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).]