Thanks! Since you, Gene, have a degree in electrical engineering and on top of that work professionally specifically in the field of high-end audio gear review and analysis, I am honored you like it! I think you will dig Part 2 and 3 even more because I reveal something that's mind blowing, at least it was for me!
@@m.zillch3841 I have very basic electrical and electronics training, just barely touching the surface. So when I saw the algorithm presented me with your gift, I had to view it immediately. Thanks for your time explaining it for the layman and the more knowledgeable. This is pure logic as long as you understand the basics. I always wondered why even "cheaper" speakers are offering bi-wiring terminals. Now I know why thanks to you. Your work is validated by professionals and that's even more reassuring. Please release parts 2 and 3 when you can. My mouth is watering. ✌️👍
@@mafcarvalho Thanks for your very nice comment! My RUclips channel is un-monetized so the only reward I get is comments like yours and seeing my viewership grow (an increase in views and subscribers). You and others can help me out by providing a link to this video in the various forums you visit. If you liked it then your friends likely will too!
@@m.zillch3841 Oh, I'm gonna be sharing a link to your site. However, be advised there are going to be some hostile people. They LOVE to spend small fortunes on unnecessary cables. Can't wait for Parts 2 and 3!
@@garrettgiuffre7298 "Discrimination" as a word, and its meaning is not negative when applied in the scientific realm. It only becomes such when you infuse with subjective opinion. Discriminate between A and B - that's all - "you people".
Aczel was one of the very few sane minds in the audio world that is now populated by a bunch ignorant myth makers, credulity manipulators and opportunists. Sad situation...
Thank you so much. Have a pair of speakers that have the bi wiring option and thought I was missing out on a better' sound output. Your informative video has set the record straight.
The EMF from the woofer interfering with the tweeter also does not make sense electrically in a typical low output impedance amplifier (high damping factor) since the amplifier impedance will be much lower than the input impedance of the HF filter section of the crossover. Perhaps there could be an argument made for high output impedance tube amplifiers seeing this effect, however that would be swamped by the much larger effect of the amplifier no longer being insensitive to a changing load. Have a look at the impedance curve of a typical dynamic loudspeaker, and you'll see that there is no such thing as an "8ohm speaker" at all frequencies.
True. The back EMF content should be bassy in nature so even if that did somehow get through and wasn't stopped by the amplifier's adequately low output impedance it would be still filtered away by the tweeter's crossover circuit (HPF).
@@m.zillch3841 Absolutely. I think the "back EMF" concept that is being used to argue for bi-wiring is, at best, a gross oversimplification. It's the idea that if the woofer voice coil motion itself generates an opposition to current flow, that it must somehow mean it's producing a music signal that can "run upstream" to other components in the circuit. Back EMF from a driver is, IMO, more like how an inductor works...however there is also the physical construction of the woofer that contributes to the voice coil motion returning to it's resting position. This is all accounted for in the resulting impedance curve, which can be measured. If you were to place a very low resistance across the terminals of a woofer and then tap the woofer cone, you would see that the voice coil would produce a voltage in response to the sudden movement...but then settle almost immediately with little to no "ringing". This is how a low output impedance amplifier is able to control the driver motion effectively and "dampen" any extraneous motion.
@@aarondrabitt9578 I think explaining why back-EMF is a non-issue is best explained by the blue arrows in the image I posted at 12:05. Here we clearly see that IF back-EMF even exists at all, it does so for BOTH scenarios! Because the EXACT same pathway for it (out the woofer, then back in the HF section) exists in both scenarios; Both have this same loop (blue arrows). Thinking it doesn't exist for the bi-wired speaker means one thinks one of two illogical things: A. the signal refuses to travel through the wire in the bi-wired speaker's out-then- back-in loop because it is, um, longer. OR B. electricity refuses to travel outside the constraints of a wooden speaker box.
@@m.zillch3841 Your video was great at showing that you're only moving the "Y" point of the cabling, and how bi-wiring and single wiring are electrically identical. The only reason I piped up was to add some further support for your claim. I've often heard the "back EMF" argument and just wanted to debunk that at the same time. Technically there IS a small difference between the two cabling methods in that the path between the LPF and HPF has doubled if you bi-wire. The claim is that the back EMF from the woofer voice-coil now has additional resistance to overcome before it reaches the HPF and is therefore attenuated. My point of bringing up the amplifier output impedance is to show that the amplifier would appear to be nearly a dead short to any current generated by the woofer itself...and is therefore never an issue.
I don't know if your ears hear differences between different speaker cables? I certainly do. I changed cables having different physical arrangement of the wires, one being flat cable and the other twisted wires, but otherwise quite similar copper and insulators used. The flatcable sounded different - more to my liking. The configuration of the two different wires gives different magnetic properties that can affect the sound. Also how the copper wires are made makes a difference. If you don't hear any difference on whatever speaker wire you have used, you have another bottleneck that covers most of that result from changing your system. Now, running bi-wire you can optimize the sound character for each element. The bass element likes thicker cables (more copper) and high notes likes more strands generally. That is how I would use bi-wiring.
If you, for example, make a wire too skinny for the run it will attenuate the highs. True. There are numerous other ways a wire might manipulate the sound as well. If you are of the mind there is no one CORRECT sound and instead wires that alter the sound should be selected by personal taste, it is difficult to discuss this topic with you because you fail to appreciate that the goal of seeking fidelity which is very high, aka "high fidelity", is to only use wires which faithfully render the input signal at their output accurately and perfectly to the ear, without ANY discernible difference whatsoever. These "perfect to the ear" wires are affordable and easy to come by so using anything other than these, say in in an effort to justify bi-wiring's existence, makes little sense to me personally. Proving that a speaker using bi-wiring with non-neutral wires which alter the sound on the two paths doesn't really prove "bi-wiring works", if you ask me, it proves some wires suck.
I understand the premise of the video. If your source give you a certain noise that mean its comming from the amplifier..and more wires = more noise. Maybe if possible see how to eliminate noise the amp produce like those noise cancelation power adapters that Ifi makes that greatly reduce incoming signal interference.
A number of years ago I swaped my bi-wire cables for single wire and could not tell the difference apart from keeping the wife happy as less cable crossing the floor.
Thanks but when you read a Nikon camera or lens manual does it re-inforce the myth? Because that's what's going on with bi-wiring: nearly all manufacturers refuse to explain the truth.
Well, I have to also add my two cents to this discussion. Up until recently, I had the same conclusion as you on Bi-wiring. I am 70 and been in and around the music/sound/retail/manufacturing industries since I was in my early 20's and also a multi-instrument Musician. At one time I even went the route of TRI-amping with three amps, a high quality electronic crossover and direct runs to woof/mid/tweets. I then paired it all down, back to one amp to passive X-overs in the speakers. I have spent many years supporting your conclusion until recently. I just bought and had recapped a "Classic" Adcom 5802 with power MOSFETs and also own Polk LSiM 705 speakers. My whole system is of high quality and I have built it for High Definition, but for this discussion, from the power amp out to the speakers is all that is relevant. Since the POLKs and the Adcom both have Dual / Dual binding posts for each channel, I thought I would try wiring them Bi-wire configuration using Audioquest HD speaker runs that I already owned from my Tri-amp days. It made a tremendous difference! I then went back and cut down the runs of the wiring to just what I needed, keeping ALL runs equal in length. That made even a LARGER DIFFERENCE! I was amazed at the detail of the it all; transparency, depth of field, imaging and defined and tight bass! All I can say in conclusion is this: This method DOES alter the ELECTRICAL characteristics from what I had had previously (which is why I detailed what I had previously), as it reduces total impedance and alters both capacitance and induction to the speakers. I no longer have the equipment to measure it all, but it REALLY made a THEMENDUS IMPROVEMENT to MY system....and I was NOT a believer for all of these years. I did it and it worked, guess I am from Missouri, the SHOW ME state!!! THANKS
Since in your detailed description you make no mention of your testing having been done under blind conditions, can we correctly assume it was sighted?
No special machines other than two ears are needed. It either sounds better than before, no different, or worse? Monster Cable was a finacial success! It was not snake oil. Heck! I've changed out my power cord with verifiable sound improvement. Using the same theory. More wire. More electrical flow.
15m 27s.Neither are carrying the full range current when connected to either of the speaker terminals. And it's current that makes speaker drivers produce sound. Of course you'll measure full bandwidth signal (voltage) at either of the speaker terminals, but if you measure what makes the drivers move (and produce sound), current, you'll discover something different. Please note, I'm not claiming that bi-wiring improves, or even changes sound quality, I'm just stating that there is an electrical difference between single and bi-wiring, and it's not simply a case of "more wire".
@@m.zillch3841 Can't wait. My "comparison" is more of a statement of scientific fact, but I assume you have a new theory which will prove it to be incorrect.
@@rogerwebb7501 At last, someone else who actually understands what bi-wiring does (electronically). It amuses me that I read so many comments about the benefits of replacing manufacturer's speaker jumper bars with jumper cables, and so many comments about bi-wiring making no difference. A basic understanding of electronic theory proves that bi-wiring is far more likely to change how a speaker sounds than simply replacing a short jumper link.
@@rogerwebb7501 In a previous life I was a TV repair engineer. Our training included a good understanding of ohm's law and filtering theory. I've forgotten a lot of what we were taught (it wasn't required much in my job then, and even less now), but I remember enough to recognise a lot of the BS I read on audiophile forums.
Mr. Zillch, your so CORRECT! It's nothing more than $$$ in the Sellers pocket. I will never PAY more Money, for anything if I can't hear the "DIFFERENCE"! Because that's what it's all about WRIGHT? Good-quality AMPS, and Speaker these days are pretty dam good...... any gains in it's MUSICAL performance will be minimal, by adding Audio Jewelry. Yes, each AMP has it's own Signature Sound, and so do the Speakers. I have 4 different AMPS, and just as many pair of Speakers...... They all sound different, when I mix and match them,,,, the only REAL Difference... is WHICH ONE'S DO I USE for a certain genre(s). My Tube AMP is Superior in SOUND, (To ME) if I'm playing Blues & Jazz,,,,, but on the other hand, it's not the AMP I choose for Pop or Rock. I've seen dealers that DEMO there Brand(s) of speakers they want to Sale you,,,, run the Music throw a $10,000.00 AMP, and when you get those Speakers home, they sound nothing like what you heard at the SNAKE SHOP! Stereo Imaging, Stage Placement, on and on, I believe these things are in the RECORDING, they have to be in order to HEAR it..... just some AMPS and Speaker are better at bring those factors out. Stop throwing your MONEY away, Mr. Zillch has give you SOUND ADVICE! He has nothing to GAIN, but the SNAKE SHOP do $$
I met a guy once that had made some speaker cables using bunches of copper braid and had made them about 4 times thicker than decent car jumper cables. I asked him what size the wires were inside the speaker ........
Or inside the amp - leading to the terminal. I have to admit I have been very disappointed when opening up things over the years. But length obviously plays a role. Think of it as water. Thin hose vs. thick hose. At some point making the hose thicker will not improve the flow.
The only way I would "buy" into the "bi-wire" fantasy is if the passive crossover was external of the speaker and was placed as close to the amplifier output as possible. This would actually then reduce the length of cable that has both signals on it and could possibly reduce any EMI. The longer the runs and the higher the power differential between the high and low signal the more this could MAYBE make a difference. Again these are the most extreme examples I can think of where it is possible that a small benefit could exist.
@@projector7141 that is what is called biamped. I think that is better but that requires more amp channels. Biwire is from 1 amp channel. I agree that biamped is better.
I know some audiophile nuts will poo-poo this video, but this is exactly what it really is. Bi-wiring makes no real difference as it is just one circuit. It is exactly the same as just running thicker cable to the speakers. Unfortunately some believe the bogus, the same ones that will pay thousands of dollars for a power cable that is identical to the $5 power cable, but because it is labelled a certain way or has a different colour of the plastic, suddenly it is so much better......
@@Synthematix If you say so. You can tell me how it can work when nothing outside of the power outlet is "hi-fi" and is the same in all houses. If you feel it makes a difference, pay the money and all power to you. I've been listening to music and designing amplifiers for 35 years, both tube and solid state I think I know what I am doing.
@@EsotericArctos Everyone says that on here, and yes speaker cable makes a huge difference, power cables dont though, the amp already has filtering no power cable can fix that
@@Synthematix as everyone says everyone else doesn't know what they are doing. Take your pick. As I said, all power to you if you hear a difference using expensive cables. Most people, especially as we get older, do not hear the differences and a lot can be placebo but I won't judge. If a person wants to spend that much money and feels their enjoyment of the music is better, then all power to them. It's about the enjoyment in the end and if you are happy, then go for it. I just mention things from actual testing that I have done 😊
@@Synthematixby the way. I do agree speaker cable makes difference, I just don't feel bi-wiring from a single amp makes that much difference. Quality single wiring cable though, yes for sure that i a different thing. Definitely makes a difference
'keep the highs & the lows seperated' via seperate cables to the same amp outputs defies the laws of physics, or less generously exemplifies audiophile snake oil bullshit. good vid well done
Thanks. Thing is, nearly all consumer owners' manuals back up this baloney so how is an average consumer to know if they can't even trust the manufacturer of their gear? (without watching my video, that is)
My speakers are powered through 14 AWG 41/30 stranded wire so that the signal can split itself up into 41 separate segments of the frequency range and each one of those take its own dedicated path from the amp to the cabinet. The sound is AMAZING!!!!!!!! The clarity is so pronounced that I can hear when a kazoo needs to be re-tuned.
Each time the sound jumps from one strand to the next I can hear it has opened a new portal to the fifth dimension:ruclips.net/video/vbCH5lnZ6sA/видео.html
Thank you for this explanation. The hifi market can be quite a minefield for us consumers! Especially, for those of us who are not engineers and experts.
This is why I constantly advise "audiophiles" to invest a bit of time in the many online courses in electronics from accredited colleges ... not the manufacturer's websites. A little knowledge makes it very hard to lie to you...
@@rogerwebb7501 Take the drawings beginning at 20:25 .... In the conventional wiring situation obviously all current passes through the single wire and is divided inside the speaker for woofer and tweeter. Biwiring where the binding posts at both end are connected together makes no difference as explained. But in the bi-wired version where the crossover is split inside the speaker, the situation is more complex. It is true that the amplifier is only producing a single signal and the voltages are the same at both sets of speaker terminals. However, because of the filters inside the speaker cabinet, the currents diverge at the amplifier's output with only the low frequency currents flowing on the woofer lead and only high frequency currents on the tweeter lead. This can produce a noticeable difference in output if the single wire used in the conventional methods was inadequate to the task of handling both currents. Where the losses in a single wired system are minimal, it is very unlikely bi-wiring brings much of an advantage, except to those selling the wires. Just the first bit of Ohm's law... "Current is the result of applying voltage across an impedance" (I = E / R) would allow anyone to make such an analysis with ease and this whole debate would be over in a couple of minutes.
Thanks for the simple and effective method for demonstrating Norton's and Thévenin's theorems. The fact that so many people actually "buy-wire" their speakers clearly shows many things: the importance of cognitive bias is grossly underestimated; most audiophiles are extremely gullible; there is a good reason why audio gurus vigorously reject blind ABX comparisons. High End HiFi has a lot more to do with religion than science, and audiophiles prove it every day.
Bi-wiring, the product of slick marketing and internet influencers propagating the lie. The only thing bi-wiring accomplishes is to double profits for cable companies. Buy-wiring is essentially extending the supplied jumpers. The signal path is identical.
Yes. This is an industry wide lie, promulgated by not some, but rather the majority of speaker and amp/receiver companies in their owners' manuals for decades with their refusal to publicly speak out about it (like I'm doing here in this video). It isn't new and actually predates the internet. Most importantly, think about this: If they'll easily lie to us about this, then why should we trust them to be forthcoming about any OTHER audio topics?
So if bi wiring puts same load. How does biamping not do the same? Or is it just better power. And the speakers internals do the same work. Would the weakness just be the thin wires internal in the amps and speakers respectively
I bi wired my speakers, would love to bi amp if affordable. Too many things seem audible that make no sense schematically. When using a solid 14 copper wire bridge I thought I could distinguish which terminals went to the speaker wires. Being 70+ my ears aren’t what they used to be.
Once in the store the guy selling told me, you have to bi-wire, and use silver for highs and cupper for lows, as the silver transmit best highs, and so for cupper, (or maybe the other way around don't remember) .... he was just trying to sell me two pairs of expensive cables
Makes me wonder what kind of metals a TV or a computer must contain :) If cables make significant differences at 0-20kHz then it is actually very improbable that TVs or computers were ever invented.
I just bought a new pair of B&W speakers. I also wanted some attractive and durable cables. I bought some biwire cables because, well, why not. It was maybe $10 difference. There is no difference in sound. I probably wasted $10.
As a professional loudspeaker engineer it’s refreshing to hear someone debunking the myth about biwiring instead of gushing nonsense about sound improvements. Biamping is different but comes with it’s own set of difficulties including level matching, internal phase issues, differences between amps of things like slew rates and output impedance etc etc . Simple advice for hifi enthusiast? Use one amp or better still one pair of monos with their own power supplies. Always use an amp with more than enough headroom to swing current demands of the loudspeaker being driven. Nothing more or netter is needed. Many people use amps which can be marginal when power demands pick up or the classic one us ysing fashionable single ended amps with little or no feedback so have no bass control through lack of damping factor. No amount of power in a SET amp can overcome low damping factor since it is related purely to damping factor.
Good morning Paul C. I would like to have some more information from you about this explanation you gave here about the Hi-Fi enthusiasts and how this damping effect and level matching in the internal phasing our supplies to HiFi systems like the one that I have. For example I have a Pioneer amp it turned on lights up but does not have any output from the speaker connections. What would you suggest would be the first thing for me to look at on the motherboard inside to find out why it's not having any output to the speaker wires.
@@nsday1 If they use room correction, like my Marantz that also had the bi-amp option, they may be able to correct for levle mis-matches and possible phase differences (the room correction software was able to detect out of phase speakers). The amps also were all of the same type since they are in the same box, so they can also have identical electrical specs. I believe my Marantz had a set of front and zone 2 amps that were the same.
I wouldn't call that "bi-wiring" I'd call it "dual wiring", but yes, I'd do that over true bi-wiring if I was for some odd reason stuck with an inadequate wire to use as a tidy, single run.
But if you test the sound on the input, and you send the same signal to the high and low channels why would you expect a different signal on the inputs? Most people can't really do anything with bi-wiring, I get that, but if you send the same signal to one side of the cable, you'll get the same signal on the other side of the signal, the difference is on the tweeter and woofer inputs.
Part 2, coming very soon (within days) addresses where it makes sense to make measurements for differences, vs. where the bi-wire marketers like to show differences exist.
Really good explanation. Thanks for your work on this. I do bi-amp and I do hear a difference, but my 2nd system (with an integrated) is now only 'normally' wired.
Thank you for all this great info. I lost track of the technical audio field in the mid 90’s. You cleared up a great deal of questions I had. It’s funny how there are companies out there actually selling bi-wire cables for up to 1600.00 lol I would hate to spend that money and then watch your video here 😂 You earned a sub from me
There are many times when a person who is trying to explain how electricity flows will use Water as a parallel. Try imagining that the signal coming from the amplifier is a giant water tank. Your volume control is like a valve, and as you turn the volume control up you allow more of the signal to come through. And then once that signal leaves the amplifier (or water tank), you might have more than one place to hook up pipes or hoses. Now if you hook up a hose and run it to your faucet, the water will flow and you'll have lots of water. If you run another hose from one of the other outlets on the water tank, and then hook that up to the same faucet, you'll still get water. It'll be the same water that the first hose is bringing to you because it comes from the same tank. Bi-wiring is doing what I just described. It does not help anything, actually you are opening yourself up to damaging your speakers, especially your tweeters.
Very interesting points made in your video. Enjoyed it! I remember reading several articles back in the day on this. And I came to many of the same conclusions about bi-wiring. And my speakers are actually capable of tri-wiring and a LFE input. The thing I would be somewhat sold on would be bi-wiring with different wire for each range, low, mid and high. This was said to create better sound through each range depending on the impedance of the wire used and at lest one company had done the research and had several types of wire labeled for each range. I could kinda see this but decided the incremental sound changes would not be that obvious to someone who attended loud R&R concerts and wore a headset on the job sacrificing one ear to all sorts of input throughout a lifetime. Better to spend my money on room treatment, better amplification and strippers 🤔…. Er, better TV. Now bi-AMPING I can get behind because of the potential power that could be dedicated to each range. And many speakers are said to really open up when truly worked or given the opportunity to ‘breathe’ with more power. But again, I’m not sure the sonic benefits would be audible except for louder sound. Thanks for the informative video!
This argument the marketers use of "You can use a wire that's great for the high frequencies for the tweet and a different kind that's great for the lows on the woof" is a scam to make you buy TWO overpriced wires instead of just one affordable wire good for all frequencies. In truth, wires that provide great, accurate, FULL range sound are easy to come by and very affordable, so their argument is BS made to dupe you. Don't confuse this with me saying "all wires sound the same". That's not correct and I am not saying that. Sure, if you perversely wanted to, one could design a wire that compromises, say, just the highs but lets the lows pass through just fine, and such wires indeed exist, but it would be rather silly to intentionally use such a wire when accurate ones good at ALL audible frequencies are common and affordable. If one were to wire up a bi-wireable speaker using this wire with compromised high frequency performance on the tweet, making an audible difference, it doesn't prove "bi-wiring works" as much as it proves "some wires suck".
I've been designing high performance speakers for over 30 years and have never provided a bi-wire option. If anything, having the option to bi-wire on a loudspeaker can often mean the crossover is less optimally designed than it could be. I guess one cannot argue with the claim, "but I can hear a difference" because those making the claim refuse to be subject to any form of controlled test, but at least it allows the rest of us to judge the credibility of their opinions about other aspects of audio. The comment made at the end by Sonus Faber says it all.
Agreed. Interestingly that secret confided to me by the Sonus Faber rep is nearly identical to others I've read about, including to long time Stereophile magazine reviewer Kal Rubinson: "𝗥𝗲: 𝗕𝗶𝘄𝗶𝗿𝗶𝗻𝗴 At least two major producers of high-end loudspeakers have told me that they provide bi-wiring/bi-amping terminals because their dealers and consumers demand them and not because they see any value in their use. Off the record, of course. Kal" Kal Rubinson entry dated July 11, 2006 - 6:20am, here: www.stereophile.com/content/biwiring-1
As I denote in the text/graphics starting at 14:10, there is indeed a change in the current AFTER the Y-split in BOTH scenarios, but why should it matter if the equivalent Y-splits where this happens is either inside, versus outside, of a wooden cabinet? It just doesn't matter. This measuring "methodology" you mention is, however, a common ploy the bi-wire marketers use to confuse consumers: What they do is (unfairly) measure the current BEFORE the split in the top diagram and then compare/contrast that to the current measured AFTER the split in the second diagram. That is, they measure the electrical signals externally to the speaker cabinet in both of their measurements. This is an invalid comparison because it is not "apples to apples". The only valid comparisons of current are either both done pre-split, or both done post split. Here is where we see there is no difference.
The “signal” on the output of the amplifier is clearly full range, 20-20,000 Hz, as stated. Your oscilloscope picture of the two traces is calibrated in db, not current, however, it demonstrates that, obviously, the filters are doing their jobs and that the current flowing to the cones decreases the further away you are from the crossover point. The current is drawn from the amplifier at different rates depending on the frequency as a result of the filter, that is to say the effective impedance of the circuit varies with the frequency. As the impedance rises, due to the filter, the current drawn at that frequency is reduced. It doesn’t matter that the “signal” is full range, if no current is drawn, it will not be able to drive the cone. This is not intuitive until you consider that current is drawn by the circuit, not pushed by the amplifier. Speaker manufacturers are not charlatans, they know their claims will stand up to scientific scrutiny or they face potential legal action. There is no incentive for speaker manufacturers to make bogus claims as, to my knowledge, very few if any actually make cables. It costs more to fit two sets of binding posts than one, so again, pointless if their claims were false.
@@markcarrington8565 Q Acoustics, a speaker maker and promoter of the bi-wiring myth, is an example that do sell (over priced) speaker wires: QED Supremus Speaker Cables $1,499.00 USD. Most don't though, true. I'll grant you that. It is not clear to me what percentage of speaker makers are aware bi-wiring is worthless (other than the doubling of copper strands which poses a lower resistance, just as easily accomplished by dual wiring as I discuss in the video), but both myself and Stereophile reviewer Kal Rubinson in several forum discussions have related conversations with high-end speaker reps where we've been told, off the record, they knew it was worthless but provided it anyway, perhaps to be dealer friendly, i.e, to help in their endevours to push customers to BUY wire, twice as much as they need to buy! [Also keep in mind this variety of terminal cup also allows for OTHER things, like bi-amping, or perhaps using alternate tweeters, such as pairing an electrostatic tweeter to the main woofer, popular in the 1960's with the AR-1.]. If you'd like to discuss this further I would suggest doing so at the dedicated AVS thread which includes at least one EE, Don: www.avsforum.com/threads/bi-wiring-the-secret-truth-revealed.3252879/
@@m.zillch3841 I don’t see the point of pursuing this. Having read the “offending” Q Acoustics article, which is exactly in line with my comments, I give up attempting to convince those who choose believe it’s all snake oil. I will be interested to hear your explanation of bi-amping, which even more people have claimed makes a sonic improvement than bi-wiring does. Remember, the split is between the preamp and the power amps but the filter circuits are still there inside the speakers, doing their jobs. Next you’ll be telling me that upgrading my cables, including power, swapping out components such as opamps for component types, electrolytic caps for better ones and fitting R-C snubbers on my bridge rectifiers was pointless too.
@@markcarrington8565 "Next you’ll be telling me that upgrading my cables, including power, swapping out components such as opamps for component types, electrolytic caps for better ones and fitting R-C snubbers on my bridge rectifiers was pointless too." This is you putting words in my mouth. Please don't do that and stay on topic: bi-wiring.
Great explanation of a grossly misunderstood "feature". If a set of speakers legitimately sound different when bi-wired I would return them immediately, as that's likely just a sign of a poorly designed crossover. (Active) bi-AMPing on the other hand is indeed a completely different beast, and well worth the effort when implemented correctly. Would love to see you do a video on that!
Thanks. I may address bi-amping in the future as well, but since you already seem to get the distinction between passive and active I'm not sure what value the video would be for you, other than you'd have a video to direct other people to! ha ha
Geat video, well explanied and demonstated. This and the 'Acoustic Research AE-XA!' video you did have enlightened me after years of text explainations, actually seeing and hearing its a big difference. I now have one request - could you do one on Bi Amping, so we'll kow if its worth it, Pleasseeeee!
I hope to do bi-amping some day too, but don't hold your breath because it could be months or even years away. I'll cut to the chase though: ACTIVE bi-amping can often be useful and many people do it without even realizing it! Setting an AVR to "speakers small" so its amp is only addressing the frequencies above the selected crossover frequency (often 80Hz, or so), and diverting the difficult to amplify deep bass below that to the outboard powered sub's amp, aka "bass management", is actually a variety of active bi-amping! PASSIVE bi-amping, on the other hand, the variety usually discussed in speaker's owner's manuals, is NEVER worth it and a complete waste of time, money, electricity, and speaker wire.
I wasn't aware anyone believed that the two cables used in bi-wiring were intended to carry "separate high and low frequencies!" That particular straw man is hardly worth dignifying with contrary evidence, but your diligence in doing so on camera is certainly admirable. I always thought the idea of bi-wiring was to emulate the properties of "star grounding." That is, by connecting the two ground sections of the crossover all the way back at the amplifier you could reduce the coupling that could otherwise occur via a common ground plane in the crossover's PCB.
An example from a Crutchfield ad for Audioquest wires: "The benefits of bi-wiring. When a full-range signal is sent through a single speaker cable, the interaction of the magnetic fields created by the different frequencies can negatively impact the sound produced by your speakers. In particular, large amounts of bass energy can interfere with more delicate high frequencies. Bi-wiring transfers audio signals separately to your speaker's woofer and tweeter inputs, eliminating this distortion-causing interaction." Amp maker PS Audio describes it as: "Bi-wiring is the practice of feeding the upper frequencies and the lower frequencies with separate speaker cables, from the same power amplifier."
It went without saying I thought, that cables didn't carry the separate frequencies. I remember bi-wiring being a big thing in the 90s. I was dubious even back then, although the back emf seemed plausible to me. The extra resistance back to the amplifier may of helped. But I could never hear any difference, and I refused to buy expensive speaker cable. 15A copper mains cable, sounds good to me. And if you get 3-core, you can bi-wire with a common ground :)
Bi-wiring does separate high and low frequency currents which are carried separately by the two pairs of wires in the bi-wire cable. That is a fact that a lot of people don't seem to be able to grasp.
Thank goodness you presented some accurate information here....I started watching this video fully intending to call you out but thankfully I didn't have to!
Great video, thanks! I'd say, the only thing that one could do is to change the stock bridge with a pice of good copper wire. On the other had - considering the length of that bridge (10cm at most), this is negligible. Bi wiring is just some fancy look which makes the owner happy 🙂 why not be happy 😀
You know what bridge (I call them "jumper straps") sounds absolutely PERFECT? The use of none at all! i.e., a speaker with a singular pair of input posts, not these silly dual post designs which are just introducing more connection points for potential failure, the failure of the jumpers themselves, or where the user may accidentally invert the polarity. Common problems include soiled contacts, bent jumper bar, poorly seated jumper bar, corrosion, poorly tightened connections, stripped threads, a poorly crimped spade lug on the wire, etc.. I've seen it MANY times and many of my customers over the decades I sold these designs have complained along the lines of: "Why does my left speaker sound dull?" It's because the tweeter section isn't getting a signal because some part of this useless added complexity, based on mythology, has failed on them. How often does the tweeter section fail on single pair binding post speakers? NEVER, unless something INSIDE the speaker cabinet fails.
Very good explanation of the bi-wire myth. The cross over does the job to separate low and high frequencies and also keeping the load impeadance correct.
Correct. If you split the crossover at the speaker by removing the jumper links, you can send low and high frequency current separately through two cables.
@@ProffAndy No you can't. If the two wires you run across your room are connected together at the amplifier, you are sending exactly the same signal to both. The only way to individuate them is with a line level crossover and bi-amping.
@@Douglas_Blake_579 If you measure current between the amp and the low frequency speaker terminals, only low frequency current will be detected. Likewise, only high frequency current is carried by the cable between the amp and HF terminals. Current (which causes the speaker drivers to produce sound) is split between the cables in a bi-wire configuration. That's an easily proven scientific fact.
@@ProffAndy I know perfectly well how a speaker works. Yes, there will be a difference in current between the two leads. But unless you are using inadequately sized wire, that won't make a whole lot of difference to the sonic results.
Thank Gawd for this - I keep TELLING them,,,,!!! You'd be better off paralleling both wires to lose that last lil bit of resistance! - and maybe get an extra .1 (.01?) dB or something (don't do this folks, just ONE stretch of decent wire is ENOUGH!)
Yes, theoretically you could leave the jumper straps in place and parallel any number of wires: 2, 3, 7, 61 etc. but all are silly compared to using ONE wire of an adequate gauge. . . . Hmm, I wonder if they'll now market blenders with dual AC cords claiming they make tastier milk shakes? LOL
Remember adding cable changes the capacitance inductance balance. Many amplifiers are marginally stable. Whilst safe enough they change sound as previously described.
My illusion has convinced me that bi wiring my speakers improved, especially in the crossover’s range where the speakers blend. Fortunately my wires are much more affordable but I’m hooked!
Theoretically there should be differences between single wiring and bi-wiring, at least when the speaker is made for bi-amping /bi-wiring and there are different biding posts for bass and treble: In single wiring, the signal reaches the treble posts with a delay and has to pass through the connectors which usually are of different quality and geometry than your speaker cable. Then we have the electro-magnetic interaction between the two sets of cables which, theoretically, in the case of bi-wiring should increase the noise. That is undesirable of course but on the other hand, a bit of noise makes the cable sounding more "open and lively" - i.e. in such a case the geometry acts as a tone control. We can't prove that the human ear can grasp all those fine details, but I can remember that in my second hi-fi system, which was quite unbalanced with a quite insolent treble (Pioneer legato link cd player, Pioneer amplifier and Mission 780 SE speakers, with Kimber 4PR speaker cable) single wiring was making the sound a bit calmer, sweeter and warmer.
@@carlosw1687 Scientific theory arises from experiments and not vice versa. That said, you can still listen to your music with your cd player from the 80s if you wish. It still writes "Perfect sound forever" on the box.
Honestly, when I saw the title, I was expecting some derp incoming. How refreshing to see a video on the subject that doesn't rely entirely on the removal of lipids from snakes!
The world of Hi-Fi is full of myths that audiophiles still believe. I have spent all my working life as an A/V repair tech and i always found it very ammusing at the latest ideas that appeared in the magazines of the 70/80's. The markup on all the junk that was puhed as must have cures for faults that more often than not only existed in peoples minds. Bi-Wiring, No Tone Controls etc all made the manufacturers a fortune
Dude, such a satisfying video. You knocked it out of the park. Just bought dual post speakers but don't have the gear to bi-amp them, so traditional configuration it will be. Thanks.
Absolutely no benefits in doing so. I have never noticed any difference bi-wiring the speakers, nor Bi-amping them, keep the jumpers and you will have exactly the same sound, better buy a set of very good cables I tried this on my B&W 800 D3 and the Sonus Faber Aida, and at the end I believe it was a waste of money on very expensive cables. This only would work if is no cross overs and each channel is 100% separate from the other. If not its Absolutely no benefits in doing so. I have never noticed any difference bi-wiring the speakers, nor Bi-amping them, keep the jumpers and you will have exactly the same sound, better buy a set of very good cables I tried this on my B&W 800 D3 and the Sonus Faber Aida, and at the end I believe it was a waste of money on very expensive cables. That is my opinion as well. This only would work if is no cross overs and each channel is 100% separate from the other.
They are a decades-long, ongoing rip off. Optimal performance is attainable at very low prices although this is not to say any old wire will do fine. You need to use an adequate gauge of copper wire for the speaker impedance and run (length) which can be determined by consulting a reputable wire table such as this one: www.roger-russell.com/wire.htm#wiretable Differences heard with expensive exotic wires are a combination of the placebo effect, every single person on earth without exception is potentially susceptible to (so double blind test conditions are always necessary for wire listening tests), marketing lies, or an odd inductance/capacitance of the wire which makes the amp misbehave or exhibit a skewed frequency response the listener may errantly identify as an "improvement".
Exactly what i suspected all along, Active BiAmping is the only thing that would make a difference. And i bet we can argue if there are more benefits than disadvantages with that too.
@@garethonthetube Dont know the brand, but active is the way to go, I was thinking best route might be something like a programable miniDSP, not sure if you could fit a good quality amplifier in the back of a speaker though and not reduce the box volume to such an amount you would need high excursion (with higher distortion) at low frequencies. No, I think it is better to make everything external ideally, unless you have a large floorstander with excess box volume beyond the thiele small parameter calculations for the box size.
i have system amplifier onkyo a9010 and speaker sb acoustic eka. experiment with various cable for biwire ; best result with qed cable for low and vandenhul cable for high. smooth treble, open midrange, and tight bass. i think the vandenhul somehow smoothing the treble. i can hear difference by switching cable, with only youtube source on android tv. since then, i only buy speaker with biwire
I was always perplexed by the double terminal sets, to me the only use is to bi-amp using an active crossover before the amps, however none of the speakers I saw had the ability to disable the internal crossover to allow this to work, so it just left me confused.
Basically the takeaway from this is that in consumer electronics all bi wiring is doing is increasing the physical size of the "wire" going into the speaker box. And that bi wiring is 100% an amp thing and not a speaker thing. Basically there are only two occasions when bi wiring matters 1) you have inadequate gauge wires and the two together make it adequate and 2) You are bi amping since then the signal is truly on separate circuits since they come from two different sources
Yes, effectively, but personally I would not describe either form of bi-amping (active nor passive) as "varieties of bi-wiring". I think of bi-wiring, dual wiring, active bi-amping, and passive bi-amping as four distinctly different things even though all four use two sets of speaker cables.
Effect of no-wiring… IS HALVING THE RESISTANCE OF THE SPEAKER CABLES! Hmm just get CAT6/5e network cable & try this!! Worked for me. I made my own power amp with active cross over. The effect of this is I had to buy matching woofers and tweeters to make my own speakers…. Yeah I had to specify the cross over point based on the woofer/ tweeter combination.
Who cares what people say. What do the measurements prove? Bi- wiring sounds like snake oil to me. That being said, my living room system is bi-wired (I couldn't hear a difference). My man-cave system is bi-amped (class a/b to mids and highs and class d to lows).
If you take a 10 meter speaker wire, listen to it, and measure it, but then chop off 2mm of its length and then re-test it, you can find teeny tiny differences, for example in its reduced resistance (if your measurement gear is good enough) but this doesn't prove there is an AUDIBLE difference. This is, however, EXACTLY the dirty trick technique some bi-wire marketers use to fool people. In fact some measurement gear will show tiny differences even if you change NOTHING just due to expected vagaries in the setup. Even things like minor variation in your test probe clamp tightness or speaker binding post tightness can change the results slightly. I've seen it myself.
So you have your opinion, everyone else is wrong. We need more of these kinds of videos. Its really a video about nothing. You sound confused about the bigger picture.
I'm not confused and understand the science because I've worked in high end audio for decades. Should you have listening test evidence (collected under bias controlled conditions and showing meaningful statistical significance) which contradicts my position though, I'd love to see it.
No myth is busted here. Pointing out the same signal at the end of a highly conductive cable connected to a low impedance amplifier is trivially obvious. You measured voltage, not current. The current will be separated. I don't believe there will be a sonic improvement, or even detectable difference, but you are incorrect by very basic rules of electronics. Perhaps this realisation is why there is no part 2?
Part two is coming very soon, within the week I currently expect. The main topic is current division however to appeal to a broad RUclips audience, most of whom have no background in audio nor electronics, I don't discuss the complex nature of the speaker crossover's impedance curve and phase angle per frequency, but instead simply focus on describing the division as "the tweeter section draws a smaller current while the woofer draws the majority of the current" which is indeed typically true.
That's an oldie but a goody. Another good one that doesn't work so well it text, but works great verbally is: "It is critical for the best sound that you bi wire. Because if you don't buy any to connect your speakers you won't hear anything!"
I can t explain why but different materials favor different frequecies . Then copper enhances lows while Ag enlaces highs. That may be an advantage in bi wiring.
I can explain why. Because its an old audiophile myth so no backing evidence is necessary to explain it. Aluminum, for example, is not a terribly good conductor however if you make the wire thick enough to carry the unimpeded signal the ear won't care: it will sound the same as copper, silver, etc.. There are certain minimum requirements to meet but they aren't all that hard to do and multi-strand copper is a good balance of high conductivity and affordability so that's usually what's recommended. If using the right gauge it, it is audibly perfect to all ears on all systems regardless of cost IF THE TEST IS CONDUCTED UNDER DOUBLE BLIND CONDITIONS.
Shhhhh. My video is designed to get EVERYONE to watch it and understand it regardless of which side of the fence they fall on prior to learning the truth.
"The box"? ACTIVE bi-amping has slight benefits but don't confuse it with PASSIVE bi-amping nor bi-wiring, the things typically discussed in most consumer gear owners manuals. 3:27
Yes. Use an adequate gauge of copper wire for the speaker's impedance and the length of the run, with the jumper bars securely in place, connecting to either the top or bottom terminals (it doesn't matter) and you are good to go.
Nice job! I’m on board. I’ve never heard any difference with biwiring. Just doesn’t make sense. Now biamping is a totally different subject. I have heard a huge difference with biamping
When it come to speakers, the impedance or resistance as the case may be is very low compared to what you have in the input; like microphone and other pick-ups.
Great video! The only slight difference in single vs biwiring is cable impedance which is negligible lF Your using a sufficient gauge.
Thanks! Since you, Gene, have a degree in electrical engineering and on top of that work professionally specifically in the field of high-end audio gear review and analysis, I am honored you like it! I think you will dig Part 2 and 3 even more because I reveal something that's mind blowing, at least it was for me!
@@m.zillch3841 I have very basic electrical and electronics training, just barely touching the surface. So when I saw the algorithm presented me with your gift, I had to view it immediately.
Thanks for your time explaining it for the layman and the more knowledgeable. This is pure logic as long as you understand the basics.
I always wondered why even "cheaper" speakers are offering bi-wiring terminals. Now I know why thanks to you. Your work is validated by professionals and that's even more reassuring. Please release parts 2 and 3 when you can. My mouth is watering. ✌️👍
@@mafcarvalho Thanks for your very nice comment! My RUclips channel is un-monetized so the only reward I get is comments like yours and seeing my viewership grow (an increase in views and subscribers). You and others can help me out by providing a link to this video in the various forums you visit. If you liked it then your friends likely will too!
Yeah imagine a guy using twenty two gauge. Haha
@@m.zillch3841 Oh, I'm gonna be sharing a link to your site. However, be advised there are going to be some hostile people. They LOVE to spend small fortunes on unnecessary cables.
Can't wait for Parts 2 and 3!
Working for 52 years in the audio industry (with an MSEE degree) I always said that it should be spelled BUY-WIRE.
Ha! Yes. Bi-wiring definitely provides a benefit though . . . to the dealer selling twice as much wire as the customer actually needs: Bi-profits.
@@m.zillch3841 well. Nowsa days bi/buy/by/bye-wire can self identify how they wish without discrimination from you people
@@garrettgiuffre7298 "Discrimination" as a word, and its meaning is not negative when applied in the scientific realm. It only becomes such when you infuse with subjective opinion. Discriminate between A and B - that's all - "you people".
Haha, that's gold 🙂
LOL good one
Thank you for helping to keep the wisdom of Peter Aczel (The Audio Critic) alive. Best audio mag ever!
It's an often low down dirty fight for your money in audio these days.
Money is scarce so thanks for helping us spend it better.
@@jozefserf2024
Just follow the old rule ...
"If it seems too good to be true... it probably is"
Aczel was one of the very few sane minds in the audio world that is now populated by a bunch ignorant myth makers, credulity manipulators and opportunists. Sad situation...
Thank you so much. Have a pair of speakers that have the bi wiring option and thought I was missing out on a better' sound output. Your informative video has set the record straight.
Thanks. Part 2 is even better and addresses some of the marketing tricks they use to combat the true science: ruclips.net/video/NJhFxuymlCI/видео.html
At last, someone who knows what his talking about, great video.
Excellent. Makes everything very clear (no pun intended). I always use large gauge wire. I just subscribed. Thank You & Best Regards.
The EMF from the woofer interfering with the tweeter also does not make sense electrically in a typical low output impedance amplifier (high damping factor) since the amplifier impedance will be much lower than the input impedance of the HF filter section of the crossover. Perhaps there could be an argument made for high output impedance tube amplifiers seeing this effect, however that would be swamped by the much larger effect of the amplifier no longer being insensitive to a changing load. Have a look at the impedance curve of a typical dynamic loudspeaker, and you'll see that there is no such thing as an "8ohm speaker" at all frequencies.
True. The back EMF content should be bassy in nature so even if that did somehow get through and wasn't stopped by the amplifier's adequately low output impedance it would be still filtered away by the tweeter's crossover circuit (HPF).
@@m.zillch3841 Absolutely. I think the "back EMF" concept that is being used to argue for bi-wiring is, at best, a gross oversimplification. It's the idea that if the woofer voice coil motion itself generates an opposition to current flow, that it must somehow mean it's producing a music signal that can "run upstream" to other components in the circuit. Back EMF from a driver is, IMO, more like how an inductor works...however there is also the physical construction of the woofer that contributes to the voice coil motion returning to it's resting position. This is all accounted for in the resulting impedance curve, which can be measured. If you were to place a very low resistance across the terminals of a woofer and then tap the woofer cone, you would see that the voice coil would produce a voltage in response to the sudden movement...but then settle almost immediately with little to no "ringing". This is how a low output impedance amplifier is able to control the driver motion effectively and "dampen" any extraneous motion.
@@aarondrabitt9578 I think explaining why back-EMF is a non-issue is best explained by the blue arrows in the image I posted at 12:05. Here we clearly see that IF back-EMF even exists at all, it does so for BOTH scenarios! Because the EXACT same pathway for it (out the woofer, then back in the HF section) exists in both scenarios; Both have this same loop (blue arrows). Thinking it doesn't exist for the bi-wired speaker means one thinks one of two illogical things:
A. the signal refuses to travel through the wire in the bi-wired speaker's out-then- back-in loop because it is, um, longer.
OR
B. electricity refuses to travel outside the constraints of a wooden speaker box.
@@m.zillch3841 Your video was great at showing that you're only moving the "Y" point of the cabling, and how bi-wiring and single wiring are electrically identical. The only reason I piped up was to add some further support for your claim. I've often heard the "back EMF" argument and just wanted to debunk that at the same time. Technically there IS a small difference between the two cabling methods in that the path between the LPF and HPF has doubled if you bi-wire. The claim is that the back EMF from the woofer voice-coil now has additional resistance to overcome before it reaches the HPF and is therefore attenuated. My point of bringing up the amplifier output impedance is to show that the amplifier would appear to be nearly a dead short to any current generated by the woofer itself...and is therefore never an issue.
I don't know if your ears hear differences between different speaker cables? I certainly do. I changed cables having different physical arrangement of the wires, one being flat cable and the other twisted wires, but otherwise quite similar copper and insulators used. The flatcable sounded different - more to my liking. The configuration of the two different wires gives different magnetic properties that can affect the sound. Also how the copper wires are made makes a difference. If you don't hear any difference on whatever speaker wire you have used, you have another bottleneck that covers most of that result from changing your system.
Now, running bi-wire you can optimize the sound character for each element. The bass element likes thicker cables (more copper) and high notes likes more strands generally. That is how I would use bi-wiring.
If you, for example, make a wire too skinny for the run it will attenuate the highs. True. There are numerous other ways a wire might manipulate the sound as well. If you are of the mind there is no one CORRECT sound and instead wires that alter the sound should be selected by personal taste, it is difficult to discuss this topic with you because you fail to appreciate that the goal of seeking fidelity which is very high, aka "high fidelity", is to only use wires which faithfully render the input signal at their output accurately and perfectly to the ear, without ANY discernible difference whatsoever. These "perfect to the ear" wires are affordable and easy to come by so using anything other than these, say in in an effort to justify bi-wiring's existence, makes little sense to me personally. Proving that a speaker using bi-wiring with non-neutral wires which alter the sound on the two paths doesn't really prove "bi-wiring works", if you ask me, it proves some wires suck.
Excellent. Thanks for all your diligence.
Thanks. Part 2 is even better and should be released within a couple of days or so.
ruclips.net/video/NJhFxuymlCI/видео.html
I understand the premise of the video.
If your source give you a certain noise that mean its comming from the amplifier..and more wires = more noise. Maybe if possible see how to eliminate noise the amp produce like those noise cancelation power adapters that Ifi makes that greatly reduce incoming signal interference.
The only thing biwiring does is give the speaker wires twice the area to collect rf noise
Stereo lead as right and left in one lead
A number of years ago I swaped my bi-wire cables for single wire and could not tell the difference apart from keeping the wife happy as less cable crossing the floor.
Switching between hobbies I learned: Every hobby has it's own bogus myth. From photography to cycling to hiking to hifi audio. This is one.
Thanks but when you read a Nikon camera or lens manual does it re-inforce the myth? Because that's what's going on with bi-wiring: nearly all manufacturers refuse to explain the truth.
Hmm, its such a myth that ALL the top manufacturers of top end audio loudspeakers build them from the ground up to be bi-wired.
@@Synthematix
The build them to be Bi-amped which is not even close to the same thing.
Well, I have to also add my two cents to this discussion. Up until recently, I had the same conclusion as you on Bi-wiring. I am 70 and been in and around the music/sound/retail/manufacturing industries since I was in my early 20's and also a multi-instrument Musician. At one time I even went the route of TRI-amping with three amps, a high quality electronic crossover and direct runs to woof/mid/tweets. I then paired it all down, back to one amp to passive X-overs in the speakers. I have spent many years supporting your conclusion until recently. I just bought and had recapped a "Classic" Adcom 5802 with power MOSFETs and also own Polk LSiM 705 speakers. My whole system is of high quality and I have built it for High Definition, but for this discussion, from the power amp out to the speakers is all that is relevant. Since the POLKs and the Adcom both have Dual / Dual binding posts for each channel, I thought I would try wiring them Bi-wire configuration using Audioquest HD speaker runs that I already owned from my Tri-amp days. It made a tremendous difference! I then went back and cut down the runs of the wiring to just what I needed, keeping ALL runs equal in length. That made even a LARGER DIFFERENCE! I was amazed at the detail of the it all; transparency, depth of field, imaging and defined and tight bass! All I can say in conclusion is this: This method DOES alter the ELECTRICAL characteristics from what I had had previously (which is why I detailed what I had previously), as it reduces total impedance and alters both capacitance and induction to the speakers. I no longer have the equipment to measure it all, but it REALLY made a THEMENDUS IMPROVEMENT to MY system....and I was NOT a believer for all of these years. I did it and it worked, guess I am from Missouri, the SHOW ME state!!! THANKS
Since in your detailed description you make no mention of your testing having been done under blind conditions, can we correctly assume it was sighted?
Yes. Those were my simular results. Sound Improvement via Bi-wiring.
No special machines other than two ears are needed. It either sounds better than before, no different, or worse?
Monster Cable was a finacial success! It was not snake oil.
Heck! I've changed out my power cord with verifiable sound improvement. Using the same theory. More wire. More electrical flow.
That's hilarious.
Sounds like you cleaned off the corrosion on your plugs with all that plugging and unplugging...
15m 27s.Neither are carrying the full range current when connected to either of the speaker terminals. And it's current that makes speaker drivers produce sound. Of course you'll measure full bandwidth signal (voltage) at either of the speaker terminals, but if you measure what makes the drivers move (and produce sound), current, you'll discover something different. Please note, I'm not claiming that bi-wiring improves, or even changes sound quality, I'm just stating that there is an electrical difference between single and bi-wiring, and it's not simply a case of "more wire".
Part two, coming soon, specifically focuses on explaining why the current comparison points you are pointing out are actually an invalid comparison.
@@m.zillch3841 Can't wait. My "comparison" is more of a statement of scientific fact, but I assume you have a new theory which will prove it to be incorrect.
@@ProffAndy I can't wait for the second part of the 'Flat earthers electronics' as well ;)
@@rogerwebb7501 At last, someone else who actually understands what bi-wiring does (electronically). It amuses me that I read so many comments about the benefits of replacing manufacturer's speaker jumper bars with jumper cables, and so many comments about bi-wiring making no difference. A basic understanding of electronic theory proves that bi-wiring is far more likely to change how a speaker sounds than simply replacing a short jumper link.
@@rogerwebb7501 In a previous life I was a TV repair engineer. Our training included a good understanding of ohm's law and filtering theory. I've forgotten a lot of what we were taught (it wasn't required much in my job then, and even less now), but I remember enough to recognise a lot of the BS I read on audiophile forums.
i did it both ways and Nickelback still sounds like crap !!
Mr. Zillch, your so CORRECT! It's nothing more than $$$ in the Sellers pocket. I will never PAY more Money, for anything if I can't hear the "DIFFERENCE"! Because that's what it's all about WRIGHT? Good-quality AMPS, and Speaker these days are pretty dam good...... any gains in it's MUSICAL performance will be minimal, by adding Audio Jewelry. Yes, each AMP has it's own Signature Sound, and so do the Speakers. I have 4 different AMPS, and just as many pair of Speakers...... They all sound different, when I mix and match them,,,, the only REAL Difference... is WHICH ONE'S DO I USE for a certain genre(s). My Tube AMP is Superior in SOUND, (To ME) if I'm playing Blues & Jazz,,,,, but on the other hand, it's not the AMP I choose for Pop or Rock. I've seen dealers that DEMO there Brand(s) of speakers they want to Sale you,,,, run the Music throw a $10,000.00 AMP, and when you get those Speakers home, they sound nothing like what you heard at the SNAKE SHOP! Stereo Imaging, Stage Placement, on and on, I believe these things are in the RECORDING, they have to be in order to HEAR it..... just some AMPS and Speaker are better at bring those factors out. Stop throwing your MONEY away, Mr. Zillch has give you SOUND ADVICE!
He has nothing to GAIN, but the SNAKE SHOP do $$
You overlooked one important thing:
In audiophile world, scientific laws don't apply. They hear what they want to hear.
22:09 If the customer is so fool to buy fancy expensive speaker cables, then why not fool him twice? He deserves the treatment! Hahaha
Bi-Wiring is a salesman's tricks
I met a guy once that had made some speaker cables using bunches of copper braid and had made them about 4 times thicker than decent car jumper cables. I asked him what size the wires were inside the speaker ........
Or inside the amp - leading to the terminal. I have to admit I have been very disappointed when opening up things over the years. But length obviously plays a role. Think of it as water. Thin hose vs. thick hose. At some point making the hose thicker will not improve the flow.
The gauge of wire inside the speaker is irrelevant when its designed to be ultra low loss, hence copper for bass and silver for treble.
@@SynthematixIt’s not irrelevant when you have people thinking you need 16mm2 copper cables to connect a speaker to an amp.
@@Omegaman1969 Depends on length, long runs need to be a thicker gauge to prevent signal loss
@@Synthematix No, his were maximum of 5m, 16mm is large enough to supply mains power to a house. using anything more than 1mm on speakers is silly.
Bi wiring marketing B.S -
It's goofy to think that a high quality speaker manufacturer would include a poorly designed crossover in a premium speaker system is nuts.
The main advantage of bi-wiring is that it doubles manufacturers' sales and improves their margins ! 😉
. . . and that why this myth will never die: as long as there's money to be made the marketers will continue their lies.
The only way I would "buy" into the "bi-wire" fantasy is if the passive crossover was external of the speaker and was placed as close to the amplifier output as possible. This would actually then reduce the length of cable that has both signals on it and could possibly reduce any EMI. The longer the runs and the higher the power differential between the high and low signal the more this could MAYBE make a difference.
Again these are the most extreme examples I can think of where it is possible that a small benefit could exist.
Or the crossover is in the DSP in the amp.
@@projector7141 that is what is called biamped. I think that is better but that requires more amp channels. Biwire is from 1 amp channel. I agree that biamped is better.
I know some audiophile nuts will poo-poo this video, but this is exactly what it really is. Bi-wiring makes no real difference as it is just one circuit. It is exactly the same as just running thicker cable to the speakers.
Unfortunately some believe the bogus, the same ones that will pay thousands of dollars for a power cable that is identical to the $5 power cable, but because it is labelled a certain way or has a different colour of the plastic, suddenly it is so much better......
Thats because you dont understand the basic principles of hi-fi audio
@@Synthematix If you say so. You can tell me how it can work when nothing outside of the power outlet is "hi-fi" and is the same in all houses. If you feel it makes a difference, pay the money and all power to you.
I've been listening to music and designing amplifiers for 35 years, both tube and solid state I think I know what I am doing.
@@EsotericArctos Everyone says that on here, and yes speaker cable makes a huge difference, power cables dont though, the amp already has filtering no power cable can fix that
@@Synthematix as everyone says everyone else doesn't know what they are doing. Take your pick. As I said, all power to you if you hear a difference using expensive cables. Most people, especially as we get older, do not hear the differences and a lot can be placebo but I won't judge. If a person wants to spend that much money and feels their enjoyment of the music is better, then all power to them. It's about the enjoyment in the end and if you are happy, then go for it. I just mention things from actual testing that I have done 😊
@@Synthematixby the way. I do agree speaker cable makes difference, I just don't feel bi-wiring from a single amp makes that much difference. Quality single wiring cable though, yes for sure that i a different thing. Definitely makes a difference
'keep the highs & the lows seperated' via seperate cables to the same amp outputs defies the laws of physics, or less generously exemplifies audiophile snake oil bullshit. good vid well done
Thanks. Thing is, nearly all consumer owners' manuals back up this baloney so how is an average consumer to know if they can't even trust the manufacturer of their gear? (without watching my video, that is)
Its only bullshit to those who do not know how AC current works
My speakers are powered through 14 AWG 41/30 stranded wire so that the signal can split itself up into 41 separate segments of the frequency range and each one of those take its own dedicated path from the amp to the cabinet. The sound is AMAZING!!!!!!!! The clarity is so pronounced that I can hear when a kazoo needs to be re-tuned.
Each time the sound jumps from one strand to the next I can hear it has opened a new portal to the fifth dimension:ruclips.net/video/vbCH5lnZ6sA/видео.html
What are your speakers?
@@roxrolldog The Dominator MX-10 ruclips.net/video/EAyJmIXcyMg/видео.html
They are the flagship of the Dominator line.
Thanks for the smile .
I use 12 g. Ox fre. Copper.
There is a difference.
Thank you for this explanation. The hifi market can be quite a minefield for us consumers! Especially, for those of us who are not engineers and experts.
This is why I constantly advise "audiophiles" to invest a bit of time in the many online courses in electronics from accredited colleges ... not the manufacturer's websites.
A little knowledge makes it very hard to lie to you...
@@rogerwebb7501
Take the drawings beginning at 20:25 ....
In the conventional wiring situation obviously all current passes through the single wire and is divided inside the speaker for woofer and tweeter.
Biwiring where the binding posts at both end are connected together makes no difference as explained.
But in the bi-wired version where the crossover is split inside the speaker, the situation is more complex. It is true that the amplifier is only producing a single signal and the voltages are the same at both sets of speaker terminals. However, because of the filters inside the speaker cabinet, the currents diverge at the amplifier's output with only the low frequency currents flowing on the woofer lead and only high frequency currents on the tweeter lead.
This can produce a noticeable difference in output if the single wire used in the conventional methods was inadequate to the task of handling both currents.
Where the losses in a single wired system are minimal, it is very unlikely bi-wiring brings much of an advantage, except to those selling the wires.
Just the first bit of Ohm's law... "Current is the result of applying voltage across an impedance" (I = E / R) would allow anyone to make such an analysis with ease and this whole debate would be over in a couple of minutes.
Thanks for the simple and effective method for demonstrating Norton's and Thévenin's theorems. The fact that so many people actually "buy-wire" their speakers clearly shows many things: the importance of cognitive bias is grossly underestimated; most audiophiles are extremely gullible; there is a good reason why audio gurus vigorously reject blind ABX comparisons. High End HiFi has a lot more to do with religion than science, and audiophiles prove it every day.
Bi-wiring, the product of slick marketing and internet influencers propagating the lie.
The only thing bi-wiring accomplishes is to double profits for cable companies.
Buy-wiring is essentially extending the supplied jumpers. The signal path is identical.
Yes. This is an industry wide lie, promulgated by not some, but rather the majority of speaker and amp/receiver companies in their owners' manuals for decades with their refusal to publicly speak out about it (like I'm doing here in this video). It isn't new and actually predates the internet. Most importantly, think about this: If they'll easily lie to us about this, then why should we trust them to be forthcoming about any OTHER audio topics?
Thank you sir, now I finally understand better.
So your telling me adding an extra set of terminals to the back of my speakers WONT immerse me in a 4th dimensional holographic sound stage?!???
Bi-Amping all the way!
I may do a video on bi-amping down the road but it won't be any time soon.
@@m.zillch3841 biamp via a and b channel on my old nad, a on HF and LF on b. Never going back to biwire only.
@@Error2username I sold those. Which NAD do you have?
So if bi wiring puts same load. How does biamping not do the same? Or is it just better power. And the speakers internals do the same work. Would the weakness just be the thin wires internal in the amps and speakers respectively
I bi wired my speakers, would love to bi amp if affordable. Too many things seem audible that make no sense schematically. When using a solid 14 copper wire bridge I thought I could distinguish which terminals went to the speaker wires. Being 70+ my ears aren’t what they used to be.
Once in the store the guy selling told me, you have to bi-wire, and use silver for highs and cupper for lows, as the silver transmit best highs, and so for cupper, (or maybe the other way around don't remember) .... he was just trying to sell me two pairs of expensive cables
The salesman must have thought you were loading!
Makes me wonder what kind of metals a TV or a computer must contain :) If cables make significant differences at 0-20kHz then it is actually very improbable that TVs or computers were ever invented.
I just bought a new pair of B&W speakers. I also wanted some attractive and durable cables. I bought some biwire cables because, well, why not. It was maybe $10 difference. There is no difference in sound. I probably wasted $10.
As a professional loudspeaker engineer it’s refreshing to hear someone debunking the myth about biwiring instead of gushing nonsense about sound improvements. Biamping is different but comes with it’s own set of difficulties including level matching, internal phase issues, differences between amps of things like slew rates and output impedance etc etc . Simple advice for hifi enthusiast? Use one amp or better still one pair of monos with their own power supplies. Always use an amp with more than enough headroom to swing current demands of the loudspeaker being driven. Nothing more or netter is needed. Many people use amps which can be marginal when power demands pick up or the classic one us ysing fashionable single ended amps with little or no feedback so have no bass control through lack of damping factor. No amount of power in a SET amp can overcome low damping factor since it is related purely to damping factor.
What's your take on some receivers having the option for bi-amping? Do they still have these problems, or are they processing that internally?
Good morning Paul C. I would like to have some more information from you about this explanation you gave here about the Hi-Fi enthusiasts and how this damping effect and level matching in the internal phasing our supplies to HiFi systems like the one that I have. For example I have a Pioneer amp it turned on lights up but does not have any output from the speaker connections. What would you suggest would be the first thing for me to look at on the motherboard inside to find out why it's not having any output to the speaker wires.
@@nsday1 If they use room correction, like my Marantz that also had the bi-amp option, they may be able to correct for levle mis-matches and possible phase differences (the room correction software was able to detect out of phase speakers). The amps also were all of the same type since they are in the same box, so they can also have identical electrical specs. I believe my Marantz had a set of front and zone 2 amps that were the same.
If you do decide to bi-wire your speakers, leave the shorting bars in place. That way you get the benefit of the halved wire resistance.
I wouldn't call that "bi-wiring" I'd call it "dual wiring", but yes, I'd do that over true bi-wiring if I was for some odd reason stuck with an inadequate wire to use as a tidy, single run.
@@m.zillch3841 That "tidy single run" will run out of steam on long lengths
That way it's called buy wired.
I appreciated your complete and honest explanations! Thank you!
Thanks
But if you test the sound on the input, and you send the same signal to the high and low channels why would you expect a different signal on the inputs? Most people can't really do anything with bi-wiring, I get that, but if you send the same signal to one side of the cable, you'll get the same signal on the other side of the signal, the difference is on the tweeter and woofer inputs.
Part 2, coming very soon (within days) addresses where it makes sense to make measurements for differences, vs. where the bi-wire marketers like to show differences exist.
What? Bi-wiring is snake oil?!! Never!! Why would you want to sell extortionate speaker cables to gullible audiophiles? lol.
Really good explanation. Thanks for your work on this. I do bi-amp and I do hear a difference, but my 2nd system (with an integrated) is now only 'normally' wired.
You mean biwired or you really mean biamped?
Bi-amp is totally different animal.
Bi amp isn't the same as bi wiring.
10 years ago, I bi wired my speakers,
With my new hi-fi set up, I did not bi wire The speakers,
I found it to be of no benefit whatsoever .
Bi-wiring = Buy wire
Bi-wiring does have benefits. . . for the dealer selling twice as much wire as the customer needs:
selling bi-wiring = bi-profits.
Thank you for all this great info. I lost track of the technical audio field in the mid 90’s.
You cleared up a great deal of questions I had.
It’s funny how there are companies out there actually selling bi-wire cables for up to 1600.00 lol I would hate to spend that money and then watch your video here 😂
You earned a sub from me
Indeed ... it must be a real gut-punch to realize that all the time and money got you exactly nothing in return.
There are many times when a person who is trying to explain how electricity flows will use Water as a parallel. Try imagining that the signal coming from the amplifier is a giant water tank. Your volume control is like a valve, and as you turn the volume control up you allow more of the signal to come through. And then once that signal leaves the amplifier (or water tank), you might have more than one place to hook up pipes or hoses. Now if you hook up a hose and run it to your faucet, the water will flow and you'll have lots of water. If you run another hose from one of the other outlets on the water tank, and then hook that up to the same faucet, you'll still get water. It'll be the same water that the first hose is bringing to you because it comes from the same tank. Bi-wiring is doing what I just described. It does not help anything, actually you are opening yourself up to damaging your speakers, especially your tweeters.
Very interesting points made in your video. Enjoyed it!
I remember reading several articles back in the day on this. And I came to many of the same conclusions about bi-wiring. And my speakers are actually capable of tri-wiring and a LFE input. The thing I would be somewhat sold on would be bi-wiring with different wire for each range, low, mid and high. This was said to create better sound through each range depending on the impedance of the wire used and at lest one company had done the research and had several types of wire labeled for each range. I could kinda see this but decided the incremental sound changes would not be that obvious to someone who attended loud R&R concerts and wore a headset on the job sacrificing one ear to all sorts of input throughout a lifetime. Better to spend my money on room treatment, better amplification and strippers 🤔…. Er, better TV.
Now bi-AMPING I can get behind because of the potential power that could be dedicated to each range. And many speakers are said to really open up when truly worked or given the opportunity to ‘breathe’ with more power. But again, I’m not sure the sonic benefits would be audible except for louder sound.
Thanks for the informative video!
This argument the marketers use of "You can use a wire that's great for the high frequencies for the tweet and a different kind that's great for the lows on the woof" is a scam to make you buy TWO overpriced wires instead of just one affordable wire good for all frequencies. In truth, wires that provide great, accurate, FULL range sound are easy to come by and very affordable, so their argument is BS made to dupe you. Don't confuse this with me saying "all wires sound the same". That's not correct and I am not saying that. Sure, if you perversely wanted to, one could design a wire that compromises, say, just the highs but lets the lows pass through just fine, and such wires indeed exist, but it would be rather silly to intentionally use such a wire when accurate ones good at ALL audible frequencies are common and affordable.
If one were to wire up a bi-wireable speaker using this wire with compromised high frequency performance on the tweet, making an audible difference, it doesn't prove "bi-wiring works" as much as it proves "some wires suck".
Hey ... it's just wire. There is no magic.
@@Douglas_Blake_579 My dealer said even the wire-hanger will work just fine.😂
@@Turtleback8024
I've been using 16ga copper lamp wire, from the hardware store, for over 30 years with no problems at all.
@@Douglas_Blake_579 There you go!!!😂👍🏼
yeah but you did not used audiophile grade cables, terminated properly with unobtainum.
I've been designing high performance speakers for over 30 years and have never provided a bi-wire option. If anything, having the option to bi-wire on a loudspeaker can often mean the crossover is less optimally designed than it could be. I guess one cannot argue with the claim, "but I can hear a difference" because those making the claim refuse to be subject to any form of controlled test, but at least it allows the rest of us to judge the credibility of their opinions about other aspects of audio. The comment made at the end by Sonus Faber says it all.
Agreed. Interestingly that secret confided to me by the Sonus Faber rep is nearly identical to others I've read about, including to long time Stereophile magazine reviewer Kal Rubinson:
"𝗥𝗲: 𝗕𝗶𝘄𝗶𝗿𝗶𝗻𝗴
At least two major producers of high-end loudspeakers have told me that they provide bi-wiring/bi-amping terminals because their dealers and consumers demand them and not because they see any value in their use. Off the record, of course.
Kal"
Kal Rubinson entry dated July 11, 2006 - 6:20am, here: www.stereophile.com/content/biwiring-1
bi amping can make a difference and the panels allows that.
"But the violins sound much much smoother using biwire !" 🤣🤣
Try measuring current instead of voltage and see what happens.
As I denote in the text/graphics starting at 14:10, there is indeed a change in the current AFTER the Y-split in BOTH scenarios, but why should it matter if the equivalent Y-splits where this happens is either inside, versus outside, of a wooden cabinet? It just doesn't matter. This measuring "methodology" you mention is, however, a common ploy the bi-wire marketers use to confuse consumers: What they do is (unfairly) measure the current BEFORE the split in the top diagram and then compare/contrast that to the current measured AFTER the split in the second diagram. That is, they measure the electrical signals externally to the speaker cabinet in both of their measurements. This is an invalid comparison because it is not "apples to apples". The only valid comparisons of current are either both done pre-split, or both done post split. Here is where we see there is no difference.
The “signal” on the output of the amplifier is clearly full range, 20-20,000 Hz, as stated. Your oscilloscope picture of the two traces is calibrated in db, not current, however, it demonstrates that, obviously, the filters are doing their jobs and that the current flowing to the cones decreases the further away you are from the crossover point.
The current is drawn from the amplifier at different rates depending on the frequency as a result of the filter, that is to say the effective impedance of the circuit varies with the frequency. As the impedance rises, due to the filter, the current drawn at that frequency is reduced. It doesn’t matter that the “signal” is full range, if no current is drawn, it will not be able to drive the cone.
This is not intuitive until you consider that current is drawn by the circuit, not pushed by the amplifier. Speaker manufacturers are not charlatans, they know their claims will stand up to scientific scrutiny or they face potential legal action. There is no incentive for speaker manufacturers to make bogus claims as, to my knowledge, very few if any actually make cables. It costs more to fit two sets of binding posts than one, so again, pointless if their claims were false.
@@markcarrington8565 Q Acoustics, a speaker maker and promoter of the bi-wiring myth, is an example that do sell (over priced) speaker wires: QED Supremus Speaker Cables
$1,499.00 USD. Most don't though, true. I'll grant you that.
It is not clear to me what percentage of speaker makers are aware bi-wiring is worthless (other than the doubling of copper strands which poses a lower resistance, just as easily accomplished by dual wiring as I discuss in the video), but both myself and Stereophile reviewer Kal Rubinson in several forum discussions have related conversations with high-end speaker reps where we've been told, off the record, they knew it was worthless but provided it anyway, perhaps to be dealer friendly, i.e, to help in their endevours to push customers to BUY wire, twice as much as they need to buy! [Also keep in mind this variety of terminal cup also allows for OTHER things, like bi-amping, or perhaps using alternate tweeters, such as pairing an electrostatic tweeter to the main woofer, popular in the 1960's with the AR-1.]. If you'd like to discuss this further I would suggest doing so at the dedicated AVS thread which includes at least one EE, Don: www.avsforum.com/threads/bi-wiring-the-secret-truth-revealed.3252879/
@@m.zillch3841 I don’t see the point of pursuing this. Having read the “offending” Q Acoustics article, which is exactly in line with my comments, I give up attempting to convince those who choose believe it’s all snake oil.
I will be interested to hear your explanation of bi-amping, which even more people have claimed makes a sonic improvement than bi-wiring does. Remember, the split is between the preamp and the power amps but the filter circuits are still there inside the speakers, doing their jobs.
Next you’ll be telling me that upgrading my cables, including power, swapping out components such as opamps for component types, electrolytic caps for better ones and fitting R-C snubbers on my bridge rectifiers was pointless too.
@@markcarrington8565 "Next you’ll be telling me that upgrading my cables, including power, swapping out components such as opamps for component types, electrolytic caps for better ones and fitting R-C snubbers on my bridge rectifiers was pointless too." This is you putting words in my mouth. Please don't do that and stay on topic: bi-wiring.
Seems like a good way to sell 2X the amount of $100/foot cable to me!!!!
Great video and excellent explanation to bust the myth around bi-wiring.
audiophilles in many occassions invent sounds that isnt there, just because brochure says so
Great explanation of a grossly misunderstood "feature". If a set of speakers legitimately sound different when bi-wired I would return them immediately, as that's likely just a sign of a poorly designed crossover. (Active) bi-AMPing on the other hand is indeed a completely different beast, and well worth the effort when implemented correctly. Would love to see you do a video on that!
Thanks. I may address bi-amping in the future as well, but since you already seem to get the distinction between passive and active I'm not sure what value the video would be for you, other than you'd have a video to direct other people to! ha ha
Finally, someone whos head is screwed on right! Calling it what it is.
Geat video, well explanied and demonstated. This and the 'Acoustic Research AE-XA!' video you did have enlightened me after years of text explainations, actually seeing and hearing its a big difference. I now have one request - could you do one on Bi Amping, so we'll kow if its worth it, Pleasseeeee!
I hope to do bi-amping some day too, but don't hold your breath because it could be months or even years away. I'll cut to the chase though: ACTIVE bi-amping can often be useful and many people do it without even realizing it! Setting an AVR to "speakers small" so its amp is only addressing the frequencies above the selected crossover frequency (often 80Hz, or so), and diverting the difficult to amplify deep bass below that to the outboard powered sub's amp, aka "bass management", is actually a variety of active bi-amping! PASSIVE bi-amping, on the other hand, the variety usually discussed in speaker's owner's manuals, is NEVER worth it and a complete waste of time, money, electricity, and speaker wire.
Wow thank u that was very helpful.
Thanks. Help me spread the word by sharing a link to this with your friends.
I wasn't aware anyone believed that the two cables used in bi-wiring were intended to carry "separate high and low frequencies!" That particular straw man is hardly worth dignifying with contrary evidence, but your diligence in doing so on camera is certainly admirable. I always thought the idea of bi-wiring was to emulate the properties of "star grounding." That is, by connecting the two ground sections of the crossover all the way back at the amplifier you could reduce the coupling that could otherwise occur via a common ground plane in the crossover's PCB.
An example from a Crutchfield ad for Audioquest wires: "The benefits of bi-wiring.
When a full-range signal is sent through a single speaker cable, the interaction of the magnetic fields created by the different frequencies can negatively impact the sound produced by your speakers. In particular, large amounts of bass energy can interfere with more delicate high frequencies. Bi-wiring transfers audio signals separately to your speaker's woofer and tweeter inputs, eliminating this distortion-causing interaction."
Amp maker PS Audio describes it as: "Bi-wiring is the practice of feeding the upper frequencies and the lower frequencies with separate speaker cables, from the same power amplifier."
@@m.zillch3841 I see your point.
It went without saying I thought, that cables didn't carry the separate frequencies.
I remember bi-wiring being a big thing in the 90s. I was dubious even back then, although the back emf seemed plausible to me. The extra resistance back to the amplifier may of helped.
But I could never hear any difference, and I refused to buy expensive speaker cable. 15A copper mains cable, sounds good to me. And if you get 3-core, you can bi-wire with a common ground :)
@@StuartJ I'm confidant I know the reason why you didn't hear a difference: because there was no audible difference.
Bi-wiring does separate high and low frequency currents which are carried separately by the two pairs of wires in the bi-wire cable. That is a fact that a lot of people don't seem to be able to grasp.
Bi wiring is a waste of material. Either run it conventional or full active bi amped
Thank goodness you presented some accurate information here....I started watching this video fully intending to call you out but thankfully I didn't have to!
Why do all that if the speaker has a built-in cross over that does it for you.
Great video, thanks!
I'd say, the only thing that one could do is to change the stock bridge with a pice of good copper wire. On the other had - considering the length of that bridge (10cm at most), this is negligible.
Bi wiring is just some fancy look which makes the owner happy 🙂 why not be happy 😀
Yeah that link will be in uR, impossible to lose audioble quality.
You know what bridge (I call them "jumper straps") sounds absolutely PERFECT? The use of none at all! i.e., a speaker with a singular pair of input posts, not these silly dual post designs which are just introducing more connection points for potential failure, the failure of the jumpers themselves, or where the user may accidentally invert the polarity. Common problems include soiled contacts, bent jumper bar, poorly seated jumper bar, corrosion, poorly tightened connections, stripped threads, a poorly crimped spade lug on the wire, etc.. I've seen it MANY times and many of my customers over the decades I sold these designs have complained along the lines of: "Why does my left speaker sound dull?" It's because the tweeter section isn't getting a signal because some part of this useless added complexity, based on mythology, has failed on them. How often does the tweeter section fail on single pair binding post speakers? NEVER, unless something INSIDE the speaker cabinet fails.
The connector straps used my most manufacturers are functionally equivalent to 6ga wire.
@@Douglas_Blake_579 And are made of cheap steel thats got a tiny amount of gold plating
@@Synthematix
Yes, and???
Good 👍 stuff 👏👏
Very good explanation of the bi-wire myth.
The cross over does the job to separate low and high frequencies and also keeping the load impeadance correct.
Correct. If you split the crossover at the speaker by removing the jumper links, you can send low and high frequency current separately through two cables.
@@ProffAndy
No you can't. If the two wires you run across your room are connected together at the amplifier, you are sending exactly the same signal to both.
The only way to individuate them is with a line level crossover and bi-amping.
@@Douglas_Blake_579 If you measure current between the amp and the low frequency speaker terminals, only low frequency current will be detected. Likewise, only high frequency current is carried by the cable between the amp and HF terminals. Current (which causes the speaker drivers to produce sound) is split between the cables in a bi-wire configuration. That's an easily proven scientific fact.
@@ProffAndy
I know perfectly well how a speaker works.
Yes, there will be a difference in current between the two leads. But unless you are using inadequately sized wire, that won't make a whole lot of difference to the sonic results.
@@Douglas_Blake_579 I stated that in my first comment, which you claimed was incorrect.
Thank Gawd for this - I keep TELLING them,,,,!!!
You'd be better off paralleling both wires to lose that last lil bit of resistance! - and maybe get an extra .1 (.01?) dB or something (don't do this folks, just ONE stretch of decent wire is ENOUGH!)
Yes, theoretically you could leave the jumper straps in place and parallel any number of wires: 2, 3, 7, 61 etc. but all are silly compared to using ONE wire of an adequate gauge. . . . Hmm, I wonder if they'll now market blenders with dual AC cords claiming they make tastier milk shakes? LOL
Remember adding cable changes the capacitance inductance balance. Many amplifiers are marginally stable. Whilst safe enough they change sound as previously described.
My illusion has convinced me that bi wiring my speakers improved, especially in the crossover’s range where the speakers blend. Fortunately my wires are much more affordable but I’m hooked!
Very clear video. Thanks Thumbs up
Theoretically there should be differences between single wiring and bi-wiring, at least when the speaker is made for bi-amping /bi-wiring and there are different biding posts for bass and treble: In single wiring, the signal reaches the treble posts with a delay and has to pass through the connectors which usually are of different quality and geometry than your speaker cable.
Then we have the electro-magnetic interaction between the two sets of cables which, theoretically, in the case of bi-wiring should increase the noise. That is undesirable of course but on the other hand, a bit of noise makes the cable sounding more "open and lively" - i.e. in such a case the geometry acts as a tone control.
We can't prove that the human ear can grasp all those fine details, but I can remember that in my second hi-fi system, which was quite unbalanced with a quite insolent treble (Pioneer legato link cd player, Pioneer amplifier and Mission 780 SE speakers, with Kimber 4PR speaker cable) single wiring was making the sound a bit calmer, sweeter and warmer.
If you listen to the video, there is absolutely no possibility of any difference, not even theoretically speaking
@@carlosw1687 Scientific theory arises from experiments and not vice versa.
That said, you can still listen to your music with your cd player from the 80s if you wish. It still writes "Perfect sound forever" on the box.
𝐕𝐈𝐃𝐄𝐎 𝐏𝐀𝐑𝐓 𝟐, discussing a "clever trick", IS NOW POSTED: ruclips.net/video/NJhFxuymlCI/видео.html
Honestly, when I saw the title, I was expecting some derp incoming. How refreshing to see a video on the subject that doesn't rely entirely on the removal of lipids from snakes!
The world of Hi-Fi is full of myths that audiophiles still believe.
I have spent all my working life as an A/V repair tech and i always found it very ammusing
at the latest ideas that appeared in the magazines of the 70/80's.
The markup on all the junk that was puhed as must have cures for faults that more often than not
only existed in peoples minds.
Bi-Wiring, No Tone Controls etc all made the manufacturers a fortune
Well put.
Dude, such a satisfying video. You knocked it out of the park. Just bought dual post speakers but don't have the gear to bi-amp them, so traditional configuration it will be. Thanks.
Thanks
Absolutely no benefits in doing so. I have never noticed any difference bi-wiring the speakers, nor Bi-amping them, keep the jumpers and you will have exactly the same sound, better buy a set of very good cables I tried this on my B&W 800 D3 and the Sonus Faber Aida, and at the end I believe it was a waste of money on very expensive cables.
This only would work if is no cross overs and each channel is 100% separate from the other. If not its Absolutely no benefits in doing so. I have never noticed any difference bi-wiring the speakers, nor Bi-amping them, keep the jumpers and you will have exactly the same sound, better buy a set of very good cables I tried this on my B&W 800 D3 and the Sonus Faber Aida, and at the end I believe it was a waste of money on very expensive cables.
That is my opinion as well. This only would work if is no cross overs and each channel is 100% separate from the other.
Excellent! A very informative video. What's your take on expensive audio cables?
They are a decades-long, ongoing rip off. Optimal performance is attainable at very low prices although this is not to say any old wire will do fine. You need to use an adequate gauge of copper wire for the speaker impedance and run (length) which can be determined by consulting a reputable wire table such as this one: www.roger-russell.com/wire.htm#wiretable Differences heard with expensive exotic wires are a combination of the placebo effect, every single person on earth without exception is potentially susceptible to (so double blind test conditions are always necessary for wire listening tests), marketing lies, or an odd inductance/capacitance of the wire which makes the amp misbehave or exhibit a skewed frequency response the listener may errantly identify as an "improvement".
Exactly what i suspected all along, Active BiAmping is the only thing that would make a difference. And i bet we can argue if there are more benefits than disadvantages with that too.
Oh active biamping has NO disadvantages apart from cost and complexity.
@@engjds I use Hypex plate amps. Crossover and amp all in one tidy package set into the back of the speaker.
@@garethonthetube Dont know the brand, but active is the way to go, I was thinking best route might be something like a programable miniDSP, not sure if you could fit a good quality amplifier in the back of a speaker though and not reduce the box volume to such an amount you would need high excursion (with higher distortion) at low frequencies. No, I think it is better to make everything external ideally, unless you have a large floorstander with excess box volume beyond the thiele small parameter calculations for the box size.
i have system amplifier onkyo a9010 and speaker sb acoustic eka. experiment with various cable for biwire ; best result with qed cable for low and vandenhul cable for high. smooth treble, open midrange, and tight bass. i think the vandenhul somehow smoothing the treble. i can hear difference by switching cable, with only youtube source on android tv. since then, i only buy speaker with biwire
I was always perplexed by the double terminal sets, to me the only use is to bi-amp using an active crossover before the amps, however none of the speakers I saw had the ability to disable the internal crossover to allow this to work, so it just left me confused.
Basically the takeaway from this is that in consumer electronics all bi wiring is doing is increasing the physical size of the "wire" going into the speaker box. And that bi wiring is 100% an amp thing and not a speaker thing. Basically there are only two occasions when bi wiring matters 1) you have inadequate gauge wires and the two together make it adequate and 2) You are bi amping since then the signal is truly on separate circuits since they come from two different sources
Yes, effectively, but personally I would not describe either form of bi-amping (active nor passive) as "varieties of bi-wiring". I think of bi-wiring, dual wiring, active bi-amping, and passive bi-amping as four distinctly different things even though all four use two sets of speaker cables.
Effect of no-wiring… IS HALVING THE RESISTANCE OF THE SPEAKER CABLES!
Hmm just get CAT6/5e network cable & try this!! Worked for me.
I made my own power amp with active cross over. The effect of this is I had to buy matching woofers and tweeters to make my own speakers….
Yeah I had to specify the cross over point based on the woofer/ tweeter combination.
Who cares what people say. What do the measurements prove? Bi- wiring sounds like snake oil to me. That being said, my living room system is bi-wired (I couldn't hear a difference). My man-cave system is bi-amped (class a/b to mids and highs and class d to lows).
If you take a 10 meter speaker wire, listen to it, and measure it, but then chop off 2mm of its length and then re-test it, you can find teeny tiny differences, for example in its reduced resistance (if your measurement gear is good enough) but this doesn't prove there is an AUDIBLE difference. This is, however, EXACTLY the dirty trick technique some bi-wire marketers use to fool people. In fact some measurement gear will show tiny differences even if you change NOTHING just due to expected vagaries in the setup. Even things like minor variation in your test probe clamp tightness or speaker binding post tightness can change the results slightly. I've seen it myself.
So you have your opinion, everyone else is wrong. We need more of these kinds of videos. Its really a video about nothing. You sound confused about the bigger picture.
I'm not confused and understand the science because I've worked in high end audio for decades. Should you have listening test evidence (collected under bias controlled conditions and showing meaningful statistical significance) which contradicts my position though, I'd love to see it.
No myth is busted here. Pointing out the same signal at the end of a highly conductive cable connected to a low impedance amplifier is trivially obvious. You measured voltage, not current. The current will be separated. I don't believe there will be a sonic improvement, or even detectable difference, but you are incorrect by very basic rules of electronics. Perhaps this realisation is why there is no part 2?
Part two is coming very soon, within the week I currently expect. The main topic is current division however to appeal to a broad RUclips audience, most of whom have no background in audio nor electronics, I don't discuss the complex nature of the speaker crossover's impedance curve and phase angle per frequency, but instead simply focus on describing the division as "the tweeter section draws a smaller current while the woofer draws the majority of the current" which is indeed typically true.
There is an inside joke about Bi-Wiring that goes Bi-Wiring = Buy Wiring IE: Its a scam to make you buy more wire.
That's an oldie but a goody. Another good one that doesn't work so well it text, but works great verbally is: "It is critical for the best sound that you bi wire. Because if you don't buy any to connect your speakers you won't hear anything!"
I can t explain why but different materials favor different frequecies . Then copper enhances lows while Ag enlaces highs. That may be an advantage in bi wiring.
I can explain why. Because its an old audiophile myth so no backing evidence is necessary to explain it. Aluminum, for example, is not a terribly good conductor however if you make the wire thick enough to carry the unimpeded signal the ear won't care: it will sound the same as copper, silver, etc.. There are certain minimum requirements to meet but they aren't all that hard to do and multi-strand copper is a good balance of high conductivity and affordability so that's usually what's recommended. If using the right gauge it, it is audibly perfect to all ears on all systems regardless of cost IF THE TEST IS CONDUCTED UNDER DOUBLE BLIND CONDITIONS.
It took me to 24 mins until I didn't doubt my very first response that bi-wiring was indeed a sham. whew.
Shhhhh. My video is designed to get EVERYONE to watch it and understand it regardless of which side of the fence they fall on prior to learning the truth.
It matters where they touch. It was shown that hi and low frequencies tend to separate with bi-wiring.
Nope, my analyzer measurements proved they don't separate before the crossover, here: 14:47
TY I just picked up a set of KEF Uni Q speakers and had no idea why they had extra inputs
YW
It all passes through the same crossover
Excelente información. Comparto todo lo indicado en su video.
Un saludo.
Gracias
what if the lows and high have separate electronics separate cross overs, inside the box.
"The box"? ACTIVE bi-amping has slight benefits but don't confuse it with PASSIVE bi-amping nor bi-wiring, the things typically discussed in most consumer gear owners manuals. 3:27
Yes its snake oil, great video
So, bottom line, just run a single set of wires and you get the same result?
Yes. Use an adequate gauge of copper wire for the speaker's impedance and the length of the run, with the jumper bars securely in place, connecting to either the top or bottom terminals (it doesn't matter) and you are good to go.
I would Bi-Amp with tubes on top if I could and class D on the bottom for sure.
If you Bi Amp you dont need any passive crossover inside the speaker box..and you have to install an active crossover inbetween preamp and main amp..
You might have missed it, but this video is about bi-wiring, not bi-amping. Please stay on topic, thanks.
That's a good joke "Bi-wiring is really Buy wiring", in most cases it makes no other difference.😃
I does make a difference, to the dealers selling the consumer twice as much wire as they need. It's called "Bi-profits"
Nice job! I’m on board. I’ve never heard any difference with biwiring. Just doesn’t make sense.
Now biamping is a totally different subject. I have heard a huge difference with biamping
When it come to speakers, the impedance or resistance as the case may be is very low compared to what you have in the input; like microphone and other pick-ups.