Originally Posted by Mupi
The crossover splits the signal after the crossover and not before. So why would the signal in the 2 wires change from the amp to the crossover? It is the same full range signal that is sent in each wire from the amp to the tweeter/woofer terminals.
This topic has been discussed to death and the general consensus is that biwiring or biamping (without an active external crossover) has no sonic improvements. If you still believe in "snake oil", go spend your money on extra speaker wires. It is pointless to discuss a moot topic.
Originally Posted by Mupi
No matter how you argue, biwiring or passive biamping is not going to improve the sound quality. If you believe in "snake oil" go ahead and waste your money on an extra pair of speaker wires. I guess the reason manufacturers give that option these days is because there are people who believe in "snake oil".
That's three "snake oils" in two posts. That's why I queried if you liked to throw around the term "snake oil." I don't believe that term is ever used in the context of respecting the recipient, whether by direct comment or by proxy. If there were in fact a general consensus on this, it wouldn't come up as often as it does. There is certainly a vocal
consensus that only noobies and nutters would believe such snake oil nonsense, but that doesn't negate the direct observation that some people with lots of experience and degrees in electronics have alternate opinions.
Two ways to discredit these people are to marginalize them into a fringe group that no reasonable person would join and to throw out terms like peer-reviewed and DBT that depend on the credibility and factual accuracy of others who have lots of experience and degrees in EE, etc., who also may be burdened with preconceptions about the results.
The only group of professionals I know who do systematic and competent research with enough funding to make it stick are at Harman International. There are certainly others, but I don't know them. A fair amount of their work is met with derision, sometimes even here on AVS when it collides with hard and fast issues of belief and dogma in the guise of science. Folks who've never done any scientific studies or been peer-reviewed find it easy enough to second guess everything done by these Harman scientists and engineers. The naysayers' basis of authority is general having read something on the Internet (that's their idea of research) or having spoken to or read the comments of a highly opinionated blogger or forum poster (that's their expert source).
There is in fact some science worth discussing here, and we saw the tip of it in the proposition about current. Bill at least acknowledged the science of it, but doubted the audibility. He mentioned studies, but didn't cite any. Good links or library reference numbers for these peer reviewed studies would be a good place to start. If it's just one study locked away behind the AES paywall that someone mentioned to someone else but were too cheap to buy, that's not good enough either.
But you know what? I'm with you, Mupi, on this at least. Why am I wasting my time on this ancient thread? LOLEdited by filecat13 - 10/3/12 at 8:02am