Lankhoss

Actually, as I was writing about the bi-wire cable.........I realized they were more expensive than I was originally thinking heh I was thinking it was more like 15% difference.....but was actually thinking about something else...and just decided to put that comment in anyway lol But, in all honesty, my whole point was that bi-wire cables aren't "special" or expensive cables. They're basically the same cable that you're buying anyway, only with two pairs of wires instead of just one.....for half the cost more. And the comment about the MIT cables.........I don't think anyone in this forum is going to be spending $1000 for any cable. I see where you're going with that comment, but I think most of us here would be spending less than $100. Also, colorphoto.....you are right about the posts not being labeled. I agree that they should be, and be better documented. They are physically lined up, though. The upper set is the high pair, and the lower is the low pass. You could do a simple test by plugging up a set of wires across two of the terminals and see which speakers you can hear. Did we ever figure out how the posts are configured inside the speaker, and through the crossover?

Qruse, If what you said is right, that would make sense to me. I'm pretty sure that's how my speakers are setup. By the way, for everyone who thinks your wasting tons of money on expensive bi-wire cables to do this......the bi-wired cables are generally about 50% more. So if you had a set of $10 cables, a bi-wire set would probably be about $15. To me, that's not a whole lot more.

Hmmmmm

I am just simply posting my REAL results in bi-wiring. And, as I've stated previously, found a much bigger sound difference in using an actual bi-wire cable, than running two sets of cables with my receiver set to "front bi-amp." The best way I can describe the sound difference......was that things were separated much better. I listen to fairly hard rock. One of my best sounding CD's is Korn's second to latest one (sorry, I've forgotten the title). I do all of my "testing" with that CD. Now when the first song played........you'd hear the rolling sound of the guitar, bass, and drum all together. It sounded good, but was more like a rolling beat. When I bi-wired, I could ACTUALLY hear each guitar note, each bass note, and every single drum beat that hit.........and everything sounded a little bit clearer as well. The singer's voice came through much more clearly and pronounced, as well. I don't know how else to describe it, but it just simply didn't "blur" all of the sound together like a conventional hookup. I can't believe I'm the only one here who's experienced this! I am not sure if my hookup has anything to do with my results or not, but here goes: Pioneer Elite VSX-43TX receiver: THX certified (sorry, don't have specs and don't have time to look them up right now) Klipsch KLF-20's front loud speakers, 100db sensitivity rating Monster MCX-1S bi-wire cable (10' pair)

Have all of these people who claim bi-wire is BS actually tried bi-wiring their speakers? I'm amazed to see these posts. I heard an INCREDIBLE difference in sound quality when I hooked up my bi-wire cables. And not one where I had to really listen, and try to convince myself it was there. As SOON as the song I was "testing" started up with guitar only, I could tell the difference. It really made my system sound tons better. The thing is, my regular speaker wires were actually one grade higher than the bi-wire cables I'm using (I went from MCX-2S stereo wires to MCX-1S bi-wire cables). Maybe I've just got a good receiver/speaker combination or something, but it was a HUGE difference in sound to me. Of course, I also noticed a BIG difference when I put the spikes on my speakers, as well. As I said in an earlier post, my boss bi-wired his center channel and said it was a very big gain, as well.

The mystery continues. All I know is that once I hooked up bi-wires, my system sounded way better. But I can't figure out how I can send sound to just the woofers, or just the mids/tweeters while the crossover is still working.

Meuge, I agree with you, but here's what I don't understand. The way the speaker works is that signal goes through the crossover, passing ONLY signals below 700Hz to my woofers. Now, if I just hook up the low input terminals, sound comes through the woofers.....but not the mids. That means that all of the signals below 700Hz are being passed to the woofers, but where are the signals going that are ABOVE 700Hz? I think they somehow "see" an infinite resistance, an open, and don't pass to the upper channels. Whenever electricity "sees" an open, it simply does not travel along that path. So wouldn't that be the same for audio signals? Wouldn't that mean that since everything above 700Hz sees an open, it simply doesn't travel along the wire? The only other way that I could be hearing the woofer, and not the mid/tweeter would be if removing those plates someone removed the crossover all together, and all frequencies were sent to all speakers. And I just don't see that being the case

I THINK I'VE GOT IT!! Bear with me here........ I've got a threeway speaker. The crossover for the woofers is at 700Hz. There's a second crossover, but it doesn't play into the theory here. So when my amplifier is sending signals to the speaker......the AMPLIFIER sends ALL of the frequencies along the wire, then the crossover splits them AT THE SPEAKER. When I bi-wire my speakers......there are now two sets of terminals (well, there's always two....but they're shorted together when you don't bi-wire). So if I ONLY hooked up the low set of terminals at the speakers......sound will ONLY come through the woofers, not the mid or tweeter. Same goes if I hooked up the high input, only.........ZERO sound comes through the woofers. What appears to be happening, is now the crossover is working at the AMPLIFIER end, as opposed to the SPEAKER end. Meaning.......ONLY 700Hz and below are actually TRAVELLING on the wire going to the low end (because the frequencies above that are somehow cut out...as if they are seeing infinate resistance). ONLY 700Hz and above are travelling to the high input at the speaker.....there are no low frequencies even TRAVELLING on that set of wires. This has got to be the case, because how else could I only listen to the woofers, or only listen to the mid/tweeters without going into the speaker and disconnecting something? This would make perfect sense as to the advantages of bi-wiring. You don't have the low frequencies and high frequencies travelling on the same wires (even though the amp is spitting them out, they're being rejected in the wire). If you look at the sketch for bi-amping.....you are using an external crossover, then two separate amps, to send only lows on one set of wires, and only highs on the other set of wires. I think bi-wiring does a quicky job of this. I don't know how else I could only choose which set of speakers I wanted to listen to on my tower. Now, the difficult part is........explaining, theoretically, how my speakers can do that!!! You have two sets of terminals that are now in parallel....how is that not changing the impedance of the overall load???? Discuss!

Anyone have any opinions on the idea that once you separate the terminals, each set sees the opposite side of the crossover as infinite resistance? I.E. In a 3 way speaker with the low/mid crossover at 700Hz, the "low" input sees everything above 700Hz as infinite resistance, and the "high" input sees everything below 700Hz as infinite resistance. This would explain the advantage to bi-wiring your speaker....but I can't figure out how the speaker would act that way. Any comments?

I think most people suggest Monster Cable because it's the most accessible. I'm pretty sure it's not the best wire out there, quite the contrary actually. But I like being able to go to stores and check out their merchandise. Not to mention, anyone I know who puts nice audio equipment uses Monster. So it's not necessarily that it's the greatest thing out there, but it's easy to get, and you have tons and tons of people who can give you opinions (or even samples) of it.

Ha ha, now I get it. D'oh!

Klipschfoot, Are you talking to me? Bi-wires don't have directional arrows, but you can ONLY hook them up one way. They have one set of + and - terminals at the amplifier end, and two sets at the speaker end. So it's + and - at amp end, then high +/high -; plus low +/low - at the other.

Hey guys, just want to throw my 2 cents in here. I actually had this same problem when I got my KLF-20's. I didn't understand bi-wiring, and posted a few threads about it......and never really got any good answers. So I did a little experimenting. First off, I have a Pioneer Elite VSX-43TX receiver. I have the A output, and B output. B can be set to Surround Back (for 7.1), 2nd Zone, or Front Bi-Amp. In my manual, it does not give any definition as to what the receiver is doing when it is set to Bi-Amp, it only shows how to hook it up (and doesn't specify which set needs to go to which output). However, it does state that using this configuration will feed more power to the front speakers. I tried setting it up with two separate sets of wires, and didn't really notice much of a difference. I suppose that would be considered bi-amping Then I bought a set of Monster Bi-Wire cables. Again, I have never gotten a direct answer, but I understand the bi-wire cables to be something like this. When the wires are split, there is a thicker solid core set for the "low" and a thinner more tightly wound set for the "high." So the windings are different inside the bi-wire cable. Like you guys, I never could figure out the advantage in theory. I decided to try it anyway, and.....WOW. The difference in sound was amazing. The thing is, I can't tell you why. Maybe if someone knows more about how a "bi-wire" works, that could provide some insight for us. I was confused about impedance for each set of wires. Since you are separating the terminals, it seemed to me you'd now have two different circuits in the speaker.....which I would have thought changed the impedance. A rep at Hi-Fi Buys tried to give me an explanation that didn't quite make sense to me, but I think this is how it works. When you separate the terminals....and then plug in the "low" set of wires....that set of wires now sees an infinte amount of resistance above the crossover frequency at the woofer terminals(in my case, 700Hz). Then the "high" set sees an infinite amount of resistance at 700Hz and below along the mid/tweeter terminals. Electronically, anytime a certain signal sees an infinite amount of resistance....it does not travel along that path. So, in theory, wouldn't this mean that the high frequencies literally would not travel along the "low" set, and the low frequencies would not travel along the "high" set? I think it is how the wires "see" what is on the other end that split up the frequencies on the two sets of wires, even though they are coming out of the same amp. P.S. After getting excited about this and talking to the guys I work with about it, my supervisor went home and noticed his RC-7 (is that the right model?) center channel had bi-wiring terminals. So after hearing my testimony, he went and bought the same set of bi-wire cables I did and said he noticed an incredible difference in sound, as well.

Oh my gosh!! I spent $600 for mine

I actually bought a Monster HTS1500 power strip, and it made a SUBSTANTIAL difference in my audio and video. It eliminated a lot of "bursts" in my audio (especially to the subwoofer) and leveled everything out, making transitions sound MUCH better. It also eliminated all bleed in and general crappy reception from my TV channels as well. It now almost looks like I have satellite on my TV, and I only have straight analog cable. There's not a single channel on my lineup that has one line of fuzz or grain going through it. I realize that's partially due to the fact that I have a good cable signal, but the reception on ALL channels significantly improved once I added the power filter. There is absolutely NO OTA bleed in interference anymore, which is a big problem in my area. Anyway, I don't know if it's that magical power cord or what exactly.......but whatever it is, really made HUGE difference in everything I plugged into it. By the way, I sent you a PM Harry. Check your messages on your profile and get back to me, thanks!

Radiob, I was going to post something similar. To sum it up.......you will notice greater differences when comparing speaker wire on higher quality components. When I had my Technics receiver and Kenwood speakers, everything pretty much sounded the same. When I went to my Pioneer Elite receiver and Klipsch 100db sensitive speakers, there was a noticeable difference with EVERY cable I swapped out (did it 1 by 1) with the exception of my optical cable.

I'm in the middle ground on this subject. While I'm not an audiophile, I do want the best quality of anything I invest time and money into. My entire system is laced with high end monster wire. While I can tell you, that the difference (especially when you get into the top end of the spectrum) in quality gain isn't proportional to the price gain difference, THEY ARE DIFFERENT. I think the two biggest difference between Home Depot wire and Monster Cable is winding and shielding. My suggestion would be to get some lower - mid grade Monster wire. It will give you a definite difference in sound over "regular" speaker wire, and won't be too expensive. Check out this link and read up on the different cables http://www.monstercable.com/ I am actually selling several monster cables and interconnects if you'd be interested. I've got a set of MCX-2S 10' stereo speaker wires, one MCX-2S center channel 10' wire, a Monster Bass 300 18' subwoofer cable and a few other various things I'm about to sell if you're interested. I really noticed a difference in sound going with the M Series wires, even their "entry level" sets of wires. I will sell them for a lot less than the prices listed on that site. Email me at b_blanchard@comcast.net if you're interested.

Next year I will be upgrading my DVD player and TV. I'm curious about the 24/192 DAC's. Obviously, they are top of the line right now. However, I believe my Pioneer Elite VSX-43TX receiver can only decode DTS 24/96. Would there be any benefit to me getting the 24/192 in this case? The DVD player I'm eyeing right now is the Samsung with the DVI output, and it only has a 24/96 DAC. I'm assuming that my receiver can't decode faster than that, anyway....and it will be sufficient. Thanks!

I bought a KLF-C7 on ebay last year for about $275, I think. It's black finish, but in perfect shape. You can find them all the time for about $300 - $350

Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't fiber optics only reflect about 90% light at best? This would mean you are losing some of the information when it's being transferred from the DAC to your amp, correct? And about running fiber optics for phone lines, I believe that's for 2 reasons. 1) Fiber optics aren't vulnerable to EMI interference or other distortion and 2) I don't think there's anything that travels faster than light.

Thanks Doug. Think I'll stick with my digital out ;-)

Kilo, I have the KLF-C7 center as well. I have it matched with a set of KLF-20's at the front. I LOVE the KLF-20's, and they're about all my living room can handle (roughly 19 X 17ft). I had a pair of KLF-10's, and they sounded great. The KLF-20's were a HUGE jump. If you have the money, I'd definitely get the 20's. They are 3-way as opposed to 2 way, have higher sensitivity, better power handling, and are ported much better. The guy I bought them from said he actually preferred the 20's to the 30's. I've never heard the 30's, but have heard others claim the 20's have a slightly better sound....although the 30's have more power. I would assume that the 20's may sound better in a small - medium sized room as well. As far as the C7 center channel goes, I believe its frequency response is 70Hz - 20KHz at 99dB sensitivity. Power handling is 150 watts continuous, 600 watts peak.

Let me now add to this conversation. First off, thankyou all for the responses. I find this all very interesting. Unfortunately, after I posted.......I discovered my DVD player only has an optical out lol Anyway....I was wondering which is a better connection from a DVD player to a receiver: The digital output (either optical or coaxial) or the 6 channel analog out, if equipped. I heard that analog cables had far superior bandwidth characteristics, and the channel separation was much more defined using the 6 analog outputs, as opposed to a digital cable.

Redtop, Just remember......in Snellville, everyone is someone ;-)

I was always under the impression that the optical output was a better digital connection than coaxial. I don't know anyone that's really that hardcore into HT, but one of my friends is very interested in speakers and amps, and has an extremely loud system. He had always told me that his music sounded better (mostly the lows) using an optical cable rather than a coaxial. I work in people's houses for a living, and ANYONE who has a HT setup that uses digital audio uses an optical. Well, yesterday I went and bought a bunch of Monster Cable from a true audiophile (I am just guessing here, but I think he had about 40k invested in his system, not including speakers). He was telling me that coaxial is ALWAYS better than optical. He claimed that nearly every optical output on any DVD or CD player was a cheap $.30 LED, whereas the coaxial circuit was always built much better. Does anyone else have any opinion on this? This is the first time I've ever heard anything like this....but the guy I was talking to seemed to really know his business. Thanks!