I started writing this post a few minutes after you made your post, but then I was interrupted by work (I hate when that happens), and Arny did a better job of saying what I was going to say. But since I've typed most of it already, I will say it anyway, at the risk of being a little redundant.
My first issue is that that particular FAQ answer sounds more anecdote then science. They may be very good speaker designers, but they certainly aren't electrical engineers. Specifically:
We began experimenting with . . .
We noted that speakers sounded better . . .
We initially believed that . . .
Finally we heard the sonic improvements . . .
We believe that this . . .
Although it's possible that they were more scientifically rigorous than these phrases imply, it sounds like they were depending on their flawed sense of hearing rather than measurements.
But this is what really bothers me:
We believe that this dynamic field modulates the smaller signals, especially the very low level treble frequencies. With the high-current signal (Bass) separated from the low-current signal (Treble) this small signal modulation was eliminated as long as the cables were separated by at least an inch or two. (To keep the treble cable out of the field surrounding the bass cable.)
What they believe
is contrary to the laws of physics. Small signals are not
"modulated" by larger signals. This is an audio myth with absolutely no basis in science. If larger signals could modulate smaller signals, our whole communication system would fail to operate. Cable TV stations would interfere with each other over the wire. The phone company could not use frequency-division multiplexing to carry your calls. Radio stations would scramble each other.
Then they bring up the requirement that, when bi-wiring, the two cables need to be separated by at least two inches, which is not what most high-end audio shops sell. So they are perpetrating a new
audio myth. Now we need multi-tiered cable risers (keep the highs high, and the lows low).
Because of the different reflected impedances of the cables, the crossover between the woofer and midrange actually occurs at the wire ends where they connect to the amplifier.
"Reflected impedance" is insignificant because, as I said in an earlier post, the cable impedance is minuscule compared to the speaker's impedance.
The low-current signal to the midrange and tweeter drivers does not have to travel on the same wire as the high-current woofer signal. The field fluctuations and signal regeneration of the high-current low-frequencies are prevented from distorting or masking the low-current high-frequencies. The back EMF (Electro-Mechanical Force) from the large woofer cannot affect the small-signal upper frequencies since they do not share the same wires.
First-off, why are they saying the high frequencies are low current? Do they think we only listen to hip-hop? (Ok, so I do, but I still like my highs).
Second, the speaker cable is not an isolator. Even if such "distorting or masking" was a physical possibility, the separate cables are still connected together at the amplifier's end, and since the cable is low impedance, that direct coupling will outweigh any EMF coupling by many orders of magnitude. These are not radio frequencies. Maxwell's equations would allow you to quantify exactly how tiny this EMF coupling would be, so it is not something that needs to be found empirically, as they seem to think they have done. And again, any such coupling would be benign, as large signals do not "modulate" smaller signals anyway.
Sorry for the delay in answering.Edited by MarkHotchkiss - 11/18/13 at 5:24pm