Bi-Wiring, what exactly is it doing?

tonyb

LOL....well, it is our senses, our each individual senses that perceives audio in different ways. No science, no measurements will substitute for an individuals perception of things.

Sure, use them as a tool, part of your knowledge base for your decision making process, but they are not the last word nor should they ever be. Those that have moved up the ladder in audio know this, those stuck in the mud of measurements have not.

skrol

nbrowser wrote: »

Ripped off from Guns N Roses..

What we've got here is failure to communicate.
Some men you just can't reach...
So, you get what we had here last week, which is the way he wants it!
Well, he gets it!
N' I don't like it any more than you men.

... who ripped it off from the 1967 film "Cool Hand Luke".

Great movie btw!

dromunds

Beauty is in the ear of the beerholder

SCompRacer

I've known some women that were bi-wired too....

vc69

SCompRacer wrote: »

I've known some women that were bi-wired too....

perhaps my favorite kind

DarqueKnight

xcapri79 wrote: »

The ear and brain are typically not nearly as reliable as good instrumentation is.
I certainly do not have magic years, especially at my age >50.

Good instrumentation typically does not take into account the peculiarities of the ear's non-linear hearing response.

A speaker with ruler flat response might sound like crap, even in a perfectly treated room because the ear does not have ruler flat response. It is more sensitive to some frequencies than to others.

A speaker with nulls and peaks at certain points might sound great if the nulls and peaks occur at places where human hearing response is less sensitive.

ZLTFUL wrote: »

You do realize that some of arguably the best tweeters on earth (beryllium) look like utter shite on paper right? Most of their graphs show them dropping like a stone and yet brands like Magico, Focal, et al use them in their top of the line speakers. Why would that be? Oh yeah...because they sound good.

People overlook the fact that a thoughtful and skillful audio designer approaches design from a wholistic viewpoint. A shortcoming in one area may be compensated for in another aspect of the design.

For example, some people look at the slew rate specs for Pass Labs amps and assume that they must sound "slow" (diminished transient response) due to the lower than average slew rate. Nelson Pass explains that the slew rate requirement is cut in half by other design aspects:

"Of course we agree that if we want a fast circuit whose distortion remains low at high frequencies we need to toss current into the Gates. I don't place as much emphasis on this as you do, but I address it by running more current through the Vas. In the X600.5 the symmetric voltage gain stage will peak out at about 100 mA. We also take advantage of balanced output stages (halving the slew requirement), and last but not least, we bias the amplifiers high."

My Adcom GFA-5500 amps ($1200) have much better overall measured specs than my Pass Labs X600.5 monoblocks ($22,000), but the X600.5s sound worlds better. It is fairly easy to make an amplifier with cheap parts that measure well yet have less than stellar sound performance.

tonyb

As usual, DK makes excellent points.

X,
If your hearing is compromised due to age....as you claim, then would it not be logical to assume measurements no matter how good would not then be heard by you ? So why chase them ?

We keep saying it, but it doesn't sink in. We all hear differently. We all will have different preferences. Those 2 things alone make science/measurements not totally obsolete, but down a few notches on the totem pole of importance. Sound....because this is audio right ?, should be number one on that totem pole of importance.

Ray makes a good example with the Adcom and Pass amps. Heaven knows also, we've all heard gear made with not so great parts too that sounded better than it had a right to. The audio industry calls those pieces "Giant Killers" or "Bang for your Buck".

The whole reason we have such a variety in audio gear, or any consumer products, is because they have to sell to such a variety of perceptions/preferences and a vast degree of abilities in both audio and visual. 2 people looking at a painting will walk away with 2 different perceptions of that painting. Can science dictate what that painting really means ? No, but it can be used to make sure it's authentic.

Science is a tool, measurements are a tool, but the tool belt holds more than just those 2 tools.

vc69

x has a hammer, so everything looks like a nail to him. That's ok I reckon, but you need more than just a hammer to build a home.

DarqueKnight

vc69 wrote: »

That's ok I reckon, but you need more than just a hammer to build a home.

Not if you are building a "house of cards".

BlueFox

While measurements are nice to have as a reference point, they really are not very useful for explaining why gear, and cables, can sound different with similar measurements. The point is we do not know everything that happens at the atomic level, and have no idea how to measure what we do not yet know. The whole 'flat world' mindset that assumes our current level of knowledge explains everything is just ridiculous.

SCompRacer

Here you go. Dana Cable video...offered in bi-wire. Basically, claims speaker cables can affect damping factor in negative ways. Their design, high OFC copper, braided large gauge sizing. Some folks at AC claim they make a difference. Mild to wild pricing. 21 day trial, details here.

http://www.gingkoaudio.com/hometrial.html

I've seen braided diy designs. Prefer OFC copper myself. I'd like to hear more from the techies.

https://youtu.be/9AKTDn1hp2I

vc69

DarqueKnight wrote: »

vc69 wrote: »

That's ok I reckon, but you need more than just a hammer to build a home.

Not if you are building a "house of cards".

touche'

BlueFox

Found this on another forum, apparently there is still a lot to be discovered at the atomic level.

Solid, liquid, gas and plasma are the common ways of looking at matter. Scientists are more likely to refer to other more advanced states, like Bose-Einstein condensates, degenerate matter, supersolids, quark-gluon plasma (created in the LHC), et al - here's the complete list https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_states_of_matter

Now comes an important discovery, a new state of matter called Jahn-Teller "metals", a discovery based on the Jahn-Teller Distortion http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jahn%E2%80%93Teller_effect (I know, tough to read). By applying pressure to common insulating molecules, but in the form of actually chemically squeezing in other atoms, they get them to conduct electricity like metals, become magnets, and at 138K (-135C) become superconductors (the current high-temperature superconducting record candidate is 194K - https://www.sciencenews.org/article/high-temperature-superconductivity-record-awaits-confirmation). In the latest discovery, rubidium is injected into Carbon-60 molecules to achieve this effect. Again, one of the key discoveries here is that you DON'T need to apply *external* pressure to achieve superconductivity.

Read this first http://www.sciencealert.com/scientists-have-discovered-a-new-state-of-matter-the-jahn-teller-effect and then watch the dumbed-down version in the video below

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OIALYmFpq0c

Some day, high temperature superconductivity is going to fundamentally transform electronics, and the march is on.

DarqueKnight

BlueFox wrote: »

While measurements are nice to have as a reference point, they really are not very useful for explaining why gear, and cables, can sound different with similar measurements. The point is we do not know everything that happens at the atomic level, and have no idea how to measure what we do not yet know. The whole 'flat world' mindset that assumes our current level of knowledge explains everything is just ridiculous.

This is a point I have made many times. To go further, it is what goes on at the atomic and molecular level that drives the noise processes in a cable. The "only L, C, and R matters" crowd either ignore the fact, or are ignorant of the fact, that what comes out of the other end of a cable is a combination of the signal, and its inherent noise and the noise imposed on the signal by the cable. Noise modeling is far more involved than a simple measurement of L, C, and R parameters.

PSOVLSK

From page 6 of this thread:

PSOVLSK wrote: »

I know you won't answer this, but what IC's and speaker cables do you use?

Guess I was correct.

Nightfall

PSOVLSK wrote: »

From page 6 of this thread:

PSOVLSK wrote: »

I know you won't answer this, but what IC's and speaker cables do you use?

Guess I was correct.

Monoprice.

PSOVLSK

xcapri79 wrote: »

I actually answered that question, F1 also responded to it. Interestingly enough, I just received a box of interconnects and speaker wire in the mail today.

Obviously not in this thread...at least not in responding to my asking the question. My apologies if it's somewhere in this thread previously and I missed it.

Serious question: Why would you buy new cables if you don't think they make a difference in your system? Are you just using old cables that you feel need to be replaced? What did you get? I'm honestly curious and truly think it might help me (and others) understand where you're coming from.

DarqueKnight

xcapri79 wrote: »

Audible noise from cables is typically generated from external sources and not from atomic and molecular level processes in a cable.

One of the main noise sources of audible noise, at the molecular level, is dielectric absorption, where the conductor's insulating material acts as a capacitor and stores energy from the signal and spuriously releases energy back into the signal. I have discussed this in detail in several threads, so I won't rehash it here. There are also many references about it online and in the IEEE Xplore database.

DarqueKnight

xcapri79 wrote: »

Yes I know of this phenomena pertaining to capacitors, but I don't think that this is particularly relevant with respect to typical audio cables. The other sources of noise that I mentioned would be magnitudes higher.
Audioholics has an article on this.

http://www.audioholics.com/audio-video-cables/dielectric-absorption-in-cables-debunked

Is there anything really incorrect about their analysis?

The Audioholics article states:

"Thus the dielectric losses at audio frequencies where the cable is terminated into a low impedance load such as a loudspeaker [sic] are insignificant. "

The article does not state that dielectric effects are inaudible. In order to make a case for inaudibility, they would need to show how the noise induced due to DA is below the threshold of human hearing.

The Audioholics article cited a Wikipedia article on "dielectrics". The Wikipedia article on "dielectric absorption" would have been more pertinent and appropriate don't you think?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dielectric_absorption

The title of the Audioholics article leads one to believe that it is a discussion about "dielectric absorption", but the article actually discusses "dielectric loss", which is a different phenomenon than "dielectric absorption". Some people unknowingly think DA and DL are interchangeable terms, but they are not. DA is a contributing factor to DL, but again, they are not the same. Here is a Wikipedia article on "dielectric loss":

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dielectric_loss

The third page of the Audioholics article says "loss tangents" are the same thing as "dielectric absorption". The term "loss tangent" applies to "dielectric loss" rather than "dielectric absorption".

Essentially, the author "debunked" the application of dielectric absorption theory to audio cables by talking about a different, but related phenomenon, dielectric loss.

BlueFox

In other words, the author didn't understand what he was talking about, and threw in a bunch of math to confuse the reader, and impress the gullible. Nice. Glad you are around to clear things up. Thanks.

DarqueKnight

Certain aspects of the first paragraph are enough to raise red flags:

"Before we debate the relevancy of Dielectric Absorption relating to speaker cables, and commonly perpetuated by many exotic cable vendors and cable cult hobbyists, let us first define the roll [sic] of a dielectric."

headrott

DarqueKnight wrote: »

vc69 wrote: »

That's ok I reckon, but you need more than just a hammer to build a home.

Not if you are building a "house of cards".

Yeah, that takes a lighter........oh wait............

ZLTFUL

@DarqueKnight = PhD and EE professor

@xcapri79 = claims to be an "engineer" (I'm an engineer too! My title says so!), cites Audioholics, a known FUD site

I will leave it up to you, dear reader, to decide which one you would choose to believe.

SCompRacer

ZLTFUL wrote: »

@DarqueKnight = PhD and EE professor.

I thought folks that wish to disprove DarqueKnight's cable articles/findings and informative explanations in posts had to repeat his experiments and measurements to see if they could be duplicated or rebunked. By now I think he would have been exposed by his peers if he was off base. All we see are some links to folks that disagree without the attention to details. Almost like here is something for you to believe in without adequate support to back it up. Thus the house of cards.

skrol

So in the topic of bi-wiring and noise... If noise is generated in the cable (dielectric), the cable becoming the source of noise when the signal passes through, it seems to make sense that having two runs of cable, one for the highs and one for the lows, would have an advantage depending on the characteristics of the noise. However, if the noise source is external, then bi-wiring could be adding a second antenna to pick up that noise. Has anyone had detrimental effects on the sound with bi-wiring?

Can low freq signals induce noise in the cable that would influence the high freq signal and vise versa? If so, then bi-wiring should have an advantage.

Each cable pair carries only part of the signal and delivers it to its respective XO network and driver. The noise delivered to each respective driver section should be less. If we assume that the high freq signal and the low both induce the same amount of noise in each wire pair, then half the noise would be delivered to the high section of the speaker and half to the low section. It may also be true that the noise induced would have frequency dependency which could further improve the situation. For example, if the noise is only induced by higher frequencies, then the signal delivered to the low section should be cleaner.

In a single pair, the entire signal spectrum is flowing through the cable and the max amount of noise would be induced in the cable and delivered to the entire speaker (high and low sections).

Is it all about noise? Is it about resistive and reactive impedance? Both?

tonyb

skrol wrote: »

Is it all about noise? Is it about resistive and reactive impedance? Both?

No, but it is a part along with everything else we've been talking about. Which comes down to....cables are more sophisticated in their design, build quality, materials used than just saying "wire is wire". Add to all that the different sound signatures of various metals and/or combinations of them.

Once your wallet allows, you'll see what all these cable threads are about....or not about. I guarantee you though, most musicians, recording studios, higher end stereo shops, don't use monoprice cables, and for good reason.

DarqueKnight

ZLTFUL wrote: »

@xcapri79 = claims to be an "engineer" (I'm an engineer too! My title says so!), cites Audioholics, a known FUD site

xcapri79 holds the B.S. degree in electrical engineering and has had a long career in the electrical engineering profession. I have read some of his technical publications. He also knows one of my professors from grad school.

The unfortunate thing about some technically trained people is that they don't understand that instrument measurements cannot tell you how something will be perceived by a human being. For example, there is no measurement tool, other than the human ear, that can tell you the exact placement of images in a stereophonic sound stage. There is no instrument that will measure the apparent front to back depth of a sound stage and the apparent size of space between images. Sound stage performance can't be objectively measured because a stereophonic sound stage is a psychoacoustic illusion created by two or more loudspeakers. The phenomenon only exists in the listener's mind.

Measurements can't predict how an audio component will sound. They can only provide some insight into gross electrical performance. Horsepower and engine size specs won't tell you how comfortable car's ride is. Output power and THD figures won't tell you how good an amp sounds.

Since everyone's ears and brain works just a little bit differently, the same stereophonic illusion may be perceived a little bit differently by different people. A sound stage that I perceive as 20 feet wide may only be perceived as 15 feet wide by someone else. Someone who only focuses on principle instruments might not perceive the lush, but subtle background percussion instruments.

Listening to music is a sensory experience, just like eating, or drinking, or sex. Different people can eat or drink the exact same thing and have different sensory experiences. Different people can have sex with the same person, in exactly the same way, and have different sensory experiences. Sensory experiences can't be reduced to equations and measurements. A descriptive lexicon can be developed so that people can describe things the same way using the same terms, but there is no way to predict that one person's sensory perception will be the same as others.

skrol wrote: »

Is it all about noise? Is it about resistive and reactive impedance? Both?

Signal integrity (how close the output matches the input) depends on how much the signal is attenuated (resistive and reactive effects) and how much the signal is corrupted by noise.

Noise also has an apparent attenuative effect. If two different amplifiers play the same signal at the same measured sound level, but one amplifier has 3 dB less noise in the output, that amplifier will sound apparently louder than the other amp simply because more signal is allowed to pass through.

A pervasive source of noise in stereo systems is electrical noise induced by mechanical vibration. Mechanical noise abatement is not something that is quantified in audio equipment specifications. I have done several studies where I measured the effects of different noise abatement methods (isolation products and insulating products like Black Hole and Dynamat) on the quality of the output signal.

DarqueKnight

tonyb wrote: »

I guarantee you though, most musicians, recording studios, higher end stereo shops, don't use monoprice cables, and for good reason.

They are all part of the grand global conspiracy to induce people to spend huge amounts of cash on esoteric cables. They are all getting kickbacks, hookers, and coke from the high end cable manufacturers.

tonyb

DarqueKnight wrote: »

tonyb wrote: »

I guarantee you though, most musicians, recording studios, higher end stereo shops, don't use monoprice cables, and for good reason.

They are all part of the grand global conspiracy to induce people to spend huge amounts of cash on esoteric cables. They are all getting kickbacks, hookers, and coke from the high end cable manufacturers.

Well I'll be a ****...Ray.....you DO have a sense of humor. LMAO !!

I personally also take issue with the adage that "once a cable transfers the signal correctly, nothing else can be done."

Think about that. That insinuates that all cable manufacturers are selling you broken or sub par cables in their lower lines. Does that mean an AQ Evergreen cable doesn't transfer the signal correctly compared to the SKY, or other top AQ IC. ? Of course not, which is why that saying is bunk in my book.

Too many variables goes into a cable to just say all wire is wire, any SQ improvements perceived is placebo, or other such nonsense.

The way I see it DK, Acoustic zen owes me a boat load of hookers and kickbacks. Same with Analysis Plus, Steve McCormack, Legacy Audio. I simply don't recall anyone who we've suggested better cables to that came back and said they couldn't hear a difference....not one in over 15 years on this forum. Granted, interconnects are easier to hear differences than with digital cables, but it's still there.

Nightfall

If that's the case MIT owes Jesse an entire brothel.