OK my fellow Outlaw family members...

For all those that have bi-wired in the past. What sonic difference does it make? I have seen way too many people say it is absolutely a waste of time and $$....

Yet the same amount of people swear by it and praise the sonic differences.

Some already know that I have DefTech BP30's upfront for mains (models without built in subs) and was wondering if I should even bother. I have 2 friends that have tried. One has a pair of BP30's as I do, the other has BP10's. The friend with the 10's said he likes it better after bi-wiring yet he went back to a normal hookup.

The other friend with the same speakers as myself....said he tried it and heard no difference whatsoever and went back to a normal connection. I never had the chance to hear them on my own and before I drop some $$ on a pair of cables that feature bi-wiring connections, who better to ask then all of you?

------------------
Play it LoUd!!

If you must bi-wire, just run two sets in parallel - at least you're reducing the series resistance that way. An easier way to do the same thing would be just buy bigger wire.

Consider that, for all practical purposes the Resistance in a correctly sized set of wire is negligible and the speed of signal propagation is effectively infinite, so all points on the wire are the same for all practical purposes, electrically speaking. Then analyze the various topologies.

<---- Not an engineer. Charlie, speak english damnit! LOL...seriously now...

I need it said to me in simple terms...propagation, infinite, and topologies....

What are the benefits of bi-wiring? I just got a new pair of BetterCables that make my AR master series sound like poop. I could have bought the pair that had bi-wiring on the speaker end. Just wondering if I should return these and try it out.

------------------
Play it LoUd!!

OK -

Simply get your $$ ($$$ ?) back and go to either the internet or Home Depot / hardware store, buy some good quality 10-12 gauge stranded wire with decent insulation. Use the money you have left over to buy music. Or, if you want to do something with the wire you can buy banana or spade terminators.

As always, YMMV, IMO, and just my $0.02

In my opinion, bi-wiring is more marketing hype than reality. Electrically, you're not buying anything unless your original speker wires were way too small of a gauge and therefore had too much resistance. I use 12 gauge wire in my system, and would recommend you get either this or 10 gauge at any place that sells good wire. "Audiophile" speaker wire is, I believe, a waste of money, and you're better off spending your money on things that do make a difference, like more DVDs


------------------
The Soundhound Theater

Hmmm..interesting. Thanks!

------------------
Play it LoUd!!

I just biwired my DIY speakers, which I built to allow it. I had my old cable hooked up to them for a few months already. I honestly can not tell the difference. I'm using 11ga Canare 4s11 cable in a 'shotgun' config now. Each piece is the thickest cable I've ever used, and I'm using two for each channel.

I heard a much bigger difference when I swapped my tubes in my preamp. There was a noticable change in the soundstage. This cost about the same as the cable (which was inexpensive.)

Some tweaks are worth the effort, others just aren't.

I am still on the fence with bi-wire. Some speaker manufacturer's provide for it, some don't. The one's that don't, obviously don't feel the benefits outweigh the effort/cost. Those that do, either believe in it, or just do it to be perceived as better/more high-end, etc.

Although I only own his subwoofer, I think Richard Vandersteen knows what he is doing when it comes to engineering speakers and maximizing value (performance/cost). All but his least expensive speakers are bi-wire only. If you read his web page, he believes the benefit to bi-wiring is that the collapsing magnetic fields from the bass signals in the speaker wires can induce distortion into the higher frequencies. By separating the bass signals from the mids/highs, you greatly reduce that distortion. As such, he only recommends a "shotgun" set-up, with separate runs, physically separated by an inch or two (enough to be out of the collapsing magnetic field).

I currently have my mains shotgunned bi-wired. I haven't gone back and forth to compare. Basically I had an old 15' pair of original Monster, and for free made 2 7.5' pairs. That alone lowered the resistance and capacitance of my cables by a factor or 2, before counting the effects of the 2nd run.

I think people who hear huge differences may have changed speaker wire at the same time. Thus the measurable electrical properties may have changed too. Resistance is only important if it gets too high. For short runs, once you get to 16 or 14 ga, the reduction is resistance makes negligable differences. Capacitance is another story, but all I will say is that it can vary between cables and can account for much of what can be discerned between cables.

In my mind the jury is still out. I think you need a fairly high resolution system to start with. Then maybe A-B differences can be found. Gross differences, to me, imply at least one set of poorly engineered cables with serious design flaws.

Just my $.02.

Last time I checked there was money in it for ANYONE who could identify cables in an A/B/X test run by a fella - don't remember who. I think he was on one of the 'other' forums.

I saw some speaker cables on the web listed as the ultimate; a cool $23,000 US for a pair. I think when you spend that kind of money on these, your brain will find a way of making you believe you hear a difference.

I'm happy with my 18 gauge solid core thermostat wire. It was on hand. Just have to keep the old brain in check, it keeps saying what if you upgraded to......

But is it oxygen free, grain oriented thermostat wire?



------------------
The Soundhound Theater

The following link to AudioQuest's site shows their thoughts on cables in general and on bi-wiring.

http://www.audioquest.com/theory/cable_theory.html

I found it to be a pretty interesting read.

I recently bi-wired by Monitor Audio 5i's using the older hyperlitz version of the AudioQuest Slate. I purchased the wires and originally installed them in a normal single run configuration (non bi-wired). I then bought some good quality spades and converted them to an internal bi-wire. To be completely honest, I'm not sure if I hear any difference or not since I've changed them to bi-wire. (That should tell you something.) I did hear some positive differences when I changed to the better wires versus the cheap stuff that I have previously used. (wider and deep soundstage)

My guess is that if you didn't like the sound you got with the BetterCables in a single run, I doubt that you're going to like them as a bi-wire either. You might want to return what you've bought and try another brand or get some demo wires from a local dealer. Also, don't judge the wires too early. Supposedly, most better quality wires need to burn-in and may not sound good at all when originally connected, but, after running for a while, open up and smooth out. We're dealing with interactive systems and the wires that sound good to you in your system will be dependent on the components in your system and on your ears.

Personally, I think that wires can make a difference in the sound being reproduced. Before I'd jump into spending a considerable sum on some new bi-wire cables, I think that I'd install some decent quality interconnects (~$15-$25)and buy some moderately priced used speaker cables. I've heard bigger differences when replacing interconnects than I have speaker cable.(check out ebay and audiogon) If you don't like them, sell 'em to someone else and buy another pair.

Chris

I love my bettercables. But seeing as I was finalizing some upgrades, I was wondering about the biwiring.

My master series i was using previously definitely conveyed a harsher sound to any highs. Everything sounds a little more laid back now, with the bass being just a tad deeper and tighter. Very pleased with the Premium II cables

Thanks for the input.

------------------
Play it LoUd!!

Look no further than Outlaw for decent interconnects.

I've been out of town and I'm coming in a little late here, but there are few things in audio that I understand LESS than the supposed advantages of bi-wiring. Which, if I understand correctly, consists of running two parallel sets of wire from an amp channel to a two-or-more-way speaker. At the speaker end, you are still sending the signal into a passive crossover of some description, right? So nothing of substance changed there by bi-wiring. At the amp end, the wires are electrically connected to each other, right? Then logically, the only even theoretically possible advantage is lower resistance, yet as others have said, a single 10- or even 12-gauge stranded copper wire pair with decent insulation will measure negligible resistance to speaker loads over any reasonable run length. On my upper-level-consumer-grade ohmeter, I measure zero resistance on my six-foot run of 10-gauge stranded copper.

If "collapsing magnetic fields from bass signals ... induce distortion in the upper frequencies", etc. etc., this is going to happen anyway as bi-wiring is neither electrically isolating the signals nor physically moving the upper frequency speaker inputs further from the bass.

As others have said, perhaps those who have noticed improvement have been using crummy wire to start with (I can believe that bi-wiring lamp zip cord, for example, could measurably lower resistance compared with a single pair). VERY long wire runs might also be occasion for bi-wiring. Another possible reason for perceived improvement is the simple act of changing the connection. I believe that most of our friction-based audio connections degrade electrically due to minute amounts of surface oxidation. Every couple of months, I simply pull out and then reinsert each of my connectors, and I would swear that I SOMETIMES notice a slightly cleaner signal.

On the other hand, I believe that depending on the speakers and especially the design of their crossover, one CAN achieve audible improvement by bi-amping, whereby the bass and treble signals are more or less de-coupled at the amp end. (For those with the 5, 6 and 7-speaker systems, I would say that audible results would only be achieved on the "main" speakers, and only then if they are set to "large" and are in themselves of high quality). Of course, unless the amps are truly identical, bi-amping does introduce a complex new set of paramters in terms of volume and frequency matching. I bi-amped for some years (roughly 1973-1988) on my two-channel music system, and all of my audio friends concurred that there was audible improvement in clarity and attack or transient response. I stopped because with my next set of speakers, improved and much more complex crossover design both reduced the potential improvement, and made it very difficult to accurately match gain settings on the two amps.

I read somewhere on the internet(so it must be true that bi-wiring was "discovered" when a bi-amped system, which had been determined to have an improved sound, was analyzed. They replaced components one by one and lo and behold found that the one thing that made the most difference was the effect of the bi-wire, not the bi-amp.

I have bi-wired my current set up, and as I already stated earlier find no noticeable improvement over my lower quality single wire. And again, its not like I never hear the improvements from tweaks, just not from this one. Maybe if I spent more money?

YMMV

I have used "true" bi-amping for a couple decades, and frankly am amazed that "passive bi-amping" and "bi-wiring" even exist. Of these, passive bi-amping at least could offer some benefit, but as far as I'm concerned, it's just adding another layer of electronics in the signal path for questionable benefit.

------------------
The Soundhound Theater

I have B&W's, which I used to run bi-wired(LCR)using Audioquest Crystal (I believe that's what it was). I no longer do. I hear no difference. B&W has always been a big proponent of bi-wiring and design most of their line to allow for it. What are the benefits? Here's what they have to say on this subject. To be honest, I don't think I really buy into their theory as to why they believe it is best to bi- wire. Note that they say "keen' listeners should hear a difference. Maybe your hearing is keen enough to discern the difference- who knows. (They also offer their thoughts on bi-amping. Soundhound-- don't read-- they used entirely too much ink talking about those pesky tube amps ).
Personally, I think you should try it. You may find it makes a positive improvement in your system. If you find it does nothing for you, at least you won't have to wonder if you are missing out. (Maybe your friend still has his set around and would let you try them- if they are of suitable length). Bottom line-- only your ears can really answer this question.

You suppose the old "snake oil" salesmen really did go into the hi-fi business?

The whole tweek-ism thing has it's roots in the early days of Hi-Fi, around 1950. At that time, sound was more an interactive hobby, and constructing your own gear was the norm. The great debate of the day was whether triode or pentode vacuum tubes were better. The thing is, during this time, there WERE obvious sound differences between components. For instance, the difference between triode and pentode topology was real, could be measured, and plainly heard.

Unfortunately, this period also gave birth to the "my ears are better than yours" snobbery that pervades some wine tasting circles. This mentality has persisted to this day. A visit to any high-end audio "salon" is apt to be greeted with a sizing up of your "aural chops" and how much money you have to spend.

As components have matured, they have become much more "monolithic" and less able to be customized, at least in the way they were in the 1950s. So what is a poor audiophile/HT buff to do when he/she gets the urge to tweak? What are you going to do in an age when components are more "black boxes", than something with parts you can actually see and touch? Well, things like "bi-wiring" offer ways that consumers can "tweak" without actully modifying the products. To make real changes requires electronics knowledge that most consumers don't posess. To do things like active bi-amping require the gutting of the crossover from a speaker, or the construction of the speaker system from scratch. Most people can't or won't do this.

THAT is what I believe things like "bi-wiring" are: a way to "tweak" in one of the few ramaining ways consumers have left, given the complexity of modern components. Manufacturers can position themselves as "high end" by supporting such practices. Cottage industries crop up to make money from questionable "tweaks": you can spend literally thousands of dollars on a simple speaker wire (oh, excuse me - interconnect) if so inclined. It has been called "audio jewelry", and I think that description fits.

Sorry for the rant---I feel much better now

------------------
The Soundhound Theater

The 'tubistor' (SP?) thing was one of my personal favorites.

That's a good one charlie, but my favorite has to be those "hockey pucks" (forget what they are called) you place on your speakers/equipment. Say-- how do you like the Emperor's new clothes?

Are you referring to those "shatki stones" things? My all time favorite were those adhesive "dots" that you placed on things, even in the room to improve the sound.

That's it! Adhesive dots, huh? That's good.

My hearing is so sensitive, I can hear things that don't exist.

Paul

------------------
the 1derful1

p.s.

Here is a link that desccribes some benefits and disadvantages of bi-wiring.

http://www.sonicdesign.se/biwire.html

[This message has been edited by Paul J. Stiles (edited March 01, 2003).]

One of the most rational explanations that I've read with respect to the improvements caused by bi-wiring came from the XLO Electric web site (http://www.xloelectric.com/technicalsupport.php#a10).

In a nutshell, they attribute any improvement from bi-wiring to the removal of the stamped, brass straps that are typically used to connect the high and low side of the crossover when not bi-wiring.

So they say it fixes something that being equiped for bi-wire caused? A '10' for creativity at the very least I'd say!

Yeah, sort of...

If the high and low sections of the xover are intended to be fed separately, then the only way for the speaker to work if you don't have bi-wire cables is to use a jumper (or the commonly supplied brass straps) across the binding posts. Perhaps brass straps aren't great conductors for this purpose.

The conclusion that I'd draw from this (and the one that XLO offers) is that you could replace the brass straps with good-quality wire jumpers and be fine.

As with many other things audio, I suspect that there may be some measureable differences (improvements?) that you could attribute to the bi-wire capability, but whether those differences are audible or not is another matter.

I've never taken the time to A/B my speakers both ways -- I've always bi-wireed at the recommendation of the speaker manufacturer.

It still makes no sense to me. Even though the material is a worse conductor than copper, the run is so short the resistance should be very, very low. Also, the straps I've seen were pretty husky, so even on a poor material, resistance will be proportional to length and inversely proportional to cross section.

I don't have speaker wire - the crossovers on my speakers extend back to the amp, so what do I know?

EDIT: [spelling]

[This message has been edited by charlie (edited March 16, 2003).]

Check out this analysis of bi-wiring:http://www.pcavtech.com/techtalk/biwire/index.htm . It's bunk. Save your cash and buy some CDs and DVDs.

Jeff


[This message has been edited by D'Arbignal (edited March 16, 2003).]

My humble opinion is:

Any benefit or detriment of bi-wiring must be dependent upon impedance of the wire itself, and even then, would be overwhelmingly resistive in nature, with little or no measureable reactance, even skin effect.

That has to be the difference between bi-wiring and merely parallelling the same two lengths of wire. I do have trouble believing that the supposed disadvantage of bi-wiring really matters.

Having said all that, when I made my in-wall stack and ran new speaker wires (and sub line-level interconnects) in the wall, I bi-wired for a few reasons:

1) I had a spool of 14 gauge handy, and felt that, for my power levels and wire lengths, a heavier gauge would be desirable. I could have merely parallelled, I suppose, but.....

2) My amps have two sets of terminals (with a slight difference) on most channels, Bob suggests trying it, and my speakers have two (three-actually) sets of terminals, plus.....

3) I could, and there was no good reason not to.

The most audible difference I made was using full-range pre-amp outputs (which the speaker maker suggests) instead of LFE outputs to drive the sub amps.



------------------
Larry Fine
www.fineelectricco.com
My system

I'd like somebody to explain to me why bi-wiring would sound any better than, oh, say, using thicker cables.

Jeff

Oh, Jeff, I'm actually in agreement with you. If you look at my post again, you'll see my reasoning.

------------------
Larry Fine
www.fineelectricco.com
My system

I guess I am in the minority again. I do think you can hear a difference with cable. I have built some nice cables and interconnects and some are better than others. I can hear a difference in all of them (I do not sell them they are for me and friends). I also have heard some cables and interconnects that sound a lot better than the ones I build in my system. Most of them were quite expensive. My wire matched up with the cables in the $100 to $200 range from most companies although thee are a few in the reasonable range that beat me too. There is a guy off ebay making a nice little interconnect, the phono plugs look good and the cables can often be had for $10 to $12 bucks if the auction is slow. I must admit he makes a better cable than me, I like em. I have dabbled with making silver wires but the purchased silver cables sound better to me than mine. I have not tried the Outlaws cable. I plan too. I saw in Steve Hoffmans Discussion group that his engineer is making silver cables that Steve claims beat his $2000 cables and the prices he is charging are low, real world stuff for members of that Discussion group (easy to join). The RCAs are right out of the 60s. I have replaced a lot of my own designs with pruchased cables that sounded very good. I never paid the big bucks, buying used or trading out work or something in return. Winning in Fantasy Football and Baseball in my local leagues is throw away money to me and a great chance to experiment with cable. Unlike some that love to bash AQ, I find some of there products to exceed anything I can build and as I said I like what I build.

Next, I have not noticed a significant difference in bi wiring. I have played with it and continue to use it. I am building a set of shotgun runs for bi wiring this week end In hopes that it helps. But if I was doing it over with nicer cable I would go for a full range cable and a nice jumper cable made from the same. Of course any jumper cable beats that brass bar they send you with the speakers. AND that probably is what a lot people hear when they convert to bi wire.

As to Canare, I have read that the top end is not very good with the 4s11 and that in a shotgun run utilize the 4s8 in the top. I am building my Cable in this format this weekend if the cable gets in in time. THe Canare is very cheap, $.69 a foot for the 4s11 and $.41 for the 4s8. Can't beat that at Home Depot with zip cord. I don't know how it will sound, Soundhound may know more about Canare from recording studios, but I will have 12 foot run of Shotgun bi wire for a around $40 bucks to play with (including spades and bananas). And for another $.50 a foot I can put on a nice outer poly slleve that makes it look like a botique cable. Everyone will think I have $1000 cables.

I have tried bi-wiring on numerous systems. In most cases there was little to no difference. However, in one case it did make a difference and I preferred the biwired combo. This is in my current den music system. I have a pair of ASL Wave-DT's hooked to a pair of Wharfedale Anniversary 7.2. I am also using a Canare shotgun configuration of Canare 4S11 for the bottom end and Canare 4s8 for the top end. I originally utilized two runs of 4s11, but the top end seemed muted, not rolled off, just muted. That cleared up with the substitution of the 4s8. I like experimenting and have gone back to single runs on other systems. YMMV.

I'm not saying I'm agreeing or disagreeing with you. I wasn't responding to you, but rather to the topic. I apologize if you thought I was directing my criticism at you.

Jeff

I'll have to try the 4S8 on the top. I've only used 4S11 and can't say that I've heard any difference from my old cables, either as shotgun bi-wire, single bi-wire or non-biwired. Its a cheap enough thing to try.

Can someone describe or show a picture of a "shotgun run" and how it's connected on the amp side?

Is it two separate wires coming from each binding post? How do you connect it to the amp's binding post? One wire has a banana connector and the other wire a spade? Or does each wire have a spade and both spades are connected to the binding post?

The main benefit for bi-wiring, as I understand it, is to isolate the interaction of the Low Frequency drivers and the midrange/tweeter. The movement of a traditonal coil/cone driver causes variations in the impedance of the circuit at the speaker end of the cable, which in turn can create harmonics that are reproduced by the other drivers. Bi-wiring eliminates this interaction.

I have bi-amped my B&W mains, and have found another benefit. While the HF (midrange/tweeter) circuit is essentialy run in bypass mode, the LF (base driver) circuit is run through a parametric EQ between the pre-amp and the amp. This allows for the correction of room/speaker characteristics, without getting the HF signal involved, where EQ distortion would be more evident.

From the FAQ section of the B&W website...

Bi-wiring and bi-amping

Most B&W speakers are provided with two pairs of speaker terminals; this allows you to either bi-wire or bi-amplify them. The aim of both these techniques is not to simply get the customer to spend more on cables and electronics (although no manufacturer objects to this spin off) but to improve the resolution of the speakers.

A multi-way speaker contains a crossover network that not only divides the incoming signal into different frequency ranges, appropriate to the working range of each drive unit, but also equalizes each driver’s response to be flat (raw driver responses are usually anything but flat).

There are two different basic types of crossover – series and parallel. Series crossovers have each filter section wired in series between the positive and negative input terminals. It is impossible to treat each filter section individually – each interacts with the others – and such crossovers are not suitable for bi-wiring or bi-amping. But by far the most common type is parallel. Here, each driver has its own filter wired between it and the input terminals. If there is only one pair of input terminals, the inputs to all the filters are connected in parallel to that one pair of terminals. If, however, you have more than one pair of terminals, you can completely separate the inputs to each filter. Why on earth would you want to do such a thing?

In the case of bi-wiring, the answer lies in the cable connecting the speaker to the amplifier and the fact that the amplifier is a voltage source but the speaker is a current driven device (force on voice coil = magnet flux density x length of conductor in the magnet gap x current).

Firstly, all cables are a compromise. Some types of construction work better at low frequencies and others at higher frequencies. Providing separate inputs to the speaker allows you to use different cable types, each optimised for the frequency range of use.

Secondly, consider that the cable has an impedance that causes a voltage drop along its length. Now consider the current flowing along the cable. Assume for the argument that the amplifier delivers a perfect voltage waveform to the cable and the cable itself adds no distortion. However, each driver has a non-linear impedance (for example, the inductance of the voice coil alters depending on its position in the magnet gap) that causes the current to be non-linear. This non-linear current through the impedance of the cable causes the voltage drop along the cable to be non-linear and thus the voltage across the speaker terminals is also non-linear, even though it is linear at the amplifier end.

If we were just concerned with one driver, things would not be too bad. But that non-linear voltage at the speaker terminals may contain harmonics within the frequency range of one of the other drivers and that driver will reproduce them, albeit at low level. If, however, you separate the inputs to each driver filter, each driver’s distortion is kept to itself and the total system distortion goes down. We are talking small changes here, but the resolution of some modern drivers is now so good that small improvements like this are readily detectable by keen listeners.

Many people ask us whether the load on the amplifier is different if you bi-wire. It is not. As far as the amplifier is concerned, it matters not one jot whether you parallel the inputs to the filter sections at the speaker end or the amplifier end of the speaker cable.

Bi-amping takes advantage of all this and adds some benefits of its own. Like with cable, you can choose different amplifiers that excel in different frequency bands. You may, for example, be keen on valve (tube) amplifiers. But even the most die-hard of aficionados would be hard pushed to claim that they are any good at keeping good control of the bass. Bi-amping enables you to combine a valve amplifier for mid and high frequencies with the control of a solid-state device at low frequencies.

Unlike bi-wiring, the load to each amplifier is different from that using a single amplifier full range. The voltage demands on each amplifier remain the same (each is still fed a full-range input and gives a full-range output), but the current demands are reduced. This of itself can improve the amplifier’s ability to deliver the signal to the speaker.

Be careful when bi-amping that the gain and polarity of each amplifier are the same, otherwise you will compromise the frequency response of the system.

Copyright Disclaimer
Bowers & Wilkins home audio and home cinema speakers 2003

Actually, I don't recommend doing that. Equalizers tend to introduce phase-changes in the signal. If all the signals are equally phase-altered, it's not a problem, but if you're phase-shifting one part of the signal but not another, all bets are off as to what the results are likely to be.

If you're doing it and you like the sound, terrific. Otherwise, you might want to consider getting a higher-quality equalizer ... or go without an equalizer at all. For instance, an equalizer without an RTA is likely to more harm than good ...

Jeff

Thanks Jeff... I am OK on the phase issue in my set-up, but you are absolutely right about the potential harm.

I believe there are a significant number of sound processors available that also offer phase alignment adjustment for multiple channels. I my case the parametric EQ is made by Symetrix, and it has not altered the phase of the signal significantly enough to be a problem.

[This message has been edited by AGAssarsson (edited June 18, 2003).]

audvid,

Shotgun is two seperate cables, the theory being that by seperating the runs with full range cable and keeping the cable apart it will have a better benefit than an internal bi wire. You can read a lot about that at Audio Asylum in cable section. Just do a search on Shotgun. You can go any number of ways, if you are making the cables simply solder the matching conductors of each cable to the same spade. The speaker end are as normal. YOu can also use a banana and spade combo on the 2 cables keeping them completely seperate as you mentioned, or 2 banana's that are capable of piggy backing into each other. I am not real fond of the piggy back or banana's in general if the cable is where someone might trip and dilodge it. That is easy with the piggy back types that I have seen and with my grandkids a disaster waiting to happen. Hope that helps.

OFCCM, thank you very much, that does help. Thanks for taking the time to respond.

In the case of the Canare 4S11 cable, it has 4 separate 14ga conductors running through the single cable, so you can use it as a single bi-wire, one conductor for each speaker terminal. When used shotgun, you use 2 conductors (11ga equivalent) twisted together at the end for each speaker terminal, and 4 condutors at the amp end. Its a lot of wire to connect when all you have are screw terminals like I do on my old Dynaco. I ended up not doing shotgun there because of it.

I thought I would throw my two bits in: about a month ago I put the cheater plates back on my bi-wired speakers (B&W 604's driven by 200 watt Rotel) thus defeating the bi-wire configuration. I can say after a month of listening to many movies and cd's I am familiar with that I heard NO audible difference in the sound.

Up until that point I had bi-wired for 2 years based on the dealer's recommendation that I do so when I bought them. All I could say at that point in my HT education was that it at least looked cool and the 2nd set of posts were there so I might as well use them. As it turned out for my system, it didn't really matter one way or the other.

[This message has been edited by Joshorr (edited June 20, 2003).]

Ahhh, but your speakers know that the dual wires are still there, in spite of the jumper plate being present. I bet if you removed one of the wires, your soundstage would collapse by 53.8% (at least)......

Oh, at least!

While it seems I am in the minority, I do believe that bi-wire and bi-amp solutions can make noticeable improvements to the reproduction of music. While I watch movies on the same system, I would expect the benefits for movies to be far less evident, and in my case, less important.

B&W is a company with which I have a very long and satisfying experience. Over the past twenty years, I have owned numerous generations of their speakers. While visiting my in-laws in England two years ago, I had the opportunity to visit their headquarters in Worthing. We spoke to two of the engineers responsible for the development of the Nautilus line, and my respect for the philosophy of the company was significantly reinforced.

A large part of my affection for Outlaw Audio is based on what I perceive as a similar honesty and directness in their approach to the design and development of their product line. Case in point... B&W had some very functional, yet aesthetically challenged speaker designs throughout the early period of the company. The development of the drivers, crossovers, and cabinet/enclosures has all been reduced to the most detailed and fundamental analysis. At the time of my visit, I believe there were something like twenty Ph.D’s working on various elements of loudspeaker research and design.

The introduction of separate crossover boards in the B&W line is almost as old as the company itself. I believe bi-wire terminals were first included in the initial Matrix series release in 1987. B&W have an explanation of their reasons for providing the possibility for bi-wiring and bi-amping in the FAQ section of their website.

The engineers I spoke with at B&W said that they use a bi-amplified system configuration for their personal use, and that was sufficient enough for me to try it for myself. In my personal experience, playing well-recorded music, I believe there are significant sonic improvements to the bi-amplified system I have described in another Outlaw topic forum. It should be pointed out that because the B&W crossovers are designed to complement the specific drivers, it was not recommended to bypass the crossovers inside the speakers by using custom crossovers elsewhere in the signal path. This IS a valid solution for other speakers however.

While a significant number of prominent recording/mastering studios use B&W monitors, I do not know how many make use of the bi-wire terminal option. My guess it that it is mostly common. Since this subject has gotten so much mileage, I have promised myself to contact B&W, and perhaps some studios to hear their opinions and the list of supporting equipment.

Joshorr... The same US firm, located in Massachusetts distributes B&W and Rotel. If you look at some of the recent Rotel promotional video, B&W seem to be the only speakers connected. I believe that B&W 604’s are very capable speakers, so given the right recordings and supporting equipment, perhaps there will be some qualitative improvement to bi-wiring, but not easily noticeable. The B&W Nautilus technology speakers that incorporate the FST midrange unit, have better rendering of the midrange frequencies where I believe the benefits are more easily perceived.

While I respectfully disagree with those who would place bi-wiring and/or bi-amping in the same kettle with so many limp fish, I will acknowledge that the differences are subtle, and dependant on very good supporting equipment to allow them to be noticed at all.

My affection for the B&W mark, and the people behind it, is something that I believe many Outlaws and Gunslingers can understand. I am confident that when they took the trouble to include this feature, they were not motivated solely by some marketing survey, but in evolving the potential of the speaker line. B&W and Outlaw Audio are among that rare breed of companies that simply care enough to do things well, but not waste.

[This message has been edited by AGAssarsson (edited June 22, 2003).]

The phase change would not be linear for the entire frequency band anyway. Symetrix makes very decent parametrics, with specific attention to phase behavior.

Daring, though to put an EQ in the system. Even the finest room treatment cannot always make the loudspeaker locations work well with the size and geometry of the smaller rooms...


Snarf

I get a chance to experiment with other's equipment on a regular basis. And room equalization is more than a hobby for me, as I have been working with musicians, designing studios and clubs since the mid 80's.

While Symetrix does a great job with phase coherence, I have been looking at the new Behringer "Ultra Curve Pro 2496" as something new to try out, it is a 24 bit/96kHz digital processor. And two (2) SHARC 40bit processors for internal number crunching. If this thing works... half as good as the hype, wow... for $300 you can put a lot of tools to work for both big and little rooms. I have clients who are using it now, and have been astounded by it's price/performance ratio. Sound like some other audio equipment you've heard of?

We do analysis of the sound profiles of rooms at different positions. For a paying customer, or a tempermental musician, the sweet spot better be bigger than the head of a Callaway driver. We have found that if you just pass the high frequency (HF) signal (above 350 Hz) to the amps, the spacial information is often much better rendered. We usually can find architectural methods of shaping the HF sound profiles in rooms that work well.

For live music, track specific EQ, and other FX (effects) can be applied before summing at the mixing board. After summing, the signal can go to the active crossover network and specific room EQ is applied to the low frequency (LF) signal. This way, you EQ the room separately, and the musicians and sound engineers can play with all the knobs and boxes they want without changing the room EQ settings.

For my home, I only EQ the LF signal, and with great success. We have done extensive measurements of phase shift and frequency response. To do this well, you can not rely on a 1/3 octave tone generator and 31 band equalizer, as 1/3 of an octave is just too broad to get accurate measurements or good EQ solutions. There is PC software available that compares very well to the best sound analyzers. Try this site; http://www.trueaudio.com (available for $100) for example. This provides up to 1/24 octave measurements with great accuracy. I have compared the results to the $8,500 pro gear we still sometimes use, but the overall diagnostic ability is just as valuable.

So this is the principal reason why I bi-amp my main speakers (B&W N803's with an internal passive crossover); to achieve speaker/room EQ for LF, while keeping the HF signal clean, simple, and SPATIAL (a wide and deep soundstage with a big sweetspot). I will probably try a valve amp for the HF to try to hear what so many in the "tube community" have been trumpeting.

Anyway, it works for me, and I believe this technique could potentialy make a positive contribution to many other's systems as well.

Thanks for your post,
Allan

[This message has been edited by AGAssarsson (edited August 27, 2003).]