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)