Remove. The old idea behind it IIRC is about separating each driver's currents to reduce interaction.
To bi-wire you take the links out to seperate the currents to the high and low sections of the speaker as posted above. Don't expect it to make much difference if both sections of the speaker are still driven from the same amplifier.
I wouldn't have believed it if I hadn't heard it myself many times, but with HT receivers from Denon, Onkyo, Cambridge Audio, Marantz, etc. there can be substantial improvements in sound quality if you can use the menu to set four channels of amplification (2 for right, two for left) for bi-amping so the amplifiers driving the bass drivers are seperate from the amplifiers driving the top end. I assume that is because when an amplifier current limits because of the bass energy level or because of speaker impedance contortions, the amplifier driving the high part of the speaker is unaffected, so the is not reproduced.
If you don't have four channels of amplification available, then a star-quad speaker cable configuration will normally give superior results to two cables of the same cross-sectional area used in a bi-wiring configuration. A decent star-quad loudspeaker cable is a no-brainer cheap and effective hifi upgrade.
I wouldn't have believed it if I hadn't heard it myself many times, but with HT receivers from Denon, Onkyo, Cambridge Audio, Marantz, etc. there can be substantial improvements in sound quality if you can use the menu to set four channels of amplification (2 for right, two for left) for bi-amping so the amplifiers driving the bass drivers are seperate from the amplifiers driving the top end. I assume that is because when an amplifier current limits because of the bass energy level or because of speaker impedance contortions, the amplifier driving the high part of the speaker is unaffected, so the is not reproduced.
If you don't have four channels of amplification available, then a star-quad speaker cable configuration will normally give superior results to two cables of the same cross-sectional area used in a bi-wiring configuration. A decent star-quad loudspeaker cable is a no-brainer cheap and effective hifi upgrade.
........and for the main reason of properly sizing the wire for the often very different power needs plus ideally should be single strand or high count multiple strand such as telecommunications wire for mids/HF.
An the actual measured from these two things is where exactly? Trivially easy to measure, so why is it there is no real proof that passive biamping, or the use of biquad wiring is actually audibly significant? Not interested in anecdote, but data.
Of course if you know what to measure, it is easily measured. Just as easy as it is to forget that for most of the past 140 years or so of audio recording and reproduction, knowing what to measure to characterise what was heard has lagged a decade or two, sometimes three, behind what people could hear.
There is no sign that anything has changed. With every new audio technology since the 1970s (PCM, CD, HDCD, MP3, DVD-A, SACD, etc, etc) it has taken a decade or more for engineers to accept there was something wrong with the sound, and another decade or so to work out what to measure and correct whatever it was. The 'golden ears' who don't succumb to the expectation effect of the 'emperor's new perfection' are quite used to being derided by pentecostal technologists.
There is no sign that anything has changed. With every new audio technology since the 1970s (PCM, CD, HDCD, MP3, DVD-A, SACD, etc, etc) it has taken a decade or more for engineers to accept there was something wrong with the sound, and another decade or so to work out what to measure and correct whatever it was. The 'golden ears' who don't succumb to the expectation effect of the 'emperor's new perfection' are quite used to being derided by pentecostal technologists.
Last edited:
Utter rubbish.
From your profile: HiFi shop proprietor
Nuff said. You have a financial incentive for believing and perpetuating this rubbish.
As for 'pentecostal engineer' (a religious slur), I hope that that's who designed and maintained the next plane you fly in, and not one of the 'engineers' that 'design' expensive cables and perpetuate the sort of engineering you espouse. You claim a different current response and summation between the two wires in a biwire and the same using 2 amps in passive biamping. Not difficult to measure at all to several orders of magnitude below what a person can hear.
So in summation, you have ZERO empirical evidence for your claims.
Last edited:
I am long retired and derive no income from any point of view I express here. I am a former AES Section committee member for more than a decade, and former technical manager of an arts centre managing a multi-million dollar annual budget for sound equipment. I specified star-quad loudspeaker cable by the 10s of kilometres because there was an economic benefit to delivering high sound quality, not because it cost more money. That understanding was determined by objective testing with dual channel FFT analysis and double blind evaluations, as I have posted in other threads.
Biwired? Yeah, right. Strawman.
I've also specced and laid many, many kms of cable in PA (install and mobile), music and broadcast studios etc.
Was your understanding of cable effect on sound system performance also determined by a review of AES research papers, testing of cable effects with a dual channel FFT, and objective double blind evaluation?
Last edited:
Former AES member, a ton of EE qualifications as well as a couple of decades of design and testing incl DBT and ABX.
Now, the star quad cables you installed were installed in a biwire configuration? If so, what were the speakers? Please just answer this directly or don't bother at all. I have little time for obfuscation. You can rabbit on about FFT, but I've yet to see any relevance in an install situation, especially without reference to the testing methodology and what you were intending to accomplish within this approach.
Now, the star quad cables you installed were installed in a biwire configuration? If so, what were the speakers? Please just answer this directly or don't bother at all. I have little time for obfuscation. You can rabbit on about FFT, but I've yet to see any relevance in an install situation, especially without reference to the testing methodology and what you were intending to accomplish within this approach.
Take it or leave it on the merits of biwiring. 😀
I think a lot of manufacturers do it because it gives more room on the backplate of a speaker for bigger crossovers.
This 4-element one is looking a bit squeezed onto a normal connector terminal plate:
I think a lot of manufacturers do it because it gives more room on the backplate of a speaker for bigger crossovers.
This 4-element one is looking a bit squeezed onto a normal connector terminal plate:
One of the 'benefits' of bi-wiring terminals on a loudspeaker is that the layout of the crossover by necessity avoids poor circuit layout as far as common mode voltage drops between high and low outputs.
Seriously? That's the best you can come up with? Because you have a crap layout on the PCB you need to biwire? Good grief. Strawman.
"I specified star-quad loudspeaker cable by the 10s of kilometres because there was an economic benefit to delivering high sound quality, not because it cost more money. That understanding was determined by objective testing with dual channel FFT analysis and double blind evaluations, as I have posted in other threads."
And you have been talking about passive biamping and biwiring benefits in this thread, plus how you determined these benefits 'using FFT'. So, did you, or did you not biwire these systems, and if so, what were they? It's not difficult to answer without dancing. Do you think you can this time?
And you have been talking about passive biamping and biwiring benefits in this thread, plus how you determined these benefits 'using FFT'. So, did you, or did you not biwire these systems, and if so, what were they? It's not difficult to answer without dancing. Do you think you can this time?
The results were the quatifying of degradations in the transfer function between amplifier and loudspeaker due to differences in loudspeaker cable construction. The perfect cable is no cable, however all cables have a measurable effect on the transfer function, and some cable constructions have much more effect than others.
I've no 'golden ears', far from it, what with ~lifelong tinnitus, but have the tattered proverbial 'hat and T-shirt' soaked in my 'blood' from the self serving 'technocrats'. 🙁