Bi-Wire...

rebuy

Sorry, I do not see your point. When bi-wiring, you are wanting to use 2 sets of wires. Don't they run off the same terminal? Are you telling me that the second set of wires sends a different signal than the first set of wires? I don't buy that. If you use a very high quality or even a low quality set of wires, the signal is the same for a given distance.
If not, how is the signal different? The high side receives the exact same signals the low side does.
Same power, same signal from the same terminal.
I do not believe the signal going to the tweeter, is any different from the signal loading the woofer.

SolidSqual

The signal's not different but the path it takes is. It is a fact that cheap binding posts can affect sound. If you simply use a jumper cable from the "highs" binding post to the "lows" binding post, you are sending the signal through an extra point of degradation that it otherwise would not experience if bi-wired. I'm not saying the differences are immense, but bypassing the binding posts is definitely a means for sonic improvement in every case.

rebuy

Once again, I have to disagree with your statement. The path is not different, One might be direct, but hooked up properly, it's also direct to the high side. The high side signal should never go thru the lower binding post, unless your using plugs, it comes directly from the amp. If you use banana plugs it goes thru the binding post. By the same token, you are saying that if you bi-wire using plugs the sound is degraded enough not to notice a gain in clarity, so bi-wiring is pointless.

My argument is when you run one set of wires, then wire into the high side, the signal is the same regardless of how many wires you use. I do not see the point of running a completely different set of wires for this reason.

You said, "The basis of bi-wiring is that the high pass section doesn't have to see change the low side and it's power hungry design is going to impress across the far end of the wire. How much it's modulated is again dependant on the entire circuit as listed above. And it also is dependant on someone listing in such a way as to hear those effects if there are any in the situation."

This does not make any sense to me. By bi-wiring, even with two sets of wire, isn't the signal the same? Are you trying to say the low side affects the high side in a single wire hook up when it's split at the binding post? The high side crossover only allows high signals to pass thru, that is the same thing as running a completely separate wire just for the high side. Low signals are present in the signal but not allowed to pass.

I see advocating running two sets of wires, to run two exact full range signals to one speaker, and then telling us it is different than splitting a single signal to do the exact same thing.

If the wiring is exactly the same for the top and bottom, the load will be the same. Am I wrong?

SolidSqual

So you are assuming a jumper from the high binding posts to the low binding posts does not affect the sound? I imagine this would be very speaker dependent. If the low drivers are just for low bass then your assumption might be true. But if the low drivers handle a good section of the midrange, then you could very well hear the difference between biwiring and jumping.

All this aside, my opinion is that one should skip biwiring and go straight to biamping.

rebuy

Wire jumpers might be better that brass binders for quality signal improvement. My RTI's have to be bi-wired in some way shape or form or only half the speaker plays. That is the way Polk designed it. If they used a crossover like in Radio Shack speakers, then you could not bi-wire and the second binding posts would not be required. However, in my Polks, it requires either wires, binders, or another set of wires for the whole speaker to work. I'm not the one who designed it, it was built that way.

Am I wrong?

CoolJazz

rebuy wrote: »

If the wiring is exactly the same for the top and bottom, the load will be the same. Am I wrong?

Yes, you're wrong.

The power pulled for bass can easily be 10 times what's required on the high side. Again, the load across the impedance is why it changes. If there was no load, then it would be the same at the end of each wire when bi-wiring. But because the source not capable of being a pure voltage source and the wire adds to that, the result is some level of sag in the delivery at the speaker terminals. By seperating the high side, the high pass audio on it less likely to be modulated by the bass side.

To help understand the basics behind it, think of the wire being VERY small. Think of it as an extension cord that's small guage wire. Half the size of anything you've ever seen before. Now don't you expect a heavy load to sag the voltage delivered to the power hungry device at the end of the extension cord? The wire goes from here to there...so do you expect it to be the same going into and out of the small guage ext cord?

I hope somebody gets the explaination. That's the why of bi-wiring. The effect is very determined by the load, the wire and the source.

CJ

tonyb

Think of your house, you overload a socket and what happens ? Yes, thats an extreme analogy and the load represented to a speaker by a big fat wire or a skinny 16 ga isn't going to set things ablaze. But it may effect sound. Lots of variables, nothing is as cut and dry as some would like them to be. But also, I think at times we make this audio thing more complicated than it needs to be.

FTGV

CoolJazz wrote: »

That's the why of bi-wiring.

I thought it was the suposed reduction of back EMF from the woofer circuit feeding into the high pass section that was the main advantage promoted by proponents of biwiring.?

slider2828

Interesting Conversation...

CoolJazz

FTGV wrote: »

I thought it was the suposed reduction of back EMF from the woofer circuit feeding into the high pass section that was the main advantage promoted by proponents of biwiring.?

Yes, that would be the next building block on top of the driving versus output impedance theme. The non-linearity from the motor is looking at the output impedance rather than being directly connected to the high side.

This is much the same principle of running a direct feed for AC to your system. A direct feed helps isolate you from the other trash imposed on the lines in the house. The low output impedance at the panel helps isolate you from the stuff on your dedicated feed lines.

CJ

steveinaz

It certainly doesn't "hurt" anything to bi-wire, the question is, is it worth it from a economic standpoint. I'd rather see someone spend the money on 1 set of good speaker cables, then 2 sets of mediocre cables. I use to bi-wire, I don't bother with it anymore.

SolidSqual

steveinaz wrote: »

It certainly doesn't "hurt" anything to bi-wire, the question is, is it worth it from a economic standpoint. I'd rather see someone spend the money on 1 set of good speaker cables, then 2 sets of mediocre cables. I use to bi-wire, I don't bother with it anymore.

simple truth

tonyb

Yep, I bi-wire presently and the difference is minimal at best. If I had to do it again, probably wouldn't. I would however, not use those brass jumpers and whatever cable I would use, I would try and make jumpers from the same speaker cable brand.

steveinaz

Agree, brass jumpers are horrible. When I did bi-wire, I always connected directly to the tweeter/mid upper post, then "jumped" down to the woofer section. Don't know if it made any sonice difference, but it made logical sense to me.

FTGV

CoolJazz wrote: »

Yes, that would be the next building block on top of the driving versus output impedance theme. The non-linearity from the motor is looking at the output impedance rather than being directly connected to the high side.

This is much the same principle of running a direct feed for AC to your system. A direct feed helps isolate you from the other trash imposed on the lines in the house. The low output impedance at the panel helps isolate you from the stuff on your dedicated feed lines.

CJ

The thinking is that the higher currents involved with driving the woofer will be isolated from the tweeter or tweeter /mid in a 3 way therefore can't effect them.Personally I'm not convinced it's worthwhile but there may exist certain amp/speaker combo's that do benifit from bi-wiring .I have yet to encounter it.

steveinaz

Exactly, and without bi-amping and using active crossovers to cut lows/highs, you really don't hear the sonic benefits. It's for guys with LOTS of money to burn, if you want to do it correctly.

FTGV

steveinaz wrote: »

It's for guys with LOTS of money to burn....

Or the resourceful DIY types.:cheesygrin:I have played around with active crossovers the last few years and agree that by removing the passive components entirely thus allowing direct coupling of the drivers to the amps can IMO result in real improvements in resolution and dynamics etc.The increased box and cable clutter can get out of hand though.

steveinaz

...and then you wonder, is introducing all this additional electronics/cable a 1 step forward, 2 steps back proposition?

FTGV

steveinaz wrote: »

...and then you wonder, is introducing all this additional electronics/cable a 1 step forward, 2 steps back proposition?

Thats a good and common counter argument .The active unit must be designed with the same kind of care as with a good preamp to ensure it will impart as little coloration as possible. (ie.low noise/low distortion power supplies,opamps etc.)Given a reasonably neutral active crossover I believe that the reactive, energy storing ,power robbing passive crossover components will do more harm to the signal than the active device.Add to that the reduced demand on the amplifiers since they are each operating over a restricted bandwidth and are not having to deal with any reactive impedances.All in all if done correctly IMO there is a potential net gain in resolution and dynamics.

SolidSqual

steveinaz wrote: »

...and then you wonder, is introducing all this additional electronics/cable a 1 step forward, 2 steps back proposition?

Maybe a good rule of thumb, but definitely not the law of building a system with synergy.

tonyb

FTGV wrote: »

.All in all if done correctly IMO there is a potential net gain in resolution and dynamics.

While I agree to all this in theory, I subscribe to the fact that if better resolution and dynamics are to be my end goal, I'd just buy better speakers.

steveinaz

I would imagine with great care put into the design of everything it would be awesome, but then again great care= BIG MONEY.

tonyb

Kinda my point Steve, "Big money" can buy a helluva speaker.

FTGV

steveinaz wrote: »

but then again great care= BIG MONEY.

Yes certainly on the commercial side of things going active is not for the budget minded,thats why active system's are not in abundance for home use.However active systems are far more attractive to and popular amongst diy'ers as good system's can be assembled for fractions of what a comparable commercial unit would cost.

FTGV

tonyb wrote: »

Kinda my point Steve, "Big money" can buy a helluva speaker.

And that same speaker given the same amount effort in engineering to develop an active version has the potential to push it's performance envelope even further,albeit at greater cost.

jbooker82

Does the $100 dollar bill help dampen vibration? If so I need to get me some to put under all my gear. :cheesygrin: It would probably work as good cable risers to keep them up off the carpet as well.

Richd82

Got my wires in yesterday http://signalcable.com/silverresolutionspeaker.html. Not the absolute best but a good starting point for my first HT setup.

So ive listened to them for about 3hrs and the very first thing i noticed was how much cleaner my highs are and how smooth my bass is. The overall tonal balance of the music is much better. Mind you im coming from some Monoprice wire.My initial testing was with my Shinedown album. Simpleman, 45, 45(acoustic) and Burning Bright. Straightaway i noticed more of a balance between high and mid. My highs are nowhere near as harsh as they were.

For not much coin and a simple addition of new wires im very impressed.I did go with the bi-wire so idk if its a simple upgrade in wire or the combination of both but im happy with the result. My test results are w/the A7's running in 2ch as i dont have enough $$ to do a full 7.1. I need 10ft plus all the way around. ouch!

Regards, Rich

SolidSqual

signal makes a good cable. They still need to break in though. They will improve more.

tonyb

Congrats Rich, glad your diggin' 'em. See, a simple cable swap can make a difference, not always mind you, but seeing you had monoprice before the only way is up from there.

Richd82

tonyb wrote: »

Congrats Rich, glad your diggin' 'em. See, a simple cable swap can make a difference, not always mind you, but seeing you had monoprice before the only way is up from there.

Right i can see how when you get into the higher end wires the difference may be minute. But coming from a run of the mill to these has proved to be a great upgrade. I just finished transformers with my son and I'm extremely satisfied.

Now if i can get this deal on a Marantz SR7002 to go through I think I'll be content for awhile.