[chesebert]

Quote:

Originally Posted by milkpowder /img/forum/go_quote.gif I would bi-wire too if my Divas had two pairs of binding posts... I heard bi-amping helps a lot too, but I've never tried/heard the differences. That's a completely different matter though.

I think some spkr are designed to be biamped others were not. e.g. SF use to have biamp binding post, but recommended not to do so, and now they totally eliminated that.

Biamp to me maybe more marketing than substantive, although some spkr may benefit from them. YMMV as always.

 

[chesebert]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sovkiller /img/forum/go_quote.gif Taken from the article: "The Ten Biggest Lies in Audio" published in "The Audio Critic" magazine, ISSUE NO. 26 • FALL 2000 by Peter Aczel: "....7. The Biwiring Lie: Even fairly sophisticated audiophiles fall for this hocus-pocus. What’s more, loudspeaker manufacturers participate in the sham when they tell you that those two pairs of terminals on the back of the speaker are for biwiring as well as biamping. Some of the most highly respected names in loudspeakers are guilty of this hypocritical genuflection to the tweako sacraments — they are in effect surrendering to the “realities” of the market. The truth is that biamping makes sense in certain cases, even with a passive crossover, but biwiring is pure voodoo. If you move one pair of speaker wires to the same terminals where the other pair is connected, absolutely nothing changes electrically. The law of physics that says so is called the superposition principle. In terms of electronics, the superposition theorem states that any number of voltages applied simultaneously to a linear network will result in a current which is the exact sum of the currents that would result if the voltages were applied individually. The audio salesman or ’phile who can prove the contrary will be an instant candidate for some truly major scientific prizes and academic honors. At the same time it is only fair to point out that biwiring does no harm. It just doesn’t do anything. Like magnets in your shoes....." ......Just my two cents....

Kirchhoff's Law

I think its still in use today..IIRC

 

[dknightd]

Q.E.D.

 

[infinitesymphony]

I haven't tried using a small length of cable as a jumper simply because 4S11 is so inexpensive. If it's theoretically the same, then it would probably make the same improvement.

I'll say this... If you've ever heard cables (speaker, interconnects, etc.) make any difference whatsoever in sound quality, I guarantee you would hear the difference between bi-wired and not on my system.

 

[Sovkiller]

Quote:

Originally Posted by chesebert /img/forum/go_quote.gif Kirchhoff's Law I think its still in use today..IIRC

Are you kidding? Well give Peter Aczel a call and let him about its existence, IIRC he is a professor at the University of Manchester...

Quote:

Originally Posted by infinitesymphony /img/forum/go_quote.gif I haven't tried using a small length of cable as a jumper simply because 4S11 is so inexpensive. If it's theoretically the same, then it would probably make the same improvement. I'll say this... If you've ever heard cables (speaker, interconnects, etc.) make any difference whatsoever in sound quality, I guarantee you would hear the difference between bi-wired and not on my system.

And why not trying this first? Sorry but do not take me wrong, I'm not deniying that you could hear an improvement, or a difference, but to what extent that difference is just because of the biwiring, or because of the difference in quality, quantity, termination, purity, materials, geometry, etc...is the question...

 

[chesebert]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sovkiller /img/forum/go_quote.gif Are you kidding? Well give Peter Aczel a call and let him about its existence, IIRC he is a professor at the University of Manchester...

I think we are arguing the same point.

as is in biamp is physically the same as running straight wire. (same circuit node after all)

 

[Sovkiller]

Quote:

Originally Posted by chesebert /img/forum/go_quote.gif I think we are arguing the same point. as is in biamp is physically the same as running straight wire. (same circuit node after all)

No, but biamping is different. The crossover is divided in two sections, one for each driver, and not connected at all inside the speaker, then you use one amp for each section, giving to each section different levels of attenuatuion, power, etc....but each amp feeds only one portion of the speaker, or one section of the crossover....in bi-wiring you are using the same amp for both sections, that are not connected inside the speaker, but connected outside at the amp output, and you are giving both sections the same level, via the same amp, and using both sections of the crossover at the amp output together...biamping and biwiring are two completelly different things...

 

[infinitesymphony]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sovkiller /img/forum/go_quote.gif No, but biamping is different. The crossover is divided in two sections, one for each driver, and not connected at all inside the speaker...

Don't forget about passive bi-amping, which uses the speaker's internal crossover. Many speaker manufacturers recommend this over active bi-amping because the internal crossover is customized for the speaker.

 

[Sovkiller]

Quote:

Originally Posted by infinitesymphony /img/forum/go_quote.gif Don't forget about passive bi-amping, which uses the speaker's internal crossover. Many speaker manufacturers recommend this over active bi-amping because the internal crossover is customized for the speaker.

But IMO that is more or less the same as biamping, just that you get a more accurate adjustment of levels, as you use the same preamp section, just different power amps, but at the end, all biamping scenarios need to use different amps to feed the drivers, in biwiring the amp is absolutelly the same from input to output...I think that passive biamping is more or less what we found in the active monitors...correct me if I'm wrong...I never got to understand very well what passive biamping was....

 

[infinitesymphony]

Sorry to drag up an old thread, but I've made a minor discovery... Those of you who recommended using speaker wire as jumpers were right! They made just as much of an improvement as bi-wiring. Instead of the Canare 4S11 14 AWG cable, I'm running BJC Belden 10 AWG speaker cables to the woofer posts and have made mini-jumpers out of BJC Belden 12 AWG that run from the woofer posts to the tweeter posts.

Lately, I had been running them with just the 10 AWG cables and the original brass bridges back in place, and the improvement when I took those out and hooked up the jumpers was huge.

 

[tbonner1]

I agree the bridges used with most bi-wire speaker terminals should be replaced.

That said I like the idea of bi-wire ing my speakers although the differences for me have been subtle.

Bi amping makes a bigger difference.