on an oscilloscope, and I will see a pure sine wave. The system is linear. What comes out is a linearly scaled version of what goes in.

Now compute the instantanous power. Ohm's law says V = IR, so the power dissipation is V*I = V^2/R. This is no longer a sine wave! If you computed it in real-time and displayed it on the same oscilloscope, it would have all kinds of high frequency components that are not present in the original signal. This is because (sin(V))^2 is obviously not the same function as sin(V).

But do such high-frequency components (whose amplitudes are significant and easily computed) actually exist in the signal? The answer is no. Not even when played through a loudspeaker. An ordinary microphone, which is sensitive to pressure from a loudspeaker, will show a pure sinusoid when the loudspeaker is connected to the circuit above. Similarly, our ears, which are pressure devices, will hear a pure sine wave, without any of the higher frequencies that a sine-squared wave has.

So the answer is that it is mathematically incorrect to use computed power in analyzing signals in a circuit. If we did that, we would find that the all the signals in the circuit have magically changed from being linear to being non-linear.

Regards,
Terry

As I explained above, power is an inherently non-linear quantity in a linear circuit. This does not imply that there are any non-linear interactions going on, or even permitted.

To take the simplest possible example, consider a circuit consisting of only a pure resistance R. I drive this with a single pure sine wave from an oscillator. I measure the voltage on an oscilloscope, and I will see a pure sine wave. The system is linear. What comes out is a linearly scaled version of what goes in.

Now compute the instantanous power. Ohm's law says V = IR, so the power dissipation is V*I = V^2/R. This is no longer a sine wave! If you computed it in real-time and displayed it on the same oscilloscope, it would have all kinds of high frequency components that are not present in the original signal. This is because (sin(V))^2 is obviously not the same function as sin(V).

But do such high-frequency components (whose amplitudes are significant and easily computed) actually exist in the signal? The answer is no. Not even when played through a loudspeaker. An ordinary microphone, which is sensitive to pressure from a loudspeaker, will show a pure sinusoid when the loudspeaker is connected to the circuit above. Similarly, our ears, which are pressure devices, will hear a pure sine wave, without any of the higher frequencies that a sine-squared wave has.

So the answer is that it is mathematically incorrect to use computed power in analyzing signals in a circuit. If we did that, we would find that the all the signals in the circuit have magically changed from being linear to being non-linear.

Regards,
Terry

hmmm..I figured your argument would be slightly different, given the direction you were starting.

You have to consider the problem from the point of view of the difference between the dissipations of a monowire and a biwire. Therein you will find the issue.

For one wire, one load, they both dissipate the exact same in time. But for a frequency dependent branching, that changes.

Monowire wire dissipates the added 2AB, and that dissipation is not of the exact same form as the load dissipations. There is a difference.

Go read the second Leseuf article..he gets it right all the way to the point where he attributes the crossover elements as making up the difference..which is where he made his mistake. He violated the first law with that statement, when you consider the two speakers as boundaried systems.

(sorry bout the resolution, I hate these jpegs...)assume 1 unit of resistance in the wires..scaling is of no concern here..

Case 0, 1 amp bass, 0 tweet. biwire diss is 1, tweet zero, monowire: 1 watt.

Case 1, both 1 ampere... biwire: 1 watt bass, 1 watt tweet mono...4 watts (recall 2 amperes).

case 2, biwire: bass 1 watt, tweet 1 watt, monowire, zero watts (sum is zero amps.)

Cheers, John

ps.."violated the first law" was not in reference to Dr. Susan Calvin.. :p

Sorry, but positing some mysterious non-linear disipation in a completely linear system strains credulity to my limit. The math is not at all convincing, as many other linear circuits would show cross-products in power all over the place, with no corresponding modulations (non-linearities) in the measured signals.

As I've shown with a simple example, power is an inherently non-linear quantity for linear circuit elements. So you cannot selectively choose those places in a circuit where you want to invoke non-linearity, and exclude all the other places where you'd prefer it to be linear. Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary proof. Haven't seen it here.

If this is the most convincing argument that biwiring has, then I'm afraid that I have lost interest in the topic. :(

Bye bye,
Terry

Sorry, but positing some mysterious non-linear disipation in a completely linear system strains credulity to my limit. The math is not at all convincing, as many other linear circuits would show cross-products in power all over the place, with no corresponding modulations (non-linearities) in the measured signals.

Guess you didn't really examine the differences, eh? I've posited no mysterious non linearities. I note you didn't attempt to explain the wire loss differences between a biwire system and a monowire. Glib pronouncements such as "strains credulity" and "not convincing" is certainly not a systematic assessment of an argument, eh? If you wish to attack the problem, I'm here and will explain.

As I've shown with a simple example, power is an inherently non-linear quantity for linear circuit elements. So you cannot selectively choose those places in a circuit where you want to invoke non-linearity, and exclude all the other places where you'd prefer it to be linear. Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary proof. Haven't seen it here.

Nobody has invoked non-linearity. What I have shown is the difference between mono and biwiring. That you choose to ignore the salient argument, is your choice.

If this is the most convincing argument that biwiring has, then I'm afraid that I have lost interest in the topic. :(

Bye bye,
Terry

It is unfortunate, as you have not even thought it through, nor understood the problem. I've run into that from about 90% of the engineers I speak to, as they have usually been taught not to think outside the box (unfortunately, that is the goal of an engineering degree). Physicists understand it at about the 50% level..half understand, half don't..


pfffft...and you claim to be from Rhode Island...pfft.. :p

Cheers, John

...
It is unfortunate, as you have not even thought it through, nor understood the problem. I've run into that from about 90% of the engineers I speak to, as they have usually been taught not to think outside the box (unfortunately, that is the goal of an engineering degree).
Actually, I was taught that there is no box. :)

Actually, I was taught that there is no box. :)

No, no, no...that is incorrect...There is no spoon. :p

If that is really the case, I'm ready when you are.

I hope you understand, I don't sell wires, and I don't biwire.


But I do visit RI on occasion..

Cheers, John