explain Bi-wire??

[Frank Speaker]

Cablacksmith, what you say makes sense but when I read stuff like below then it makes sense too. The thing is there are logical explanations for both sides, I guess thats why its a controversy, but logic cant explain reality if something is missing from the logic.

I say do an ABX test at the Indy gathering and see if ears can determine if anything is missing from the logic. Even if its logical that bi-wire has no effect and yet if ears determine there is a difference, then it seems the next thing to do is find out why the logic is incorrect.

This can be talked about and talked about (which it is) but it seems to me the bottom line is, can a difference be heard? If all the audiophiles come back form Indy and report they heard a difference then this will support the bi-wire logic, but if they come back and say they heard no difference then this will support the single wire logic.

With all the logic in the world if audiophiles cant hear a difference then I see no need to bi-wire my speakers.

But will they hear a difference? Only a test will tell.

FROM AUDIOASYLUM:

http://www.audioasylum.com/audio/cables/messages/4953.html

The situation is such that when the full range musical signal is applied to the terminals of a full-range speaker system, the woofer only gets sent low frequency signals, and the tweeter only gets sent high frequency signals. Once the crossover networks have been electrically separated, they still continue to function in the same manner, having a low impedance in their passband of application. This means that if separate speaker cables are hooked up for the woofer and it's portion of the network, and the tweeter, and it's portion of the network, not only have the speakers and the frequency's directed and divided for them, but the two separate speaker cables will now also carry different signals, the woofer cable mostly the lows, and the tweeter cable mostly the highs.

Once the highs and lows have been separated in this fashion, the strong current pulses and surges that a woofer demands when reproducing bass or drums will not interact with the delicate sounds of a flute or cymbal. The magnetic field of the low frequency signals cannot modulate or interfere with the highs, and to a lesser extent, the reverse is true.

Now that the low and high frequency signals have been divided among not only the speaker drivers, but the speaker cables, these cables can be more specialized for their intended purpose. The woofer cable can concentrate on low DCR, and not have any big concern for extremely low inductance, the tweeter cable can be designed for very low inductance, and not as concerned about total DCR.

[TBrennan]

Frank---One trouble my friend. That post from AA is a totally inaccurate description of what actually happens, not that some audiophiles let the facts get in the way of what they (wish to) hear.

Some of the facile explanations and flight of fancy theories I've heard from audiophiles were absolutely Goebbelslike in their breathtaking disregard for truth and common sense.

[Cal Blacksmith]

The confusion is that (as I understand it) the writer of that quote, doesn't understand that different frequencies can pass through the same wire without affecting each other. This is done all the time in situations OTHER than sound systems. For example, Rat Shack sells a "wireless intercom" system. How does it work? Each station plugs into an 110v line and you can talk to anyplace on the same distribution network (house) that has another station plugged into the wall outlet. What is the way that this works? Each station is powered by the 110v source and it also sends communication signals out on the same wires to the other stations. If you think of the 60 cycle ac line voltage as a bass signal (which it could be, it would be a REAL low bass!) and it has all the power of the Edison company to push it, how in the world do the tiny signals from each intercom stations pass through all that power? Because it is at a different frequency!

The crossovers job is to divide the signals and send them to the proper speaker. So much of what passes for common knowledge are wifes tails, myth, superstition and voodoo. If someone doesnt have a good understanding of the principals involved, they will fall prey to whatever story comes along that sounds like it could make sense, regardless of the facts!

In the quote you posted, they stated that the

"This means that if separate speaker cables are hooked up for the woofer and it's portion of the network, and the tweeter, and it's portion of the network, not only have the speakers and the frequency's directed and divided for them, but the two separate speaker cables will now also carry different signals, the woofer cable mostly the lows, and the tweeter cable mostly the highs."

In reality, what is happening is that of the entire signal which is available to the low pass crossover, only the low frequencies are used (they are still ALL available!) and the same applies to the mids and highs. In each case the ENTIRE signal is available on BOTH lines; it is just that the crossover is doing its job and only using part of each signal.

If I invented magic glue to put on your speaker cables that traps all the distortion and keeps it on the outside of the insulation away from the signal and thus providing a cleaner signal (PURE BS!!!) I could get some audiophile somewhere to say it makes a difference There really won't be any difference but if I can get them to believe that there is, they WILL HEAR THE DIFFERENCE!

[ez8947]

Also on the mislead path, If the signal in the top speaker terminal and bottom speaker terminal go to the same crossover, and not top to high and bottom to low, then why the jumper in between? If the terminals were seperated then yes a jumper if only one wire was ran, so both highs and lows in the speaker were fed. But if they go to the same place then just one speaker terminal(either one) would suffice without the jumper because they are going to the same place anyway. But yet the mysterious jumper is present. hmmmmm

Can you clarify this?

or am I hopless?

[Frank Speaker]

Tbrennan and cablacksmith, you guys totally make sense to me but heres the deal, there are the people that argue they can hear a difference with bi-wire, they dont care about electrical theory or logic because what they say they hear refutes the logic. Since they are not dealing with logic your arguments hold no water (and neither do mine). But test results from Klipsch audiophiles would shut em up, LOL! Id like to have that information.

I know its another can of worms but the Klipsch audiophile cable size test last year has merit, at least in these parts. Sure some cables may act like resistors and such but listening tests give information about significance of effect. If its a small effect gained at high cost, the amount of people wanting it drops off. But if its a great effect at small cost, then heck, Ill do it!

It seems like bi-wire is a controversy because one side is dealing with logic and one side is dealing with what they hear. Its apples and oranges. Do a scientific listening test and then its apples and apples.

Thanks for your expertise.

[yromj]

----------------

On 4/27/2004 8:44:12 PM ez8947 wrote:

Also on the mislead path, If the signal in the top speaker terminal and bottom speaker terminal go to the same crossover, and not top to high and bottom to low, then why the jumper in between? If the terminals were seperated then yes a jumper if only one wire was ran, so both highs and lows in the speaker were fed. But if they go to the same place then just one speaker terminal(either one) would suffice without the jumper because they are going to the same place anyway. But yet the mysterious jumper is present. hmmmmm

Can you clarify this?

or am I hopless?

----------------

Remove the jumper and see if you lose high or low frequency response from the speaker. I'm going to speculate that the jumper adds 3db level to the input of the speaker. (I'm guessing this because most subs gain 3db when you connect both input terminals over just connecting one.)

BTW, that sub thing is a good analogy. Does your receiver have 1 or 2 outs for LFE? Most receivers have 1, because the .1 channel is mono. However, most of us connect wires to both inputs, one labeled "Left" one labeled "Right", on the sub. Using the logic presented above, we now have a stereo signal, because I've connected a mono source to stereo inputs. The stereo since the above logic indicates that the destination, not the source determines, the qualities of the signal.

John- Who's trying to show that the source not the destination controls the signal.

[ez8947]

I'm simply stating observations and sincere questions. I am truely clueless.

It just seems that Klipsch manuals and their design are misleading the novice.

[Cal Blacksmith]

----------------

On 4/27/2004 10:13:39 PM ez8947 wrote:

I'm simply stating observations and sincere questions. I am truely clueless.

It just seems that Klipsch manuals and their design are misleading the novice.

----------------

It is really simple, there are a lot of people out there that love great sound but are totaly clueless as to how any of it works. They then are prey to people selling $500 speaker wire, $1000 interconnects, $5000 record cleaning machines and anything else that some huckster can dream up and sell for whatever the market will bear. They stay in business because someone that has invested thousands and thousands in their system but don't understand how things work will spend hundreds and hundreds for doodads and whatnots that promise ultimate bliss. Now that they have spent the money, they need to beleave that it has made a difference so regardless of the facts, they hear the difference (the mind can create a powerfull illusion) This is not to say that some things DON'T sound different (amps, speakers, tubes etc do) but most "tweaks" benifits are in the mind of the tweaker, NOT THE SPEAKER!

EZ, I am guessing here but I will lay money down that the crossovers are indeed seperate inside the spekaer, that is, the lows crossover discards all signal above its rolloff point and the mid/high crossover discards all signal below its rolloff point. Thus you need to feed signal to BOTH inputs for the speaker to function properly. This is done in a single wire system with a jumper. In a bi-wire, you have 2 wires with all of the signal on each and the respective crossovers just discard what they don't need. In the case of Bi-amp, there are truly different signals on each wire and if the crossover infront of the amps is engineered to the same specks as the speakers crossover then no harm, no foul all is well with the world. If the crossover in front of the amps is different than those in the speaker then you will have signal loss and you are worse off than any of the above sitituations.

[Frank Speaker]

Cablacksmith, one other thing, in the manual for my Yamaha RX-V1400 receiver it states the unit allows for bi-wired connections and they say connect the woofers to speaker output A and the tweeter/mid to speaker output B. Does this change the picture? The source is the same right, so does that mean it shouldnt really have a different effect versus just doubling up wires on speaker output A?

Thanks

[ez8947]

Ok, so the only conceivable arguement for the "Klipsch" biwire is the bass feedback to the wire. So I will take my chances and save my money. Besides I biwired mine once with just two stands of standard wire (good luck getting them in the amp/receiver terminal that way, very thick wire) and could not tell a bit of diference. I have since switched back to single w/ bananas.

[yromj]

I understand EZ. I'm trying to help show why those claims should be seen as false w/o confusion.

BTW, the post above this one about all the high dollar gadgets and such is exactly right. Remember, what's the most succesful division at Bose? It's the marketing division.

John

[ez8947]

I had to tell a buddy who owns a pair of bose about the terminology I ran across recently (here). Blose ...hehe

[Cal Blacksmith]

----------------

On 4/27/2004 10:58:46 PM Frank Speaker wrote:

Cablacksmith, one other thing, in the manual for my Yamaha RX-V1400 receiver it states the unit allows for bi-wired connections and they say connect the woofers to speaker output A and the tweeter/mid to speaker output B. Does this change the picture? The source is the same right, so does that mean it shouldn’t really have a different effect versus just doubling up wires on speaker output A?

Thanks

----------------

Frank, I don't know the internal electronics of the reciever. I will go out on a limb here and GUESS that because you are on TWO different outputs, there is probably something different with the signal comming from each. However, there may not be any difference at all and you might be running the same signal down each set of wires and they are just kept seperate inside the reciever. This would be a good question for Yamaha.

What I am trying to say is that if both wires come from the same source, the signal on each wire is the same thus the same results can be gained by going one larger size in speaker wire thus reducing the resistance just a scoch. No magic, just basic electronics.

[yromj]

I am sort of familiar w/ that receiver. It is a very nice piece of equipment for sure. However, it doesn't have any cross-over electronics built-in to my knowledge. (I would think that a $999 receiver would not incorporate this.)

As Cablacksmith stated same signal out = same signal in. There is a slight electrical advantage using two amps instead of one, but it's mostly for dynamics. A great thread about the different kinds of bi-amping is located here.

John

[TBrennan]

John---The diagram of passive bi-amping is wrong. Passive bi-amping is splitting the signal 'tween preamp and amps with a passive filter rather than an active filter. I've done that and still have some networks for that around somewhere.

What that fells calls "passive" bi-amping is just plain ole "fool's bi-amping".

[Soundthought]

I'm thinking that damping and related impedance issues are the key to understanding the benefits of bi-wiring.

But hey, i'm just a kid.

[Frank Speaker]

John, thanks a lot for the link. Im not sure what the my Yamie outputs to Speaker output A and Speaker output B. I dont know if one is the pre-amp and one is the amp. They are probably just 2 different terminals form the amp. I need to pursue it with Yamaha. I dont think its a 2 amp unit so true bi-amping cant be achieved.

In the diagrams in the link, what they call Channel 1 and Channel 2 would have to be two separate amps, right?

[yromj]

----------------

On 4/28/2004 9:51:55 PM Frank Speaker wrote:

John, thanks a lot for the link. Im not sure what the my Yamie outputs to Speaker output A and Speaker output B. I dont know if one is the pre-amp and one is the amp. They are probably just 2 different terminals form the amp. I need to pursue it with Yamaha. I dont think its a 2 amp unit so true bi-amping cant be achieved.

In the diagrams in the link, what they call Channel 1 and Channel 2 would have to be two separate amps, right?

----------------

Your Yamaha has seven discrete amps in it. When you bi-amp the way they describe it, you're using two of those amplifiers for each speaker.

Your receiver, like many receivers, does have preamp outputs. However those use RCA style connectors and since they are PRE-amp outputs they are not amplified to a playable level. Therefore, that is not what the outputs you are describing are. Those outputs simply allow you to run another pair of front speakers, for example some large floorstanders to use for 2 channel while you may have some smaller speakers for your HT.

In the diagram "Channel 1" and "Channel 2" are two seperate amps, correct. However, those two amps can be inside the same source, such as an amp or receiver. For example "Channel 1" can be the amp for the front L from "Speaker A" and "Channel 2" can be the front left from "Speaker B" on your receiver.

John

[yromj]

----------------

On 4/28/2004 4:20:21 PM TBrennan wrote:

John---The diagram of passive bi-amping is wrong. Passive bi-amping is splitting the signal 'tween preamp and amps with a passive filter rather than an active filter. I've done that and still have some networks for that around somewhere.

What that fells calls "passive" bi-amping is just plain ole "fool's bi-amping".

----------------

TBrennan,

I believe the author's point was to distinguish active and passive bi-amping completely. In other words he called the one "passive" because there is NO splitting of the signal before the amplification, and the ONLY cross-overs used are those in the speaker. The kind you are describing would be a hybrid of the two terms he used. All-in-all I think it just boils down to a difference in terminology. The bottom line is if you don't use a cross-over BEFORE the amp you CAN NOT truly bi-amp the speakers.

BTW, how do you think some of these guys would react if we told them that the wattage requirements for the horn would be 1-5 watts. (Actually I'd be willing to bet that at about 3 W, the RF-7 horn would run you out of the room.)

John

[TBrennan]

John---Here's a picture of one of my old bi-amped rigs. 125 watts of SS for the basshorns and 12 watts tube power for the compression drivers. The crossover, the unit above the big amplifier, was a DOD set at 500hz.