Biwiring
 

On Fri, 12 Dec 2003 09:11:18 +0000, RJH wrote:

Hi - I've just bought some speakers, JMLab Chorus 715, marvellous. Anyway,
something in the setup instructions intrigued me - bi-wiring "reduces or
eliminates any problem caused by the bass drivers feeding any signal back to
the amplifier. This signal intermodulates and spoils the sound quality of
the midrange and treble". Er, what?!

I don't bother with biwiring as a rule, but should this cause a rethink?


Some say better, some say no difference, some say worse.
Try it - it's only the cost of a bit of speaker cable! Make decent stands a
priority though. Personally, I have bi-wired a (heavily modified) old pair of
Kef Codas & I *think* they sound better. That's enough for me. It may be
just in my mind, but so what?

--
Mick
http://www.nascom.info for Nascom & Gemini information
Also at http://www.mixtel.co.uk where the collection started.
Currently deserting M$ for linux... :-)

Biwiring
 

"Form@C" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 12 Dec 2003 09:11:18 +0000, RJH wrote:

Hi - I've just bought some speakers, JMLab Chorus 715, marvellous.
Anyway,
something in the setup instructions intrigued me - bi-wiring "reduces or
eliminates any problem caused by the bass drivers feeding any signal
back to
the amplifier. This signal intermodulates and spoils the sound quality
of
the midrange and treble". Er, what?!

I don't bother with biwiring as a rule, but should this cause a rethink?


Some say better, some say no difference, some say worse.
Try it - it's only the cost of a bit of speaker cable! Make decent stands
a
priority though. Personally, I have bi-wired a (heavily modified) old pair
of
Kef Codas & I *think* they sound better. That's enough for me. It may be
just in my mind, but so what?

--
Mick
http://www.nascom.info for Nascom & Gemini information
Also at http://www.mixtel.co.uk where the collection started.
Currently deserting M$ for linux... :-)

Well, thanks for all the opinions. I can't really argue with the technical
knowledge you all have, and I looked at Jim Lesurf's (I think) page a while
back and that seemed to say 'no measureable difference'. I've given it a go
with some old qed 79 strand biwire stuff I happen to have, and I'm afraid I
think it sounds a bit better, particularly extremes - bass and treble. There
could be other variables - the cable itself, or the fact that I cleaned
everything while I was at it. Being gullible isn't too bad if it doesn't
cost anything! You may note that some of Focus-JMLabs' really expensive
speakers (well, £5k) don't have biwire facility. Wonder why?

Rob

Biwiring
 

"Form@C" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 12 Dec 2003 09:11:18 +0000, RJH wrote:

Hi - I've just bought some speakers, JMLab Chorus 715, marvellous.
Anyway,
something in the setup instructions intrigued me - bi-wiring "reduces or
eliminates any problem caused by the bass drivers feeding any signal
back to
the amplifier. This signal intermodulates and spoils the sound quality
of
the midrange and treble". Er, what?!

I don't bother with biwiring as a rule, but should this cause a rethink?


Some say better, some say no difference, some say worse.
Try it - it's only the cost of a bit of speaker cable! Make decent stands
a
priority though. Personally, I have bi-wired a (heavily modified) old pair
of
Kef Codas & I *think* they sound better. That's enough for me. It may be
just in my mind, but so what?

--
Mick
http://www.nascom.info for Nascom & Gemini information
Also at http://www.mixtel.co.uk where the collection started.
Currently deserting M$ for linux... :-)

Well, thanks for all the opinions. I can't really argue with the technical
knowledge you all have, and I looked at Jim Lesurf's (I think) page a while
back and that seemed to say 'no measureable difference'. I've given it a go
with some old qed 79 strand biwire stuff I happen to have, and I'm afraid I
think it sounds a bit better, particularly extremes - bass and treble. There
could be other variables - the cable itself, or the fact that I cleaned
everything while I was at it. Being gullible isn't too bad if it doesn't
cost anything! You may note that some of Focus-JMLabs' really expensive
speakers (well, £5k) don't have biwire facility. Wonder why?

Rob

Biwiring
 

In article , RJH
wrote:


Well, thanks for all the opinions. I can't really argue with the
technical knowledge you all have, and I looked at Jim Lesurf's (I think)
page a while back and that seemed to say 'no measureable difference'.

The pages I did on this should show that there *can* be a difference that
would be easily measurable. Depends upon circumstances. This does not mean
it is large enough to matter, or even be audible, though. Nor is it a
forgone conclusion that any change will always be for the 'better'.


I've given it a go with some old qed 79 strand biwire stuff I happen to
have, and I'm afraid I think it sounds a bit better, particularly
extremes - bass and treble.

If the (apparent) changes are well away from the crossover frequency then
they are unlikely to be due to the effect I modelled on the webpages.[1]
That would be more likely to stem from using cables for bass and treble
that had distinctly different series impedances, or perhaps laying the
cables together in a way that produced an interaction between the cables.

[1] This depends upon the details of the cross-over networks, though.

There could be other variables - the cable itself, or the fact that I
cleaned everything while I was at it.

You would also need to set exactly the same power levels, and get your ears
and speakers into a similar state to before to judge small possible
changes. I routinely hear differences from one day to another even when I
have not changed anything. I put this down to changes in my hearing, using
a different level, and effects like temperature and humidity.


Being gullible isn't too bad if it doesn't cost anything!

Fair enough. :-)

You may note that some of Focus-JMLabs' really expensive speakers (well,
£5k) don't have biwire facility. Wonder why?

Pass. :-)

Slainte,

Jim

--
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Audio Misc http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/AudioMisc/index.html
Armstrong Audio http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/Audio/armstrong.html
Barbirolli Soc. http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/JBSoc/JBSoc.html

Biwiring
 

In article , RJH
wrote:


Well, thanks for all the opinions. I can't really argue with the
technical knowledge you all have, and I looked at Jim Lesurf's (I think)
page a while back and that seemed to say 'no measureable difference'.

The pages I did on this should show that there *can* be a difference that
would be easily measurable. Depends upon circumstances. This does not mean
it is large enough to matter, or even be audible, though. Nor is it a
forgone conclusion that any change will always be for the 'better'.


I've given it a go with some old qed 79 strand biwire stuff I happen to
have, and I'm afraid I think it sounds a bit better, particularly
extremes - bass and treble.

If the (apparent) changes are well away from the crossover frequency then
they are unlikely to be due to the effect I modelled on the webpages.[1]
That would be more likely to stem from using cables for bass and treble
that had distinctly different series impedances, or perhaps laying the
cables together in a way that produced an interaction between the cables.

[1] This depends upon the details of the cross-over networks, though.

There could be other variables - the cable itself, or the fact that I
cleaned everything while I was at it.

You would also need to set exactly the same power levels, and get your ears
and speakers into a similar state to before to judge small possible
changes. I routinely hear differences from one day to another even when I
have not changed anything. I put this down to changes in my hearing, using
a different level, and effects like temperature and humidity.


Being gullible isn't too bad if it doesn't cost anything!

Fair enough. :-)

You may note that some of Focus-JMLabs' really expensive speakers (well,
£5k) don't have biwire facility. Wonder why?

Pass. :-)

Slainte,

Jim

--
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Audio Misc http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/AudioMisc/index.html
Armstrong Audio http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/Audio/armstrong.html
Barbirolli Soc. http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/JBSoc/JBSoc.html

Biwiring
 

On Sat, 13 Dec 2003 17:01:09 -0000, "RJH"
wrote:

Well, thanks for all the opinions. I can't really argue with the technical
knowledge you all have, and I looked at Jim Lesurf's (I think) page a while
back and that seemed to say 'no measureable difference'. I've given it a go
with some old qed 79 strand biwire stuff I happen to have, and I'm afraid I
think it sounds a bit better, particularly extremes - bass and treble.

Interesting, since it's only around the crossover that biwiring has
even the slightest theoretical advantage.

There
could be other variables - the cable itself, or the fact that I cleaned
everything while I was at it. Being gullible isn't too bad if it doesn't
cost anything! You may note that some of Focus-JMLabs' really expensive
speakers (well, £5k) don't have biwire facility. Wonder why?

So do Thiel, Dynaudio and Wilson. ATC only do biwiring terminals for
marketing reasons - and are quite vocal about it!
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

Biwiring
 

On Sat, 13 Dec 2003 17:01:09 -0000, "RJH"
wrote:

Well, thanks for all the opinions. I can't really argue with the technical
knowledge you all have, and I looked at Jim Lesurf's (I think) page a while
back and that seemed to say 'no measureable difference'. I've given it a go
with some old qed 79 strand biwire stuff I happen to have, and I'm afraid I
think it sounds a bit better, particularly extremes - bass and treble.

Interesting, since it's only around the crossover that biwiring has
even the slightest theoretical advantage.

There
could be other variables - the cable itself, or the fact that I cleaned
everything while I was at it. Being gullible isn't too bad if it doesn't
cost anything! You may note that some of Focus-JMLabs' really expensive
speakers (well, £5k) don't have biwire facility. Wonder why?

So do Thiel, Dynaudio and Wilson. ATC only do biwiring terminals for
marketing reasons - and are quite vocal about it!
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

Biwiring
 

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:

On Sat, 13 Dec 2003 17:01:09 -0000, "RJH"
wrote:


Well, thanks for all the opinions. I can't really argue with the technical
knowledge you all have, and I looked at Jim Lesurf's (I think) page a while
back and that seemed to say 'no measureable difference'. I've given it a go
with some old qed 79 strand biwire stuff I happen to have, and I'm afraid I
think it sounds a bit better, particularly extremes - bass and treble.


Interesting, since it's only around the crossover that biwiring has
even the slightest theoretical advantage.


I can't convince myself that this may (or may not) make a difference,
but one point is that while both wires see the same voltage, the cable
to the treble posts are only carrying the current produced by the treble
part of the signal.

--
Nick

Biwiring
 

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:

On Sat, 13 Dec 2003 17:01:09 -0000, "RJH"
wrote:


Well, thanks for all the opinions. I can't really argue with the technical
knowledge you all have, and I looked at Jim Lesurf's (I think) page a while
back and that seemed to say 'no measureable difference'. I've given it a go
with some old qed 79 strand biwire stuff I happen to have, and I'm afraid I
think it sounds a bit better, particularly extremes - bass and treble.


Interesting, since it's only around the crossover that biwiring has
even the slightest theoretical advantage.


I can't convince myself that this may (or may not) make a difference,
but one point is that while both wires see the same voltage, the cable
to the treble posts are only carrying the current produced by the treble
part of the signal.

--
Nick

Biwiring
 

"Ian Molton" wrote in message

On Fri, 12 Dec 2003 09:11:18 -0000
"RJH" wrote:

bi-wiring "reduces or
eliminates any problem caused by the bass drivers feeding any signal
back to the amplifier. This signal intermodulates and spoils the
sound quality of the midrange and treble". Er, what?!

Well, of course, using seperate feeds from seperate amps can
eliminate the possibility of a ****ty amp with high impedance outputs
or an inadequate PSU which fouls up the bass fouling up the treble...

Of course, if you dont have a ****ty amp, then its bull**** ;-)

If you have a modern amp, avoid tubes and ultimate cheap drek solid state,
you don't have this problem.

Biwiring
 

"Ian Molton" wrote in message

On Fri, 12 Dec 2003 09:11:18 -0000
"RJH" wrote:

bi-wiring "reduces or
eliminates any problem caused by the bass drivers feeding any signal
back to the amplifier. This signal intermodulates and spoils the
sound quality of the midrange and treble". Er, what?!

Well, of course, using seperate feeds from seperate amps can
eliminate the possibility of a ****ty amp with high impedance outputs
or an inadequate PSU which fouls up the bass fouling up the treble...

Of course, if you dont have a ****ty amp, then its bull**** ;-)

If you have a modern amp, avoid tubes and ultimate cheap drek solid state,
you don't have this problem.

Biwiring
 

"MrBitsy" wrote in message

Ian Molton wrote:
On Fri, 12 Dec 2003 09:11:18 -0000
"RJH" wrote:

bi-wiring "reduces or
eliminates any problem caused by the bass drivers feeding any signal
back to the amplifier. This signal intermodulates and spoils the
sound quality of the midrange and treble". Er, what?!

Well, of course, using seperate feeds from seperate amps can
eliminate the possibility of a ****ty amp with high impedance outputs
or an inadequate PSU which fouls up the bass fouling up the treble...

Of course, if you dont have a ****ty amp, then its bull**** ;-)

I have a Roksan Kandy amp and Quad 11L speakers. Both of them
recommend biwiring - why if you say its rubbish. Why is it rubbish.

Biwiring electrically accomplishes so little that it is rubbish. If you want
to use two pairs of wire for each speaker, you'd electrically be better off
by connecting them at both ends.

As far as I know, neither company produces speaker cable so why
bother if they don't gain?

They are trying not to raise a ruckus with their clients who are true
believers.

Not suggesting your wrong but the logic does seem to be 'logical'!

If copper wire were significantly nonlinear, then biwiring would help. But
copper wire is fantastically linear, so biwring can't help.

Biwiring
 

"MrBitsy" wrote in message

Ian Molton wrote:
On Fri, 12 Dec 2003 09:11:18 -0000
"RJH" wrote:

bi-wiring "reduces or
eliminates any problem caused by the bass drivers feeding any signal
back to the amplifier. This signal intermodulates and spoils the
sound quality of the midrange and treble". Er, what?!

Well, of course, using seperate feeds from seperate amps can
eliminate the possibility of a ****ty amp with high impedance outputs
or an inadequate PSU which fouls up the bass fouling up the treble...

Of course, if you dont have a ****ty amp, then its bull**** ;-)

I have a Roksan Kandy amp and Quad 11L speakers. Both of them
recommend biwiring - why if you say its rubbish. Why is it rubbish.

Biwiring electrically accomplishes so little that it is rubbish. If you want
to use two pairs of wire for each speaker, you'd electrically be better off
by connecting them at both ends.

As far as I know, neither company produces speaker cable so why
bother if they don't gain?

They are trying not to raise a ruckus with their clients who are true
believers.

Not suggesting your wrong but the logic does seem to be 'logical'!

If copper wire were significantly nonlinear, then biwiring would help. But
copper wire is fantastically linear, so biwring can't help.

Biwiring
 

"Ian Molton" wrote in message

On Fri, 12 Dec 2003 14:23:22 -0000
"MrBitsy" wrote:

I have a Roksan Kandy amp and Quad 11L speakers. Both of them
recommend biwiring - why if you say its rubbish. Why is it rubbish.

As far as I know, neither company produces speaker cable so why
bother if they don't gain?

Not suggesting your wrong but the logic does seem to be 'logical'!

This should sort the logic aspect:

Highstreet retailers sell speaker cables, its VERY profitable.

High street retailers like it when companies recommend bi-wiring as a
result

Therefore they buy and recommend people to buy gear that requires
bi-wiring.

Thus if Quad didnt recommend it, they would lose out as high street
sellers wouldnt recommend their gear.

since bi-wiring wont Decrease sound quality, why NOT recommend it?

John Dunlavy mentioned this exact situation. His retailers were used to
pushing expensive speaker cables. Speaker cables branded by the speaker
manufacturer is probably the ultimate in cross-marketing. So, he conjured up
some cables that as you suggest, did no harm. He made zero claims for
audibility, but did mention their electrical properties, which were really
pretty good.

Biwiring
 

"Ian Molton" wrote in message

On Fri, 12 Dec 2003 14:23:22 -0000
"MrBitsy" wrote:

I have a Roksan Kandy amp and Quad 11L speakers. Both of them
recommend biwiring - why if you say its rubbish. Why is it rubbish.

As far as I know, neither company produces speaker cable so why
bother if they don't gain?

Not suggesting your wrong but the logic does seem to be 'logical'!

This should sort the logic aspect:

Highstreet retailers sell speaker cables, its VERY profitable.

High street retailers like it when companies recommend bi-wiring as a
result

Therefore they buy and recommend people to buy gear that requires
bi-wiring.

Thus if Quad didnt recommend it, they would lose out as high street
sellers wouldnt recommend their gear.

since bi-wiring wont Decrease sound quality, why NOT recommend it?

John Dunlavy mentioned this exact situation. His retailers were used to
pushing expensive speaker cables. Speaker cables branded by the speaker
manufacturer is probably the ultimate in cross-marketing. So, he conjured up
some cables that as you suggest, did no harm. He made zero claims for
audibility, but did mention their electrical properties, which were really
pretty good.

Biwiring
 

"Ian Molton" wrote in message

On Fri, 12 Dec 2003 18:02:06 +0000 (UTC)
(Stewart Pinkerton) wrote:

since bi-wiring wont DEcrease sound quality, why NOT recommend it?

Excellent synopsis! :-)

My pleasure :-)

The practical downside to biwiring is that it can train people to *hear*
differences that aren't there. Once you get people to listen errrrrr
creatively, there's a ready market for green CD pens, magic oils, fancy
interconnects, the whole nasty ball of gelled snake oil.

Biwiring
 

"Ian Molton" wrote in message

On Fri, 12 Dec 2003 18:02:06 +0000 (UTC)
(Stewart Pinkerton) wrote:

since bi-wiring wont DEcrease sound quality, why NOT recommend it?

Excellent synopsis! :-)

My pleasure :-)

The practical downside to biwiring is that it can train people to *hear*
differences that aren't there. Once you get people to listen errrrrr
creatively, there's a ready market for green CD pens, magic oils, fancy
interconnects, the whole nasty ball of gelled snake oil.

Biwiring
 

"Nick Gorham" wrote in message

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:

On Sat, 13 Dec 2003 17:01:09 -0000, "RJH"
wrote:


Well, thanks for all the opinions. I can't really argue with the
technical knowledge you all have, and I looked at Jim Lesurf's (I
think) page a while back and that seemed to say 'no measurable
difference'. I've given it a go with some old qed 79 strand biwire
stuff I happen to have, and I'm afraid I think it sounds a bit
better, particularly extremes - bass and treble.


Interesting, since it's only around the crossover that biwiring has
even the slightest theoretical advantage.


I can't convince myself that this may (or may not) make a difference,
but one point is that while both wires see the same voltage, the cable
to the treble posts are only carrying the current produced by the
treble part of the signal.

However, since copper wire is highly linear, there are few if any
consequences - nothing audible as long as either cable is itself a competent
piece of work.

Biwiring
 

"Nick Gorham" wrote in message

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:

On Sat, 13 Dec 2003 17:01:09 -0000, "RJH"
wrote:


Well, thanks for all the opinions. I can't really argue with the
technical knowledge you all have, and I looked at Jim Lesurf's (I
think) page a while back and that seemed to say 'no measurable
difference'. I've given it a go with some old qed 79 strand biwire
stuff I happen to have, and I'm afraid I think it sounds a bit
better, particularly extremes - bass and treble.


Interesting, since it's only around the crossover that biwiring has
even the slightest theoretical advantage.


I can't convince myself that this may (or may not) make a difference,
but one point is that while both wires see the same voltage, the cable
to the treble posts are only carrying the current produced by the
treble part of the signal.

However, since copper wire is highly linear, there are few if any
consequences - nothing audible as long as either cable is itself a competent
piece of work.

Biwiring
 

On Sun, 14 Dec 2003 13:41:43 +0000, Nick Gorham
wrote:

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:

On Sat, 13 Dec 2003 17:01:09 -0000, "RJH"
wrote:


Well, thanks for all the opinions. I can't really argue with the technical
knowledge you all have, and I looked at Jim Lesurf's (I think) page a while
back and that seemed to say 'no measureable difference'. I've given it a go
with some old qed 79 strand biwire stuff I happen to have, and I'm afraid I
think it sounds a bit better, particularly extremes - bass and treble.


Interesting, since it's only around the crossover that biwiring has
even the slightest theoretical advantage.

I can't convince myself that this may (or may not) make a difference,
but one point is that while both wires see the same voltage, the cable
to the treble posts are only carrying the current produced by the treble
part of the signal.

And this has relevance, how? Ordinary wire is known to be linear to
better than -140dB, so there's absolutely no question of any
intermodulation distortion being caused by the bass and treble
currents sharing the same wire.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

Biwiring
 

On Sun, 14 Dec 2003 13:41:43 +0000, Nick Gorham
wrote:

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:

On Sat, 13 Dec 2003 17:01:09 -0000, "RJH"
wrote:


Well, thanks for all the opinions. I can't really argue with the technical
knowledge you all have, and I looked at Jim Lesurf's (I think) page a while
back and that seemed to say 'no measureable difference'. I've given it a go
with some old qed 79 strand biwire stuff I happen to have, and I'm afraid I
think it sounds a bit better, particularly extremes - bass and treble.


Interesting, since it's only around the crossover that biwiring has
even the slightest theoretical advantage.

I can't convince myself that this may (or may not) make a difference,
but one point is that while both wires see the same voltage, the cable
to the treble posts are only carrying the current produced by the treble
part of the signal.

And this has relevance, how? Ordinary wire is known to be linear to
better than -140dB, so there's absolutely no question of any
intermodulation distortion being caused by the bass and treble
currents sharing the same wire.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

Biwiring
 

In article ,
Nick Gorham wrote:
I can't convince myself that this may (or may not) make a difference,
but one point is that while both wires see the same voltage, the cable
to the treble posts are only carrying the current produced by the treble
part of the signal.

How do you work this out, given that it's paralleled at the amp end?

--
*Never test the depth of the water with both feet.*

Dave Plowman London SW 12
RIP Acorn

Biwiring
 

In article ,
Nick Gorham wrote:
I can't convince myself that this may (or may not) make a difference,
but one point is that while both wires see the same voltage, the cable
to the treble posts are only carrying the current produced by the treble
part of the signal.

How do you work this out, given that it's paralleled at the amp end?

--
*Never test the depth of the water with both feet.*

Dave Plowman London SW 12
RIP Acorn

Biwiring
 

Dave Plowman wrote:

In article ,
Nick Gorham wrote:

I can't convince myself that this may (or may not) make a difference,
but one point is that while both wires see the same voltage, the cable
to the treble posts are only carrying the current produced by the treble
part of the signal.


How do you work this out, given that it's paralleled at the amp end?


Well as Stew has pointed out, it isn't going to make any difference, but
I still think assuming a high pass filter in the xover, then the
resistance of the xover will be high at low frequences, so the current
at low frequencies will be correspondingly low.

--
Nick

Biwiring
 

Dave Plowman wrote:

In article ,
Nick Gorham wrote:

I can't convince myself that this may (or may not) make a difference,
but one point is that while both wires see the same voltage, the cable
to the treble posts are only carrying the current produced by the treble
part of the signal.


How do you work this out, given that it's paralleled at the amp end?


Well as Stew has pointed out, it isn't going to make any difference, but
I still think assuming a high pass filter in the xover, then the
resistance of the xover will be high at low frequences, so the current
at low frequencies will be correspondingly low.

--
Nick

Biwiring
 

Nick Gorham wrote:

Well as Stew has pointed out, it isn't going to make any difference,
but I still think assuming a high pass filter in the xover, then the
resistance of the xover will be high at low frequences, so the current
at low frequencies will be correspondingly low.

Will the presence or otherwise of bass frequencies affect how the cable
transfers the high frequencies?


--
Wally
www.art-gallery.myby.co.uk
Latest work: The Langlois Bridge (after Van Gogh)

Biwiring
 

Nick Gorham wrote:

Well as Stew has pointed out, it isn't going to make any difference,
but I still think assuming a high pass filter in the xover, then the
resistance of the xover will be high at low frequences, so the current
at low frequencies will be correspondingly low.

Will the presence or otherwise of bass frequencies affect how the cable
transfers the high frequencies?


--
Wally
www.art-gallery.myby.co.uk
Latest work: The Langlois Bridge (after Van Gogh)

Biwiring
 

Wally wrote:

Nick Gorham wrote:


Well as Stew has pointed out, it isn't going to make any difference,
but I still think assuming a high pass filter in the xover, then the
resistance of the xover will be high at low frequences, so the current
at low frequencies will be correspondingly low.


Will the presence or otherwise of bass frequencies affect how the cable
transfers the high frequencies?

Don't know, I wasn't trying to make a point, just thinking out loud.


--
Nick

Biwiring
 

Wally wrote:

Nick Gorham wrote:


Well as Stew has pointed out, it isn't going to make any difference,
but I still think assuming a high pass filter in the xover, then the
resistance of the xover will be high at low frequences, so the current
at low frequencies will be correspondingly low.


Will the presence or otherwise of bass frequencies affect how the cable
transfers the high frequencies?

Don't know, I wasn't trying to make a point, just thinking out loud.


--
Nick

Biwiring
 

On Sun, 14 Dec 2003 13:08:48 +0000 (UTC)
(Stewart Pinkerton) wrote:

Interesting, since it's only around the crossover that biwiring has
even the slightest theoretical advantage.

well if you attenuate the crossover its similar to boosting both high / low...


--
Spyros lair: http://www.mnementh.co.uk/ |||| Maintainer: arm26 linux

Do not meddle in the affairs of Dragons, for you are tasty and good with ketchup.

Biwiring
 

On Sun, 14 Dec 2003 13:08:48 +0000 (UTC)
(Stewart Pinkerton) wrote:

Interesting, since it's only around the crossover that biwiring has
even the slightest theoretical advantage.

well if you attenuate the crossover its similar to boosting both high / low...


--
Spyros lair: http://www.mnementh.co.uk/ |||| Maintainer: arm26 linux

Do not meddle in the affairs of Dragons, for you are tasty and good with ketchup.

Biwiring
 

On Sun, 14 Dec 2003 20:41:58 GMT, Bob Latham
wrote:

My amplifier has not blown up in the last 6 months (probably will now)
that I've been doing this and I prefer the sound. I don't really care why
or how. If I enjoy the sound more then that's it. It doesn't really matter
if its in my head, an unknown effect or a particular combination of RCL.
My HiFi is for music enjoyment, not a science paper.

I can't argue with that one! :-)

If I was going to buy a speaker I would listen and buy what I liked would
I not? So why should I not do the same with cables, provided they don't
destroy the amp even if they do have high resistance or something?

Because you could have saved money and bought better speakers? :-)

I for one do not believe science knows everything there is to know about
anything.

No one suggested that it does.

Science is just the tested best theory of the day, it is not a
truth.

That's right, and when we get some reliable, repeatable, and
falsifiable *evidence* that these cables sound different, we can
investigate the cause. In science, you first observe the effect,
*then* you investigate the cause...................
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

Biwiring
 

On Sun, 14 Dec 2003 20:41:58 GMT, Bob Latham
wrote:

My amplifier has not blown up in the last 6 months (probably will now)
that I've been doing this and I prefer the sound. I don't really care why
or how. If I enjoy the sound more then that's it. It doesn't really matter
if its in my head, an unknown effect or a particular combination of RCL.
My HiFi is for music enjoyment, not a science paper.

I can't argue with that one! :-)

If I was going to buy a speaker I would listen and buy what I liked would
I not? So why should I not do the same with cables, provided they don't
destroy the amp even if they do have high resistance or something?

Because you could have saved money and bought better speakers? :-)

I for one do not believe science knows everything there is to know about
anything.

No one suggested that it does.

Science is just the tested best theory of the day, it is not a
truth.

That's right, and when we get some reliable, repeatable, and
falsifiable *evidence* that these cables sound different, we can
investigate the cause. In science, you first observe the effect,
*then* you investigate the cause...................
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

Biwiring
 

On Sun, 14 Dec 2003 21:34:24 GMT, "Wally" wrote:

Nick Gorham wrote:

Well as Stew has pointed out, it isn't going to make any difference,
but I still think assuming a high pass filter in the xover, then the
resistance of the xover will be high at low frequences, so the current
at low frequencies will be correspondingly low.

Will the presence or otherwise of bass frequencies affect how the cable
transfers the high frequencies?

No. This *has* been tried experimentally, and even with ten amps of
bass frequency current flowing, no artifact above -140dB could be
observed in treble tones.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

Biwiring
 

On Sun, 14 Dec 2003 21:34:24 GMT, "Wally" wrote:

Nick Gorham wrote:

Well as Stew has pointed out, it isn't going to make any difference,
but I still think assuming a high pass filter in the xover, then the
resistance of the xover will be high at low frequences, so the current
at low frequencies will be correspondingly low.

Will the presence or otherwise of bass frequencies affect how the cable
transfers the high frequencies?

No. This *has* been tried experimentally, and even with ten amps of
bass frequency current flowing, no artifact above -140dB could be
observed in treble tones.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

Biwiring
 

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:

Will the presence or otherwise of bass frequencies affect how the
cable transfers the high frequencies?

No. This *has* been tried experimentally, and even with ten amps of
bass frequency current flowing, no artifact above -140dB could be
observed in treble tones.

So, what sort of artefact was there in the treble tones?


--
Wally
www.art-gallery.myby.co.uk
Latest work: The Langlois Bridge (after Van Gogh)

Biwiring
 

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:

Will the presence or otherwise of bass frequencies affect how the
cable transfers the high frequencies?

No. This *has* been tried experimentally, and even with ten amps of
bass frequency current flowing, no artifact above -140dB could be
observed in treble tones.

So, what sort of artefact was there in the treble tones?


--
Wally
www.art-gallery.myby.co.uk
Latest work: The Langlois Bridge (after Van Gogh)

Biwiring
 

In article , Bob Latham
wrote:

I don't have either an inductance or a capacitance meter but my Fluke
DMM shows nothing significant in resistance terms about the cables. One
cable is a figure of 8 construction (QED XTUBE XT350) and the other is
simply lightly twisted (Chord Odyssey).

Unfortunately, a simple d.c. resistance check may not tell us much about
the impedances of the cables across the audio band. Anyone have
measurements for the two cables you mention?

I have not examined either cable myself, so at this point could only
speculate. The XTUBE has, I beleive, a large effective outer diameter for
each of its conductor bundles compared with their center spacing. This
implies low inductance/length and high capacitance per length. If so, I'd
expect them to have a lower series impedance at HF than many cables. If so,
this may reduce the speaker interactions at HF. This is only speculation in
the absence of measured data, though.


My amplifier has not blown up in the last 6 months (probably will now)
that I've been doing this and I prefer the sound. I don't really care
why or how. If I enjoy the sound more then that's it. It doesn't really
matter if its in my head, an unknown effect or a particular combination
of RCL. My HiFi is for music enjoyment, not a science paper.

It should not blow up at all, though! :-)

If I was going to buy a speaker I would listen and buy what I liked
would I not? So why should I not do the same with cables, provided they
don't destroy the amp even if they do have high resistance or something?

Well, a high resistance cable is not likely to damage your amp, but may
alter the sound - whereas, say, a high capacitance cable *might* blow up
your amp, depending upon the design. Hence if you know about these things,
it may help improve you the sound whilst ensuring reliable operation.

In itself, listening is fine. However it may be more useful in the long run
to try and find out more about things like the impedance properties of the
cables, etc.

I for one do not believe science knows everything there is to know about
anything. Science is just the tested best theory of the day, it is not a
truth.

Science is not really a 'tested theory'. It is a *method*. In effect, it is
a verb, not a noun. :-)

It allows us to build up a set of theories or models that help us to
understand the world. but those theories are just the working results
which form the basis for further work, and are useful for specific
purposes. This means that the 'scientific method' can be used to modify
and improve our understanding ('theories') provided we apply it
appropriately. Again, this means more than listening. It also means making
appropriate tests and measurements to try and understand why any effect
may apparently be occuring.

'Truth' is something I prefer to leave to theologians and philosophers.
;- So far as science and engineering are concerned, I'd tend to focus on
the results of testable/falsifiable observations carried out in a
well-defined and repeatable manner.

Slainte,

Jim

--
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Audio Misc http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/AudioMisc/index.html
Armstrong Audio http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/Audio/armstrong.html
Barbirolli Soc. http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/JBSoc/JBSoc.html

Biwiring
 

In article , Bob Latham
wrote:

I don't have either an inductance or a capacitance meter but my Fluke
DMM shows nothing significant in resistance terms about the cables. One
cable is a figure of 8 construction (QED XTUBE XT350) and the other is
simply lightly twisted (Chord Odyssey).

Unfortunately, a simple d.c. resistance check may not tell us much about
the impedances of the cables across the audio band. Anyone have
measurements for the two cables you mention?

I have not examined either cable myself, so at this point could only
speculate. The XTUBE has, I beleive, a large effective outer diameter for
each of its conductor bundles compared with their center spacing. This
implies low inductance/length and high capacitance per length. If so, I'd
expect them to have a lower series impedance at HF than many cables. If so,
this may reduce the speaker interactions at HF. This is only speculation in
the absence of measured data, though.


My amplifier has not blown up in the last 6 months (probably will now)
that I've been doing this and I prefer the sound. I don't really care
why or how. If I enjoy the sound more then that's it. It doesn't really
matter if its in my head, an unknown effect or a particular combination
of RCL. My HiFi is for music enjoyment, not a science paper.

It should not blow up at all, though! :-)

If I was going to buy a speaker I would listen and buy what I liked
would I not? So why should I not do the same with cables, provided they
don't destroy the amp even if they do have high resistance or something?

Well, a high resistance cable is not likely to damage your amp, but may
alter the sound - whereas, say, a high capacitance cable *might* blow up
your amp, depending upon the design. Hence if you know about these things,
it may help improve you the sound whilst ensuring reliable operation.

In itself, listening is fine. However it may be more useful in the long run
to try and find out more about things like the impedance properties of the
cables, etc.

I for one do not believe science knows everything there is to know about
anything. Science is just the tested best theory of the day, it is not a
truth.

Science is not really a 'tested theory'. It is a *method*. In effect, it is
a verb, not a noun. :-)

It allows us to build up a set of theories or models that help us to
understand the world. but those theories are just the working results
which form the basis for further work, and are useful for specific
purposes. This means that the 'scientific method' can be used to modify
and improve our understanding ('theories') provided we apply it
appropriately. Again, this means more than listening. It also means making
appropriate tests and measurements to try and understand why any effect
may apparently be occuring.

'Truth' is something I prefer to leave to theologians and philosophers.
;- So far as science and engineering are concerned, I'd tend to focus on
the results of testable/falsifiable observations carried out in a
well-defined and repeatable manner.

Slainte,

Jim

--
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Audio Misc http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/AudioMisc/index.html
Armstrong Audio http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/Audio/armstrong.html
Barbirolli Soc. http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/JBSoc/JBSoc.html

Biwiring
 

"Ian Molton"...
Therefore they buy and recommend people to buy gear that requires
bi-wiring.

Thus if Quad didnt recommend it, they would lose out as high street
sellers wouldnt recommend their gear.

since bi-wiring wont DEcrease sound quality, why NOT recommend it?

So why do people, like What Hi-Fi magazine recommend it?
(At least, I think they do)