Bi-Wiring, Pt 2: A Clever Trick You Should Know!
Vložit
- čas přidán 13. 06. 2023
- This is PART 2 in my speaker bi-wiring series explaining a clever trick. A basic recap of part 1 is included so this video can theoretically be viewed independently. If you like this video please help me spread the word by sharing a link to it in your audio forums. THANKS!
The Audio Engineering Society defines bi-wiring as follows:
"bi-wire Loudspeakers. A technique that uses two wires to connect between one power amplifier and one loudspeaker instead of the more conventional one-wire approach. Some high-end consumer loudspeakers provide two sets of terminals with a shorting bar that can be removed to allow bi-wiring. It is important to understand that this is NOT a biamped technique where an electronic crossover and two power amplifiers are used to drive the woofer and high-frequency drivers separately. Instead this is a typical loudspeaker with a built-in passive crossover network that separates the audio signal after it enters the cabinet into (at least) low and high frequency components driving the woofer and high-frequency driver(s). [A very popular technique among wire and cable manufacturers.]"
SOURCE: www.aes.org/par/b/
Roger Russell (R.I.P.) was a longtime engineer, Director of Acoustic Research at McIntosh Laboratory, Inc., and the originator of McIntosh Loudspeakers (although his company is probably best known for their world class amplifiers, many sporting sexy blue power level meters). He's provided a good website discussing speaker wire and it includes a wire table explaining what gauge of wire is adequate for a specific speaker impedance and wire run (length), here: www.roger-russell.com/wire/wir...
Part 1 of this series, better suited to people needing to learn the distinctions between bi-wiring, passive bi-amplifying (common in consumer electronics), and active bi-amplifying (rare in consumer receivers), is here: • Bi-Wiring, Part 1: 𝑻𝒉𝒆... - Jak na to + styl
Another great video! Thank you!
A long time no nonsense honest friend to the audiophile who doesn't have unlimited money to burn.
Juat watched part 1. I was always confused about this... now i know..
Delightful and devastating! Thanks again for exposing these lies or, in some cases, unforgivable ignorance.
Thanks.
@@m.zillch3841 We also share similar thoughts on the brilliance and continued viability of the AR X turntable and various EDC hacks. So, double thanks!
@@rogerwebb7501 Rodger, well said!
Years ago I bought 2 sets of PolkAudio RTi4's that are dual binding posts with the flat jumper strap. My plans were to split 2 of the 4 of them into Bi-Amp using the high from my amp running the Front CENTER channel and the Low binder's from the amp for the front surround on a Yamaha 7.2 setup. Same for the Rear Center and Rear surrounds, Bi-Amp'ed.
I am using two Monitor XT70's as the front main speakers, two TSi-100 side surrounds and a Monitor XT12 front Sub and a XT10 rear sub. Room is 25 foot deep by 35 foot wide.
The sales guy kept arguing with me that I can not mix two different signals inside the same enclose. I tried to explain the difference between Bi-Wiring and Bi-Amp.
He also TRIED to sell me on a couple rolls of 16 Gauge 'Speaker Wire'. I said 'No Thanks", just shut up and paid for the speakers.
But, yes, Dual binding posts split just to do Bi-Wire is stupid. Just go 1 wire 2 gauges in size larger and POOF, your done. I run 12 gauge fine strand copper everywhere. Works well on turn type binding posts, not so well on spring lever posts.
Excellent! Not better than the first version but more thorough. Well done! For those reading, I found an audible improvement removing the straps from my bi-wire binding posts and replace with quality jumpers. Much better!
Why would the original speaker maker supply inferior performance jumpers though? Wouldn't that move be them shooting themselves in the foot, causing poor reviews, few recommendations, and increase customer returns?
@@m.zillch3841 The cheap "straps" don't necessarily affect the speaker performance so significantly. I had found another video on CZcams previously where a well-known speaker manufacturer explained their use of dual binding posts as just an 'upscale standard' designed as eye candy. The straps are inferior although they still work. Just the tweak of decent "jumpers" is an upgrade. Don't know that I can fully 'explain' marketing strategy.
@@m.zillch3841 Pondering your question further; Why is there such a thing as "planned obsolescence'?
@@zizendorf Planned obsolescence potentially makes the consumer buy more goods from the same company down the road. But a speaker maker intentionally providing shoddy jumper straps with sub-optimal sound doesn't potentially make them either further sales (at least I've never heard of one that sells "upgrade" jumpers) and instead only reflects poorly on them, making them look bad in the customer's eyes, erm, ears.
@@m.zillch3841 Well, maybe a mixed metaphor. But, putting in two sets of binding posts, for no reason, would result in those less informed and/or those prone to purchase snake oil to purchase two sets of speaker cables. And, those straps are crap. The least they could do is use copper.
I've had Yamaha receivers for over 20 years. The 2008 model has binding posts that are labeled for bi-wire, so 4 posts for 2 speakers and the posts are specified for hi and low frequency in the manual. I'm not going to unhook all the connections and pop the hood to see just one set of wires split off. I may not have the exact description of the posts but it is mentioned in the manual and sorta labeled on the back input panel.
I'm ashamed to say this but, back in the early 90's I bought two 6' lengths of Monster branded "hi-fidelity" braided copper clear shielded speaker cables. I typed cable on purpose, I swear I could have used them as jumper cables if I soldered on some big alligator clips. They got me good, and I even would show them off.😅
I'm a longtime Yamaha user too and I sold them for over 20 years. They have a lot of gimmicks that need to be turned off (like all those wacky surround modes) but once you do that their raw performance is pretty good.
I didn't know that speaker cables need to be "shielded". That's a new one to me and I believe it to be erroneous.
@@zizendorfI miss spoke. Not shield but clear PVC.
Thank you for part 2 of the Bi-wire hype. Your 1st video caught me just as I was going to purchase some new even lenght speaker wires for bi-amping my tower cheapo Energy speakers.
I need a good set of front L and R speakers, music is so pleasing and not fatiguing when listening to good speakers. Any suggestions in the 4 to 6 hundred range for 6" Bookshelf speakers?
Sorry, I haven't sold (nor closely followed) speakers for many years. I am of the mind that room placement and decor are actually, in a sense, more important than the speakers themselves though! That is, modest speakers with careful placement and good room acoustics BEATS STATE-OF-THE-ART, PRICE NO OBJECT SPEAKERS with careless placement. That's largely why I posted this test video so you can play with your speaker placement, tow-in, spacing, up/down tilt, and room decor (rugs, drapes, plush furniture, and room treatments, etc.): czcams.com/video/N02Y7vaVDNo/video.html
Brands I would look at though would include Polk and at least one of the economy brands of Harman: like JBL Stage A170 or another one from that same line.
I'am not sure if you have heard of the Martin Logan range? I have ML Bookshelf speakers 4 ohm's with bi-fold tweeters they are crystal clear highly recommend I think from memory I paid $450 US. I was that impressed that I now have ML Motion 40's x2 ML Motion 20's x2 ML Motion 30 (centre) ML Motion 15's x2 ML Electro Motion R's x6 (zone 2&3) and a ML Depth I subwoofer love the sound you can almost hear a pin drop. Something that you never heard before after listening to the same album for years the clarity to me is perfect for my budget. I know that you can pay up to $50-75,000 for a pair of ML Electrostatic Speakers but who has got that sort of money?Just a thought.
@@michaelpoole150 I carried ML hybrid electrostatics and thought they really excelled in some categories.
JBL 308P @$250 each, extraordinary performance/price ratio.
An 8" 2way, active/bi-amped, dsp aligned, soft dome waveguided wonder.
I've purchased four so far, brought them into our family room primary big system, with multiple sub support.
I deployed them two per side, top monitor inverted ... keeping the dome's c-t-c as tight as possible.
So fun and quite impressive results ... for $500 a side!
I'm just amazed at what they do.
Both stereo and multi-channel, the enthusiast community all too often sleeps on the performance represented in the active monitor landscape.
I'm an old dude, I suggest to anyone entering the home audio realm;
- first, inexpensive actives
- then add a sub system
- address the room
- after the room is acoustically sorted, then explore loudspeaker systems
The two-way active marketplace is viciously competitive, elevating performance paired with economy of scale, ... all yielding this landscape that's ripe for the picking.
@@FOH3663 You can check out the Cheapaudioman's reviews of speakers in that price range.
Every system is different:
Simple truth is:
The 2 posts are there for the use of 2 seperate channels to drive the speakers properly.
Tweeters do not require alot of power to drive as to the woofers or even some mids that do require some fire in the wire.
Most people are only going to have regular recievers, in that case use only 1 cable for the speaker and keep your jumper connected.
Its not going to change anything.
If you purchase a processor.
Research the speakers that you are interested in.
Call the manufacturer, ask to talk with the technical department.
Ask them technical questions about there speakers.
And ask them what power requirements do they suggest for the best sound reproduction for the tweeters, mids and woofers.
Ask them what was used to test the speakers individually or all together.
They may tell you exactly what amp works best with there speakers.
At 3:50, the photo of the inside of the amp seems to show some passive components between the positive outputs of the two speaker output pairs. Does this make this setup different from the others?
No. This generic image at 3:50 is merely used to point out that on amplifiers the full range signal arriving at the units' external binding posts got there traveling over a short, SINGULAR wire, never two "bi-wires". So this means if highs and lows indeed "contaminate" each other when they travel down a singular wire then such "contamination" would occur right there in THAT wire, even if it were just 1mm long. [The true, usually fairly low contamination aspect, which I measured in pt. 1 of this video series, called "intermodulation distortion" or "IMD", occurs in the amp electronics, not the speaker wires.
Very interesting and clarifying video.
Could the only difference be the quality of the cables inside the speaker?
Thanks for your time
The "difference"? I know of no test, conducted under proper blind conditions, which found any difference(s). The differences people report in forums and magazine reviews are likely the placebo effect or other factors I hope to discuss in part 3 of this video series. . . if I ever get around to making it!
Love the rational explanation. I've given up trying to convince people they are better off using the money to buy more music.
@@rogerwebb7501 All I can say is that I have an EE, have spent a lot of time doing circuit design and testing and I see no holes in the explanation.
If you want better performance than a single cable to passive crossovers, then use a line level active crossover with proper voltage drives and amplify each driver separately with protection caps on each driver above the woofer and a Zoebel on the woofer for impedance smoothing.
Personally I'm not against bi-wiring or using esoteric metals, etc.. They don't make any measurable or audible difference, but so long as you think they do then to you it's an improvement. Then there is also the intrinsic value of using things that are "nicer" than what is really needed. It's all good.
I believe I may have been thinking about this topic for too long... Having engaged in numerous discussions, I'm wondering if my speakers, with two sets of binding posts - originally with binding straps, and now with better quality jumper cables - aren't already being bi-wired? Both LF and HF posts have signals coming in from two sets of speaker terminals. Granted there aren't two sets of speaker cable feeding respective posts but regardless, aren't they basically bi-wired by design? Interested in comments and discussion... Thanks
The distinction, including speakers using jumper straps left in place, is explained here: 2:29
@@m.zillch3841Thanks for the 're-fresher' as I'm better noticing upon further examination.
Just watched both videos and they were brilliant. Essential viewing and very easy to understand. I biwired some old Tannoys this weekend (thankfully had spare cable the same as my existing so I only wasted €16 on 4 banana plugs). I think I too was experiencing placebo and convincing myself that the mids and hi frequencies had improved, but your explanation is definitive and absolutely confirms my bias. I'll go back to single wires (4x14 so nice guage). I read in the comments that someone had kept their bi wire setup, but added the jumper things back - they said it halves the impedance? Any truth in this and will anything improve? I've also read that some people are using single wire, but with speaker with two sets of inputs, and are configuring the positive and negative plugs in none standard ways and (allegedly) getting better sound? Presumably also nonsense?
I'm glad you liked the two vids.
People don't like the sight and cost of thick wires so we try to use the thinnest possible that won't compromise performance. If you use the proper wire for the task at hand (called "adequate wire" in this pt. 2 video) then a single run gives you 100% optimal performance, which can not be improved upon. [See this wire table to determine what that necessary gauge of copper wire is for a particular setup : www.roger-russell.com/wire.htm#wiretable ]. If you then decide to double the number of strands running along the floor to the speaker by using DUAL runs (two parallel conduits) it will be inconsequential to the performance, however if the existing single run is for some reason INADEQUATE and imposes a substantial impedance, then the dual runs to lower this adverse impedance (a scenario which leaves the jumper strap attached to the speaker so both HF and LF share the benefits of this thicker "double highway" of incoming electrical signal), it may cause a subtle improvement.
The positive to positive and negative to negative connections on the speaker's HF (tweeter section) and LF (woofer section) should always be maintained, but if you ignore this rule and intentionally flip one set it will alter the sound from how the designer intended. It is unlikely to measure better so it is inferior to the conventional connection, however it creates a small degree of EQ and phase disturbance which some people may happen to deem "pleasing". I do not recommend it.
Imho adding the jumper would benefit lower frequensies. I have no actual kmowledge, but as we all know subwoofers need the most power and midrange sertainly severelt less and high frequencies the least amount. So with biwiring you only use one pair for elements using more power. For example it could be 1:4 or even 1:8. Someone with knowledge could answer here. Worst case you add another wire and its barely used and the other is maxed. When connected both are used to their fullest.
Do speaker wires need to be the same length? After watching this, it leads me to believe they can be different lengths as long as it's the right size wire. I ask this because my amp is situated much closer to the left speaker than than the right speaker. Much thanks!
Yes, you are correct. As long as the longer wire is adequate for the speaker load and distance, then the shorter one can be any length equal to or shorter than that. The signal propagates along the wire at a velocity over 50% the speed of light (186,000 miles per second, 300 million meters per second) so there is no perceptible delay or anything. Here's why dealers created the myth the wires need to be the same length:
If you buy bulk wire off the roll and state you need 20ft. for right speaker and 3ft. for the left, which would the dealer rather sell you: 23ft or 40ft.?
HA, right on! Thank you! @@m.zillch3841
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?
Great videos, and I agree that bi-wiring is just a gimmick. BUT!!! You could argue that the back emf has a longer path to get back to the tweeter and dissipate in strength meaning marginally clearer highs. Just a theory.
Think about this. IF indeed the longer path had a meaningful dissipation on the back-EMF, reducing its level. [And I'm playing along that it's an issue in the first place, which in truth it isn't in modern amps due to their damping factor.] Then this same weakening would also occur on ALL signals traveling down longer paths, not just back -EMF, right? Then how come if we wire a front left speaker with one foot of speaker wire and the front right with 20 feet of the same (adequate gauge) speaker wire, there is no need to re-adjust the balance control, they stay equal in level, yet we've changed the signal's travel distance by 20X?
Is this still true when using directional speaker cables?
I accidentally hooked up one pair with the writing backwards, and the right side sounded like the voice had been recorded backwards😁
HA! Good one.
Imagine u had instalked it inside a wall or something. 😂
if I remember correctly, idea behind biwiring is to have longer wire between woofer and tweeter. EMF generated by woofer need to travel longer path to tweeter, and in half way is amplifier which should absorb most of foregin EMF, depending on amp internal resistance (damping factor).
I explain that falsity in part one (my previous video) with a diagram showing the potential pathway of concern, depicted with blue arrows, back-EMF, exists equally in BOTH scenarios, here:czcams.com/video/McH2tlfj0vo/video.html
Electricity is not "hindered" by long wires, assuming they are adequate; it is the amp's damping factor (equally present in both scenarios) which protects us from any substantial back-EMF.
To be fair, "hindered" would need some defining, ... however, wire length is absolutely an element at play.
Cross sectional area and length (material and geometry, etc.).
@@FOH3663 No, the length could even be a mile long, as long as the R, L, and C of the wire is adequate for the task. This is not some big mystery; it was solved decades ago. I did define "hindered" by providing a link to this, which discusses distances and gauges of copper wire, related to performance: www.roger-russell.com/wire/wire.htm#wiretable
@@m.zillch3841
Agreed, apologies, ... I didn't make myself clear.
Even if one accepts the greatest hypothetical performance claims of those purporting benefits via bi-wiring, it'd still be the last upgrade avenue to explore when time and money allow.
I agree with essentially all you're sharing. You're likely saving some misguided enthusiasts some money and time better spent elsewhere (ie., the loudspeaker/room interface).
However, length seems to be akin to the third rail in much of the discussion.
The fallback being; as long as R, L, and C are adequate ... removing it from consideration.
But it is a consideration, albeit modest.
Although the block diagram is the same, with current division, they're not equivalent electrically, right?
Respectfully
@FOH3663 The current division, if measured at the TRULY analogous points in the two circuits, IS THE SAME assuming adequate wiring is used throughout, but that's indeed exactly the trick the bi-wiring marketers use to deceive people and I've even seen an electrical engineer get tricked until it was brought to his attention. It is a clever trick they use, getting people to compare the current at NON-analogous points in the two circuits pretending that they ARE analogous.That's indeed the main topic of PART 2 in this video series you should watch: 6:01
Well as David Byrne and Brian Eno said, Taken in again. Again. Again. Taken in Again. Again. Again. Or as John Giorno put it, I don't want it, I don't need it, and you cheated me out of it! LOL!
I get that people don't like long videos so I had to leave this "clever trick" out of the first video to shorten it.
@@m.zillch3841 Really interesting. I biwired my klipsch r8000f's and thought I had better sound. Now I will reverse the process and test again.
@@m.zillch3841 Imagine if they put that marketing money into better components! lol.
@@mondoenterprises6710 I'd kindly suggest you make a small purchase for an upgrade. Get rid of the binding post bracket/straps. Replace with these: WORLDS BEST CABLES 4 Units - 6 Inch - Canare 4S11 - Audiophile Grade - 11AWG - HiFi Speaker Jumper Cable Terminated with Gold Spade Connectors
Where's part 3? I need to know how this ends!
Once tax season is over I'll finalize it and post it.
i think that dual binding post setup is useful when you heave problems with speaker and want to measure drivers individualy....
I never fell for the vi-wiring spiel. I used to be a Hi-Fi dealer in the early 1980s.
I am also a PA engineer so in some of my setups I use bi-amping and tri-amping but only in setups where each amp is kicking out 1kW or more. So, for a stereo, tri-amp setup that is three 1kW amplifiers per channel, totalling 6kW. That's equivalent to six electric fires - you don't wanna be paying that electricity bill.
What if LF goes to channel A and HF to B?
Using two truly different amp channelss, one for the highs and one for the lows, is called "bi-amping" and it's not the topic of this video. . . .If you want my quick stance on if I recommend it, I say: "No". Also don't confuse some units that have A and B outputs but from the same SINGLE amp.
Did you ever work at Electro-Voice Inc, Mr. Zillch? If you did I think we BOTH did at the same time in the early 80's; how are you? Anyway, I agree with this 2nd part of the discussion and have Subscribed and will watch your Part 3. In this diagram when you are measuring Current, you didn't show the result of proper measurement for Bi-wiring...to be fair and honest, Y+Z should equal X of your diagrams, given all electrical capacities remain equal. In my case, using my prior Audioquest cables (each containing 4 twisted conductors of 12 Ga wire/cable) should have been "adequate" for my amp. However, in my case, I have a 29db capable amp that will burst over a 1 1/2 kilowatts and possibly that may change gauge requirements. also, it wouldn't be practical to run just two conductors of 8 gauge wire!! Also, please remember that NO ONE SOLD ME on this phenomena...I was NEVER a believer and was only utilizing what materials that I already had on hand. Possibly my adding the second pair of Audioquest cables only provided what was actually required for this amp; however, that still allows the resistance/capacitance/inductance to play into MY result. All I can say is to TRY it; good wire is not that expensive...discounting ALL cables costing more than $50 a run!!!! Thanks again, from the RELUCTANT BELIEVER
As I thought.Your testing was sighted. seanolive.blogspot.com/2009/04/dishonesty-of-sighted-audio-product.html
www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=5539
" Also, please remember that NO ONE SOLD ME on this phenomena" The presence of jacks is what sold you on there possibly being a difference. [And the owners manuals descriptions.] And if you were 100% confident it wouldn't make a difference you would not have conducted the "test" in the first place. Part of you, perhaps at a subliminal level, thought there might be something to it and THAT'S proven by the fact you bothered to wire it up to listen.
Though not perfect, I do all my measurments of the performance of my audio system with my ears. No fuss, no mess, no wires. Just me.
Using one's ears can be quite useful but unfortunately human beings, including the ones who deny it, use their eyes too (even though they don't realize it), hence the need for blind testing for everyone, including myself, without exception: seanolive.blogspot.com/2009/04/dishonesty-of-sighted-audio-product.html
Přidáte Titulky ? Děkuji .
Sorry, but CZcams decided not to add narration, not me.
Pt. 1 has narration: czcams.com/video/McH2tlfj0vo/video.htmlfeature=shared
It's Ohm for meditation, not Um. But resistance is fu-tile.
I thought current had recently been identified as traveling along the outside of the conductor...
😂😂🤦♂️🤦♂️ el elektro maestro ...
Bi amping > Bi wireing
Back in the days I was told that bi-wiring works as a buffer so that the woofer can't "steal" power from the delicate treble unit. In reality I think bi-wiring just sounds worse so better skip it.
Bi-wiring is snake oil. But I wonder about a different setup. What if you have an amp that filters the highs from the lows and vice versa and then sends those filtered signals to different circuits where you can plug it in. From there, you'd plug one set of wires (negative and positve) in the binding post marked "highs," which is defined as 10khz and above, and connect those into a specially designed, 2-way speaker where the tweeter has its own, independent circuit, which is not connected to the woofer. Then you do the same w/ the "lows" binding post, defined as 9.9999khz and lower.
Essentially, what I'm saying is that instead of using a crossover within the speaker, you'd be pre-filtering the audio and only sending the highs to the tweeter and only sending the low frequencies to the woofer. So you wouldn't need a crossover because that would be built into the amp. My question would be: Since you're only sending the highs to the tweeter, would it sound better than if you sent a full-range electrical signal to the same tweeter? Is doing that even possible? If so, would it be the same exact result if you simply put a crossover in the speaker?
If I understood you correctly you are describing a variety of bi-AMPing. There are two varieties of it: active and passive. Passive (called "fools bi-amping" by Chuck Hawks and others) should be avoided because it is a waste of time, wire, and electricity, but active bi-amping, when done properly, has some small benefits and the primary one is that you bypass the insertion loss of the crossover in the speaker, as described by electrical engineer Rod Elliot at ESP (since the signal is already pre-filtered before it even got amplified, by a device known as an active, electronic crossover), and send the limited bandwidth signals straight to the drivers. Very, very, few consumer speakers have the ability to entirely bypass the speaker's crossover (although many people mistakenly think this is what dual inputs without using the jumper straps provides) and to undertake active filtration requires measurement gear to ensure the signals to the tweeter and woofer are exactly equal in level, otherwise any differences heard can easily be attributed to the fact that the sound is effectively being EQ'd: the hotter than it should be tweeter (or woofer) is coloring the music because it is being driven hot (too high in level).
Bi-amping is discussed in Part 1 of this video series, here: czcams.com/video/McH2tlfj0vo/video.htmlfeature=shared&t=207
@@m.zillch3841 Well, I'm kind of disappointed that I wasn't the first to think of active bi-amping. I literally thought I was the only one, even though I'm old enough to know that there's never an idea that only one person has thought of. I'll take a look at Part 1 of your series.
Anyway, first time I heard of bi-amping was about a year ago, and even then I was skeptical. After all, I had a very high-quality Technics stereo in the 90s (but made in the late 80s) with a cassette player that rivaled CD-quality sound! I'm still wondering why hifi people don't like EQs!
Great explanation of wire gauges. I figured that you only needed an inexpensive wire. I have 14 gauge that I bought at Home Depot and the sound is great out of my modern receiver.
Ha!!! That's a very good joke - bi-wiring is good for bi-profits. You COULD mention that it is possible you find yourself with two "weak" (not adequately strong for the given speaker) amps and, of course, you shouldn't given how high power is readily available these days. But let's say you do find yourself in this situation, then even passive bi-amping COULD help you for higher SPL. If I give 20W to my tweeter and 20W to my mid/woofer, I could get by and perhaps better than with 20W feeding the entire speaker.
*Just use thicker cable and be done with it, really, Bi-wiring is for people that didn't study cable technology and transmission line theory like some people do.* 😂🎉😂🎉😂
If you have already bi-wired your speakers, then there is an easy tweak to potentially improve your sound, leave the bi-wiring in place, but also refit the links that came with the speakers, this way both cables will be driving your woofers, (and tweeters) so half the cable impedance.
Normally half the signal in each cable is wasted, joined together they are both using all of their signal
A zero cost mod, you've already bought the cable, and the links came with your speakers.
If it's true that bi-wiring makes no audible difference to single wiring, then refitting the jumper links will make no difference.
@@ProffAndy Yes it will and does as the better quality jumper cables deliver a better quality to the crossover network. The original design with the jumper strap delivers the power to both the high end input and the low end input.
@@zizendorf Why does it "deliver a better quality to the crossover network" ? What's the "quality" ? Have you read my comment in the other thread ?
@@ProffAndy Yes Andy I read your post. Did you not read mine? I’m proposing that the better quality jumper cables provide a better quality signal than the jumper strap. That’s all.
@@zizendorf I did read your reply. Your proposal isn't backed up by any reasonable explanation. I could propose anything, but I'd expect someone to ask me to provide a reasonable explanation. What's yours, apart from "better quality than the jumper strap" ? Define "better quality", and how it improves sound quality. "It just does, because I hear it" isn't sufficient to explain why it does. There's a reason, please explain it.
Still not an amp with bi-wiring support. There must not be bridge in the Amp directly in front of the speaker terminals. That does not make sense and you are true, than it would be nonsense.
Indeed, what they do here 4:29 is silly marketing nonsense. Any multi-meter set to continuity testing mode will quickly confirm that terminals 'A' and terminals 'B' actually are simply wired together internally on 2ch amps. Many multi channel amps (i.e., 4 or more amp channels), including some AVRs, do however have the capability to use a mode where distinct amplification for 'A' and 'B' exists, but that's called bi-AMPing, not bi-wiring, and it is not the topic of my video. [The distinction between bi-wiring and bi-amping is discussed in the first video of this series, here: czcams.com/video/McH2tlfj0vo/video.htmlfeature=shared&t=207
@@m.zillch3841 OK, I am not a pro. As far as I know, bi-amping is always using two amps, and correct bi-wiring is done with one amp and A+B speaker terminals, where you switch them off, use both or one of them.
Why do you use the same speaker terminals on the amp? It makes no sense. If you have an A channel and B channel and wanted to biwire. Why wouldnt you run the A channel Left and right wires to the HF and the b channel wires to LF . Why combine them onto one speaker terminal at the amp. Heck, alot of amps even have a choice on the speaker selector that says A&B bi-wiring. I guess those engineers arent very smart then
Bi-wiring is a bad idea in general because it's just a marketing scam designed to sell more wire and wire terminations, as I explain in this video series, but if you were going to do it you might want to connect both wires to output 'A' because you may want to free up output 'B' for another set of speakers perhaps in the next room or patio.
@@m.zillch3841 how does the amplifier company, for example Yamaha, benefit by describing bi-wiring in their owners manual and literally inscribe the option onto their amp as an option. Why add it to the manufacturing and printing costs? Are you saying you are more expert than the engineers from Yamaha and other companies like Luxman. Shrug. I don't attribute that much nefarious thought to them ...
@@baronofgreymatter14 "Why add it to the manufacturing and printing costs?" ANSWER: To pander to the GIGANTIC segment of the market who have fallen for the myth it "improves performance" (paraphrased) over a single wire of an adequate gauge, and who now insist on this feature in gear. Sonus Faber technical reps once told me this at a dealer training seminar I attended, off the record, directly (as I recount in the first part of this video series), but you don't know me from Adam, so why don't you go read a similar account but from Kal Rubinson, a longtime reviewer for Stereophile Magazine, in a comment he posted, number 6, Oct. 30th, 2019, here:
"More than one speaker manufacturer has told me, in confidence, that they went from a single pair of terminals to a dual pair ("suitable for bi-wiring") specifically in response to requests from their dealers who want to sell more cables. They even modified the user's manual to "suggest" that users might prefer bi-wiring."
Source: www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/bi-wiring-without-bi-amping.9626/
That's certainly a bit "nefarious", as you put it, at least in my book.
This is a correct statement. The idea behind a receiver having A snd B terminals is simple. As you mentioned, rather then buying two setups for two different rooms it gives you the option to use one receiver and send signal to either location.
It would also allow two different sets/types of speakers in the same room at the push of a switch rather than the hassle of swapping out the connectors in the rear of the unit. Some receivers even allowed for the use of A and B at the same time (I would assume there are two internal amp circuits?) @@m.zillch3841
The claim made at 5m 34s is completely false. The electrical circuit is not EXACLTY the same. Anyone with a good understanding of basic electronic theory would realise this. Yes, if the wires are of sufficient gauge and quality, there is very little difference , but there would be a small measurable difference. I am not claiming there would be an audible difference though, as the measured difference in current at each speaker driver in the two setups would be very small.
5:06 shows the electrical difference of the two things compared in THAT section's brief animation are indeed effectively the same (barring minuscule signal losses occurring at the wire-to-wire connection junctures, i.e., binding posts, something that's not even depicted in most amp to speaker block diagrams, such as this one: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bi-wiring#/media/File:Bi-wiring.png
. . . because they are inconsequential if you make good, solid, clean connections and use adequate wiring that doesn't meaningfully compromise the signal in both scenarios). There is a difference though as to if the split (in that specific A/B animation) is inside or outside of the amp's cabinet.
@@m.zillch3841 So not exactly the same then. 👍
@@m.zillch3841 The split inside/outside of the cabinet is a difference, but what about the other differences ?
@@m.zillch3841 You still haven't challenged my claim that you've made a fundamental error in your video. Like I stated in another comment on this video, when I explain why bi-wiring is electrically different to single wiring, it usually goes very quiet
@@rogerwebb7501 I can see why some people believe that bi-wiring, upgrading mains cables, speaker jumper links etc can improve the sound quality of an audio system. I can also understand that some people deny that these "upgrades" make any difference. What I can't tolerate is when some people make false claims in an attempt to prove their claim.
What does bi-amping do? You just paid for two amplifiers. What about mono-blocks? Well, you paid for 4 amplifiers... for a minimal difference while using more electricity. You made your home heavier and your wallet thinner, which sounds better for your "Audiophile" shop.
Bi-wiring, bi-amping, and bi-cycling are three distinctly different topics. This video only covers the first one.
@@m.zillch3841 Like you, I used to be in the industry. I had experience with Linn's active system. I know they are different. I tried them all, and multi-amping's benefit, although palpable, is insignificant considering the amount of money invested. I would spend my money on an excellent quality source rather than buying a bunch of amplifiers.
Just my opinion, of course.
Current doesnt flow through the wire but around the wire. Not exactly the same, bi-wire is different than single wire.
Also a 10 foot wire is electrically different than a 9.99 foot wire, but similarly, that doesn't prove there's an AUDIBLE difference between them..
how audible depends on your system and who is listening............that said, i agree the difference is small, and I do not recommend it as money is better invested elsewhere in the system , but there is a difference for those who want to explore. @@m.zillch3841
How "audible"?! Wrong. It doesn't matter on the system nor who is listening: it's INaudible. The people (including professional reviewers) who report hearing the differences are simply imagining things based on cognitive bias (colloquially called the placebo effect). Psst: Marketing WORKS! @@crossoverchef
Wrong one is you.........yes it does matter which system and yes it does matter who is listening and you are contradicting yourself as you admitted that there is a difference, just a matter of how much....now your changing your statement.@@m.zillch3841
Do you foolishly also think 9.99 ft speaker wires are audibly different than 10 ft (adequate gauge) speaker wires, because a difference can be measured? @@crossoverchef Can I run faster if I first trim my toe nails, because I've reduced my mass a measurable amount, too?