Bi-amping may have benefits, although whether it is worth doing in a typical domestic setup is debatable.NorthStar said:
Bi-wiring can increase the current in each cable near the crossover region, because the partial cancellation of reactive currents has to take place at the amp end rather than the speaker end. Hence, other things being equal, bi-wiring will gives a slight dip in response at the crossover frequency. Whether this is audible, or damaging, depends on many things. Bi-wiring may reduce, somewhat, the effect of one driver on another provided that the amplifier has an output impedance which is significantly lower than the cable resistance. Intermodulation is going to happen in the amp and the speaker, not the cable.
I'd opine that "proper" bi-amping certainly has more than just debatable benefits, even in a typical domestic setup. With appropriately designed speaker level XOs ( i.e separable between the pass bands with bridging jumpers for single amp use) and the now fairly common feature of mid line HT receivers to assign a pair of "unused" channels to either separate zone or front mains passive bi-amping, this is far easier to accomplish than ever. I set up just such a system about a year ago for my daughter & her husband - certainly easy configuration, and definitely improved dynamics and headroom.
"passive" as I understand it yes as you described, and if offers no advantages other than selling more amp channels and wire to sufferer of audio nervosa, OK
my own bi-amping is done with dedicated passive line level XOs (cheap as borscht) with no filters in the speaker enclosures - I trust that qualifies as active bi-amping
my own bi-amping is done with dedicated passive line level XOs (cheap as borscht) with no filters in the speaker enclosures - I trust that qualifies as active bi-amping
To me the paradigm shift from damping factor of 400 or 200 where none of the speaker resistance is included to the one where only the resistance added by TC is included. Makes no real sense to me.
Damping Factor (ratio of nominal impedance of a loudspeaker to the output impedance of its driving amp) is a commercial, stupid and fallacious concept.
What does its value become if the amp has a negative output impedance ? higher than infinity ?
Anybody seriously interested in loudspeaker damping should only consider the whole electrical circuit with all the involved impedances. That is not difficult to understand and it's the only way to reliably predict its behavior in various circumstances.
What does its value become if the amp has a negative output impedance ? higher than infinity ?
Anybody seriously interested in loudspeaker damping should only consider the whole electrical circuit with all the involved impedances. That is not difficult to understand and it's the only way to reliably predict its behavior in various circumstances.
Last edited:
It's been tried, needs work.
http://sound.westhost.com/7053705.pdfMr. Elliot seems rather miffed that someone patented his web project, he might be confused about copyright vs. patent as many are.
Wow, if this is right I'm still learning. ...And the old audio rules have to be rewritten again.
* You just motivated me to re-explore single-wiring. And I'll have to redo all my eight mic positioning measurements (Audyssey MultEQ XT32) over again!
...Re-calibrate my room equalization.
Ok, let me explain my actual situation.
My center channel speaker is bi-wired (jumpers out), but at the amp's end it's not.
I use a KK 8TC wire from the amp's single Center Channel binding posts, and split them at the center channel speaker's end (5 wires going to the two woofers - lower binding posts, and 3 wires going to the tweeter - higher binding posts).
The x-over in my center channel speaker is @ 1.8 kHz. ...It's a two-way.
Can I experience a problem @ this critical presence region? ...Which is very important for clear dialogue.
Is it also a problem for my high current Rotel power amplifier?
By the way, my speaker (CC) dips to a low of 2.6Ω between 150 and 250Hz.
My center channel speaker is bi-wired (jumpers out), but at the amp's end it's not.
I use a KK 8TC wire from the amp's single Center Channel binding posts, and split them at the center channel speaker's end (5 wires going to the two woofers - lower binding posts, and 3 wires going to the tweeter - higher binding posts).
The x-over in my center channel speaker is @ 1.8 kHz. ...It's a two-way.
Can I experience a problem @ this critical presence region? ...Which is very important for clear dialogue.
Is it also a problem for my high current Rotel power amplifier?
By the way, my speaker (CC) dips to a low of 2.6Ω between 150 and 250Hz.
If bi-wiring is so detrimental, why is so that many experts attest to its beneficial attribute?
Is it a world on incertitude or one of certainty?
Should I trust you or my ears? ...Should I put more value to better measurements or ones that no one understand but prefer?
In the long run, of cables, what is the short answer?
Active bi-amping using active x-overs; ok, everyone seems to be on the same pedestal.
It's bi-wiring here that I'm asking for, with doubling the size of them facts (cables).
And! Six feet speaker cable or twenty-six feet? ...Makes a difference, or not?
Keep them short those speaker cables, or not?
Interconnects (analog RCA, double or triple shielded); 2 feet or 22 feet? ...Makes a difference, or not?
Is it a world on incertitude or one of certainty?
Should I trust you or my ears? ...Should I put more value to better measurements or ones that no one understand but prefer?
In the long run, of cables, what is the short answer?
Active bi-amping using active x-overs; ok, everyone seems to be on the same pedestal.
It's bi-wiring here that I'm asking for, with doubling the size of them facts (cables).
And! Six feet speaker cable or twenty-six feet? ...Makes a difference, or not?
Keep them short those speaker cables, or not?
Interconnects (analog RCA, double or triple shielded); 2 feet or 22 feet? ...Makes a difference, or not?
Yup. When I do my magnet thing, the increase in series resistance as I climb into the 100 plus hZ region is NEVER considered part of the mechanism responsible for the electric to magnetic conversion mechanism. It's considered as a lossy thing between the supply and the converter.
As we all seem to agree, ya can't tell the players without a program.
Different definitions using the same word is too silly.
jn
By experts, if you mean somebody who sells wires, then it's grain of salt time.
It makes a difference two ways, how the cable settles with the loads split vs together, and a difference in dissipation vs time within the cables.
Whether or not that is heard, that's always been contested.
jn
In my not so humble view, bi-wire is pure snake oil. It does NOTHING that can be explained with real physics other than transfer more money from one pocket to another. If one must, it does not hurt and another 10 feet of 16 ga zip cord is cheap.
If you are running to a passive sub or true full range system and running over 20 feet, I MIGHT increase to 12ga wire. Ironic, the original Monster Cable was nice twisted pair flexible 11Ga. A good product. Then everyone went stupid.
Now, excuse me as for some reason I still have fancy silver banana plugs that came with my Ditton 44's 30 years ago in my main speakers, and sure enough, they have oxidized to be a problem. Strip, tin, screw them down, toss the plugs in the dust bin.
If you are running to a passive sub or true full range system and running over 20 feet, I MIGHT increase to 12ga wire. Ironic, the original Monster Cable was nice twisted pair flexible 11Ga. A good product. Then everyone went stupid.
Now, excuse me as for some reason I still have fancy silver banana plugs that came with my Ditton 44's 30 years ago in my main speakers, and sure enough, they have oxidized to be a problem. Strip, tin, screw them down, toss the plugs in the dust bin.
I'm not sure which "rules" you mean. Audio myths abound, but they should never have been 'written' anyway.NorthStar said:
Who said it was "so detrimental"? I didn't. I just said that it creates a dip in response at the crossover frequency, due to currents in the cables being slightly greater than for single wiring. The dip may be very small. It may even compensate for a peak, if there was a peak there.NorthStar said:
My view is that bi-wiring is unnecessary, unless the speaker terminals are too small to get a decent low resistance cable into them. It does little harm, and little or no good. I suspect that, like some other tweaks, it is popular because it is fairly easy to do and requires no circuit knowledge. Those with circuit knowledge will understand why it is not worth doing. Bi-wiring is a particular waste of time and money if the amp has a high output impedance (e.g. SET, some idiosyncratic SS amps).
Last edited:
...Experts like this guy in this link: http://bryston.com/PDF/newsletters/Bryston_Newsletter_V5_3.pdf ... James H. Hayward
* You don't have to read it if you don't want to, but still, read the last page.
{...Some of them "audio rules" I earlier referred to.}
And Bryston, and Paradigm (two well known and reputable Canadian companies), among several others, attest to the possible benefits of both bi-wiring and bi-amping.
___________
* Should you put something under your speakers, amps, preamps, digital players and DACs, and turntables; like Stillpoints and anti-vibration devices with fully active full sized platforms (Herzan/Table Stable "Active" Isolation table)?
...Lift your speaker cables and interconnects and AC power cords from the floor? ...Suspended in mid-air?
Where should you plug your power purifier?
* You don't have to read it if you don't want to, but still, read the last page.
{...Some of them "audio rules" I earlier referred to.}
And Bryston, and Paradigm (two well known and reputable Canadian companies), among several others, attest to the possible benefits of both bi-wiring and bi-amping.
___________
* Should you put something under your speakers, amps, preamps, digital players and DACs, and turntables; like Stillpoints and anti-vibration devices with fully active full sized platforms (Herzan/Table Stable "Active" Isolation table)?
...Lift your speaker cables and interconnects and AC power cords from the floor? ...Suspended in mid-air?
Where should you plug your power purifier?
Last edited:
Don't try to confuse bi-amping and bi-wiring. Two quite different approaches.
If you want to follow 'experts' then follow them. If you want advice and opinions from a forum then ask. Don't be surprised if you get different advice. Never, ever, quote an expert because he is an expert. Instead, quote him when he is right - because he has correctly applied the relevant principles.
If you want to follow 'experts' then follow them. If you want advice and opinions from a forum then ask. Don't be surprised if you get different advice. Never, ever, quote an expert because he is an expert. Instead, quote him when he is right - because he has correctly applied the relevant principles.
The pdf you linked to is pretty standard stuff. Not quite accurate in some things, like "power cords are only in series with the copper leading up to it", so doesn't matter. Power cords always require a discussion of ground loop topology, currents, and equipment EMC issues. But there was no mention of biwire or biamp in that link.
jn
All the issues jn describes are the basics for the designer for safety needs. 2 or 3 wire is a choice based on the mechanical construction. Ground loops are not a power cord issue and do not require a discussion there. They are an internal grounding strategy issue that dictates two or three wire cords. UL or CSA will explain that. ( and whoever the regulatory agencies are elsewhere with all due respect) Anything else is pure snake oil. Probablly the most egregious as some can hurt you. .
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.