"Andy Hewitt" wrote in message
news:1hlu85c.cjd3wv149er03N%wildrover.andy@googlem ail.com...

but then I'm a twit!

Hi Andy, please don't take the interaction to heart. There are people on
these groups who have known each other for years via usernet and are good
mates who will give each other more then has been directed at you. It is not
necessarily done with malicious intent, and many posters here have been in
your situation before.

In their less knowledgeable days these posters were no different to
yourself, seeking information from the more experienced, not knowing what
was better or not, and being given red herrings as part of the "in joke".
While you may feel this whole exercise has been worthless this is not
necessarily the case. Please come back again as you will find that at heart
the posters here are overall a reasonable bunch of blokes. The conflict is
that many posters here have done most of it and learned the hard way
(experienced) and don't want to admit to mistakes they made when learning.

It is difficult to advise or recommend audio and accessories because so much
is in the eye of the beholder (eye candy) and not supported by measurement
or blind listening tests. The quest to find something "better" is never
ending for some, difference is not necessarily better and not necessarily
worse but you will always find differences.

If there was some miracle improvement in speaker sound from bi-wiring don't
you think ALL the mixing studio monitors and professional speakers, etc,
would be wired that way. Very few of them are, and some of the ones that are
bi-wired are using propriority methods to lock the speakers to the
manufacturers amplifier.

Do some testing yourself and please get back to the group.

Best Regards,

Andy Hewitt wrote:

To which the counterpoint is: This is an unmoderated public
newsgroup, which means that the flak comes with the turf.

Indeed.

Not much point in complaining about it, then, is there?


I don't believe we can disregard the fact that *in theory* the sound
*could* be affected in such a way. However, I have never attempted to
suggest any significance to the magnitude.

That's where the cable snake oil stems from - in theory, there could be a
difference. The problem is, most of the theory applies to very long lengths
of cable (like capacitance), or to very high frequencies (like skin effect).
At AF in domestic setups, this sort of thing is insignificant, and it's
positively disingenious that the cable makers and mags tout it as
'improving' something. In other words, there comes a point where some things
perhaps *should* be disregarded due to their magnitude being insignificant
(ie, inaudible).


Look, so do I - unless it doesn't cost anything to do, which in my
case it didn't (I bought the rolls of cable at a good price, so would
have had the cable available anyway). The result being, no harm done,
I basically have very thick cables to my speakers in the worst case.

No, you haven't. By splitting them, you've got a single run's worth going to
each 8ohm driver. Assume each run is 1ohm - you've got 1ohm between amp and
each driver. If you put straps on the speakers and leave the cables in
place, you have two 1ohm resistors in parallel, giving 0.5ohms. If you're
going to have two runs of cable to each speaker, it may well be the case
that shorting at both ends is better than bi-wiring.


--
Wally
www.wally.myby.co.uk
Things are always clearer in the cold, post-upload light.

Wally wrote:

Andy Hewitt wrote:

To which the counterpoint is: This is an unmoderated public
newsgroup, which means that the flak comes with the turf.

Indeed.

Not much point in complaining about it, then, is there?

Obviously not. However, common courtesy costs nowt.

I don't believe we can disregard the fact that *in theory* the sound
*could* be affected in such a way. However, I have never attempted to
suggest any significance to the magnitude.

That's where the cable snake oil stems from - in theory, there could be a
difference. The problem is, most of the theory applies to very long lengths
of cable (like capacitance), or to very high frequencies (like skin effect).
At AF in domestic setups, this sort of thing is insignificant, and it's
positively disingenious that the cable makers and mags tout it as
'improving' something. In other words, there comes a point where some things
perhaps *should* be disregarded due to their magnitude being insignificant
(ie, inaudible).

Yup, that makes sense, although it does seem to make a difference for
some.

Look, so do I - unless it doesn't cost anything to do, which in my
case it didn't (I bought the rolls of cable at a good price, so would
have had the cable available anyway). The result being, no harm done,
I basically have very thick cables to my speakers in the worst case.

No, you haven't. By splitting them, you've got a single run's worth going to
each 8ohm driver. Assume each run is 1ohm - you've got 1ohm between amp and
each driver. If you put straps on the speakers and leave the cables in
place, you have two 1ohm resistors in parallel, giving 0.5ohms. If you're
going to have two runs of cable to each speaker, it may well be the case
that shorting at both ends is better than bi-wiring.

Well, yes, although that's no more or less 'scientific' than the rest of
the theory, I'll just end up with 10mm/sq of cable to each speaker.
Again, something that'll make insignificant difference ;-)

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

APR wrote:

"Andy Hewitt" wrote in message
news:1hlu85c.cjd3wv149er03N%wildrover.andy@googlem ail.com...

but then I'm a twit!

Hi Andy, please don't take the interaction to heart. There are people on
these groups who have known each other for years via usernet and are good
mates who will give each other more then has been directed at you. It is not
necessarily done with malicious intent, and many posters here have been in
your situation before.

I appreciate that, although I've been using newsgroups for many years,
and have taken flack for things before - often the other way around too.
There are certainly posts here that have been done with a bit more
pre-emptive attack in them though.

In their less knowledgeable days these posters were no different to
yourself, seeking information from the more experienced, not knowing what
was better or not, and being given red herrings as part of the "in joke".
While you may feel this whole exercise has been worthless this is not
necessarily the case. Please come back again as you will find that at heart
the posters here are overall a reasonable bunch of blokes. The conflict is
that many posters here have done most of it and learned the hard way
(experienced) and don't want to admit to mistakes they made when learning.

Erm, actually I have contributed to this group, on and off, for a few
years myself. Trouble is I got caught out by a change in opinion of a
process that used to be commonly recomended.

It is difficult to advise or recommend audio and accessories because so much
is in the eye of the beholder (eye candy) and not supported by measurement
or blind listening tests. The quest to find something "better" is never
ending for some, difference is not necessarily better and not necessarily
worse but you will always find differences.

Yup, I know all that too. However, what astonished me was the nature of
the responses. Ok, so I spouted on about a practice you no longer
believe in, but it was not always so, biwiring is something that *was*
regularly recommended by many as a good thing. I just missed the bit
where it became a *bad* thing.

If somebody had just started off with - 'look Andy, this isn't the case
any more because of xxxx reason', instead of all the smart arse stuff,
perhaps this thread wouldn't have got out of hand. At no time was it
really obvious that anybody else knew what they were talking about
either - certainly not to professional level.

If there was some miracle improvement in speaker sound from bi-wiring don't
you think ALL the mixing studio monitors and professional speakers, etc,
would be wired that way. Very few of them are, and some of the ones that are
bi-wired are using propriority methods to lock the speakers to the
manufacturers amplifier.

Mixing studios have different priorities though, and may not even have
all that good equipment. They'll even record the sound of A/C units on
their tracks. TFor example, the White Stripes album 'Elephant' was
recorded at home using less expensive equipment than most Hi-Fi systems
people have. Yet it's a bloody brilliant album.

The trouble with reproduction, and conversion, is that it's lossy. Every
time you have to transfer energy or data from one form into another,
there is a potential loss, every single connection in a system, from the
microphone at a singer, through the recording process, and the
manufacture process, and on through the media and through your Hi-Fi,
there is potential to lose data and introduce interference. If you can
do anything to minimise that potential, then it has to be good. And that
is *my* philosophy on Hi-Fi.

Do some testing yourself and please get back to the group.

I'll have to think very hard about that one.

All the best.

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

Andy Hewitt wrote:


It may or may not affect a particular system, and it may or may not be
heard by the listener. If it is heard, then there's no doubt that the
effect does exist.

Plenty of doubt. Most people here have changed something and heard a vast
improvement, then changed it back and heard a vast improvement.


There is no doubt that my system sounds extremely good in its current
configuration. I have yet to try it without biwiring the speakers, but
I'm tempted to do so now. However, there won't be anything scientific
about it, as it'll be my own personal preference that decides whether
one is better than the other or not.

You said elsewhere that you don't have the jumpers. You could buy some
from Russ Andrews. He claims that his sound so much better that the originals.
You need to do a double blind test, or at least to get someone else to change
the jumpers without telling you whether they are in or out.

As for the back emf from the woofer affecting the tweeter, it firstly has to
get through the voltage divider formed by the DC resistance of the woofer's
voice coil and the (wire resistance + amp's output impedance), attenuating it
by at least 20dB. Low frequency junk will be attenuated by the tweeter's
crossover. High frequency junk, which you wouldn't get anyway from a heavy
woofer cone, will be attenuated by the woofer's crossover, which works both
ways. Around the crossover frequency a simplistic explanation won't help so
you will have to look for a real scientific explanation.

The easiest improvement you can make to a biwired speaker is to replace the
jumpers. I managed that without any insults!

--
Eiron

No good deed ever goes unpunished.

Eiron wrote:

Andy Hewitt wrote:


It may or may not affect a particular system, and it may or may not be
heard by the listener. If it is heard, then there's no doubt that the
effect does exist.

Plenty of doubt. Most people here have changed something and heard a vast
improvement, then changed it back and heard a vast improvement.

Yeah, I know the principle of snake oil.

There is no doubt that my system sounds extremely good in its current
configuration. I have yet to try it without biwiring the speakers, but
I'm tempted to do so now. However, there won't be anything scientific
about it, as it'll be my own personal preference that decides whether
one is better than the other or not.

You said elsewhere that you don't have the jumpers. You could buy some
from Russ Andrews.

As I said before, I did the biwiring because I already had a roll of low
cost speaker cable, that was enough to do the job. By buying more
jumpers I'd just be adding to the cost as I had the excess cable anyway.

He claims that his sound so much better that the originals.

'Claims' ?

So that's different to the biwiring principle in what way?

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

"Andy Hewitt" wrote in message
news:1hlur3h.1g3byyb1snqd8bN%wildrover.andy@google mail.com...
Eiron wrote:


He claims that his sound so much better that the originals.

'Claims' ?

So that's different to the biwiring principle in what way?

His are more then likely reasonably expensive if not very expensive ;-)

On Sun, 17 Sep 2006 10:10:53 +0100, Jim Lesurf
wrote:

They get away with it because cables can sound different.

http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/AudioM.../lscables.html

http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/AudioM...kracables.html

Those links argue against "audiophile" differences in cables.

In article 1hlsyi2.x7aw5v11xasq9N%wildrover.andy@googlemail. com, Andy
Hewitt wrote:
Wally wrote:


No, it's nothing to do with resistance, 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.

I don't think you should beleive everything you read in magazines. That
particular theory didn't last IIRC.


You use a thick cable to the LF to send raw power. The tweeter needs a
cleaner signal, so you use a thinner cable for that. By connecting the
cables at source, and separating them at the speaker, there is enough
time to prevent the interference.

Technobbable, I'm afraid. :-)


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

In article , Wally
wrote:
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. --------------------------

No sign of anyone there who has even heard of 'linear superposition',
then... Why am I not astonished, I wonder?

The question is, however, can the treble be overpowered by the bass in a
wire? Of this, I'm very, very doubtful.

You would be correct to have serious doubts. It is technobabble.

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.

The problem isn't that it isn't 'scientific'. The problem is that it is
nonsense.

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