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".
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.
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
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.
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.
@@Douglas_Blake_579 Nearly all owners manuals of speakers with dual sets of binding posts discuss bi-wiring, tacitly agreeing it has benefits, and none explain that it is effectively a worthless change that costs twice as much as a single wire run.
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.
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.
I'm going back around 20 years ago when Technics amplifier died. I had around a £500 budget to replaced my previous amp, so I started some research. I arranged an appointment with my then local store Audio Excellence In Cardiff south wales UK. During my visit I did learn about Bi amping, and Bi Wireing. A week later I was sold on the idea, and subsequently exceeded my budget into several thousands of pounds. I purchased 1x pre amp, and 4 power amps, all Rotel. As well as the amps I also purchased a pair of Bowers and Wilkins 704s. I still have all of these components today and the system is still sounding awesome, with no issues whatsoever. I think my only complaint was that the system really needs to be driven at quite high volume to get that bass I require. The bass issue was overcome by the purchase of a Sunfire 1000w subwoofer. The system now has around 1780 watts in all, that has never been pushed passed the 12 o clock position. This system does really give you that experience of a live, full on rock act with clarity, and eye vibrating bass. I have often wondered if I could have achieved this with 2 power amps, one running each speaker, and if anything would be compromised at all ???????? Nevertheless, I hope my system will continue to give me many more years of weekend music experiences that I very much enjoy. Great video.
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.
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
Dear M Zillch What a splash looking your video so nicely and profund explained (slowly and clear) that also non US people can fully understand. Your deep knowledge and vast experiences are so valuable and more importantly to save loads of money. During the last months I watch so many videos getting only confused the more I watch. My opinion is now clear, also underpinned by the articles you attached. In my opinion what matters could be buying a good shielded cable and make it by yourself. Thank you for sharing all your knowledge! Watching next video now. With my kindest regards from Switzerland, Peter
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".
@12:00 There's a concept in ham radio whereby the signal you transmit goes to the end of the antenna and then out into the air. However, some of that signal bounces from the end of the antenna back to the transmitter. I forgot what that's called, but it's a real problem especially for high power of 100 watts or more (to a max of 1500 watts per FCC rules). So, ham radio operators are often instructed to construct baluns. You're supposed to install them as near to the base of the antenna as possible - I think. That balun acts as a shield of sorts. It's really a filter that stops most if not all of the backward signal so it doesn't go back into the transmitter and blow up your rig. I wonder if a similar phenomenon occurs in consumer audio. Does some of the signal bounce back from the tweeter and woofer back to the amplifier? Even if that were the case, I don't see how that bounce-back signal would affect the sound. I'm just wondering if the bounce back occurs in consumer audio systems. Thank you for the video! We need more people like you and like the guy in @Audioholics!
A common tactic of snake oil wire vendors is to invoke transmission line theory and RF principles to the *audio* frequencies and wire distances we typically use in home audio. In truth these things don't usually matter, at least at any significant level, but they rely on the fact that most people won't know this. Here's an analogy of how their scam works: "Science such as this paper published in a prestigious journal [cited and actually true] has shown that a car's mass largely determines its acceleration with a given engine. The lower the mass, the faster the car's acceleration. Our research team has devised a floor mat vacuum cleaner that pulls out 50% more dirt than the competitor's, so your car weighs less so you will have better, faster acceleration". Sneaky huh? What they claim is actually theoretically true but it's just that it has no meaningful impact. See, it's not that signal reflections in wires don't exist; its that in audio applications over the distances/frequencies we use in home settings these "reflections" don't amount to anything significant we'd need to worry about. People devising transatlantic phone line distances, on the other hand, might have to worry, but we don't.
@@m.zillch3841Ok, that answers my questions. Thank you! I've always wondered that. As for the vacuum cleaner example, it would in fact affect the car's acceleration, by .0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001. Too bad races don't measure to that accuracy. Jajajajajajajaja
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 own a ton of Sonus Faber. I have the entire Home Collection. So great; just single binding posts. Franco Serblin believed more in listening to the changes that can be made to your crossover. I heard or read years back, that his earlier designs had bi-wire option because if he didn’t do it, his speakers would not sell. The Home series, the Cremona and others before he sold the company were ALL single binding posts. Then, the new managers brought back bi-wiring. He started another speaker company; Franco Serblin, all single binding posts. He passed in 2013. His son (in-law) runs the company now. Single binding posts. I have just picked up a pair abused SF Concerto Grand Piano. So beat up and you can longer find the drivers. Going to change some stuff but might just change the terminal cup to single. Hopefully Mr Serblin will not be upset with me from heaven. Edit: I was really surprised to see the CONCERTO GPS at the end of your video; Confirmed my post as well. One of my pair is missing the tweeter and woofer ( luckily the passives are there). I played some Beach Boys in mono. Holy smokes. Such a balanced speaker. I really would like to get those marble bases.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Polk 700 speakers ,Yamaha 803 amp. Just Bi wired them this morning from both A -B speaker outputs. Noticed a difference straight away. Sounds more tight and bright. Didn't think it would but I have noticed a difference for the better. Thank you.
Was your test conducted under blind conditions or is that not necessary? If the sound becomes "more tight and bright" how do you explain that nobody has ever been able to either record or measure this difference? If I'm testing if I have telekinesis (mind over matter) and try flipping a coin, trying to force it to be "tails" with my mind, and I'm successful, does that prove I indeed have telekinesis?
@@m.zillch3841 Hi. Only what I've noticed while listening. No test ect. Only my ears. I listen to a lot of music every day and after Bi Wiring I noticed a difference. It's sounds clearer, brighter ,tighter . I m not a technician, just someone who loves listening to music and it's my way of saying that I noticed an improvement and that's all that matters to me. Thank you.
@chacha4119 Everyone, without exception, is subconsciously influence by prior knowledge and their other senses besides hearing. This bias we are unaware of is colloquially called "the placebo effect". As it applies to audio is firmly established and has been studied by published scientists like Dr. Sean Olive: seanolive.blogspot.com/2009/04/dishonesty-of-sighted-audio-product.html For the reasons he states audio tests need to be blind, not "sighted".
@@m.zillch3841 Hi. I sit down and listen to music for at least 5 hours every day and I don't really care for all the research and technical stuff ,I just listen to music with my ears and can feel it . I heard a difference and I'm happy with that and will continue to leave it as is. Many thanks for your comments.
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.
I've triwired loudspeakers. Testing the input wires from souce your bound to get full signal. The xover slits it down so that tweeters aren't blown and delivery is to that area of rel frequency.
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.
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...
I haven't read all the comments so I apologize if I am repeating a point. I had been informed that the Filters actually prevented, in the case, of hi frequency, low frequency traveling along the wire(from the amp). At the time I read this(can't remember where) I found it hard to get my head around the idea. If we assume , for arguments sake, this is correct then your demonstration would be wrong. I use bi wiring, for a very specific reason My speaker cables run 5 meters ( each channel) It was easier and much cheaper using the two sets of speaker outputs on my amp and the two sets of posts on each speaker to bi-wire. ( My amp doesn't have balanced outputs)
The reason people bi-wire is because of marketing. Assuming one uses an adequate gauge single wire from the get-go with properly seated jumper bars left in place, there are no benefits from bi-wiring other than for the dealer who makes bi-profits from the sale of twice as much wire as the consumer actually needs.
No the tweeter filters will not prevent the bass part of the signal from being present on their wire. If you are sourcing the signal from a single amplifier output the same signal will appear on both of the bi-wire leads. An oscilloscope, or even a voltmeter, will confirm that signal voltage is identical on both branches. What will be different is the amount of current flowing for each side of the setup... the tweeter filters will allow more current above the crossover point where the woofer filters will allow more current below the crossover point.
@@Douglas_Blake_579 The exact same split in current occurs in BOTH wiring scenarios, single vs bi-wiring, but because one happens inside a wooden box and the other is visible, people foolishly think about only one of them. Current division being the same, but at different locations, is discussed in greater detail in part 2: ruclips.net/video/NJhFxuymlCI/видео.html
@@m.zillch3841 Yep, saw that. The only real difference is the added resistance in the long run to the tweeter, but unless you're using microphone cable that is negligable.
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.
Thank you for the video. As much as I understand this very well and to me it does totally fit the bill I have a pair of Castle Inversion 50 speakers with bi wiring/amping posts. When bridged there is a difference in sound when plugging them on the top set compared to the bottom one. Don't ask me why but it is to the point where I really hate their sound when plugged to the top. The same when I bi wire I can hear a very noticeable difference after a couple of minutes specially in the top end and how wide the speakers sound. Don't ask me what it is nothing changes but the wiring, these are regular speaker wires (as I don't believe in that) etc. It is the only set of speakers that does it. Different amps from tube to class D tried everything a weekend when I didn't have anything better to do. Fun though.
It shouldn't matter if you wire to the top inputs or the bottom ones on a speaker with the jumper straps in place IF the jumper straps are working properly. There are many reasons why they may not work properly though, where they are not making a good electrical connection: - they are bent - they are soiled with invisible finger oil from eating a peanut butter sandwich (ha ha) - they are dislodged - they are not seated properly - they are not tightened down securely etc.. Jumper straps are usually a solid bar of gold-plated metal but ones which are short lengths of wire could potentially have broken internal strands and how they flex will alter their conductivity/resistance of the bridge. This could give the illusion the top posts perform differently than the bottom posts, but it is really the integrity of the connections. The crimped on spade lugs at the ends of such short lengths of wire also may be compromised and are only making a partial connection without the full current capability of a good, solid, clean, peanut-butter-free connection. ha ha - -
@@m.zillch3841 In my case would be dulce de leche LOL. Yeah well I am mentioning this because I took measures to prevent bad connections etc, changed connectors, wires, and the bridge it is the gold plated one, but I've made my own as well with speaker wire as you suggest in the video. Can't talk about internals as I did not remove anything to check. I understand that it shouldn't make any difference I am just mentioning my experience because even not buying the snake oil I did find a case when I can say it does sound different. Thank you!
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!
Sounds like you are actually describing "active bi-AMPing", not bi-wiring (the topic of this video). What receiver model do you own? [I'm guessing it's an Onkyo?]
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.
I have a dual mono power amp, that, if I understand correctly, separately manages power for the two channels. This power amp allows to connect up to 4 speakers. I wanted to try biwiring so I uesed speaker set A to feed the trebles, and set Be to feed the lows. I see your point about the sent signal being full range, but isn't there any benefit at all in separately feeding power this way? I had the impression to hear some better clarity overall, even if I admit that since it's messy for me to change wires (not a lot of free space in the room unfortunately) I couldn't test multiple times going back and forth from single to mono wiring and so I just sat with my first impressions. A slightly better transient response, definitely nothing like a night and day diffrence. I didn't want to spend a fortune for wires so I used 2 sets I already had at home: a silver laminated set for the trebles, and copper for the lows. Can it be that the sound difference I hear is fust the product of this (weird...?) arrangement? I also see your point about studio gear not being bi wired, but limiters, compressors and mixers are not speakers. Studio monitors with active design are usually bi-amplified internally, but this (I believe) happens by means of an active crossover and this is a different story. I don't have any fancy super hi end stuff at home, but there is a clear sonic difference between my studio monitors (ADAM F7) and my hi fi speakers (Indiana Line TESI 561).
I my view passive bi-amping is a waste of amps, electricity, wires, and time to set up. Active bi-amping, on the other hand, can potentially have subtle advantages but it requires an active (electronic) crossover and the "benefits" are small, plus it requires proper measurement gear to be sure any differences heard aren't simply because the tweeter is accidentally being run at a slightly higher (or lower) level than the woofer, which would be a primitive but audible form of EQ [too much treble or too much bass], which listeners could quite easily mistake as "sound benefits".
@m.zillch3841 ----- I employ Bi-Amping and the differences are Huge in my Case. I have 115db Horns with a Mid Range Driver and Concentric tweeter. I have SET amps that provide 1.5 watts to each Horn. I also have Class 'D' amps that are bridged and provide 500 watts to each Bass Bin. - That is how this Horn System is designed and it sounds spectacular. The Horn amplifier receives the Full Signal from the Pre-amp to a Passive Crossover that provides the Hi Pass Filter above 270 Hz. to the Horns themselves (1.5 watts is a Huge amount of power to a Horn that measures 115db). The Bass amplifiers are provided the full signal from the Pre-Amp and have an active electronic Crossover in them that provides the Low Pass Filter to the Bass Bins below 270 Hz. --- The speaker system must be Bi-Amped because that is the way it is designed by the Manufacturer. The benefits are not subtle nor small. It is necessary for those that enjoy the sound of Low power of SET amps. --- Agree that Buy-Wiring is a complete Joke.
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!
I tried bi-wiring my Paradigm studio 100 v2s into my Yamaha A-S801 because Yamaha claimed it would sound better but it didn’t. It sounded pretty poor actually. It killed the bass but it definitely made a big difference. It sounds really good with cable jumpers and one set of speaker wire plugged in up top. I also tried plugging into the bottom connectors on the speakers and I didn’t like that either. I also have a Yamaha Aventage A/V receiver that allows for what Yamaha calls bi-amping and that actually made a big improvement in sound with that amp and same speakers. So in my experience this can all make a difference in sound. You have to play with it and find what works best for your set up.
Wow a great job of explaining bi-wiring! So the only that can improve your speakers is the gauge of wires! Now i understand when I purchased a set of speakers at Goodwill a passive subwoofer with two mono blocks one for each satellite speaker? But they wove two wires for each speaker terminal four wires instead of two wires! But the funny speaker set up? Running everything in to the subwoofer and then out to each separate speaker! Had a great sound? Wasn't sure if was the double wiring? Or the unusual speakers system of the Micron GS-5's & GS-10 subwoofer! I subscribed to your channel and at the same time you answered my old question of how to wire my old Toshiba SS-47 & SS-37 concaved 3 way speakers! They are over 50 years old purchased on the Rock (Okinawa) in 1973! They been around the world 🌎 and then some! Thanks again be Cool!
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.
Usually a three-way speaker that has dual sets of binding posts (I suppose some may have three sets, but "tri-wiring" or "tri-amping" is not very common in consumer audio) is dividing the tweeter and midrange section from the woofer, so it is just like the diagrams I already show but there is another step in that the HF input section has another division in the speaker's internal crossover to divide the mids from the highs. I do not advise using anything other than a single wire configuration, using an adequate gauge for the load and wire distance (as described in Roger Russell's Wire Table, see the link in the notes) and leaving the speaker's jumper straps/bars in place so that the one wire from the amp effectively connects to all of the speaker's sets of binding posts.
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
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
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.
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.
Is there any benefit at all to running two sets of cables to the high and low frequencies of the speaker in bi wiring formation if my integrated amp has speaker A and speaker B output (so speaker A feeds high and speaker B feeds low). I have had completely contradictory advice on this from two separate dealers. For clarity - It is not an AV amp with specific bi amp terminals but a regular (good quality and high power) integrated amp with two sets of speaker outputs. Many thanks in advance.
So by my read you mean a 2 ch integrated amp (not 4ch.) with outputs A and B. Lucky for you I address this EXACT question in great detail in part 2: ruclips.net/video/NJhFxuymlCI/видео.html
@@m.zillch3841 thanks. So no benefit at all I thought as it came out of four and went into four there may have been some benefit in the separation as there was no Y so to speak. I also thought that it would be double the power through speakers A and B but may have got that wrong. Many thanks.
@@AliRafati-xk9jg Correct. No benefit at all. Amps with dual outputs, A and B, sometimes let you control which pair is on and which is turned off. This can be useful if you want to place one set of full range speakers in one room and another set in some other room (and you may want to control which room is active at a given moment).
@@m.zillch3841 thanks very much for clarifying that. I’ve spent an awful lot on bi wired cabling and short length of ‘jumper cables’. What a waste of cash.
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.
Great presentation with which I agree, but I would like to add that we profess that perfection, though impossible would theoretically be a straight wire with gain. We also profess to keep speaker cables as short as possible. Also profess that any excess cables, or connectors cause signal degradation as that signal travels from the source to the listeners ears. These are all fine tuning issues that admittedly don’t directly relate to your thesis with which I totally agree with and applaud. I simply felt these additional issues could be helpful to those wishing to extract maximum fidelity from their systems. We’ll done.
Bi-wiring = Double the number of connection points = double the number of potential failure points = double the likelihood there will be some mishap or user error (for example, accidentally flipping the polarity of the left HF/tweeter input). Since bi-wiring has no benefits, a single run of an adequate gauge copper wire should be used.
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.
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.
Yes, you do. The benefits of active bi-amping are rather modest and hardly worth the complexity in my view, not that I'm claiming they are inaudible. You need an electronic crossover before the amplifiers which can be placed between a preamp OUT and the main amp INs. You also would ideally want microphones and calibration gear to be sure you have dialed in the correct settings and ideally a speaker which allows you to bypass the internal passive crossovers (rare,) or you'll need to consider opening your speaker to alter the wires internally, which voids the warranty. The main perk of active bi-amping is you eliminate the insertion loss (wasted power) of the speaker's passive electronics, or for some people the ability to intentionally dial in an EQ'd sound rather than a flat response. (For example, you intentionally set the crossovers's output to the tweeter at a higher level than the woofer.) I find modern day EQs, even some found in many receivers, integrated amps ,and prepros, more adept at this these days. This video and discussion is really about bi-wiring, not any variety of bi-amping, so I would rather not continue this discussion here. To learn more about active bi-wiring on your own I would suggest visiting Rod Elliot's site. He actually designs such systems professionally. Here is his FAQ page on the topic to get you started, should you wish to pursue this: www.sound-au.com/faq.htm#bi-tri
'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)
Hi and thanks for the info. 30 years ago I fell for Bi-Wiring (I was naive then). I don't think it makes any significant difference to the sound, but my Yamaha A-S301 amplifier can Bi-wiring speaker output A for bass and output B for Treble left and right. Turn the speaker switch on the front to A+B and set the impedance switch on the back to the speaker's impedance. Then you have Bi-wiring correctly according to the manual. Have a nice day.
Thanks. I was a Yamaha dealer for over two decades so I am familiar with their stuff. For good measure I also download the A-301 manual and examined it usa.yamaha.com/products/audio_visual/hifi_components/a-s301/downloads.html#product-tabs. Other than the added capability to turn off the tweeters vs. the woofers, say to verify they are working properly, on a 2-way speaker, by selecting JUST speakers A or JUST Speakers B, instead of normal "A+B/bi-wire mode", this is just like bi-wiring as described in my video. That switch on the front ensures both outputs, A + B, are both running, but they provide the exact same signal, i.e. a parallel connection to the same amp output. The proof is that the manual describes using the exact same position of the switch, "A + B/bi-wire" to simultaneously drive a secondary pair of speakers, say in the next room.
@@m.zillch3841 Thank you very much for your reply Mr. Ziich. That's also how I figured it went together. It's also a bit easier to Bi-wiring that way. I was wrong, my amplifier is A-S500 but the connections appear to be the same. What I find very confusing is the impedance setting. I have 1 set 8 ohm speakers which are wired from output a+b. I still don't know if it should be in high or low. In the manual p. 4 and 6: Caution. When making Bi-wiring connection, set impedance switches to high or low depending on your speakers' impedance. 6 ohms or higher set switch on HIGH. 4 ohms or higher set switch on LOW. Is it a mistake in the manual, I don't understand. :-). Higher than 4 ohm LOW setting. Higher than 6 ohms HIGH? 8 ohms is higher than both 4 and 6 ohms, does it matter which setting I use? Hope you can explain for me 🙂
@@sbromose1 Here's a quick tutorial on the impedance switch. It is not, as many think, an "optimization selection". It is more like a " maximum power output limiter to reduce the danger of over heating, especially problematic on lower impedance speakers at high volume, used to easily pass necessary UL and CSA safety testing requirements without the costly inclusion of a cooling fan or very large (and also costly) heat sinks which make the product taller/larger". More here: ruclips.net/video/Ou5bO8P2Drw/видео.html So what to select for maximum possible power and what to select for maximum safety are two different things. Also to be picky speakers don't actually have a single impedance, it varies by frequency and another thing called "phase angle". Detailed reviews in Stereophile and other magazines sometimes show the more detailed plots.
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.
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've always wondered if it would help to have *dual* amplifier's in *addition* *to* *the* *bi-wiring?* Digital electronic filtering is much more capable than the inductor, capacitor LPF, HPF in the cabinets.
Using two external amps, one receiving only the highs and the other only the lows, with a preceding active (powered) electronic crossover for the filtration stage instead of the speaker's internal passive crossover network (which ideally needs to be bypassed), so as to power the drivers directly is called "active bi-amping". It is less common in consumer electronics than in pro systems, but in my view it has only modest advantages now that we routinely EQ the sound with markedly more flexible and nearly infinitely adjustable circuits. [Using "bass management" in a consumer AVR with the deep bass being re-directed to just the sub's amp and sending only the higher frequencies to the AVR's own amp is actually a variety of active bi-amping.
Remember adding cable changes the capacitance inductance balance. Many amplifiers are marginally stable. Whilst safe enough they change sound as previously described.
Brilliant video. This makes so much sense, cause from the set up the cross over is still in play even when bi-wired. And bi-wiring is useless without a cross over in place. Kind of circular reasoning.
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.
I've Bi-Amped and have 4 Audiolab 8000 MX 125W monoblocks for the main speakers and a stereo amp for the centre speaker. I've bi wired the rears though.
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
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.
What is the difference between active and passive, Comsumer bi-amping? Both graphs look the same. Is that mean active bi-amp requires a cross over unit outside the speaker?
Active Bi-amping means each amp receives a pre-filtered signal containing either just the highs or the other one which gets just the lows, by the use of an external, electronic crossover. Ideally you also remove the speaker's internal passive crossover because it is no longer needed (in fact it even wastes a small amount of power) because you have already filtered the signals which then should go straight to the drivers.
Mr. Zillch, your so CORRECT! It's nothing more than $$$ in the Sellers pocket. I will never PAY more Money, for anything if I can't hear the "DIFFERENCE"! Because that's what it's all about WRIGHT? Good-quality AMPS, and Speaker these days are pretty dam good...... any gains in it's MUSICAL performance will be minimal, by adding Audio Jewelry. Yes, each AMP has it's own Signature Sound, and so do the Speakers. I have 4 different AMPS, and just as many pair of Speakers...... They all sound different, when I mix and match them,,,, the only REAL Difference... is WHICH ONE'S DO I USE for a certain genre(s). My Tube AMP is Superior in SOUND, (To ME) if I'm playing Blues & Jazz,,,,, but on the other hand, it's not the AMP I choose for Pop or Rock. I've seen dealers that DEMO there Brand(s) of speakers they want to Sale you,,,, run the Music throw a $10,000.00 AMP, and when you get those Speakers home, they sound nothing like what you heard at the SNAKE SHOP! Stereo Imaging, Stage Placement, on and on, I believe these things are in the RECORDING, they have to be in order to HEAR it..... just some AMPS and Speaker are better at bring those factors out. Stop throwing your MONEY away, Mr. Zillch has give you SOUND ADVICE! He has nothing to GAIN, but the SNAKE SHOP do $$
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.
The interesting thing to do is remove the filters, and use something like a dbx driverack pa2 and two amps, then you play pink noise to each driver to see where they play the best, then send a better digitally filtered signal to each, you MAKE a DSP better crossover; then pay music and can hear the difference, as you can remove some resonances with parametric eq, etc. You can work your way toward better audio as you can fight the problems of the cabinets, the drivers, the room modes by tweaking the signals. The same with a subwoofer : the dsp enable more slope in the filters. So you have less problems in the frequency domains where the drivers overlap. In a room with a lot of problems, it is better to listen to audio with some missing parts than a full signal with muddy resonances.
@@QuinnKallisti for me the DBX PA2 does it all : 2 way + sub. I think I have a repeatable and concrete gain in clarity. Also I can combat room modes better.
Great video! Is it true in a regular set up, using the jumpers, plugging my banana plugs into the HF or LF terminals, doesn’t matter which one is used? I can’t hear an audible difference
It doesn't matter, assuming a good/solid connection is had BOTH ways. The people who claim to hear a difference either have a poorly seated connection on one of the two, without a solid, large metal surface area to large metal surface area connection, that's clean, or something is faulty (like a cold solder joint internally), or most likely they are simply imagining things (which happens all the time in audio, no matter who you are, so blind testing is always necessary, FOR EVERYONE, including pro's, reviewers, scientists, myself, you name it. NO exceptions.).
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.
I sold dozens of different speakers with double binging posts and only one had a switch on the back so that you could optionally bypass the internal crossover (and this was decades ago). It is quite rare.
Thank you. The last two minutes were the best. Do you know of any easily understood examples of separate treble and bass amps that are for simple two way speakers? We all know of one area where biamping is used. That is the amplified sub woofer which along with its two way speaker uses a main amp and the amp in the sub. Biwiring is out the window with a three way speaker. Anyone for tri-wiring? How about quad?
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.
You need *two* separate amps (or two mono-blocks) to really benefit from bi-wiring your speakers. This is also why all *studio monitors* have *two* amplifiers built in (say 70W for the mid/low driver, and 30W for the tweeter). Not all higher end speakers are a bi-wire design (or tri-wire for that matter), but if they are you should deffo make use of it. Dynaudio, for example, uses single binding posts on most of their speakers (such is the design of their crossover).
Ok, how about if the amplifier has 2 speaker output posts so could run individual speaker wires from the amp to the speakers rather than them, splitting them off. Is this still bogus?
Thanks for your question. On nearly every amplifier/receiver I know of, with a few oddball exceptions where a distinction between the two is usually explained in the manual, the "Speakers A" and "Speakers B" outputs are simply the result of an internal Y-split of a singular amp circuit's output, inside the unit (so you don't see it), feeding two sets of external binding posts, wired in parallel. Usually this is meant to power two pairs of speakers, say one in the main room and another in the adjacent room. In the end, this is still the same circuit as the two described in this video, so there should be no difference, however if they have provided independent on/off switches for the Spkrs A and Spkrs B outputs, and you have wired them separately to the HF and LF inputs of a bi-wired speaker with its jumper bars removed, you could play around with hearing just your high frequencies or just your low frequencies by selecting just Spkrs A, or just Spkrs B, on the Amp's control panel, instead of listening normally to the full range sound by selecting Spkrs A + B simultaneously.
@@m.zillch3841 thank you for your prompt reply. On the back of my amplifier, there are two separate binding posts, speaker, connections, one above the other, with no description in the manual or distinguishing marks on the back panel on how it all works. There is also no A/B switch so it is specifically for bi-wiring.
What about is amp has dedicated extra output for bi wire . I have for left chanel 4 , and right 4 as well My each speaker ready with 4 inputs . It's look like manufacturers amp vincent sv237mk and speaker make ready everything to goes in this way for the best results . One time someone told me to try with thin cable ( might be tel wire) to using for tweeter separately in bi wire
Your diagram shows one source from the Amp splitting as it leaves .... My amp has 2 separate outputs for the highs and lows. So actually 4 wires, 2 from one output goes low and another output goes to the High. I can also adjust the crossover point , low to high, from within the Amp.... would this be an Active Bi-amp setup . It's explained in the manual that a separate section of the Amp pushes high and a other section pushes low ???
@m.zillch3841 It's an Onkyo TX-RZ810. Also, the speakers are 3 ways biampable .... I'm assuming the tweeter and midrange would be together, and the woofer separate...?
Yes, as I understand it most bi-ampeable 3-way designs separate the woofer from the rest. You could easily test it though by connecting just one set of binding posts and holding your ear up to the drivers to see which ones were still active.@@joeserrenti9857
@m.zillch3841 Yep ... that's how they split ... teeter, mid / woofer .... Now I've had these connected both ways, but where it seems to come into play is especially noticeable with demanding movies at theater volume levels ..... As we know the highs and mids grab power, but nothing compared to the woofers. So if you can allocate say a solid 100 watts to the woofers and 100 watts to the tweeter/mids , there's plenty of headroom to avoid distortion, even if the power needed by the top end is overkill. If the setup is available on the speakers and amp, might as well use it, and it is nice to be able to find your own sweet spot with the crossover control. Thank God they came out with multiple sub outputs and controls right from the amplifier as well as self powered subs. I blew through a few line in/line out subs in the past ...!
I'm I likely to have any audible difference from running two sets of cable from the same Arcam Alpha 9 power amp? One set of cable from terminal A of the amp and the other set from terminal B of the amp to the highs and lows of my MA speakers? Many thanks
A review in SoundStage (I'll link to at the end this post, should you wish to read it) mentions only that the unit has "two switched outputs". Assuming this is like the vast majority of other designs, where there are two parallel pathways emanating from the same, singular, internal amp section, without any additional electronics in either path (except for the on/off switch to sever the sound of either path at will) this would provide a variety of bi-wiring, when both outputs A and B are turned on, where you can optionally on occasion listen to just the highs or just the lows when connected to a bi-wired speaker, simply by switching off the frequency section you don't want to hear with the A/B selector. Normally both outputs, A + B, would need to be turned on to hear the FULL frequency range, of course. This would offer no other advantages beyond traditional bi-wiring where both wires connect to the exact same output posts, but might be useful in, say, diagnosing if your 2-way speaker has blown driver: by listening to them individually by selecting just A or just B, so you could verify both are working properly. . . . Of course you also could just walk over to the speaker and hold your ear up to the individual drivers too, which is what I do. Normally two sets of outputs are provided on most amps so consumers can play an alternate set of speakers, say in the adjacent room. I do not recommend bi-wiring, with or without A/B output posts, because there is no evidence-based science supporting the notion it provides any audibly better sound beyond using just one, normal, singular run of wire with an ADEQUATE gauge. [Of course if you use an INadequate gauge for the single run, but then switch to using two runs instead of one, it increases the effective gauge and lowers the resistance the amp "sees", which theoretically may account for some of the instances where people claim to hear a "bi-wiring" difference.] www.soundstagenetwork.com/revequip/staff07.htm
@@m.zillch3841 thanks for your detailed response and the link. I'm using QED 79 strand cable in one run, but I do have another run of that cable, I used to have two power amps many moons ago with different speakers that were biamped. I was interested to learn of any benefit from using the second run of cable to bi wire after seeing your excellent you tube video. Many thanks 👍
@@PaoloMF The only benefit to bi-wiring would be if you have reason to suspect the existing singular run is too skinny for the particular run and speaker impedance, as outlined at that former McIntosh engineer's excellent site on speaker wires, I link to in the notes below the video.
I have speakers Henry kloss tower 2 speakers they have 4 hookups, the top has a golden looking piece that is hooked up to the negative and positive. Then the wires are hooked up on the bottom red and black speaker hookups, is that the best way for sound? Thanks for any information.
Based on my examination of the Cambridge Soundworks Tower II speaker binding posts online, they appear to be nearly the same as the Polk speakers I show in this video: The gold plated metal bars, aka "jumpers", should be left in place so connecting to either the top two binding posts or the bottom two doesn't matter electrically, because they are effectively coupled together as one entity. A SINGLE run of speaker wire should be used (so NOT bi-wiring) to the amp with the red/positive (+) lead connected to the position labelled as such and the remaining one, the black/negative (-), connected to other.
Talking about voltage and current? When there are 3-way in the speaker and bi wire is made, only one connects to the subwoofer and the other connection is divided into tweeter and medium, the consumption of the subwoofer is much greater than that of the tweeter and the medium, by making bi wire 50% It goes to the subwoofer and the other 50% goes to the midrange and tweeter. If there is only one connection when reaching the speaker, it will be divided into three, 33.3% to the subwoofer, 33.3% to the middle and 33.3% to the tweeter, or what happens to the voltage and current in this case?
As I show in the part 2 video the division of the current is not 50/50 when bi-wiring but rather the woofer section draws the majority of the current. This exact same division also occurs inside a singly wired speaker BUT the Y-split division where this occurs is hidden from our view, inside the speaker cabinet. [Out of sight; out of mind.] So they are effectively the same actually. ruclips.net/video/NJhFxuymlCI/видео.html
This video was already much longer than I had hoped because people prefer quick, short, explanations. I'm thinking about doing a video on passive vs. active bi-amping, AND BOY DO PEOPLE CONFUSE THE TWO, in fact I think the marketers reinforce that by simply calling passive bi-amping "bi-amping", so it is no wonder many people are confused, but I'm currently stumped on how to thoroughly explain it in a short video. It would also be stymied (spelling?) by the many pervasive myths people have about amplifiers in general, making it especially difficult to discuss when the very premises many people have is incorrect. . . . . Maybe in the future though; stay tuned. . .
Then it isn't a test of bi-wiring: it is a test of if different wires sound different. Some people concoct ridiculous scenarios to justify bi-wiring using this tactic: "You'll get great overall performance if you use a wire that's only poor in the bass on your tweeter, and another wire that's only poor in the highs on the woofer." What makes this misguided is it forgets that there are zillions of very affordable wires which work well at ALL frequencies. That's what pros use after all: one, appropriate gauge, full range wire, typically copper. [Also the performance of the silly-to-consider wires actually becomes different when they are connected simultaneously in parallel to the amp (bi-wiring) with another wire with different properties. It is like you are testing out yet a third, new type of wire.]
Roger Russell's wire table explains what gauge to use for what distance and speaker impedance: roger-russell.com/wire/wire.htm#wiretable If you are stuck with an inadequate gauge, if you use two parallel runs of it, what I call "dual wiring" in the video, and leave the speaker's jumper straps in place, you will effectively reduce the run's resistance. The math is easy: "subtract 3". So using two 16AWG wires in parallel would effectively give you one 13 AWG wire. Using two 18 AWG wires would be effectively 15 AWG. Sorry, I don't know how to convert millimeters into AWG. You'll have to research that on your own. Using multiple wires is clumsy, untidy, doubles the number of potential failure points, and doubles the potential to accidentally botch the polarity (+/-) of one the wires connections because you have twice as many to make, so I would suggest converting to a proper single wire run when feasible.
Roger Russell, whom I link to in the notes below the video, has tested many wires and has the same conclusion I do: wires differ in many measurable ways but for most consumers, assuming you stick to normal lengths and geometries of multi-strand copper twin-lead, what matters is resistance. His Wire Table explains everything you need to know. Although you can design wire that messes with the sound, such as inaccurately reproducing the linearity of the high frequencies, these are to be avoided if your goal is faithful sound reproduction, with a high fidelity to the incoming signal being transferred along to the wire's output. Some naive reviewers may hear such wires (that change the sound) as being supposedly "better", hearing all sorts of things related to, for example, "3-Dness and sound stage", much like they might hear a change in the EQ via a bass or treble control knob twist away from a flat response, but they are actually just examples of inaccurate, manipulated sound reproduction. Proper EQ should instead be accomplished, when needed, by other means that are user-controllable, variable, and defeatable, such as by using tone controls or an equalizer.
Sorry for sounding arrogant, however: Anyone who can't hear the differnce between bi-wire or Tri-wire versus single wire, has limited hearing. The point of Bi-wiring is to elimiate or greatly reduce the EMF effect from the woofer on the tweeter or mid and tweeter, the sonic improvement is as clear as day on most speakers -
The back (or counter) EMF "difference" argument is based on an incorrect belief that either electricity "can't travel over a longer wire" or "can't escape outside of a wooden box". Neither is true. Usually with modern day amps the quite weak counter EMF is well controlled due to the damping factor of the amp, but even if it weren't, this potential electrical pathway for the woofer's counter-EMF "harming" the tweeter's sound quality [and we'll pretend for the moment the tweeter's crossover doesn't successfully filter this bass content away} exists in BOTH wiring scenarios, as shown with the on screen graphic and text here: 11:47 There is no published evidence that bi-wiring, compared to a single wire that's adequate for the task, has any audible consequences under blind testing, yet such speakers with two sets of inputs have been around for over half a century (so this isn't "too new to have been tested").
Since my late teens I have heard the most minute differences as small as resting equipment on different surfaces and how that affects the resonances and sonic performance of the equipment it rests on. I have always heard the sonic differences between cables , both interconnect and speaker. The difference between single and Tri-wire on my PMC MB2/XBD's is huge, not remotely subtle. It can even show up as a leaner sound using REW. The claims of greater transperancy and detail are spot on. How can you measure some of these things? I trust my ears for the most part but want to understand what I'm hearing and WHY at the same time. I've been tested a few times by people in the industry and a client of mine who is a Emmy Award winning electronics engineer who leans more towards your point of view. When I get 32 out of 33 tests correct, it has to be more than luck / or should I go to Vegas ....lol / nah , never had any luck there Why I watched part of your video is because I having s sudden issue with an amp that supposedly doesn't like Bi-wire, at leaast that's what the manufactrer is telling me now. But why after 18 months does the amp suddenly not like Bi-wire speaker connections and over heating???? They're actually Tri-wire, and the sound difference is huge between that and single. There was a time, for the longest time, that I was skeptical of after market power cords. 2 years ago I finally heard them make a positive difference in my system which is quite dranatic. Most after market power cords cuase detriment to the sound, but they are capable of changing the sound! There are sonic differences which we have not yet found a way of measuring. I don't like Voodoo and I actually design soundrooms & HT rooms as part of my living so I use REW to measure responses in rooms and speakers as well. Having a system & room of the caliber I do, is a luxury indeed, and it blows me away every time I listen to it. The transperancy, detail, 3 dimensional imaging and generally lifelike sound is truly remarkable. I am blessed to have this and still very good hearing for my age. Bottom line: I don't subscribe to Voodoo and hope I never do. I'm generally skeptical when critically listening. A healthy skepticism is healthy - Regarding EMF - I remember when I had a double 15" active JBL system. The bass drivers were wired in parrallel, so with the amplifiers disconnect to the bass drivers, you could physically push one driver and then see the other follow suit. The electrical signal was so strong with 22lb magnets it could do this. Drivers of this strength would produce EMF Other industry experts say it's that EMF / back energy that causes the weaker upper mid and high frequencies to get disturbed or altered along the way, that's what we're supposed to be hearing less of in Bi-Wire mode. The idea that crossover is filtering it away doesn't really hold water IMHO, the electrical impulses are getting disturbed in the wire before they get to the X-over or driver/s. I believe dielectrics and surface contact can affect the way electrical signals flow through a conductor & affect sound. I hear too many differences with cables which specs don't always indicate...
Sighted testing to evaluate things you mention, like power cable "audible differences", is worthless. Learn why from a leading audio expert, at one point the president of the prestigious Audio Engineering Society, Sean Olive: seanolive.blogspot.com/2009/04/dishonesty-of-sighted-audio-product.html@@user-eg7bg9dz4j
Huh. I thought I was getting better sound bi-wiring my Klipsch R8000f's. But this shows not so much? I thought I was getting better separation etc. My 12 gauge wire is now 6 gauge if I bi-wire. Maybe that accounts for the better sound? But it does sound better unless I am fooling myself. And I could have just dual wired. Ouch!
Using dual parallel runs of wire changes the effective gauge by 3. An easy to remember formula! So using two 12 AWG wires effectively changes the resistance the amp sees to 9 AWG. Roger Russell (RIP) was a great wire table to determine what wire is appropriate for a particular run (distance) and speaker impedance: roger-russell.com/wire/wire.htm#wiretable
Normal and bi-wiring are electrically the same, you are correct. However, speaker guage is effectively doubled and this accounts for audible differences, if any.
It's not exactly the same as using a dual (parallel run) of wire to a single binding post speaker though, it is inferior. For example, consider the section of the speaker which draws the most current, the woofer in the case of a 2-way speaker: bi-wiring has no increase in strand count to the woofer. [Off the top of my head. . . and I just woke up so still sleepy :) ]
@@m.zillch3841 I appreciate your work but I've had this hobby for a long time too. Think of it this way, only difference between bi-wire and double run is the jumper. Same deal. I support what you're doing.
![Felix "Unfair" | [Stray Kids : SKZ-PLAYER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Oswujxm2Ag0/mqdefault.jpg)
![Seungmin "그렇게, 천천히, 우리(As we are)" | [Stray Kids : SKZ-PLAYER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/kAzmhLHePqU/mqdefault.jpg)
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!
@@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!
Very interesting on this subject to listen to a real professional.Unbelieble this is the real deal and it cost nothing to learn
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
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...
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.
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.
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.
@@Douglas_Blake_579 Nearly all owners manuals of speakers with dual sets of binding posts discuss bi-wiring, tacitly agreeing it has benefits, and none explain that it is effectively a worthless change that costs twice as much as a single wire run.
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.
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'm going back around 20 years ago when Technics amplifier died. I had around a £500 budget to replaced my previous amp, so I started some research. I arranged an appointment with my then local store Audio Excellence In Cardiff south wales UK. During my visit I did learn about Bi amping, and Bi Wireing. A week later I was sold on the idea, and subsequently exceeded my budget into several thousands of pounds. I purchased 1x pre amp, and 4 power amps, all Rotel. As well as the amps I also purchased a pair of Bowers and Wilkins 704s. I still have all of these components today and the system is still sounding awesome, with no issues whatsoever. I think my only complaint was that the system really needs to be driven at quite high volume to get that bass I require. The bass issue was overcome by the purchase of a Sunfire 1000w subwoofer. The system now has around 1780 watts in all, that has never been pushed passed the 12 o clock position. This system does really give you that experience of a live, full on rock act with clarity, and eye vibrating bass. I have often wondered if I could have achieved this with 2 power amps, one running each speaker, and if anything would be compromised at all ????????
Nevertheless, I hope my system will continue to give me many more years of weekend music experiences that I very much enjoy. Great video.
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.
I wreszcie na starość zrobiłem się technikiem elektrykiem. Uratowałeś wiele ofiar wierzeń. Dziękuję i pozdrawiam z Polski.
Thanks
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.
Dear M Zillch
What a splash looking your video so nicely and profund explained (slowly and clear) that also non US people can fully understand. Your deep knowledge and vast experiences are so valuable and more importantly to save loads of money. During the last months I watch so many videos getting only confused the more I watch. My opinion is now clear, also underpinned by the articles you attached. In my opinion what matters could be buying a good shielded cable and make it by yourself. Thank you for sharing all your knowledge! Watching next video now.
With my kindest regards from Switzerland,
Peter
Thanks. Shielded wires are necessary for low level signals such as analog RCA wires but I do not recommend using it for speaker wires.
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!!!😂👍🏼
@12:00 There's a concept in ham radio whereby the signal you transmit goes to the end of the antenna and then out into the air. However, some of that signal bounces from the end of the antenna back to the transmitter. I forgot what that's called, but it's a real problem especially for high power of 100 watts or more (to a max of 1500 watts per FCC rules). So, ham radio operators are often instructed to construct baluns. You're supposed to install them as near to the base of the antenna as possible - I think. That balun acts as a shield of sorts. It's really a filter that stops most if not all of the backward signal so it doesn't go back into the transmitter and blow up your rig.
I wonder if a similar phenomenon occurs in consumer audio. Does some of the signal bounce back from the tweeter and woofer back to the amplifier? Even if that were the case, I don't see how that bounce-back signal would affect the sound. I'm just wondering if the bounce back occurs in consumer audio systems.
Thank you for the video! We need more people like you and like the guy in @Audioholics!
A common tactic of snake oil wire vendors is to invoke transmission line theory and RF principles to the *audio* frequencies and wire distances we typically use in home audio. In truth these things don't usually matter, at least at any significant level, but they rely on the fact that most people won't know this. Here's an analogy of how their scam works: "Science such as this paper published in a prestigious journal [cited and actually true] has shown that a car's mass largely determines its acceleration with a given engine. The lower the mass, the faster the car's acceleration. Our research team has devised a floor mat vacuum cleaner that pulls out 50% more dirt than the competitor's, so your car weighs less so you will have better, faster acceleration". Sneaky huh? What they claim is actually theoretically true but it's just that it has no meaningful impact. See, it's not that signal reflections in wires don't exist; its that in audio applications over the distances/frequencies we use in home settings these "reflections" don't amount to anything significant we'd need to worry about. People devising transatlantic phone line distances, on the other hand, might have to worry, but we don't.
@@m.zillch3841Ok, that answers my questions. Thank you! I've always wondered that. As for the vacuum cleaner example, it would in fact affect the car's acceleration, by .0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001. Too bad races don't measure to that accuracy. Jajajajajajajaja
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 own a ton of Sonus Faber. I have the entire Home Collection. So great; just single binding posts. Franco Serblin believed more in listening to the changes that can be made to your crossover. I heard or read years back, that his earlier designs had bi-wire option because if he didn’t do it, his speakers would not sell. The Home series, the Cremona and others before he sold the company were ALL single binding posts. Then, the new managers brought back bi-wiring. He started another speaker company; Franco Serblin, all single binding posts. He passed in 2013. His son (in-law) runs the company now. Single binding posts. I have just picked up a pair abused SF Concerto Grand Piano. So beat up and you can longer find the drivers. Going to change some stuff but might just change the terminal cup to single. Hopefully Mr Serblin will not be upset with me from heaven.
Edit: I was really surprised to see the CONCERTO GPS at the end of your video; Confirmed my post as well. One of my pair is missing the tweeter and woofer ( luckily the passives are there). I played some Beach Boys in mono. Holy smokes. Such a balanced speaker. I really would like to get those marble bases.
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.
Děkuji To mi otevřelo oči. Ve vašem vysvětlení je to vlasně logické jen mi to potvrdilo co jsem si už dávno myslel. 👍👍👍
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.
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.
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.
Polk 700 speakers ,Yamaha 803 amp. Just Bi wired them this morning from both A -B speaker outputs. Noticed a difference straight away. Sounds more tight and bright. Didn't think it would but I have noticed a difference for the better. Thank you.
Was your test conducted under blind conditions or is that not necessary? If the sound becomes "more tight and bright" how do you explain that nobody has ever been able to either record or measure this difference? If I'm testing if I have telekinesis (mind over matter) and try flipping a coin, trying to force it to be "tails" with my mind, and I'm successful, does that prove I indeed have telekinesis?
@@m.zillch3841 Hi. Only what I've noticed while listening. No test ect. Only my ears. I listen to a lot of music every day and after Bi Wiring I noticed a difference. It's sounds clearer, brighter ,tighter . I m not a technician, just someone who loves listening to music and it's my way of saying that I noticed an improvement and that's all that matters to me. Thank you.
@chacha4119 Everyone, without exception, is subconsciously influence by prior knowledge and their other senses besides hearing. This bias we are unaware of is colloquially called "the placebo effect". As it applies to audio is firmly established and has been studied by published scientists like Dr. Sean Olive: seanolive.blogspot.com/2009/04/dishonesty-of-sighted-audio-product.html For the reasons he states audio tests need to be blind, not "sighted".
@@m.zillch3841 Hi. I sit down and listen to music for at least 5 hours every day and I don't really care for all the research and technical stuff ,I just listen to music with my ears and can feel it . I heard a difference and I'm happy with that and will continue to leave it as is. Many thanks for your comments.
@@chacha4119 Out of curiosity, do you admit the improved sound might just be a figment of your imagination?
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
I've triwired loudspeakers. Testing the input wires from souce your bound to get full signal. The xover slits it down so that tweeters aren't blown and delivery is to that area of rel frequency.
I tried wired speakers too. They sounded much better than the un-wired speakers!
I appreciated your complete and honest explanations! Thank you!
Thanks
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
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...
I haven't read all the comments so I apologize if I am repeating a point. I had been informed that the Filters actually prevented, in the case, of hi frequency, low frequency traveling along the wire(from the amp). At the time I read this(can't remember where) I found it hard to get my head around the idea. If we assume , for arguments sake, this is correct then your demonstration would be wrong.
I use bi wiring, for a very specific reason My speaker cables run 5 meters ( each channel) It was easier and much cheaper using the two sets of speaker outputs on my amp and the two sets of posts on each speaker to bi-wire. ( My amp doesn't have balanced outputs)
The reason people bi-wire is because of marketing. Assuming one uses an adequate gauge single wire from the get-go with properly seated jumper bars left in place, there are no benefits from bi-wiring other than for the dealer who makes bi-profits from the sale of twice as much wire as the consumer actually needs.
@@m.zillch3841 In my situation Bi-wiring was the cheaper option
No the tweeter filters will not prevent the bass part of the signal from being present on their wire. If you are sourcing the signal from a single amplifier output the same signal will appear on both of the bi-wire leads.
An oscilloscope, or even a voltmeter, will confirm that signal voltage is identical on both branches.
What will be different is the amount of current flowing for each side of the setup... the tweeter filters will allow more current above the crossover point where the woofer filters will allow more current below the crossover point.
@@Douglas_Blake_579 The exact same split in current occurs in BOTH wiring scenarios, single vs bi-wiring, but because one happens inside a wooden box and the other is visible, people foolishly think about only one of them. Current division being the same, but at different locations, is discussed in greater detail in part 2: ruclips.net/video/NJhFxuymlCI/видео.html
@@m.zillch3841
Yep, saw that. The only real difference is the added resistance in the long run to the tweeter, but unless you're using microphone cable that is negligable.
Thank you sir, now I finally understand better.
TY I just picked up a set of KEF Uni Q speakers and had no idea why they had extra inputs
YW
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.
Thank you for the video. As much as I understand this very well and to me it does totally fit the bill I have a pair of Castle Inversion 50 speakers with bi wiring/amping posts. When bridged there is a difference in sound when plugging them on the top set compared to the bottom one. Don't ask me why but it is to the point where I really hate their sound when plugged to the top. The same when I bi wire I can hear a very noticeable difference after a couple of minutes specially in the top end and how wide the speakers sound. Don't ask me what it is nothing changes but the wiring, these are regular speaker wires (as I don't believe in that) etc. It is the only set of speakers that does it. Different amps from tube to class D tried everything a weekend when I didn't have anything better to do. Fun though.
It shouldn't matter if you wire to the top inputs or the bottom ones on a speaker with the jumper straps in place IF the jumper straps are working properly. There are many reasons why they may not work properly though, where they are not making a good electrical connection:
- they are bent
- they are soiled with invisible finger oil from eating a peanut butter sandwich (ha ha)
- they are dislodged
- they are not seated properly
- they are not tightened down securely
etc.. Jumper straps are usually a solid bar of gold-plated metal but ones which are short lengths of wire could potentially have broken internal strands and how they flex will alter their conductivity/resistance of the bridge. This could give the illusion the top posts perform differently than the bottom posts, but it is really the integrity of the connections. The crimped on spade lugs at the ends of such short lengths of wire also may be compromised and are only making a partial connection without the full current capability of a good, solid, clean, peanut-butter-free connection. ha ha
- -
@@m.zillch3841 In my case would be dulce de leche LOL. Yeah well I am mentioning this because I took measures to prevent bad connections etc, changed connectors, wires, and the bridge it is the gold plated one, but I've made my own as well with speaker wire as you suggest in the video. Can't talk about internals as I did not remove anything to check. I understand that it shouldn't make any difference I am just mentioning my experience because even not buying the snake oil I did find a case when I can say it does sound different. Thank you!
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!
What if the crossover is in the receiver? Mine has a tunable crossover for bi-wiring set in the DSP. With separate binding posts on the amp.
Sounds like you are actually describing "active bi-AMPing", not bi-wiring (the topic of this video). What receiver model do you own? [I'm guessing it's an Onkyo?]
@@m.zillch3841 It does bi amp in the process. its a 7.1 Panasonic SA-XR700
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.
I have a dual mono power amp, that, if I understand correctly, separately manages power for the two channels. This power amp allows to connect up to 4 speakers. I wanted to try biwiring so I uesed speaker set A to feed the trebles, and set Be to feed the lows. I see your point about the sent signal being full range, but isn't there any benefit at all in separately feeding power this way? I had the impression to hear some better clarity overall, even if I admit that since it's messy for me to change wires (not a lot of free space in the room unfortunately) I couldn't test multiple times going back and forth from single to mono wiring and so I just sat with my first impressions. A slightly better transient response, definitely nothing like a night and day diffrence.
I didn't want to spend a fortune for wires so I used 2 sets I already had at home: a silver laminated set for the trebles, and copper for the lows. Can it be that the sound difference I hear is fust the product of this (weird...?) arrangement?
I also see your point about studio gear not being bi wired, but limiters, compressors and mixers are not speakers. Studio monitors with active design are usually bi-amplified internally, but this (I believe) happens by means of an active crossover and this is a different story.
I don't have any fancy super hi end stuff at home, but there is a clear sonic difference between my studio monitors (ADAM F7) and my hi fi speakers (Indiana Line TESI 561).
I my view passive bi-amping is a waste of amps, electricity, wires, and time to set up. Active bi-amping, on the other hand, can potentially have subtle advantages but it requires an active (electronic) crossover and the "benefits" are small, plus it requires proper measurement gear to be sure any differences heard aren't simply because the tweeter is accidentally being run at a slightly higher (or lower) level than the woofer, which would be a primitive but audible form of EQ [too much treble or too much bass], which listeners could quite easily mistake as "sound benefits".
@m.zillch3841 ----- I employ Bi-Amping and the differences are Huge in my Case. I have 115db Horns with a Mid Range Driver and Concentric tweeter. I have SET amps that provide 1.5 watts to each Horn. I also have Class 'D' amps that are bridged and provide 500 watts to each Bass Bin. - That is how this Horn System is designed and it sounds spectacular. The Horn amplifier receives the Full Signal from the Pre-amp to a Passive Crossover that provides the Hi Pass Filter above 270 Hz. to the Horns themselves (1.5 watts is a Huge amount of power to a Horn that measures 115db). The Bass amplifiers are provided the full signal from the Pre-Amp and have an active electronic Crossover in them that provides the Low Pass Filter to the Bass Bins below 270 Hz. --- The speaker system must be Bi-Amped because that is the way it is designed by the Manufacturer. The benefits are not subtle nor small. It is necessary for those that enjoy the sound of Low power of SET amps. --- Agree that Buy-Wiring is a complete Joke.
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!
I tried bi-wiring my Paradigm studio 100 v2s into my Yamaha A-S801 because Yamaha claimed it would sound better but it didn’t. It sounded pretty poor actually. It killed the bass but it definitely made a big difference. It sounds really good with cable jumpers and one set of speaker wire plugged in up top. I also tried plugging into the bottom connectors on the speakers and I didn’t like that either. I also have a Yamaha Aventage A/V receiver that allows for what Yamaha calls bi-amping and that actually made a big improvement in sound with that amp and same speakers. So in my experience this can all make a difference in sound.
You have to play with it and find what works best for your set up.
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.
Wow a great job of explaining bi-wiring! So the only that can improve your speakers is the gauge of wires! Now i understand when I purchased a set of speakers at Goodwill a passive subwoofer with two mono blocks one for each satellite speaker? But they wove two wires for each speaker terminal four wires instead of two wires! But the funny speaker set up? Running everything in to the subwoofer and then out to each separate speaker! Had a great sound? Wasn't sure if was the double wiring? Or the unusual speakers system of the Micron GS-5's & GS-10 subwoofer! I subscribed to your channel and at the same time you answered my old question of how to wire my old Toshiba SS-47 & SS-37 concaved 3 way speakers! They are over 50 years old purchased on the Rock (Okinawa) in 1973! They been around the world 🌎 and then some! Thanks again be Cool!
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.
Can you do a demonstration on a 3way passive crossovers in the speaker boxes ty
Usually a three-way speaker that has dual sets of binding posts (I suppose some may have three sets, but "tri-wiring" or "tri-amping" is not very common in consumer audio) is dividing the tweeter and midrange section from the woofer, so it is just like the diagrams I already show but there is another step in that the HF input section has another division in the speaker's internal crossover to divide the mids from the highs. I do not advise using anything other than a single wire configuration, using an adequate gauge for the load and wire distance (as described in Roger Russell's Wire Table, see the link in the notes) and leaving the speaker's jumper straps/bars in place so that the one wire from the amp effectively connects to all of the speaker's sets of binding posts.
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
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
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
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.
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
Is there any benefit at all to running two sets of cables to the high and low frequencies of the speaker in bi wiring formation if my integrated amp has speaker A and speaker B output (so speaker A feeds high and speaker B feeds low). I have had completely contradictory advice on this from two separate dealers.
For clarity - It is not an AV amp with specific bi amp terminals but a regular (good quality and high power) integrated amp with two sets of speaker outputs.
Many thanks in advance.
So by my read you mean a 2 ch integrated amp (not 4ch.) with outputs A and B. Lucky for you I address this EXACT question in great detail in part 2: ruclips.net/video/NJhFxuymlCI/видео.html
@@m.zillch3841 thanks. So no benefit at all
I thought as it came out of four and went into four there may have been some benefit in the separation as there was no Y so to speak. I also thought that it would be double the power through speakers A and B but may have got that wrong.
Many thanks.
@@AliRafati-xk9jg Correct. No benefit at all. Amps with dual outputs, A and B, sometimes let you control which pair is on and which is turned off. This can be useful if you want to place one set of full range speakers in one room and another set in some other room (and you may want to control which room is active at a given moment).
@@m.zillch3841 thanks very much for clarifying that. I’ve spent an awful lot on bi wired cabling and short length of ‘jumper cables’. What a waste of cash.
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.
Great presentation with which I agree, but I would like to add that we profess that perfection, though impossible would theoretically be a straight wire with gain. We also profess to keep speaker cables as short as possible. Also profess that any excess cables, or connectors cause signal degradation as that signal travels from the source to the listeners ears. These are all fine tuning issues that admittedly don’t directly relate to your thesis with which I totally agree with and applaud.
I simply felt these additional issues could be helpful to those wishing to extract maximum fidelity from their systems. We’ll done.
Bi-wiring = Double the number of connection points = double the number of potential failure points = double the likelihood there will be some mishap or user error (for example, accidentally flipping the polarity of the left HF/tweeter input). Since bi-wiring has no benefits, a single run of an adequate gauge copper wire should be used.
Great video and excellent explanation to bust the myth around bi-wiring.
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.
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???
How can I do active bi amping? Do I need a crossover before the amp stage?
Yes, you do. The benefits of active bi-amping are rather modest and hardly worth the complexity in my view, not that I'm claiming they are inaudible. You need an electronic crossover before the amplifiers which can be placed between a preamp OUT and the main amp INs. You also would ideally want microphones and calibration gear to be sure you have dialed in the correct settings and ideally a speaker which allows you to bypass the internal passive crossovers (rare,) or you'll need to consider opening your speaker to alter the wires internally, which voids the warranty. The main perk of active bi-amping is you eliminate the insertion loss (wasted power) of the speaker's passive electronics, or for some people the ability to intentionally dial in an EQ'd sound rather than a flat response. (For example, you intentionally set the crossovers's output to the tweeter at a higher level than the woofer.) I find modern day EQs, even some found in many receivers, integrated amps ,and prepros, more adept at this these days.
This video and discussion is really about bi-wiring, not any variety of bi-amping, so I would rather not continue this discussion here. To learn more about active bi-wiring on your own I would suggest visiting Rod Elliot's site. He actually designs such systems professionally. Here is his FAQ page on the topic to get you started, should you wish to pursue this: www.sound-au.com/faq.htm#bi-tri
'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
Hi and thanks for the info. 30 years ago I fell for Bi-Wiring (I was naive then). I don't think it makes any significant difference to the sound, but my Yamaha A-S301 amplifier can Bi-wiring speaker output A for bass and output B for Treble left and right. Turn the speaker switch on the front to A+B and set the impedance switch on the back to the speaker's impedance. Then you have Bi-wiring correctly according to the manual. Have a nice day.
Thanks. I was a Yamaha dealer for over two decades so I am familiar with their stuff. For good measure I also download the A-301 manual and examined it usa.yamaha.com/products/audio_visual/hifi_components/a-s301/downloads.html#product-tabs. Other than the added capability to turn off the tweeters vs. the woofers, say to verify they are working properly, on a 2-way speaker, by selecting JUST speakers A or JUST Speakers B, instead of normal "A+B/bi-wire mode", this is just like bi-wiring as described in my video. That switch on the front ensures both outputs, A + B, are both running, but they provide the exact same signal, i.e. a parallel connection to the same amp output. The proof is that the manual describes using the exact same position of the switch, "A + B/bi-wire" to simultaneously drive a secondary pair of speakers, say in the next room.
@@m.zillch3841 Thank you very much for your reply Mr. Ziich. That's also how I figured it went together. It's also a bit easier to Bi-wiring that way.
I was wrong, my amplifier is A-S500 but the connections appear to be the same.
What I find very confusing is the impedance setting. I have 1 set 8 ohm speakers which are wired from output a+b. I still don't know if it should be in high or low. In the manual p. 4 and 6:
Caution. When making Bi-wiring connection, set impedance switches to high or low depending on your speakers' impedance. 6 ohms or higher set switch on HIGH. 4 ohms or higher set switch on LOW. Is it a mistake in the manual, I don't understand. :-). Higher than 4 ohm LOW setting. Higher than 6 ohms HIGH? 8 ohms is higher than both 4 and 6 ohms, does it matter which setting I use?
Hope you can explain for me 🙂
@@sbromose1 I think it's a typo/translation error. If your speakers are 4 ohms set to low. If they are 8 ohms set to high.
@@sbromose1 Here's a quick tutorial on the impedance switch.
It is not, as many think, an "optimization selection". It is more like a " maximum power output limiter to reduce the danger of over heating, especially problematic on lower impedance speakers at high volume, used to easily pass necessary UL and CSA safety testing requirements without the costly inclusion of a cooling fan or very large (and also costly) heat sinks which make the product taller/larger". More here: ruclips.net/video/Ou5bO8P2Drw/видео.html
So what to select for maximum possible power and what to select for maximum safety are two different things.
Also to be picky speakers don't actually have a single impedance, it varies by frequency and another thing called "phase angle". Detailed reviews in Stereophile and other magazines sometimes show the more detailed plots.
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.
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
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?!???
I've always wondered if it would help to have *dual* amplifier's in *addition* *to* *the* *bi-wiring?* Digital electronic filtering is much more capable than the inductor, capacitor LPF, HPF in the cabinets.
Using two external amps, one receiving only the highs and the other only the lows, with a preceding active (powered) electronic crossover for the filtration stage instead of the speaker's internal passive crossover network (which ideally needs to be bypassed), so as to power the drivers directly is called "active bi-amping". It is less common in consumer electronics than in pro systems, but in my view it has only modest advantages now that we routinely EQ the sound with markedly more flexible and nearly infinitely adjustable circuits. [Using "bass management" in a consumer AVR with the deep bass being re-directed to just the sub's amp and sending only the higher frequencies to the AVR's own amp is actually a variety of active bi-amping.
Remember adding cable changes the capacitance inductance balance. Many amplifiers are marginally stable. Whilst safe enough they change sound as previously described.
Brilliant video. This makes so much sense, cause from the set up the cross over is still in play even when bi-wired. And bi-wiring is useless without a cross over in place. Kind of circular reasoning.
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.
I've Bi-Amped and have 4 Audiolab 8000 MX 125W monoblocks for the main speakers and a stereo amp for the centre speaker. I've bi wired the rears though.
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
So pleased with this video, saved me from the inconvenience of bi-wiring with common sense and electrical science - thank you!
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.
What is the difference between active and passive, Comsumer bi-amping? Both graphs look the same. Is that mean active bi-amp requires a cross over unit outside the speaker?
Active Bi-amping means each amp receives a pre-filtered signal containing either just the highs or the other one which gets just the lows, by the use of an external, electronic crossover. Ideally you also remove the speaker's internal passive crossover because it is no longer needed (in fact it even wastes a small amount of power) because you have already filtered the signals which then should go straight to the drivers.
Mr. Zillch, your so CORRECT! It's nothing more than $$$ in the Sellers pocket. I will never PAY more Money, for anything if I can't hear the "DIFFERENCE"! Because that's what it's all about WRIGHT? Good-quality AMPS, and Speaker these days are pretty dam good...... any gains in it's MUSICAL performance will be minimal, by adding Audio Jewelry. Yes, each AMP has it's own Signature Sound, and so do the Speakers. I have 4 different AMPS, and just as many pair of Speakers...... They all sound different, when I mix and match them,,,, the only REAL Difference... is WHICH ONE'S DO I USE for a certain genre(s). My Tube AMP is Superior in SOUND, (To ME) if I'm playing Blues & Jazz,,,,, but on the other hand, it's not the AMP I choose for Pop or Rock. I've seen dealers that DEMO there Brand(s) of speakers they want to Sale you,,,, run the Music throw a $10,000.00 AMP, and when you get those Speakers home, they sound nothing like what you heard at the SNAKE SHOP! Stereo Imaging, Stage Placement, on and on, I believe these things are in the RECORDING, they have to be in order to HEAR it..... just some AMPS and Speaker are better at bring those factors out. Stop throwing your MONEY away, Mr. Zillch has give you SOUND ADVICE!
He has nothing to GAIN, but the SNAKE SHOP do $$
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.
The interesting thing to do is remove the filters, and use something like a dbx driverack pa2 and two amps, then you play pink noise to each driver to see where they play the best, then send a better digitally filtered signal to each, you MAKE a DSP better crossover; then pay music and can hear the difference, as you can remove some resonances with parametric eq, etc. You can work your way toward better audio as you can fight the problems of the cabinets, the drivers, the room modes by tweaking the signals. The same with a subwoofer : the dsp enable more slope in the filters. So you have less problems in the frequency domains where the drivers overlap. In a room with a lot of problems, it is better to listen to audio with some missing parts than a full signal with muddy resonances.
Did this recently, no more bad sounding crossovers, I chose a DBX 234xs active crossover, But it is being fed by a DBX PA2 :P
@@QuinnKallisti for me the DBX PA2 does it all : 2 way + sub. I think I have a repeatable and concrete gain in clarity. Also I can combat room modes better.
Bi-Wiring is a salesman's tricks
Great video! Is it true in a regular set up, using the jumpers, plugging my banana plugs into the HF or LF terminals, doesn’t matter which one is used? I can’t hear an audible difference
It doesn't matter, assuming a good/solid connection is had BOTH ways. The people who claim to hear a difference either have a poorly seated connection on one of the two, without a solid, large metal surface area to large metal surface area connection, that's clean, or something is faulty (like a cold solder joint internally), or most likely they are simply imagining things (which happens all the time in audio, no matter who you are, so blind testing is always necessary, FOR EVERYONE, including pro's, reviewers, scientists, myself, you name it. NO exceptions.).
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.
I think most of the speakers in the market are the passive bi-wiring as you mentioned, both high and low are still going through the crossover.
I sold dozens of different speakers with double binging posts and only one had a switch on the back so that you could optionally bypass the internal crossover (and this was decades ago). It is quite rare.
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. The last two minutes were the best.
Do you know of any easily understood examples of separate treble and bass amps that are for simple two way speakers?
We all know of one area where biamping is used. That is the amplified sub woofer which along with its two way speaker uses a main amp and the amp in the sub.
Biwiring is out the window with a three way speaker. Anyone for tri-wiring? How about quad?
In bi-wiring the tweeter and the midrange share the same crossover so...
Bi wiring marketing B.S -
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 did it both ways and Nickelback still sounds like crap !!
@M.Zillch, when do we get parts 2 and 3? Thanks!
Part two probably within days. Every time I think it's complete I think of more to add!
You need *two* separate amps (or two mono-blocks) to really benefit from bi-wiring your speakers. This is also why all *studio monitors* have *two* amplifiers built in (say 70W for the mid/low driver, and 30W for the tweeter). Not all higher end speakers are a bi-wire design (or tri-wire for that matter), but if they are you should deffo make use of it. Dynaudio, for example, uses single binding posts on most of their speakers (such is the design of their crossover).
When you use two amps it is no longer called "bi-wiring"; it is called "bi-amping" (and it's not the topic of this video).
Ok, how about if the amplifier has 2 speaker output posts so could run individual speaker wires from the amp to the speakers rather than them, splitting them off. Is this still bogus?
Thanks for your question. On nearly every amplifier/receiver I know of, with a few oddball exceptions where a distinction between the two is usually explained in the manual, the "Speakers A" and "Speakers B" outputs are simply the result of an internal Y-split of a singular amp circuit's output, inside the unit (so you don't see it), feeding two sets of external binding posts, wired in parallel. Usually this is meant to power two pairs of speakers, say one in the main room and another in the adjacent room.
In the end, this is still the same circuit as the two described in this video, so there should be no difference, however if they have provided independent on/off switches for the Spkrs A and Spkrs B outputs, and you have wired them separately to the HF and LF inputs of a bi-wired speaker with its jumper bars removed, you could play around with hearing just your high frequencies or just your low frequencies by selecting just Spkrs A, or just Spkrs B, on the Amp's control panel, instead of listening normally to the full range sound by selecting Spkrs A + B simultaneously.
@@m.zillch3841 thank you for your prompt reply. On the back of my amplifier, there are two separate binding posts, speaker, connections, one above the other, with no description in the manual or distinguishing marks on the back panel on how it all works. There is also no A/B switch so it is specifically for bi-wiring.
Is it a recent Denon, PS Audio, or Ayre, I'm guessing? Please name the brand/model number. Thanks.
Coda no. 8
What about is amp has dedicated extra output for bi wire .
I have for left chanel 4 , and right 4 as well
My each speaker ready with 4 inputs .
It's look like manufacturers amp vincent sv237mk and speaker make ready everything to goes in this way for the best results .
One time someone told me to try with thin cable ( might be tel wire) to using for tweeter separately in bi wire
2ch. amps with extra outputs for bi-wiring are discussed in part 2: ruclips.net/video/NJhFxuymlCI/видео.html
Your diagram shows one source from the Amp splitting as it leaves ....
My amp has 2 separate outputs for the highs and lows. So actually 4 wires, 2 from one output goes low and another output goes to the High. I can also adjust the crossover point , low to high, from within the Amp.... would this be an Active Bi-amp setup .
It's explained in the manual that a separate section of the Amp pushes high and a other section pushes low ???
What amp is it? Sounds like active bi-amping based on your description.
@m.zillch3841 It's an Onkyo TX-RZ810.
Also, the speakers are 3 ways biampable ....
I'm assuming the tweeter and midrange would be together, and the woofer separate...?
Yes, as I understand it most bi-ampeable 3-way designs separate the woofer from the rest. You could easily test it though by connecting just one set of binding posts and holding your ear up to the drivers to see which ones were still active.@@joeserrenti9857
@m.zillch3841 Yep ... that's how they split ... teeter, mid / woofer ....
Now I've had these connected both ways, but where it seems to come into play is especially noticeable with demanding movies at theater volume levels .....
As we know the highs and mids grab power, but nothing compared to the woofers.
So if you can allocate say a solid 100 watts to the woofers and 100 watts to the tweeter/mids , there's plenty of headroom to avoid distortion, even if the power needed by the top end is overkill. If the setup is available on the speakers and amp, might as well use it, and it is nice to be able to find your own sweet spot with the crossover control.
Thank God they came out with multiple sub outputs and controls right from the amplifier as well as self powered subs.
I blew through a few line in/line out subs in the past ...!
I'm I likely to have any audible difference from running two sets of cable from the same Arcam Alpha 9 power amp? One set of cable from terminal A of the amp and the other set from terminal B of the amp to the highs and lows of my MA speakers? Many thanks
The only way to know is to try it yourself.
A review in SoundStage (I'll link to at the end this post, should you wish to read it) mentions only that the unit has "two switched outputs". Assuming this is like the vast majority of other designs, where there are two parallel pathways emanating from the same, singular, internal amp section, without any additional electronics in either path (except for the on/off switch to sever the sound of either path at will) this would provide a variety of bi-wiring, when both outputs A and B are turned on, where you can optionally on occasion listen to just the highs or just the lows when connected to a bi-wired speaker, simply by switching off the frequency section you don't want to hear with the A/B selector. Normally both outputs, A + B, would need to be turned on to hear the FULL frequency range, of course.
This would offer no other advantages beyond traditional bi-wiring where both wires connect to the exact same output posts, but might be useful in, say, diagnosing if your 2-way speaker has blown driver: by listening to them individually by selecting just A or just B, so you could verify both are working properly. . . . Of course you also could just walk over to the speaker and hold your ear up to the individual drivers too, which is what I do. Normally two sets of outputs are provided on most amps so consumers can play an alternate set of speakers, say in the adjacent room. I do not recommend bi-wiring, with or without A/B output posts, because there is no evidence-based science supporting the notion it provides any audibly better sound beyond using just one, normal, singular run of wire with an ADEQUATE gauge. [Of course if you use an INadequate gauge for the single run, but then switch to using two runs instead of one, it increases the effective gauge and lowers the resistance the amp "sees", which theoretically may account for some of the instances where people claim to hear a "bi-wiring" difference.]
www.soundstagenetwork.com/revequip/staff07.htm
@@m.zillch3841 thanks for your detailed response and the link. I'm using QED 79 strand cable in one run, but I do have another run of that cable, I used to have two power amps many moons ago with different speakers that were biamped. I was interested to learn of any benefit from using the second run of cable to bi wire after seeing your excellent you tube video. Many thanks 👍
@@PaoloMF The only benefit to bi-wiring would be if you have reason to suspect the existing singular run is too skinny for the particular run and speaker impedance, as outlined at that former McIntosh engineer's excellent site on speaker wires, I link to in the notes below the video.
I have speakers Henry kloss tower 2 speakers they have 4 hookups, the top has a golden looking piece that is hooked up to the negative and positive.
Then the wires are hooked up on the bottom red and black speaker hookups, is that the best way for sound?
Thanks for any information.
Based on my examination of the Cambridge Soundworks Tower II speaker binding posts online, they appear to be nearly the same as the Polk speakers I show in this video: The gold plated metal bars, aka "jumpers", should be left in place so connecting to either the top two binding posts or the bottom two doesn't matter electrically, because they are effectively coupled together as one entity. A SINGLE run of speaker wire should be used (so NOT bi-wiring) to the amp with the red/positive (+) lead connected to the position labelled as such and the remaining one, the black/negative (-), connected to other.
@m.zillch3841 Okay thanks, I appreciate it .
Talking about voltage and current? When there are 3-way in the speaker and bi wire is made, only one connects to the subwoofer and the other connection is divided into tweeter and medium, the consumption of the subwoofer is much greater than that of the tweeter and the medium, by making bi wire 50% It goes to the subwoofer and the other 50% goes to the midrange and tweeter. If there is only one connection when reaching the speaker, it will be divided into three, 33.3% to the subwoofer, 33.3% to the middle and 33.3% to the tweeter, or what happens to the voltage and current in this case?
As I show in the part 2 video the division of the current is not 50/50 when bi-wiring but rather the woofer section draws the majority of the current. This exact same division also occurs inside a singly wired speaker BUT the Y-split division where this occurs is hidden from our view, inside the speaker cabinet. [Out of sight; out of mind.] So they are effectively the same actually. ruclips.net/video/NJhFxuymlCI/видео.html
Can you do the same for passive bi amping
This video was already much longer than I had hoped because people prefer quick, short, explanations. I'm thinking about doing a video on passive vs. active bi-amping, AND BOY DO PEOPLE CONFUSE THE TWO, in fact I think the marketers reinforce that by simply calling passive bi-amping "bi-amping", so it is no wonder many people are confused, but I'm currently stumped on how to thoroughly explain it in a short video. It would also be stymied (spelling?) by the many pervasive myths people have about amplifiers in general, making it especially difficult to discuss when the very premises many people have is incorrect. . . . . Maybe in the future though; stay tuned. . .
What if we use a different kind of cable for each speaker ? (eg, one pure copper, the other one pure silver) ?
Then it isn't a test of bi-wiring: it is a test of if different wires sound different. Some people concoct ridiculous scenarios to justify bi-wiring using this tactic: "You'll get great overall performance if you use a wire that's only poor in the bass on your tweeter, and another wire that's only poor in the highs on the woofer." What makes this misguided is it forgets that there are zillions of very affordable wires which work well at ALL frequencies. That's what pros use after all: one, appropriate gauge, full range wire, typically copper. [Also the performance of the silly-to-consider wires actually becomes different when they are connected simultaneously in parallel to the amp (bi-wiring) with another wire with different properties. It is like you are testing out yet a third, new type of wire.]
what if i have a 50m roll of 1.5mm speakercable and don't want to buy a thicker one. is it better to bi-wire it, or use a single wire?
Roger Russell's wire table explains what gauge to use for what distance and speaker impedance: roger-russell.com/wire/wire.htm#wiretable
If you are stuck with an inadequate gauge, if you use two parallel runs of it, what I call "dual wiring" in the video, and leave the speaker's jumper straps in place, you will effectively reduce the run's resistance. The math is easy: "subtract 3". So using two 16AWG wires in parallel would effectively give you one 13 AWG wire. Using two 18 AWG wires would be effectively 15 AWG. Sorry, I don't know how to convert millimeters into AWG. You'll have to research that on your own. Using multiple wires is clumsy, untidy, doubles the number of potential failure points, and doubles the potential to accidentally botch the polarity (+/-) of one the wires connections because you have twice as many to make, so I would suggest converting to a proper single wire run when feasible.
Can you test different speaker wire?
Roger Russell, whom I link to in the notes below the video, has tested many wires and has the same conclusion I do: wires differ in many measurable ways but for most consumers, assuming you stick to normal lengths and geometries of multi-strand copper twin-lead, what matters is resistance. His Wire Table explains everything you need to know. Although you can design wire that messes with the sound, such as inaccurately reproducing the linearity of the high frequencies, these are to be avoided if your goal is faithful sound reproduction, with a high fidelity to the incoming signal being transferred along to the wire's output. Some naive reviewers may hear such wires (that change the sound) as being supposedly "better", hearing all sorts of things related to, for example, "3-Dness and sound stage", much like they might hear a change in the EQ via a bass or treble control knob twist away from a flat response, but they are actually just examples of inaccurate, manipulated sound reproduction. Proper EQ should instead be accomplished, when needed, by other means that are user-controllable, variable, and defeatable, such as by using tone controls or an equalizer.
@@m.zillch3841 Thank You!
Sorry for sounding arrogant, however: Anyone who can't hear the differnce between bi-wire or Tri-wire versus single wire, has limited hearing. The point of Bi-wiring is to elimiate or greatly reduce the EMF effect from the woofer on the tweeter or mid and tweeter, the sonic improvement is as clear as day on most speakers -
The back (or counter) EMF "difference" argument is based on an incorrect belief that either electricity "can't travel over a longer wire" or "can't escape outside of a wooden box". Neither is true. Usually with modern day amps the quite weak counter EMF is well controlled due to the damping factor of the amp, but even if it weren't, this potential electrical pathway for the woofer's counter-EMF "harming" the tweeter's sound quality [and we'll pretend for the moment the tweeter's crossover doesn't successfully filter this bass content away} exists in BOTH wiring scenarios, as shown with the on screen graphic and text here: 11:47
There is no published evidence that bi-wiring, compared to a single wire that's adequate for the task, has any audible consequences under blind testing, yet such speakers with two sets of inputs have been around for over half a century (so this isn't "too new to have been tested").
Since my late teens I have heard the most minute differences as small as resting equipment on different surfaces and how that affects the resonances and sonic performance of the equipment it rests on. I have always heard the sonic differences between cables , both interconnect and speaker. The difference between single and Tri-wire on my PMC MB2/XBD's is huge, not remotely subtle. It can even show up as a leaner sound using REW. The claims of greater transperancy and detail are spot on. How can you measure some of these things? I trust my ears for the most part but want to understand what I'm hearing and WHY at the same time.
I've been tested a few times by people in the industry and a client of mine who is a Emmy Award winning electronics engineer who leans more towards your point of view.
When I get 32 out of 33 tests correct, it has to be more than luck / or should I go to Vegas ....lol / nah , never had any luck there
Why I watched part of your video is because I having s sudden issue with an amp that supposedly doesn't like Bi-wire, at leaast that's what the manufactrer is telling me now. But why after 18 months does the amp suddenly not like Bi-wire speaker connections and over heating???? They're actually Tri-wire, and the sound difference is huge between that and single.
There was a time, for the longest time, that I was skeptical of after market power cords. 2 years ago I finally heard them make a positive difference in my system which is quite dranatic. Most after market power cords cuase detriment to the sound, but they are capable of changing the sound! There are sonic differences which we have not yet found a way of measuring. I don't like Voodoo and I actually design soundrooms & HT rooms as part of my living so I use REW to measure responses in rooms and speakers as well.
Having a system & room of the caliber I do, is a luxury indeed, and it blows me away every time I listen to it. The transperancy, detail, 3 dimensional imaging and generally lifelike sound is truly remarkable. I am blessed to have this and still very good hearing for my age.
Bottom line: I don't subscribe to Voodoo and hope I never do. I'm generally skeptical when critically listening. A healthy skepticism is healthy -
Regarding EMF - I remember when I had a double 15" active JBL system. The bass drivers were wired in parrallel, so with the amplifiers disconnect to the bass drivers, you could physically push one driver and then see the other follow suit. The electrical signal was so strong with 22lb magnets it could do this. Drivers of this strength would produce EMF
Other industry experts say it's that EMF / back energy that causes the weaker upper mid and high frequencies to get disturbed or altered along the way, that's what we're supposed to be hearing less of in Bi-Wire mode. The idea that crossover is filtering it away doesn't really hold water IMHO, the electrical impulses are getting disturbed in the wire before they get to the X-over or driver/s. I believe dielectrics and surface contact can affect the way electrical signals flow through a conductor & affect sound. I hear too many differences with cables which specs don't always indicate...
Sighted testing to evaluate things you mention, like power cable "audible differences", is worthless. Learn why from a leading audio expert, at one point the president of the prestigious Audio Engineering Society, Sean Olive: seanolive.blogspot.com/2009/04/dishonesty-of-sighted-audio-product.html@@user-eg7bg9dz4j
Huh. I thought I was getting better sound bi-wiring my Klipsch R8000f's. But this shows not so much? I thought I was getting better separation etc. My 12 gauge wire is now 6 gauge if I bi-wire. Maybe that accounts for the better sound? But it does sound better unless I am fooling myself. And I could have just dual wired. Ouch!
Using dual parallel runs of wire changes the effective gauge by 3. An easy to remember formula! So using two 12 AWG wires effectively changes the resistance the amp sees to 9 AWG. Roger Russell (RIP) was a great wire table to determine what wire is appropriate for a particular run (distance) and speaker impedance: roger-russell.com/wire/wire.htm#wiretable
@@m.zillch3841 Thanks. I will have to check it out! Great info btw! I will probably go back to single terminals based on this.
Normal and bi-wiring are electrically the same, you are correct. However, speaker guage is effectively doubled and this accounts for audible differences, if any.
It's not exactly the same as using a dual (parallel run) of wire to a single binding post speaker though, it is inferior. For example, consider the section of the speaker which draws the most current, the woofer in the case of a 2-way speaker: bi-wiring has no increase in strand count to the woofer. [Off the top of my head. . . and I just woke up so still sleepy :) ]
@@m.zillch3841 I appreciate your work but I've had this hobby for a long time too. Think of it this way, only difference between bi-wire and double run is the jumper. Same deal. I support what you're doing.
You, sir, are a true gentleman and a knowledgeable expert stating facts and I'm happy to see there are still people like you out there.
are you sing electrical cable for speaker wire? i'm sure my friend used to use lighting cable for his speakers back in the 90's.
In this video I'm using this speaker wire: www.amazon.com/Monoprice-Access-Gauge-Conductor-Speaker/dp/B01LXPLGBY