Oooh, you are in sooo much trouble 🙂
There can be no discernable difference bi-wiring as shown.
SAnd, if any difference did exist, it would be easy to measure using an audio spectrum analyser or similar, and put this matter to bed. So, how many times has high-end audio test equipment been used to prove the difference and back up these claims? Correct - never.
And ditto for these ludicrous multi-£k power cables et al.
The 'placebo' effect is a known human characteristic. I would go as far as to suggest that all, or nearly all, of us are susceptible to some degree, but HiFi does bring out a few beauts.
There can be no discernable difference bi-wiring as shown.
SAnd, if any difference did exist, it would be easy to measure using an audio spectrum analyser or similar, and put this matter to bed. So, how many times has high-end audio test equipment been used to prove the difference and back up these claims? Correct - never.
And ditto for these ludicrous multi-£k power cables et al.
The 'placebo' effect is a known human characteristic. I would go as far as to suggest that all, or nearly all, of us are susceptible to some degree, but HiFi does bring out a few beauts.
Rod Elliot would agree it seems. https://sound-au.com/bi-amp.htm#bi_wiring
He recommends that if you actually want to make real difference with multiple cables and multiple amps then you should add an active crossover, then you will get all the available benefit.
I took that advice and am happy with the result.
Per Gene’s recommendation (although unknown to me at the time I chose it) I do use thick wire.
He recommends that if you actually want to make real difference with multiple cables and multiple amps then you should add an active crossover, then you will get all the available benefit.
I took that advice and am happy with the result.
Per Gene’s recommendation (although unknown to me at the time I chose it) I do use thick wire.
Exactly. I used to believe cables made a difference. I blame the hifi magazines.
Totally agree,
even thin speaker cables (awg 18) are acceptable as long as you compensate for their resistance in the design of the crossover.
even thin speaker cables (awg 18) are acceptable as long as you compensate for their resistance in the design of the crossover.
I'm putting the internet on the ground
And taking 3 steps back today.
And taking 3 steps back today.
Why not ...why he doesn't pull out the crossover components?
I don't know...
So why he's so verbous? 'Provable engineering methods '...why don't he apply them?
Explanation: audio is still a 'young science ', just 100+ years old and the 'prehistorical brain' still has to process and digest the 'sounds from the speaker'
I don't know...
So why he's so verbous? 'Provable engineering methods '...why don't he apply them?
Explanation: audio is still a 'young science ', just 100+ years old and the 'prehistorical brain' still has to process and digest the 'sounds from the speaker'
biwireing a passive crossovered speaker is as usefull as racestripes on a sportscar. It may help subjectivly, but there is no objective base for that nor any form of proof that it works better. It's just better for cable merchants, who sell more cable...
The correct spelling is Buy-wiring, but pronounced as Bi-wiring
I think he does apply them. There's an article on the audioholics website and he talked about it in more detail in the video he was referencing. There's nothing verbose about "provable engineering methods".
I use it for my 2 Yam B2 rig. I use one left for the highs and high-mids and right for low mid and lows. I can tune the amp for each channel In other words, say the left channel is dedicated for high and mid high, I can tweak the Yam C1 for that channel for the intended speaker freqs. I use the other B2 and C1 to do the same for the other side. It works very very well. 😉 Also, I get the full wattage of the B2 on each speaker. It's sublime.
I can hear the difference with bi-wiring as a clearer phase differentiation of the drivers in the stop band region. It's as if the crossover's electrical influence on the drivers is more obvious. Result is a subjectively better separation of instrument dynamics where the drivers overlap, teasing them apart, especially in complex music passages . Going back to single cable sounds more garbled in the crossover region but can also project a more cohesive assemblage, possibly why some prefer single cables over bi-wiring.
This is all experience gained through diy speaker building 2 way systems, not through AB trials with store bought systems. To my surprise, it applies no matter whether the crossover is multi-element with corrective filters or a full range woofer with a single blocking cap on the tweeter.
I didn't watch the video as I don't care about other opinions, especially when all kinds of test results are referenced as proof. To me, all it means is that when there's a conflict between subjective experience and objective measurements it indicates there's a problem with the test methodology.
Flame on....
This is all experience gained through diy speaker building 2 way systems, not through AB trials with store bought systems. To my surprise, it applies no matter whether the crossover is multi-element with corrective filters or a full range woofer with a single blocking cap on the tweeter.
I didn't watch the video as I don't care about other opinions, especially when all kinds of test results are referenced as proof. To me, all it means is that when there's a conflict between subjective experience and objective measurements it indicates there's a problem with the test methodology.
Flame on....
ripblade -
I find that using one amp channel per driver does something good, although it's hard to put my finger on it.
My hypothesis is that the amp has an easier time because it's not trying to deal with all of the reactions of the drivers, caps, and coils together. Complex loads with reactance and back emf, and the interaction of the drivers with each other by being part of the same circuit has an overall effect which imo is detrimental to the overall sound.
Maybe these effects are 10, 20, 30 dB below but they are there.
Try and imagine a huge bunch of masses, springs and dampers wiggling together in a network. This is essentially the mechanical equivalent of the electrical load of a speaker. When you can simplify it you get smoother impedance and an easier time designing, predicting, and realizing theoretical performance.
I've tried it with one amp per side and one amp per driver many, many times and when an amp has its own driver it always works better.
I'm not the only one who thinks so.
Many years ago I had a rather picky customer at the car stereo shop who paid top money for us to install what was then state-of-the-art SONY ES including digital crossovers. He was running Focal component sets in the doors and a couple of 12" subs behind the seats. He used two Soundstream Reference 500 amps, one for the highs and the other for the subs. When we put the SONY ES components in, he bought a Reference 300 for the tweeters and we put each driver on its own amp channel.
This guy came back and said that after all the years of experimentation and all the money he spent, going active was by far the biggest improvement in sound he had ever heard. Keep in mind none of his speakers changed, and neither did his amps except for adding one for the tweeters. We set the crossovers at 24 dB/oct as I recall although the ES could go steeper.
I find that using one amp channel per driver does something good, although it's hard to put my finger on it.
My hypothesis is that the amp has an easier time because it's not trying to deal with all of the reactions of the drivers, caps, and coils together. Complex loads with reactance and back emf, and the interaction of the drivers with each other by being part of the same circuit has an overall effect which imo is detrimental to the overall sound.
Maybe these effects are 10, 20, 30 dB below but they are there.
Try and imagine a huge bunch of masses, springs and dampers wiggling together in a network. This is essentially the mechanical equivalent of the electrical load of a speaker. When you can simplify it you get smoother impedance and an easier time designing, predicting, and realizing theoretical performance.
I've tried it with one amp per side and one amp per driver many, many times and when an amp has its own driver it always works better.
I'm not the only one who thinks so.
Many years ago I had a rather picky customer at the car stereo shop who paid top money for us to install what was then state-of-the-art SONY ES including digital crossovers. He was running Focal component sets in the doors and a couple of 12" subs behind the seats. He used two Soundstream Reference 500 amps, one for the highs and the other for the subs. When we put the SONY ES components in, he bought a Reference 300 for the tweeters and we put each driver on its own amp channel.
This guy came back and said that after all the years of experimentation and all the money he spent, going active was by far the biggest improvement in sound he had ever heard. Keep in mind none of his speakers changed, and neither did his amps except for adding one for the tweeters. We set the crossovers at 24 dB/oct as I recall although the ES could go steeper.
That would be the ideal approach, but if one has only one amp, then bi-wiring is the next best thing. IM distortion is supposedly lower.....it certainly sounds it. Shorting out the speaker system reactances at the amplifier is both theoretically and audibly better than shorting them at the end of the speaker cable, though the effect is quite subtle and not even audible to many.
I had a tri-active systen at one time and agree that the result can be outstanding. The difficulty I experienced lied in matching the driver overlaps seamlessly which, without corrective filters, meant no end to tweaking the network cutoffs and gains. If I had acces to meticulously matched drivers I might probably still be running that system.
If you didn't watch the video there wasn't any point in replying. Thanks anyway.
The thread title says all I needed to see. Didn't want to waste my time. Sorry I wasted yours....
- Status
- Not open for further replies.