Rob wrote:

Andy Hewitt wrote:

I just fitted up my Castles to the Yamaha amp with some cable from CPC
(aka Farnell),

Which Castles have you ? brief review would be appreciated.

Sorry, know nothing about them.

--
Andy Hewitt
http://www.thehewitts.eclipse.co.uk/
http://web.mac.com/andrewhewitt1/

On Sun, 17 Sep 2006 21:03:59 +0100,
(Andy Hewitt) wrote:

Don Pearce wrote:


if you know absolutely nothing (apart
from utter ********, that is) about a subject

My point exactly.

I agree. You isolate a few words in such a way that they contain no
point. You claim these to be your point. You declare yourself thus
pointless.

d

--
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

Andy Hewitt wrote:

Wally wrote:

Andy Hewitt wrote:

Is your set-up bi-amped?

No, although I have wired it to the seperate speaker outlets. I only
used this setup because the Castles didn't come with the connection
bridges.

So, why are you using two runs of cable to each speaker?

Not sure I understand your question! Are you testing me, or do you not
understand the principle of biwiring?

Perhaps you could explain what your understanding is about bi-wiring ?

Graham

Andy Hewitt wrote:

it to do with the fact that each
speaker can be moving at different speeds and directions. From this
there is a chance that the woofer can send distortion up the cable and
interfere with the tweeter frequencies

Utter drivel.

Instead of spouting what you've read from dodgy sources show some real science to
back up your claim.

Graham

Andy Hewitt wrote:

Are you talking about back EMF from one driver affecting the signal
going to the other driver? (Presumably, that from the bass driver is
of greater concern due to it being rather higher power.)

Yes, that's exactly it.

So, how does a low frequency back EMF affect a high frequency driver that
has the low frequencies filtered out?


--
Wally
www.wally.myby.co.uk
Call me a saint, call me a sinner - just don't call me... late for
dinner.

Eeyore wrote:

Andy Hewitt wrote:

it to do with the fact that each
speaker can be moving at different speeds and directions. From this
there is a chance that the woofer can send distortion up the cable and
interfere with the tweeter frequencies

Utter drivel.

Instead of spouting what you've read from dodgy sources show some real
science to back up your claim.

Graham

http://www.whathifi.com/newsMainTemp...ewssectionID=3
http://www.home-cinema-guide.co.uk/biwire4.htm

--
Andy Hewitt
http://www.thehewitts.eclipse.co.uk/
http://web.mac.com/andrewhewitt1/

"Andy Hewitt"

** Insane Groper Alert !



Instead of spouting what you've read from dodgy sources show some real
science to back up your claim.

http://www.whathifi.com/newsMainTemp...ewssectionID=3
http://www.home-cinema-guide.co.uk/biwire4.htm



** No science in sight there anywhere.

Just the same old load of pure unadulterated, snake oil ******** !!





........ Phil

Phil Allison wrote:

"Andy Hewitt"

** Insane Groper Alert !



Instead of spouting what you've read from dodgy sources show some real
science to back up your claim.

http://www.whathifi.com/newsMainTemp...ewssectionID=3
http://www.home-cinema-guide.co.uk/biwire4.htm



** No science in sight there anywhere.

Just the same old load of pure unadulterated, snake oil ******** !!

It's better than any of the insulting retorts I've had my way.

I'm just finding it hard to comprehend the nature of the responses in
this newsgroup now. Obviously Phil is an Aussie, so I can understand
that, but otherwise I'm the only person to have written anything without
insult (until now), and in fact have at least provided a source of my
comments.

Now who do I listen to? A few prominent UK publications, or some geezers
off the newsgroup that just insult me for regurgitating the information.

You may or may not be right, but right now I don't care if you are. Just
about every single reference to biwiring I could find on a Google search
suggests you're not.

This used to be a group that you could ask for advice, or have a
*discussion* about the merits of some of the controversial stuff. Unless
I've been naive and missed the fact that it's just occupied by trolls!

--
Andy Hewitt
http://www.thehewitts.eclipse.co.uk/
http://web.mac.com/andrewhewitt1/

"Andy Hewitt" wrote in message
news:1hlu2a1.1hpys29194viy3N%wildrover.andy@google mail.com...
Eeyore wrote:

Andy, there has been much research into the effects of bi-wiring of speakers
on sound reproduction, and you must understand the movement of electrons in
a conductor to fully comprehend what is going on and why these effects
influence the sound.

When you bi-wire you MUST use a thicker wire for the low frequency driver
then is used for the high frequency. The low frequency electrons are the
bigger, beefier (more muscled) electrons, that is why they are the low
frequency electrons, and they give you the more solid bass we are all
chasing. The high frequency electrons are the more delicate electrons,
smaller in size and faster moving. It is therefore worthwile to size the
wire to the fhysical characteristics of the electrons and thus seperate them
so there is no degrading interaction between them. You can imagine what
happens when the big burly low frequency electrons bump into the more
delicate high frequency electrons, some of them are actually knocked over
and may be injured and therefore are knocked out of the sound stream. This
will result in a loss of treble and over-emphasis of the bass.

It is absolutely necessary to use different sized wire for the low and high
frequencies, low frequency being the thicker wire. This gives the big burly
low frequency electrons more elbow room as they travel down the wire and
results in smoother sound and avoids the harshness that results from "angry
electrons".

As all the electrons leave the amplifier they are looking for the best path
to take. The big burly electrons will take the bigger path naturally, and
while some of the smaller electrons may initially go down that path as well
they won't a second time. After going through the ruff and tumble with the
big electrons they soon learn that if they are to survive they have to use
the other wire. This is why the wires MUST be different sizes and the low
frequency MUST be the thicker of the two. I cannot emphasise this enough.

The result, when implemented properly, will be a significant increase in the
energy in the music because all the electrons will be able to perform as
necessary for the best sound.

There willbe some people here who will ridicule what I have said, however,
this will be because they haven't implemented bi-wiring correctly. The ends
of the wires leaving the amp must be cut square, and when fitted into any
connector must have the cut end facing the electrons, otherwise how can the
electrons see which wire is thicker as they approach it. Failure to contend
with this simple problem has resulted in many attempts at bi-wiring being
unsuccessful at delivering the hoped for results.

Hope this has helped.
Best Regards.

Andy Hewitt wrote:

Instead of spouting what you've read from dodgy sources show some
real science to back up your claim.

http://www.whathifi.com/newsMainTemp...ewssectionID=3
http://www.home-cinema-guide.co.uk/biwire4.htm

Seems to me that both of these articles say basically the same thing. From
the second...

--------------------------
The full-frequency signal arrives at both crossovers through the red/+
conductor and each is filtered so that the driver receives only the signal
it needs. The signals are then passed back to the amp along the
corresponding black/- conductors, but because the high and low frequencies
have already been separated, each has no affect on the other - the delicate
treble is not overpowered by the bass.
--------------------------

If it's the case that, in a wire, the treble can be overpowered by the bass,
then it must be the case that, in a bi-wired setup described as above, this
overpowering of the treble is ocurring in the 'hot' side of the cable
anyway. And all the way through the signal chain from source to amp output
terminals. It's only split down one side of a length of speaker wire, which
has a resistance in the order of milliohms, which is part of a circuit which
has a nominal load of 8 ohms. I'd have to say that I'm skeptical that such a
topographical change would make a noticable differnce to the sound.

The question is, however, can the treble be overpowered by the bass in a
wire? Of this, I'm very, very doubtful. This idea stems from the thinking
behind bi-amping with a crossover before the amps, where the idea is to
supply each amp only with its alloted band of frequencies. In so doing, the
treble is no longer modulated by the bass (treble peak on top of bass peak
equals very big peak, equals clipping), meaning that there's more effective
headroom and thus less likelihood of clipping.

Unlike amplifiers, I don't believe cables clip the signal or have headroom
issues. It would seem, however, that both of the aforelinked articles rest
on the presupposition that they do. Which isn't terribly scientific.


--
Wally
www.wally.myby.co.uk
You're unique - just like everybody else.