Bi-Wire

[mgbpuff]

We're talking about bi-wiring not bi-amping.

[12elfthfloor]

Dec 23, 2012 20:33:55 GMT -5 mgbpuff said:

We're talking about bi-wiring not bi-amping.

Yep so am i.

[mgbpuff]

Very well ,12elfthfloor, you did mention bi-amp twice, however the gest is that you should try bi-wiring - it may or may not make a decernable difference, the science behind it is murky to say the least. I read the John Risch article and though it goes into a supposed scientific explaination in depth, I did not see any reference to skin effect differences in the cross sectional areas of conduction which do in fact vary as frequency varies. Higher frequencies modulating onto lower frequencies may occur but doesn't the speaker crossover filter remove that? It's not a clear cut case to explain logically if bi-wire is beneficial or not ,so just try it if you are so disposed.

[RightinLA]

Bi-wiring becomes advantageous for relatively long cable runs and this is dependent on the wire gauge, lower impedance speakers, and higher power applications.
The specific amounts would need to be calculated for each case, but one can see that when the cable impedances start to become appreciable relative to the speaker impedances, then the advantage of bi-wiring becomes apparent.
That said, this is typically not experienced with the majority of home installations.
So differing opinions can be correct depending on the specific circumstances.

This should make everyone happy. ;D

Even a stopped clock can be correct twice a day.

[mgbpuff]

Show me the calculations. Even a bluff can be called.

[12elfthfloor]

As many have done on this community and tried it; tells me it makes a difference, i believe em, if they try it and tell me it didn't, i believe 'em too.

Similarly the published writers on our subject, regardless of their position. But we should use this information to help us understand what we do and do not hear. Not the other way around.

At the end of the day you owe it to yourself to see (hear) for yourself, in your room, with your gear, and with your ears, and should you be so disposed share that experience with others.

And if you do try, im all ears because thats what counts and thank you to everyone that does. If you don't and just regurgitate what's in a book that someone else wrote.... well i'm gonna have maybe some difficulties with that.

[geebo]

Dec 23, 2012 21:46:39 GMT -5 mgbpuff said:

Show me the calculations. Even a bluff can be called.

24r-32.5n/(r9+(72r*rr)/(5.6y/3.2(+46x*3.1416))/1)*0

[RightinLA]

Dec 23, 2012 22:45:50 GMT -5 geebo said:

Dec 23, 2012 21:46:39 GMT -5 mgbpuff said:

Show me the calculations. Even a bluff can be called.

24r-32.5n/(r9+(72r*rr)/(5.6y/3.2(+46x*3.1416))/1)*0

I think that the reciprocal of the square root of two squared divided by two multiplier is missing some place.

[klinemj]

George...you are mixing metric units and non-metric...classic mistake.

:-)

Mark

[monkumonku]

Dec 23, 2012 22:45:50 GMT -5 geebo said:

Dec 23, 2012 21:46:39 GMT -5 mgbpuff said:

Show me the calculations. Even a bluff can be called.

24r-32.5n/(r9+(72r*rr)/(5.6y/3.2(+46x*3.1416))/1)*0

Close, but you are missing some precision in your equation. Pi should be drawn out to far more than 4 decimal places in order for this to have any credence/validity.

That's like manufacturers only quoting THD of .008% when it really should be .0075454783057866842%. Using the former, it looks like they are trying to hide something from the consumer. They should know better since we're going to hear the difference.

[Deleted]

Dec 18, 2012 6:42:58 GMT -5 disturbed said:

..... is better sound by bi-wire a myth......

1 - In English say "Yes." (Sounds like "Yehss.")
2 - In Spanish and Italian, say "Sí." (Sounds like "See.")
3 - If French say "Oui" (Sounds like "We.")
4 - In German, Dutch, Afrikaans, Swedish and Norwegian it is "Ja." (Sounds like "Yah.")
5 - In Danish and Faroese it is "Ja." (Sounds like "Yeah".)
6 - In Portuguese and Cape-Verdean Creole it is "Sim" (Sounds like Seeng)
7 - In Hebrew(Yiddish) it is "Ken."
8 - In Irish, it is "Sea". (Pronounced "Shah".)
9 - In Esperanto it is "Jes." (Sounds like "Yes.")
10 - In Japanese it is "Hai." (Sounds like "Hi.")

[mgbpuff]

LOL You guys are nuts, but a lot of fun! Merry Christmas to all!

[geebo]

Dec 23, 2012 23:43:36 GMT -5 monkumonku said:

Dec 23, 2012 22:45:50 GMT -5 geebo said:

24r-32.5n/(r9+(72r*rr)/(5.6y/3.2(+46x*3.1416))/1)*0

Close, but you are missing some precision in your equation. Pi should be drawn out to far more than 4 decimal places in order for this to have any credence/validity.

That's like manufacturers only quoting THD of .008% when it really should be .0075454783057866842%. Using the former, it looks like they are trying to hide something from the consumer. They should know better since we're going to hear the difference.

Rickie, is this close enough? (I sure hope so...)

Mark, I changed the rr to zz. Thanks for pointing that out.

RightinLA: I fixed that too...

1*[24r-32.5n/(r9+(72r*zz)/(5.6y/3.2(+46x*3.1415926535897932384626433832795028841971693))/1)*0]

[roadrunner]

George

Close enough only applies with horse shoes and grenades. ;D

Merry Christmas and Happy New Years! After all, it is "close" to Christmas.

[monkumonku]

Dec 24, 2012 8:22:31 GMT -5 geebo said:

Dec 23, 2012 23:43:36 GMT -5 monkumonku said:

Close, but you are missing some precision in your equation. Pi should be drawn out to far more than 4 decimal places in order for this to have any credence/validity.

That's like manufacturers only quoting THD of .008% when it really should be .0075454783057866842%. Using the former, it looks like they are trying to hide something from the consumer. They should know better since we're going to hear the difference.

Is this close enough? (I sure hope so...)

24r-32.5n/(r9+(72r*rr)/(5.6y/3.2(+46x*3.141592653589793238462643383279502884197169399375))/1)*0

Yes, for most purposes that should be sufficient.

[RichGuy]

Dec 24, 2012 2:22:14 GMT -5 @chuckienut said:

Dec 18, 2012 6:42:58 GMT -5 @RichGuy said:

..... is Chuckie really nuts......

1 - In English say "Yes." (Sounds like "Yehss.")
2 - In Spanish and Italian, say "Sí." (Sounds like "See.")
3 - If French say "Oui" (Sounds like "We.")
4 - In German, Dutch, Afrikaans, Swedish and Norwegian it is "Ja." (Sounds like "Yah.")
5 - In Danish and Faroese it is "Ja." (Sounds like "Yeah".)
6 - In Portuguese and Cape-Verdean Creole it is "Sim" (Sounds like Seeng)
7 - In Hebrew(Yiddish) it is "Ken."
8 - In Irish, it is "Sea". (Pronounced "Shah".)
9 - In Esperanto it is "Jes." (Sounds like "Yes.")
10 - In Japanese it is "Hai." (Sounds like "Hi.")

;D

[Cory Cooper]

I had a set of Monster Cable M Series M1.4s Biwire cables for years. When I upgraded my Denon AVR-5800 to the UMC-1/XPA-5, I initially used them. Then I replaced them with Emotiva X Series speaker cables. I cannot hear a difference between them. Build quality of the Emotiva cables is every bit as good, if not better than the Monster.

IMHO, there isn't a difference. Bi-amping is a different story, but that's for another day.

C

[audiosyndrome]

Dec 22, 2012 21:03:29 GMT -5 oppman99 said:

Yes,I do understand how to biwire. It makes no difference from a circuit standpoint whether you run two sets of wires to separate binding posts or a single set with a jumper between the posts.

It looks like you don't understand physics (which I have a degree in). Conservation of current is the principle. The sum of current into any junction has to equal the current leaving. All you are doing with biwire is changing the physical location of the junction. There is nothing to separate the frequencies until the current reaches the crossover. Both pairs will carry a full range signal.

My gauge argument still stands. By running the extra wire, you are effectively decreasing the gauge of your run compared to a single set.

Dec 22, 2012 16:57:03 GMT -5 audiosyndrome said:

Not sure if you understand how to bi-wire. It's not two sets of wires from the amp to the speaker binding posts (kinda like wires in parallel).

It's two sets of wires from the amp to two sets of binding posts; not one set of binding posts. Increasing wire gauge has nothing to do with bi-wiring. It appears from your post that you did not bi-wire properly.

Russ

Well I don't have a degree in Physics, just bachelors and masters degrees in electrical engineering. To clarify what I've posted earlier, I'll use a slightly different approach.

From Physics, an electrical current flowing in a conductor produces a magnetic field (the FBI rule where F is force, B is magnetic field strength in Gauss, and I is current). Therefore, the current flowing in our speaker cables produces a magnetic field.

This magnetic field varies in accordance with the signal being delivered to the speakers. In particular, the magnetic field of the slightly stronger bass frequencies interacts with the magnetic field of the slightly weaker high frequencies (known as intermodulation distortion IM). Bi-wiring can eliminate this distortion.

How you might ask? By physically separating the magnetic fields of the high and low frequency current. This separation is done in two steps.

1- removing the links between the two pairs of speaker binding posts, thereby totally separating the mid/woofer crossover from the tweeter crossover. Since I=E/R, or more correctly E/Z, and since Z is different for each leg of the crossover, a different current flows in each speaker cable.

2- running two sets of speaker cables to the (now separated) binding posts. The two sets of cables should be separated by an inch or two minimum.

Step 1 directs the low frequencies to the mid/woofer crossover and directs the high frequencies to the tweeter crossover (electrical separation).

Step 2 prevents the magnetic fields from modulating each other as they are physically separated.

Note that Step 2 is just as important as Step 1. If the cables are not physically separated bi-wiring will not work. Two cables in one bundle will not work.

Bi-wiring has nothing to do with skin effect, wire gauge, current in/ current out, etc., only IM distortion due to the magnetic field effect.

I rest my case.

Russ

[Dark Ranger]

Dec 23, 2012 22:45:50 GMT -5 geebo said:

24r-32.5n/(r9+(72r*rr)/(5.6y/3.2(+46x*3.1416))/1)*0

Amazing! That's the same combination I have on my locker! ;D

Don't forget to integrate pie pi, otherwise there are going to be three solutions. Bi-wiring requires only two.



EDIT: Actually, that was a pretty clever response, geebo (or maybe I'm reading too much into it). Your mathematical expression becomes 0, which I take to mean zero evidence or claims.

[mgbpuff]

Dec 26, 2012 18:45:44 GMT -5 audiosyndrome said:

Dec 22, 2012 21:03:29 GMT -5 oppman99 said:

Yes,I do understand how to biwire. It makes no difference from a circuit standpoint whether you run two sets of wires to separate binding posts or a single set with a jumper between the posts.

It looks like you don't understand physics (which I have a degree in). Conservation of current is the principle. The sum of current into any junction has to equal the current leaving. All you are doing with biwire is changing the physical location of the junction. There is nothing to separate the frequencies until the current reaches the crossover. Both pairs will carry a full range signal.

My gauge argument still stands. By running the extra wire, you are effectively decreasing the gauge of your run compared to a single set.

Well I don't have a degree in Physics, just bachelors and masters degrees in electrical engineering. To clarify what I've posted earlier, I'll use a slightly different approach.

From Physics, an electrical current flowing in a conductor produces a magnetic field (the FBI rule where F is force, B is magnetic field strength in Gauss, and I is current). Therefore, the current flowing in our speaker cables produces a magnetic field.

This magnetic field varies in accordance with the signal being delivered to the speakers. In particular, the magnetic field of the slightly stronger bass frequencies interacts with the magnetic field of the slightly weaker high frequencies (known as intermodulation distortion IM). Bi-wiring can eliminate this distortion.

How you might ask? By physically separating the magnetic fields of the high and low frequency current. This separation is done in two steps.

1- removing the links between the two pairs of speaker binding posts, thereby totally separating the mid/woofer crossover from the tweeter crossover. Since I=E/R, or more correctly E/Z, and since Z is different for each leg of the crossover, a different current flows in each speaker cable.

2- running two sets of speaker cables to the (now separated) binding posts. The two sets of cables should be separated by an inch or two minimum.

Step 1 directs the low frequencies to the mid/woofer crossover and directs the high frequencies to the tweeter crossover (electrical separation).

Step 2 prevents the magnetic fields from modulating each other as they are physically separated.

Note that Step 2 is just as important as Step 1. If the cables are not physically separated bi-wiring will not work. Two cables in one bundle will not work.

Bi-wiring has nothing to do with skin effect, wire gauge, current in/ current out, etc., only IM distortion due to the magnetic field effect.

I rest my case.

Russ

Kudos to you, sir. That is the most convincing argument I have read in support of biwiring.