The unarguable difference in biwiring is current. With biwiring current for bass and treble is no longer present in both, only voltage. no model i know of says this ahould make any difference in adequate conductors. some purported skin effects seem to only start to be meaningful in the 100kHz range.
Yet still i agree that listen for yourself. i have heard and demonstrated differences in speaker cables, so perhaps any changes are due to that? Perhaps whats really going on is added cable capacitance, or emi/rfi i terference getting fed back to the amp?
Listen for yourself and judge any pissible improvements against costs. if you are using sanely priced 14 gauge cables, who am i to tell you whether or not to spend another $10 if you like it?
Best,
Erik
Yet still i agree that listen for yourself. i have heard and demonstrated differences in speaker cables, so perhaps any changes are due to that? Perhaps whats really going on is added cable capacitance, or emi/rfi i terference getting fed back to the amp?
Listen for yourself and judge any pissible improvements against costs. if you are using sanely priced 14 gauge cables, who am i to tell you whether or not to spend another $10 if you like it?
Best,
Erik
Coming in the tail end of this debate but excellent read here on the topic. There are differences but to quote Rod " Mostly, passive biamping (and/or bi-wiring) is a waste of time and rarely achieves any of the claimed benefits."
BiAmp (Bi-Amplification - Not Quite Magic, But Close) - Part 1
So in a nutshell, passive crossovers suck, still don't understand why people use them. Changing out my "audiophile" passive crossovers ( that used "high end" passive components mind you) to active crossovers made an improvement that is hard to be believed.... night and day difference, I will never go back.
BiAmp (Bi-Amplification - Not Quite Magic, But Close) - Part 1
So in a nutshell, passive crossovers suck, still don't understand why people use them. Changing out my "audiophile" passive crossovers ( that used "high end" passive components mind you) to active crossovers made an improvement that is hard to be believed.... night and day difference, I will never go back.
Bi-wiring reduces the intermodulation of the drivers by connecting each crossover directly to the amplifier output. This eliminates the "shared" wiring resistance that would otherwise "cross the streams".
Think of various power tools sharing a single extension cord vs. a separate extension cord for each tool.
Think of various power tools sharing a single extension cord vs. a separate extension cord for each tool.
Yup, I've recently done the same thing, with the same results. Learned a lot about this stuff in the process, too.
I guess I can at least thank this passive bi-wiring trend for forcing manufacturers to provide extra binding posts on the enclosures, saving me the trouble of adding them when I went full-active.
-- Jim
Well that's the boundary of what's arguable. Any electronics tech could state, correctly, that biwiring limits the current in each cable to that passed by the filter the cable is attached to even while the voltage remains the same.
What does not yet exist is a credible theory, measurement or observation that the effect of current in one band can significantly modulate the voltage in another in normal multiway speakers playing music.
With the right gear there are half a dozen ways of designing tests which could demonstrate this effect if present, but I am not aware of any which have. I would imagine if it was a measurable effect cable makers would be promoting those tests to the heavens.
Still, a good place to start with science is observation. Anyone who has a setup they feel demonstrates this particular effect should attempt to measure it.
Also, I'm always curious if so called effects aren't really adding capacitance somewhere, or removing or adding emi/rfi via cable geometries. Discovering the actual causes of audible difference s can lead to better equipment and inexpensive solutions, something o always support.
Best
Erik
Last edited:
You're right and I suppose it could make a difference that is mostly based upon the type of crossover (design) and components used in it.
This is why I believe people can hear differences in speaker cables. For example, if you look at what happens to the damping factor with passive crossovers when you add resistance between the crossover and the amp, it can be a non-trivial difference (in what it does to the damping factor of the amp).
If you really want to blow your mind, read this about what cables will do to electrostatic speakers
Sanders Sound Systems - Cables White Paper
Of course passive filters suck to all those not knowing what to do with
them, especially to folks selling active stuff.
We know what the pros and cons are. Shades of grey, not a black and white
thing. I am using passive filters designed for the region where I don't have to
deal with wild impedance changes so I can get away with moderate filter values
and relatively simple filters. That is how it is right now.
One aspect of the outboard passive xovers I've built is that I reduced the number of components. That had nothing to do with making them in outboard enclosures. The redesign presented an opportunity to experiment. For example one of my speakers had eight components for the MF in the original xover now there are four. What I'm really anxious to try are full range speakers with no xovers. If they are as good as the available info why go to active? Active xovers strike me as adding a lot of extra stuff between the source and speaker.
By the way, bi wiring does not affect cable resistance. You end up with the same damping factoe as you did before. to reduce cable R you must connect the wires at both ends. This theory of biwiring is the most easily debunked with simple math.
Kirchhoffs current laws are unavoidable , but fun to bewilder the naive with.
Best,
Erik
This theory of biwiring is the most easily debunked with simple math.Kirchhoffs current laws are unavoidable , but fun to bewilder the naive with.
Best,
Erik
Been there .. Done that.
FR speakers can be surprisingly good But hardly Great.
Most of those are of the 3 " cone variety. Cheap though.
Bigger ones are proportionally sketchy.. correlated to their cone sizes.
But Hey! it can be a fun Goose Chase.
haha Bare don't sugar coat it
kinda like kid cereals, "they're magically delicious" but Tony the Tiger wouldn't roar about them.
"Cause active crossovers are for wimps. Real men use passive crossovers and don't bi-wire.
"Cause active crossovers are for wimps. Real men use passive crossovers and don't bi-wire.
I know you're (mostly) kidding, Pano, but don't get me wrong - I take my virtual hat off to everyone out there with the skills and patience to do good passive crossover design. All I can say is that my speakers sound much better (and measure better too) than they did before, and I don't think I could've gotten them to this level with passive crossovers (and driver correction) - especially at my skill level.
-- Jim the old wimp
"Cause active crossovers are for wimps. Real men use passive crossovers and don't bi-wire.
+1 darn straight.
But still, if that's what real men do, is wanting to use digital crossovers and multiple DAC's like crossdressing? Who am I to deny a man the right to feel pretty now and then.
Best,
Erik
No doubt! And IMO that's the main advantage of active crossovers. Soooo much easier and faster to get right, as least with modern tools. Getting the crossover right is 1/2 the speaker.
Ha! Touché
But we are wondering off topic. Let's get back to using extra wires.
Back about 30 years ago when I first tried bi-wire I was full of hope that it would really be a nice improvement. I was sorely disappointed and concluded that I must be deaf as a post. I just could not tell any real difference.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.