bi-wiring
scott tipping
there if there is any noticeable sound improvement in bi-wiring them.Any
suggestions welcome.
Scott.
Trevor Wilson
scott tipping wrote in message <362F06B4...@wagga.net.au>...
**I've not tried that model, but, since they're set up for it, why not try
it out and let us know what you find. Even if you use El Cheapo (R) brand
cables, there should be a definitive answer for you.
Cheers,
Trevor Wilson
http://www.hutch.com.au/~rage
Rod Crawford
joining Linn Products in Scotland as their senior loudspeaker designer
was to get bi- and tri-wiring accepted for their new range of
loudspeakers (Nexus, Kaber etc) which replaced their highly respected
Isobarik, Kan etc. The Linn sales guys had been rubbishing bi-wiring
because it had just been introduced by one of their competitors - the
NIH (not invented here) syndrome. Fortunately, Linn had a ‘blind
listening’ policy and the sales guys were blown out of the water by
the huge difference bi-wiring made to the Nexus prototypes I was
developing.
Bi-wiring means connecting each drive-unit in a loudspeaker to the
amplifier through separate leads. My experience over the past 12
years is that it improves the clarity of all loudspeakers. This
should always be good but it can be bad in poor loudspeakers/audio
systems where improved clarity just shows up the faults more.
The best theoretical explanation I have come across of this (provided
by Hitachi, who own the patent for bi-wiring in Japan, when trying to
sue Linn). When a current is pushed forward by the amplifier through
the voice-coil in the magnetic field of a loudspeaker driver, the
voice coil and attached cone move forward - the electric motor effect.
However, the voice coil moving in the magnetic field generates a back
voltage - the electric generator effect. In a perfect driver, the
back voltage matches the forward voltage, giving rise to the driver’s
dynamic impedance. In the real world, the back emf is distorted by
nonlinearities in the magnetic field etc giving rise to harmonic
distortions and so does not exactly cancel the forward voltage. These
harmonic products from one driver’s terminals end up across other
drivers in the loudspeaker if they have common terminals and can cause
further muddling of the sound. By connecting each driver through
separate leads back to the amplifier, the distorted harmonics
generated by each driver can be short-circuited by the low impedance
output of the amplifier.
Whatever the theoretical explanation, bi- and tri-wiring can make a
big difference to loudspeakers and can be the most cost effective
improvement you make to your system.
Hope this is of some help - I have no shares in wire companies!
Rod
PS. More details of the ups and down when working for an
international hi-fi company like Linn can be found at
www.tip.net.au/~legend under ‘Information’.
Trevor Wilson
Rod Wrote:
>Whatever the theoretical explanation, bi- and tri-wiring can make a
>big difference to loudspeakers and can be the most cost effective
>improvement you make to your system.
>
>Hope this is of some help - I have no shares in wire companies!
**It doesn't matter what you and I and many others can hear, Rod. There are
some on this forum that, because they cannot hear it, assume that others
cannot as well.
How's it going, anyway?
Steve Miovski
Sounds expensive... I mean all those extra amplifiers...It must be real
pain to set up the levels for each driver?
Are people really this fussy about the harmonic distortion that
supposedly get introduced into the other drivers whilst connected via
common leads?? Hey don't get me wrong... I like clean sound just like
the
next guy.. but I find it hard to believe that people actually listen out
for this while listening to their fav' CD or watching a movie... If so
I wonder if these people actually get to really listen to the music, or
are they always just listening for imperfections??
P.S. This is just my opinion...
Regards... Steve :)
Rod Crawford
>Rod Wrote:
___________________________________________________________________________________
Hi Trevor
The point I was trying to make (perhaps badly) is that there is strong
empirical and theoretical evidence that bi-wirng improves the clarity
of loudspeakers. People should therefore give it a try, as you
pointed out elsewhere. We have to accept that there are a few people
who are 'clarity blind' (for a variety of reasons) but there is not
much we can do about that.
Regards
Rod Crawford
http://tip.net.au/~legend
Rod Crawford
>Regards... Steve :)
_________________________________________________________________
Hi Steve
I was talking about bi-WIRING (as the original question from Scott
asked) - you seem to talking about bi-AMPING.
Bi-WIRING just involves connecting an extra length of speaker cable
(+&-) so that each drive unit of a speaker is connected back
the same terminal of your amplifier:
amplifier===============each drive unit
The cost is that of an extra length of cable for each speaker, say 2m
, or 4m for a stereo pair. You can buy decent speaker cable from
Jaycar for $2-4/m (I use it inside my cheaper speakers at Legend).
Total cost = $8-$16 and 2 minutes work. My experience over 12 years
since I first introduced it at Linn is that it improves speaker
clarity by 20-30%. If you own $1000 speakers, it is equivalent to
upgrading by $200-300. Seems fairly cost effective to me.
Bi-AMPING involves connecting each driver to a separate power amp (as
you describe):
power amp--------------------------drive unit
pre-amp<
power amp---------------------------drive unit
It results in a further 20-30% improvement in clarity but at the cost
of another power amp - say $500-1000. Not so cost effective and
something I have not done.
I accept that extra clarity is not important to everyone - just as
bass power which blows car windows out is not important to me (though
quite common in the US). I listen to a wide range of music - from
Steve Vai's "Fire Garden" to Franz Schubert's "Death and the Maiden".
To me. it is important to know whether it sounds like Steve Vai's or
Jimmy Hendrix guitar playing and so clarity is important to me.
I was simply suggesting that there is sufficient empirical and
theoretical evidence that people should give bi-wiring a go. In the
end, yer pays yer money and yer makes yer choice.
Regards
Rod
http://tip.net.au/~legend
Thudd
> I was talking about bi-WIRING (as the original question from Scott
> asked) - you seem to talking about bi-AMPING.
>
> Bi-WIRING just involves connecting an extra length of speaker cable
> (+&-) so that each drive unit of a speaker is connected back
> the same terminal of your amplifier:
>
> amplifier===============each drive unit
Can you make this a bit clearer for mugs like me? You're connecting
some cable from each drive unit (ie the tweeter & woofer separately)
back to the amp? I assume this is only possible to those speakers that
have terminals for each cone.
Is it this?
amp=======+---------tweeter
+---------woofer
--
Brian Kelty
Th...@tassie.net.au.nospam <- remove nospam to reply
www.parsol.com.au
Everybody has to believe in something - I believe I'll have another
drink.
ketawa san
a 90 deg accurate reproduction of your audio source .But you better use 2
same amplifier .
Choong .
malaysia
Antony Wuth
>Bi-WIRING just involves connecting an extra length of speaker cable
>(+&-) so that each drive unit of a speaker is connected back
>the same terminal of your amplifier:
>
>amplifier===============each drive unit
Now you have me confused, Where does the crossover placed in the above
picture. Do you mount the crossover in the amp, or is the crossover in
the usual place with more then one set of cables running to it?
Thanks
Antony Wuth
Yep no .sig
scott tipping
really make any audible difference or not.Any opinions at all would be
welcome.
Scott
Trevor Wilson
scott tipping wrote in message <363BFD14...@wagga.net.au>...
**Wow, we've just been down this road. Anyway, here's my $0.02 worth of
flame bait.
Bi-wiring can make a significant difference depending upon several
parameters:
1) Your hearing acuity.
2) The characteristics of your speakers, particularly WRT back EMF effects
and others.
3) The type/s of cable chosen to perform the task. Some cables have low
inductance figures. These will be helpful with speakers that may have either
very revealing HF response or tough impedance characteristics (ie:
Electrostatics).
4) The source material.
In my experience, about 50% (very much a ballpark figure) of speakers (TO MY
EARS) will respond positively to bi-wiring. Just as a for instance, I have
found that NHT speakers don't seem to respond to bi-wiring at all. This is
neither good, nor bad, it just is.
For what it will cost, you should try it out with some El-Cheapo (R) cables.
I prefer solid core (1mm dia) for HF units. If it works, then pursue it
further. If not, then enjoy your speakers the way they are.
gary
We were using some 10mm sq. multistrand cable (Ex telecom DC power
transmission cable) between a Unison Research valve amp and some VAF
Research DC-X speakers and were unhappy with the reproduction of higher
frequency sounds. (particularly distortion of "s's")
As the speakers were bi-wirable a friend suggested bi-wireing and lent us
some DNM Reson (single solid core) cable for the high frequency side.
This significantly smoothed out the top end and also resulted in improved
detail and a wider soundstage.
We then replaced the telecom cable on the base/midrange connection with some
3mm sq multi-stranded OFC cable (ex Dick Smiths) and got an even larger
improvement. (Especially noticeable after burning in the new cable for
approximately 10 hours!)
It was interesting to note that when we swapped the DNM and OFC cables
between the high and low frequency connections there was a noticeable
degradation in the quality of the sound.
We also compared all three cable on their own, and found that the DNM reson
sounded best followed by the OFC cable, not surprising given the price of
the cables. Although none of these combinations sounded anywhere near as
good as the bi-wire setup.
Apart from smoothing out the top end, the other major benefit we noted was
the improved sound stage. (On the first listening my wife thought the OFC
had better detail than the telecom cable but was a little "bright" and
preferred the telecom stuff although after "burning in" the OFC for the time
mentioned above, her opinion changed!)
All of the above testing was done "blind" as my wife does most of the
testing (she has far better hearing than me) while I do the cable changes.
On most occasions she is unaware of what she is listening to until after she
has passed on her opinions.
I would certainly recommend trying out bi-wiring, especially if you can beg,
borrow or steal some cables to try out first before having to lay out any
cash
Hope this helps
Gary
Rod Crawford
>Thanks
>Antony Wuth
>Yep no .sig
________________________________________________
Hi Antony
Sorry about the confusion - it is a bit difficult to draw things with
text but I will try again (the diagram shows just one channel):
===========(treble Xover===tweeter)
amplifier << ( )
===========(bass Xover===bass unit)
The pairs of lines represent +&- wires of a speaker cable and the
brackets are supposed to be the speaker cabinet. Thus biwiring can
only be done if the speaker designer has kept the treble and bass
Xovers separate and connected them to separate terminals at the back
of the speaker (where there will be 4 terminals, 2 red and 2 black,
with connecting bars which must be removed for bi-wiring).
Hope this is clearer!
Rod
www.tip.net.au/~legend
Michael Bertrand
of Paradigm Monitor 9s via 14 Ga Monster Cable Home Theater). My problem is
that the single cable going into the amp ***BARELY*** fits into the clip on
the amp. (it took me 3 minutes per side to get the cable in the clip)
How do I splice the two segments of cable so that it fits into the clip. I
figure that I have to take half the strands off of each cable , re-twist
them.... but then the question is... which parts of the stands do I remove,
the outter, the inner or a bit everywhere?
Is there some sort of modification I can make to the clips on the amp to
make them more favourable to large volumes of cable?
My amp has A/B outputs for the front speakers, can I use those? What are
the impacts. I don't want to do bi-wire, gaining clarity, only to lose
clarity because I am splitting the signal between A and B outputs.
Any comments welcome
Michael Bertrand
Trevor Wilson
Michael Bertrand wrote in message <71sehi$e4l$1...@news.interlink.net>...
>I am seriously considering bi-wiring my setup (Sony STR-615E amp to a pair
>of Paradigm Monitor 9s via 14 Ga Monster Cable Home Theater). My problem
is
>that the single cable going into the amp ***BARELY*** fits into the clip on
>the amp. (it took me 3 minutes per side to get the cable in the clip)
**Join the wires outside the connector. Then run a small wire to the
terminal itself.
>
>How do I splice the two segments of cable so that it fits into the clip. I
>figure that I have to take half the strands off of each cable , re-twist
>them.... but then the question is... which parts of the stands do I
remove,
>the outter, the inner or a bit everywhere?
>
>Is there some sort of modification I can make to the clips on the amp to
>make them more favourable to large volumes of cable?
**Yep, but it's gonna be tricky.
>
>My amp has A/B outputs for the front speakers, can I use those? What are
>the impacts. I don't want to do bi-wire, gaining clarity, only to lose
>clarity because I am splitting the signal between A and B outputs.
This is the best solution for your purpose. Assuming, of course that your
amp does not run B speakers in seris with A speakers.
Grant Carlson
>
>I am seriously considering bi-wiring my setup (Sony STR-615E amp to a pair
>of Paradigm Monitor 9s via 14 Ga Monster Cable Home Theater). My problem is
>that the single cable going into the amp ***BARELY*** fits into the clip on
>the amp. (it took me 3 minutes per side to get the cable in the clip)
>
>figure that I have to take half the strands off of each cable , re-twist
>them.... but then the question is... which parts of the stands do I remove,
>the outter, the inner or a bit everywhere?
Hi,
I have my speakers bi-wired, and while I have the luxury of having banana-type
binding posts, you can use the same method as I have.
You can get banana-type connectors for use in spring-type posts (I'm assuming
that this is what you have. If you have the type that has a screw-top, and a
post with a hole in the side then you cant do this).
These connectors have a small-ish pin instead of a banana plug that you put
into the spring clip. There is probably not enough mechanical strength to hold
the lot in so you may have to support it somehow (good old gaffa tape -
assuming the back is hidden in a cabinet or something).
The top of this connector has a hole that fits a bannaa plug - so you
piggy-back a banana-style connetor onto it. This setup lets you
connect/disconnect easliy while still keeping good electrical contacts.
DONT buy the expensive gold stuff from a hifi shop - you can get decent quality
ones from Jaycar (or similar) for about $3 each. You will need 2red/2black of
pin-type and 2red/2black of banana type = $24 - not that much to do a good job.
Grant (who has L-C-R bi-wired + rears with connectors - cost as much as a small
amp to hook up!).
Michael Bertrand
Trevor Wilson wrote in message <36422...@139.134.5.33>...
>Michael Bertrand wrote in message <71sehi$e4l$1...@news.interlink.net>...
>>I am seriously considering bi-wiring my setup (Sony STR-615E amp to a
pair
>>of Paradigm Monitor 9s via 14 Ga Monster Cable Home Theater). My problem
>is
>>that the single cable going into the amp ***BARELY*** fits into the clip
on
>>the amp. (it took me 3 minutes per side to get the cable in the clip)
>
>**Join the wires outside the connector. Then run a small wire to the
>terminal itself.
And how do I do the best job with that? I figure that I would expose a
section of the cable already in the amp, untwist it so that I can get alot
of of contact area, and in multiple places of the wire, do the same thing
with the end of the new segment. Push the frayed end of the new segment
through the frayed part of the segment in the amp and then retwist the
segment in the amp to get a nice tight fit.
I higly doubt that I would, should solder it together.... just a patch of
electrical tape to prevent my kitty getting shock therapy.
>>How do I splice the two segments of cable so that it fits into the clip.
I
>>figure that I have to take half the strands off of each cable , re-twist
>>them.... but then the question is... which parts of the stands do I
>remove,
>>the outter, the inner or a bit everywhere?
>>
>>Is there some sort of modification I can make to the clips on the amp to
>>make them more favourable to large volumes of cable?
>
>
>**Yep, but it's gonna be tricky.
The next amp I am getting is going to have screw-posts.
>
>>
>>My amp has A/B outputs for the front speakers, can I use those? What are
>>the impacts. I don't want to do bi-wire, gaining clarity, only to lose
>>clarity because I am splitting the signal between A and B outputs.
>
>
>This is the best solution for your purpose. Assuming, of course that your
>amp does not run B speakers in seris with A speakers.
I don't have my manual with me, any idea of 1) if the Sony STR-615E si in
series or 2) a place where I can get that info / schematics of the amp?
thanks for the info
Trevor Wilson
Michael Bertrand wrote in message <71v51l$61i$1...@news.interlink.net>...
>
>And how do I do the best job with that? I figure that I would expose a
>section of the cable already in the amp, untwist it so that I can get alot
>of of contact area, and in multiple places of the wire, do the same thing
>with the end of the new segment. Push the frayed end of the new segment
>through the frayed part of the segment in the amp and then retwist the
>segment in the amp to get a nice tight fit.
**You'll need to be real careful. I cannot help you with a text only forum.
>
>I higly doubt that I would, should solder it together.... just a patch of
>electrical tape to prevent my kitty getting shock therapy.
**There are too many cats in Australia, anyway. (Assuming you are in
Australia)
>The next amp I am getting is going to have screw-posts.
**Smart move.
>I don't have my manual with me, any idea of 1) if the Sony STR-615E si in
>series or 2) a place where I can get that info / schematics of the amp?
**It probably does place speakers in parallel.
Greg Wormald
I've heard that the hierarchy of joints goes like this:
no joint,
gas tight press joint--you need a 'crimper' to do these right,
tight mechanical fit and solder,
tight mechanical fit,
and anything less is unstable.
So it seems like you have some options--
The best would be to replace the terminals on the amp with good screw
posts and use big spades professionally crimped onto the bare wires.
Cheapest would be to find a set of 'pin' ends that fit the (poor)
terminals you have, and solder the wires to the pins after making a good
mechancal fit.
If the amp is any good it may certainly pay to put good terminals on
it--and the wire to the terminal as well.
Greg
Michael Bertrand
Do You have a site with a schematic? Does my idea sound not-half-bad?
>**There are too many cats in Australia, anyway. (Assuming you are in
>Australia)
Nope, not in Australia... More like Canada.
>**It probably does place speakers in parallel.
Having long forgotten my grade 8 Electricity class, how can I test the
outputs, with a simple multi-meter.
Trevor Wilson
Michael Bertrand wrote in message <7271d2$7gf$1...@news.interlink.net>...
**Switch both speakers ON, but with cables disconnected to speakers. Measure
between the earths on speakers A and B, whilst switching both speakers on
and off. If there is a low resistance (<1 Ohm) at all times, then the
speakers are placed in parallel when both are switched on.
Michael Bertrand
Here is a follow up. I just added a second wire and I am still trying to
determine if I like the sound.
I found that the bass got lighter (in terms of sound pressure) but they
definately got clearer. I used to run my bass at ~ -2 -4 and now I run
them at +2 +4
I am going to play with the speakers on the weekend to see how different
setups affect them.
For 30$ it is an intresting modification, and a worth while one if you like
the new sound.
Thanks for the info, and I will continue the story.
Trevor Wilson wrote in message <3648b...@139.134.5.33>...
Trevor Wilson
Michael Bertrand wrote in message <731rcg$suc$1...@news.interlink.net>...
>Well, long time no speak...
>
>Here is a follow up. I just added a second wire and I am still trying to
>determine if I like the sound.
<SNIP>
>For 30$ it is an intresting modification, and a worth while one if you like
>the new sound.
>
>Thanks for the info, and I will continue the story.
**Great news. The differences, as you have found, can be significant with
some speakers. Let us know what you find in future.
Rod Crawford
>Well, long time no speak...
>Here is a follow up. I just added a second wire and I am still trying to
>determine if I like the sound.
>I found that the bass got lighter (in terms of sound pressure) but they
>definately got clearer. I used to run my bass at ~ -2 -4 and now I run
>them at +2 +4
>I am going to play with the speakers on the weekend to see how different
>setups affect them.
>For 30$ it is an intresting modification, and a worth while one if you like
>the new sound.
>Thanks for the info, and I will continue the story.
Hi Michael
Good to hear you tried bi-wiring - very simple and cheap isn't it!
Your conclusions agree with my experience of designing and listening
to lots of other loudspeaker manufacturers over the pasr 15 years,
both in Australia and overseas. I have found that bi-wiring always
improves the clarity/resolution of loudspeakers, as predicted by
theory (see my earlier posting in this thread). However, in some
situations people don't regard this as 'better'. Improved
clarity/resolution can show up weaknesses in the rest of the audio
system, including (especially) the recording.
In fact, a common way of hiding deficiencies in a hi-fi component or
system is to introduce a bit of smearing/lossiness which covers the
fault. I strongly suspect this is why people prefer valve amplifiers
(I used to own Quad 22/II), turntables (I still own Linn
Sondek/Ekos/Troika/Lingo), polypropylene drivers etc etc. I like to
think of this smearing/ lossiness as the 'bathroom tenor' effect - we
all sound good when we sing in the bathroom with its echoes giving
lots of time-smearing. This is fine provided we realise there are
downsides - particularly that everything can sound the same (we all
sound like Pavorotti in the bathroom)! I have even had to do this
myself when designing cheaper loudspeakers (at Linn, not at Legend -
see http://www.tip.net.au/~legend & push 'Technica/Design' button).
Your comments on loss of bass loudness are also consistent with the
theory. Smearing keeps the sound going longer and so our ears perceive
this as louder, particularly when one note starts to overlap with
another. By reducing this smearing, biwiring will make the bass
tighter but less loud.
However, ultimately listening is a personal experience and what you
find satisfying is all that matters. If it wasn't, we would all end
up buying the same systems which would be pretty boring!
Happy listening!
Rod
Rod Crawford
>Rod Crawford wrote a lot of stuff about bi & tri-wiring....
>Sounds expensive... I mean all those extra amplifiers...It must be real
>pain to set up the levels for each driver?
>Are people really this fussy about the harmonic distortion that
>supposedly get introduced into the other drivers whilst connected via
>common leads?? Hey don't get me wrong... I like clean sound just like
>the
>next guy.. but I find it hard to believe that people actually listen out
>for this while listening to their fav' CD or watching a movie... If so
>I wonder if these people actually get to really listen to the music, or
>are they always just listening for imperfections??
>P.S. This is just my opinion...
>Regards... Steve :)
_________________________________________________________________
Hi Steve
I was talking about bi-WIRING (as the original question from Scott
asked) - you seem to talking about bi-AMPING.
Bi-WIRING just involves connecting an extra length of speaker cable
(+&-) so that each drive unit of a speaker is connected back
the same terminal of your amplifier (assuming your speaker terminals
allow it):
amplifier===============each drive unit
The cost is that of an extra length of cable for each speaker, say 2m
, or 4m for a stereo pair. You can buy decent speaker cable from
Jaycar for $2-4/m (I use it inside my cheaper speakers at Legend).
Total cost = $8-$16 and 2 minutes work. My experience over 12 years
since I first introduced it at Linn is that it improves speaker
clarity by 20-30%. If you own $1000 speakers, it is equivalent to
upgrading by $200-300. Seems fairly cost effective to me.
Bi-AMPING involves connecting each driver to a separate power amp (as
you describe):
power amp--------------------------drive unit
pre-amp<
power amp---------------------------drive unit
It results in a further 20-30% improvement in clarity but at the cost
of another power amp - say $500-1000. Not so cost effective and
something I have not done.
I accept that extra clarity is not important to everyone - just as
bass power which blows car windows out is not important to me (though
quite common in the US). I listen to a wide range of music - from
Steve Vai's "Fire Garden" to Franz Schubert's "Death and the Maiden".
To me. it is important to know whether it sounds like Steve Vai's or
Jimmy Hendrix's guitar playing and so clarity is important to me.
Daniel Soderstrom
Daniel.
>I was talking about bi-WIRING (as the original question from Scott
>asked) - you seem to talking about bi-AMPING.
>
bratislav
>
> I think Bi-wiring is just another form of snake oil.
Not to mention that may cause critically stable power amps (you'll
be surprised to find how many of them are out there !!!) to
oscillate as cables become unterminated at some frequencies (e.g.
bass cable load becomes dominantly reactive as impedance of the load
at the speaker rises (if crossover isn't compensated, which is the
case, surprisingly, in many designs out there). So poor amp sees
only cable capacitance and coil inductance above certain frequency
and if not Zobel terminated internally (shock ! horror !) it will
happily become an RF transmitter and if not fry your tweeters,
inject high level IM distortion into your favourable opera.
If you listen to (c)rap, you won't even notice, of course :-)
Bratislav
Coddington, Paul
Daniel Soderstrom wrote in message <795f2b$osv$1...@news.iinet.net.au>...
>I think Bi-wiring is just another form of snake oil.
>
>
>
>>I was talking about bi-WIRING (as the original question from Scott
>>asked) - you seem to talking about bi-AMPING.
>
>>
>>It results in a further 20-30% improvement in clarity but at the cost
>>of another power amp - say $500-1000. Not so cost effective and
>>something I have not done.
I tried bi-wiring on my system and it sounded terrible. The music lost all
sense of timing, as if the tweeters and woofers were no longer in sync.
Also, this article may interest you:
"Another means for selling more loudspeaker cables is that referred to as
"bi-wiring", requiring the use of two cables. However, bi-wiring does not
work in the simplistic fashion imagined by audiophiles lacking the
engineering credentials to analyze the potential system degradation in
accuracy that can result from using separate cables to connect the output of
the power-amp to the separate high and low-frequency input connectors at the
loudspeaker. In fact, such usage can induce many expensive high-slew rate
amplifiers to oscillate at frequencies above the limit of audibility. This
condition can arise because of the added (effectively doubled) capacitance
introduced by the "bass cable" not being "resistively- terminated" above the
bass crossover frequency and the "mid-tweeter" cable not being
resistively-terminated above the tweeter range, where a typical tweeter's
impedance nearly doubles within each octave above the audio range."
Taken From: http://www.io.com/~nulla/duncable.htm
PAUL CODDINGTON
pa...@mail.act.apana.org.au
http://www.geocities.com/athens/2488
PEC Pink Axolotl is a non-sensical disorganisation...
Trevor Wilson
Coddington, Paul wrote in message
<795itk$u42$1...@reader1.reader.news.ozemail.net>...
>I tried bi-wiring on my system and it sounded terrible. The music lost all
>sense of timing, as if the tweeters and woofers were no longer in sync.
**Another report that bi-wiring DOES, indeed, make a difference. That the
difference is negative, is unimportant. It is the fact that there is a
difference, that is.
In fact, such usage can induce many expensive high-slew rate
>amplifiers to oscillate at frequencies above the limit of audibility. This
>condition can arise because of the added (effectively doubled) capacitance
>introduced by the "bass cable" not being "resistively- terminated" above
the
>bass crossover frequency and the "mid-tweeter" cable not being
>resistively-terminated above the tweeter range, where a typical tweeter's
>impedance nearly doubles within each octave above the audio range."
**Unstable amplifiers (ususlly those with large amounts of loop NFB) have
always had difficulty with certain speaker cables, regardless of bi-wiring,
or not. Incompetant design should not be an impediment to experimenting with
bi-wiring. In any case, I remember the old TOCORD speaker cable. It's
capacitance is far higher than any possible bi-wire system. Some of the
older readers will rememebr this stuff and it's destructive effcts on Niam
amplifiers, amongst others.
Trevor Wilson
Daniel Soderstrom wrote in message <795f2b$osv$1...@news.iinet.net.au>...
>I think Bi-wiring is just another form of snake oil.
>
**You may think all you wish, Daniel, but bi-wiring certainly DOES make a
difference with SOME speakers. What speaker shave you tried it with, to
offer such expert advice? In any case, before you get too carried away,
check out Rod Crawford's credentials and products, first. He knows what he
is talking about and builds an excellent product. If he says bi-wiring makes
a difference with his speakers, then you can be certain that it does. My own
experience tells me that SOME speakers can benefit significantly from
bi-wiring, whilst others do not. YMMV.
Nikola
in some systems you are correct and perhaps totally accurate
in some speaker systems where the design is with the bi wiring as a must
I must say there is now some colloquial evidence that it may be worth
trying
nick from audiophile
Daniel Soderstrom wrote:
> I think Bi-wiring is just another form of snake oil.
>
rlx01
> Daniel Soderstrom wrote in message <795f2b$osv$1...@news.iinet.net.au>...
>
> >I think Bi-wiring is just another form of snake oil.
> >
>
> **You may think all you wish, Daniel, but bi-wiring certainly DOES
> make a
> difference with SOME speakers. What speaker shave you tried it with,
> to
>
Bi-wiring does make a difference in some cases. I was extremely
sceptical until I read the theory behind it (which seems to make sense),
so for about $100 I bought some identical cable to the stuff I had to
try it.
I wired up ONE speaker as a comparison (Monitor Audio Studio 20 with a
Sugden Symmetra monoblock) and compared the two speakers. The
difference was significant. I would rate it a very good investment in
my case since the sound improvement was probably equal to spending
$1,000-$2,000 in other areas. By the way the speakers sounded fine
before; bi-wiring made them better. But, as they say, your mileage may
vary.
Dennis Barnden
Crawford) wrote:
> Bi-WIRING just involves connecting an extra length of speaker cable
> (+&-) so that each drive unit of a speaker is connected back
> the same terminal of your amplifier (assuming your speaker terminals
> allow it):
>
> amplifier===============each drive unit
>
O.K.then here is my stupid question.
Does the extra length of speaker cable have to go back to the amp? If the
two cables connect to the "same terminal of your amplifier" what is to
stop me using a single run of cable to the speaker and splitting the
signal there?
-- drive unit 1
amp--------------------<
-- drive unit 2
Go on, tell me why this is a stupid idea.
--
Dennis Barnden dbar...@cyllene.uwa.edu.au
"Ray was not dead, he had only gone to the dentist." G. Keillor "WLT"
Trevor Wilson
Dennis Barnden wrote in message ...
>In article <36b20...@newshost.pcug.org.au>, r...@pcug.org.au (Rod
>Crawford) wrote:
>O.K.then here is my stupid question.
>
>Does the extra length of speaker cable have to go back to the amp? If the
>two cables connect to the "same terminal of your amplifier" what is to
>stop me using a single run of cable to the speaker and splitting the
>signal there?
>
>
> -- drive unit 1
>amp--------------------<
> -- drive unit 2
>
>
>Go on, tell me why this is a stupid idea.
**It's not a stupid idea, it just is not bi-wiring anymore. The whole idea
is to isolate the back EMF from the bass driver/s from the mid and HF
driver/s.
Ross Herbert
>
> O.K.then here is my stupid question.
>
> Does the extra length of speaker cable have to go back to the amp? If the
> two cables connect to the "same terminal of your amplifier" what is to
> stop me using a single run of cable to the speaker and splitting the
> signal there?
>
> -- drive unit 1
> amp--------------------<
> -- drive unit 2
WOW Dennis, you have hit upon a brilliant scheme!! Why hasn't anybody
thought of this simple arrangement before? :)
>
> Go on, tell me why this is a stupid idea.
No Dennis, I don't think this is a stupid idea at all. In fact 99% of
all speaker systems in use employ this connection scheme.
--
Regards,
Ross Herbert
ROSSCO ELECTRONICS SERVICES
ros...@vianet.net.au
scott fagg
>
> Dennis Barnden wrote in message ...
> >In article <36b20...@newshost.pcug.org.au>, r...@pcug.org.au (Rod
>
> >O.K.then here is my stupid question.
> >
> >Does the extra length of speaker cable have to go back to the amp? If the
> >two cables connect to the "same terminal of your amplifier" what is to
> >stop me using a single run of cable to the speaker and splitting the
> >signal there?
> >
> >
> > -- drive unit 1
> >amp--------------------<
> > -- drive unit 2
> >
> >
>
> is to isolate the back EMF from the bass driver/s from the mid and HF
> driver/s.
>
> Cheers,
> Trevor Wilson
> http://www.hutch.com.au/~rage
How does moving the point at which the wires 'join' (from just behind
the speakers to nearer the amp achieve the isolotaion of back EMF from
the drivers? As the wire itself has relatively negligible amounts of
inductance, resistance and capicitcance, how can it have a significant
electrical effect?
--
=========================
remove the PAM from my email address to mail me...
=========================
Trevor Wilson
scott fagg wrote in message <36BABA05...@powerup.com.au>...
>How does moving the point at which the wires 'join' (from just behind
>the speakers to nearer the amp achieve the isolotaion of back EMF from
>the drivers? As the wire itself has relatively negligible amounts of
>inductance, resistance and capicitcance, how can it have a significant
>electrical effect?
**Wire ALWAYS has R, L & C. Although these figures may be small, they are
measurable and, under certain circumstances, audible. Not only may these
components be audible with a single cable run, they may be even more audible
with a bi-wire run. Some speakers are assisted by bi-wiring, whilst others
are not. YMMV.