Bi wiring - Why does it work?

[aliEnRIK]

gbhsi1:Spend money on a really good quality single wire & use jumper cables (not the links).

I have had several bi-wired cables, but I can't beat the single wired QED revelation with Kimber Kable 4TC jumper cables that I use now

But what about if you biwired with the QED?

 

[matthewpiano]

Why does bi-wiring work?

It doesn't. (IMO).

 

[gbhsi1]

They don't make them in bi-wire. It's cheaper to use jumper cables, same effect...just cheaper. Unless you are bi-amping, but doing this reaps rewards from separate amplification and not bi-wiring ..I think.

 

[Anonymous]

I always thought that when you biwire, you are bypassing the internal crossover of the speaker which can degrade the audio signal because it has to go through more circuitry as it gets filtered.

Biwiring allows the full signal to be fed to both the tweeter and the woofer. The point being that the tweeter will reproduce its full limit of the audio spectrum because it has the full signal to 'choose' from. The same applies to the woofer.

The engineering design would involve choosing a tweeter and woofer which naturally reproduce their part of the audio so that they seamlessly cover the whole frequency range without overlapping or missing out part of the range such that it is too noticable.

The quality of the crossover is therefore very important; and some manufacturers engineer this so that they believe biwiring will compromise this and single speaker terminals only are provided e.g. Dynaudio.

This might explain why biwiring does not always improve things and yet some find it noticeably better.

This is part of the biwiring option but other electrical proprties previously mentioned also play a part.

 

[Andrew Everard]

shreddy:I always thought that when you biwire, you are bypassing the internal crossover of the speaker which can degrade the audio signal because it has to go through more circuitry as it gets filtered.

Not so, but you are connecting each 'leg' of the wiring to only half of the crossover - ie one cable is only 'seeing' a high-pass filter (for the tweeter) and the other only a low-pass (feeding the mid/bass).

 

[Anonymous]

I stand corrected.

Thanks for clearing that up - my apologies to all.

 

[professorhat]

gbhsi1:They don't make them in bi-wire. It's cheaper to use jumper cables, same effect...just cheaper. Unless you are bi-amping, but doing this reaps rewards from separate amplification and not bi-wiring ..I think.

But you could quite easily run two lengths of the single wire QED cable and thus have bi-wired QED cable. Jumper cables surely can't have the same effect as the benefit is meant to be in that the high frequencies and low frequencies are separated as they run along the two different strands of wire (or at least that's my understanding of the theory behind it).

 

[Anonymous]

professorhat:
gbhsi1:They don't make them in bi-wire. It's cheaper to use jumper cables, same effect...just cheaper. Unless you are bi-amping, but doing this reaps rewards from separate amplification and not bi-wiring ..I think.

But you could quite easily run two lengths of the single wire QED cable and thus have bi-wired QED cable. Jumper cables surely can't have the same effect as the benefit is meant to be in that the high frequencies and low frequencies are separated as they run along the two different strands of wire (or at least that's my understanding of the theory behind it).

Both strands of wire from amp to speaker carry the full frequency range signal. The difference is that one set goes to the LF section of the crossover network and the other to the HF section. That's why biwiring is controversial: effectively you're just replacing the jumper; the crossover still acts in the same way as it did before.

 

[professorhat]

Dan Turner:The main point of bi-wiring is to separate the conductors connected to the High (HF) and low (LF) frequency speaker drivers. Given that the same signal is being sent down each conductor it seems dubious that this would actually bring any benefit other than the above increase in conductor cross section, however because of the characteristics of electrical inductance only the HF signals travel along the HF conductors and ditto for the LF signals/conductors. This is because an electrical signal from amp to speaker is basically the flow of electrons from the negative terminal on the amp through the speaker to the positive terminal on the amp. In a bi-wirable speaker, with the terminal links removed, the cross over is split into two sections - one connected between the HF terminals and the HF driver which filters out all signals at frequencies lower than the HF driver can reproduce, and one connected between the LF terminals and the LF driver which filters out all the frequencies higher than the LF driver can reproduce. These filters in the path of the electrical circuit prevent the flow of electrons outside of the intended frequency range from completing the circuit, and hence only electrons at the frequencies that can complete the circuit flow along the cables.

This was my understanding as well...

 

[SteveR750]

Tarquinh:professorhat:

gbhsi1:They don't make them in bi-wire. It's cheaper to use jumper cables, same effect...just cheaper. Unless you are bi-amping, but doing this reaps rewards from separate amplification and not bi-wiring ..I think.

But you could quite easily run two lengths of the single wire QED cable and thus have bi-wired QED cable. Jumper cables surely can't have the same effect as the benefit is meant to be in that the high frequencies and low frequencies are separated as they run along the two different strands of wire (or at least that's my understanding of the theory behind it).

Both strands of wire from amp to speaker carry the full frequency range signal. The difference is that one set goes to the LF section of the crossover network and the other to the HF section. That's why biwiring is controversial: effectively you're just replacing the jumper; the crossover still acts in the same way as it did before.

Exactly! Unless you have a crossover in the power amp! which won't be the case.

 

[jc.com]

Dan Turner:

with the terminal links removed, the cross over is split into two sections - one connected between the HF terminals and the HF driver which filters out all signals at frequencies lower than the HF driver can reproduce, and one connected between the LF terminals and the LF driver which filters out all the frequencies higher than the LF driver can reproduce.

This is undeniably true, however, if you fit a jumper cable, they are then connected close to the speaker, if you use bi-wiring, they are then connected close to the amp. I fail to see how this changes anything, apart from the benefit of a thicker wire.

It would be an interesting experiment to biwire and compare with and without the jumpers in place - you'd then have the same thickness of cable in a mono-bi comparison. Anyone done that?

 

[aliEnRIK]

jc.com:
This is undeniably true, however, if you fit a jumper cable, they are then connected close to the speaker, if you use bi-wiring, they are then connected close to the amp. I fail to see how this changes anything, apart from the benefit of a thicker wire.

It would be an interesting experiment to biwire and compare with and without the jumpers in place - you'd then have the same thickness of cable in a mono-bi comparison. Anyone done that?

Surely connecting at the amp end will allow the split AT the amp end meaning you can meaningfully separate the HF and LF signals

Jumpers mean HF AND LF must be running down the same wires

 

[Anonymous]

Rick, I'm being really dense here but how does the amp perform the split between HF and LF? Mine has no means of doing so. Remember, too, that the cables are in parallel.

 

[aliEnRIK]

Tarquinh:Rick, I'm being really dense here but how does the amp perform the split between HF and LF? Mine has no means of doing so. Remember, too, that the cables are in parallel.

Well speaking from personal experience ~ as ive already said I most certainly DID hear a difference (And quite a big one). And this was at a time in my life when I didnt believe in any of this stuff so I wasnt expecting ANY difference (So you can scratch 'placebo' straight away. Thinking about it, this was even before I believed anything about 'cables' either)

Forgive me if im wrong but the electrons will find the easiest way around a circuit so those that hold the LF info will go through the transformer and down those cables and ditto the HF.

SINGLE runs will mean the two are forced together THEN split.

Unless you have another reason for me hearing such a 'night and day' difference?

 

[Anonymous]

No, I thought this might be the reasoning, thanks.

 

[Dan Turner]

It's not the amp that splits the signal, it's the laws of physics - as I commented earlier...

The main point of bi-wiring is to separate the conductors connected to the High (HF) and low (LF) frequency speaker drivers. Given that the same signal is being sent down each conductor it seems dubious that this would actually bring any benefit other than the above increase in conductor cross section, however because of the characteristics of electrical inductance only the HF signals travel along the HF conductors and ditto for the LF signals/conductors. This is because an electrical signal from amp to speaker is basically the flow of electrons from the negative terminal on the amp through the speaker to the positive terminal on the amp. In a bi-wirable speaker, with the terminal links removed, the cross over is split into two sections - one connected between the HF terminals and the HF driver which filters out all signals at frequencies lower than the HF driver can reproduce, and one connected between the LF terminals and the LF driver which filters out all the frequencies higher than the LF driver can reproduce. These filters in the path of the electrical circuit prevent the flow of electrons outside of the intended frequency range from completing the circuit, and hence only electrons at the frequencies that can complete the circuit flow along the cables.

 

[Anonymous]

Which is the same argument for the jumper.

 

[Dan Turner]

Tarquinh:Which is the same argument for the jumper.

Except that by that logic it would be the same argument for the metal links that come supplied with the speakers in the first place, even though the jumpers are supposed to be an upgrade..... actually the difference is clear - have separate runs of speaker cable going from amp to speaker (e.g. 3m etc from the point of leaving the amp) as opposed to having 1 run of speaker cable and then 10 cm of cable from one terminal to the other which only carries part of the frequency range..

 

[professorhat]

I have a feeling this discussion might just go round in circles again.

I know, it's crazy, but bear with me, I have a psychic feeling on this one (one which has been guaranteed by James Randi himself).

 

[Anonymous]

professorhat:
I have a feeling this discussion might just go round in circles again.

I know, it's crazy, but bear with me, I have a psychic feeling on this one (one which has been guaranteed by James Randi himself).

Actually,I think you're in luck. Spendor, Sonus Faber and Harbeth to my knowledge have all dropped biwireable speakers, so, assuming the trend continues, in 18 months or so it won't be an option anyway. The Harbeth designer actually admitted they'd only done it for marketing reasons.

 

[Anonymous]

Agree 100% with you. It is my experience that not all knows the difference between bi-wiring and bi-amping... mostly in cases when the need exist to bi-amp using one AV amp only.

 

[lordmortlock]

Tarquinh:
Actually,I think you're in luck. Spendor, Sonus Faber and Harbeth to my knowledge have all dropped biwireable speakers, so, assuming the trend continues, in 18 months or so it won't be an option anyway. The Harbeth designer actually admitted they'd only done it for marketing reasons.

But won't that make Bi amping more difficult?

 

[pauldownton1979]

it defo works on some systems. when i did it i couldnt believe the difference, it was like someone took earplugs out my ears. i only ever done it 4 into 4 - infact at first i thought that was the only way to do it. in line with what others have said it was on cheapish kit - cable v cheap - into wharfedale diamond 8.2s

maybe its more beneficial on budget kit as theres allways more potential for improvement - cheaper materials used etc. im not technically minded at all so wont join that side of the debate, but it defo works wonders for the kit at the price level im familiar with.

 

[Anonymous]

lordmortlock:Tarquinh:
Actually,I think you're in luck. Spendor, Sonus Faber and Harbeth to my knowledge have all dropped biwireable speakers, so, assuming the trend continues, in 18 months or so it won't be an option anyway. The Harbeth designer actually admitted they'd only done it for marketing reasons.

But won't that make Bi amping more difficult?

Makes it virtually impossible without modifying the crossovers and adding extra binding ports.

 

[Don Jr]

Bi amping doesn't work.