Bi-Wiring, what exactly is it doing?

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 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 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.

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.

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 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............

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?

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 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 wrote: »

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

.....and enough blow to force him into skinny jeans.

now you sound like Mantis! think he has stock in AQ.

tonyb wrote: »

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.

I hate to tell you bro that with a cable that is the goal. You personally can have all the issues you want with it but once a cable transfers the signal correctly , there is NOTHING more is going to do. Thats it man , thats the goal. That is exactly why we wire nuts are trying to achieve.
The real question is as follows,
What does it take to get the signal correctly? Thats the million dollar question my brother. When you have been in the business as long as I have , I have asked this question to so many engineers from so many different companies. Some will tell you the truth and some will white lie to protect their vested interest in many of these wire companies.
I will have to speak up and say MOST high end companies wires are nothing but snake oil, fancy wire wrapped up in very pretty jackets. I hate that I know that but in many ways I'm glad I do. There is only so many things you can do with a conductor but its the care and engineering behind it that really makes the differences we all seek and are willing to pay top dollar for.
I have been reviewing cables on this forum for decades. If you have read any of them, I study them more mentally then most. When I discovered differences in the way cables perform in my systems and the systems I Install Professionally, I had to learn everything I could from anyone who would teach me.
If you remember, once I went Audioquest, I kinda started to fall off the mental path of keep searching for the perfect conductor of any kind. Once I learned from some of the companies I have been to over the decades and the quality that goes into some and not into others, I found a home where much truth be told.
Listen , you will never ever find cheap cables in my systems ever. They are compromised due to quality of materials used. Most of them are not built to spec and many of them fail.
What I also find is that most on this forum who likes to research wire and everything seem to not understand the fundamental goals of each conductor. There is a lot of truth in many of the things that have been posted on this thread about cables even without which I believe no experience from the poster. But some of the information that has been presented has a lot of truth to it. Can be very misleading but if you are a student of the game you must at least listen.

I'm just gonna give you an example of a truth that can be taken the wrong way ok.

Body Builders Eat eggs.
Eggs are baby chickens.
Therefore Body Builders eat babies.

Can you see where I'm going with this?
Anyway I also have to say it's mental to argue with anyone about wire who has a opinion by just reading about it online and not testing it for themselves or learning everything before forming such strong opinions either way.
Look at it this way, if you find value in your cable choices and your very happy with what they do, then that game is done. Down the road you might want to try others and see things but at the end of the day when you sit in front of your rig and it makes you smile weather you have snake oil cables , correctly built cables or something in-between, thats really all that matters.

I honestly also think there is NO END to this conversation ever. As long as someone agrees and disagrees , this debate will never ever have an ending.
I personally lost the desire to make anyone see the light or convince them of what I have learned , found etc. I'll tell you my professional opinion and what you do with it is your business. You can believe in my or not , for me it doesn't matter. You do what you want with my info, if you ask I will tell but thats it.

cbridle wrote: »

I am sure I missed the answer to this question in previous 7 pages or question is invalid, still gonna ask...do different frequencies in the music travel through the speaker wire in different strands at the same speed, in random strands and/or they pass through all strands at the same speed, or different frequencies travel at different speeds?

All frequencies of electromagnetic radiation (light, radio waves, etc.) travel at the speed of light in free space. Through a conductor, the speed of electromagnetic radiation is slowed a bit. How much it is slowed depends on the refraction index of the conductor at a particular frequency.

A particular frequency component in a signal cannot "choose" a particular wire strand in a cable. Only a filter can route a particular frequency component in a signal.

Or to state DK's excellent explanation in other words and as the venrable Latin maxim puts it: "De gustibus non est disputandum."