Speaker jumpers or bi wire ?

[whiskywheels]

basshead:whiskywheels:

I thought I'd give this a try also. On my B&W 685's, my chord carnival silverscreen cables were connected to the lower pair of terminals, and of course, connected by the metal (brass?) plate. It occured to me that improving the connection between the lower (bass) and upper (tweeter) terminals would in theory improve the tweeter sound, as the speaker cables were connected directly to the lower pair of terminals. I didn't try connecting the cables directly to the upper pair with the plate still in place, and remembered the guy in Sevonoaks Hi-Fi telling me it didn't matter if I connected to the upper or lower terminals, as they were joined by the plate. But I did try removing the plate and fitting jumpers. I could immediately hear a subtle improvement in the treble range, smoother and silkier, but also a more prominent and solid bass. I'm sticking with the jumpers.

i'm not disputing what you heard, but how could there be a difference to the sound of the bass, when only the connection to the tweeters was changed?

Good question, to which I'd be fascinated to hear the answer.

 

[Andrew Everard]

Grottyash:Let's just look at a common definition of delusion: "persistent or dominating false conception regarding matters of fact, and which is resistant to reason." Yes, to this extent, albeit mildy, you could say I was suggesting that the person concerned was deluding themselves in this case, and in this case alone. However, if we take delusional, the term used previously, to mean : "suffering from or characterized by delusions, " then you'll see this was clearly not the case, and that was the original accusation.

Good wikiwork, but I'm afraid you're just splitting hairs now.

 

[Andrew Everard]

Grottyash:So those who say "I've tried it and for me it didn't work" don't count?
No doubt it's less amusing if you include them...

Not in the slightest: those who have tried it and find it doesn't work for them have an equally valid point of view; it's the 'because it can't' brigade that I find amusing.

 

[Anonymous]

Andrew Everard:
Grottyash:Let's just look at a common definition of delusion: "persistent or dominating false conception regarding matters of fact, and which is resistant to reason." Yes, to this extent, albeit mildy, you could say I was suggesting that the person concerned was deluding themselves in this case, and in this case alone. However, if we take delusional, the term used previously, to mean : "suffering from or characterized by delusions, " then you'll see this was clearly not the case, and that was the original accusation.

Good wikiwork, but I'm afraid you're just splitting hairs now.

Not wiki at all, as you'd find if you checked. I thought you'd bring up the splitting hairs thing, thanks. It's all about the different contexts of delusion/delusional, isn't it?

I may suffer from the delusion that my job makes a difference. Does that make me delusional?

 

[Anonymous]

Thanks Andrew.

I find it amusing too, I have only a few points to make:

Science is about observation. Here you have quite a few data points telling you they have heard a difference, and a few that says they don't hear. The scientific mind should think maybe it does make difference in some setting and no difference in other, and then if you are really into it, may consider investigate the reason. The "I hear no difference therefore it is universally truth that noone should", or those that just say you must be hearing it in the head and dismiss all those data point, are really unscientific way of dealing with new information that contradicts their existing knowledge.

For those asking for scientific explanation before believing people. Science is just not complete as it is. Your ancestors in stone age may not have a scientific understanding of why blood circulate in their heart, how their heart beats, and a lot of these, and yet, fortunately for all of us, if they cannot solve the question, "Show me the science that the heart beats.", their heart still beated and kept them in life without the need to know all the science behind it. The moral of the story is, we don't even have the scientific knowledge on exactly how we perceive sound, what makes high end gear sound good, what makes sound stage etc.

And for all those AB tester, most of the setup set out to try to get some 90 or 95% percentile people cannot find a difference toproof that XXX makes a difference. If you go back to basic statistics textbook, it will tell you that you are doing it in reverse. If you want to proof XXX does not make a difference, it is you that need to setup to find 90 or 95% percentile of people that CANNOT hear a difference to proof YOUR point. The reason is simple, maybe 70% percentile do hear the difference, but because you set it at your confidence threshold, you rejected the notion that there is a almost undisputed difference, while actually more people think there are differences than your proposition "There are no difference" suggest. I would tend to think, under those AB tests, they don't get this 95% thinking "no difference". More likely than not, the result cannot disprove either way. And what does that mean? That means there maybe other factors involved than a simple Yes/No. Which we don't know yet. I think this statistics is validated many times in real life case if you read those numerous "For" and "Against" threads over internet forums. That means something. Both those who hear a difference and those who don't just simple cannot ignore each other's findings.

AS to those Psycho Acoustic and those that claim that people paying $xxxxx for a cable must make themselves believe it sound better. Well, the reverse is true. There are people who was told it makes absolutely no reason, makes no scientific sense, or just feel that if I hear a difference I will be viewed as a dumbhead who believe in sorcery etc are also putting a predisposition for you to hearing any differences even if some difference exists. I cannot write you off for this, and you cannot write me off for the same reason.

The last point I wanted to make is, come on, it is just a scientific experiment for a few pieces of wire that are essentially free. My dealer gave them to me when I bought my speaker cable (well, or you can argue this service is somehow engrossed in the part of the money I paid, but they won't charge me cheaper if I refuse them so.). They never suggested to me that it sound better. Indeed I had not anticipated any difference but what the hack, I got them and why not just try? If no difference, then it is fine.

 

[pete321]

I'm almost scared to ask... but has anyone noticed any benefits with cross connecting binding posts when using a single run of cable, i.e. whether using jumpers or plates to connect the terminals, connect the speaker cable positive to the + high frequency post and the negative cable to - mid/low binding post.

I'd be particularly interested to hear from Dean Hartley as I'll be using MA RX6's.

 

[mfanje]

My view is that bi-wiring is best when used with AV Receivers. When it come to stereo I of the view that using terminal links is best. Would some explain what is bi-amping. Please.

Regards

Mfanje

 

[BigColz]

My view is that bi-wiring is best when used with AV Receivers. When it come to stereo I of the view that using terminal links is best. Would some explain what is bi-amping. Please.

Regards

Mfanje

Bi-amping is running one power amp just to drive one set of terminals ie bass and another amp to power just the mid/tweeter terminals.. This is where you can see noticable differences in performace as a seperate amp is running each part of the speaker and with more power than sinply splitting the signal and rejoining it on the same amp in bi-wiring, which is where the term buy-wire comes from :rofl:

I've heard that there can be noticable gains from using speaker wire instead of the provided jumpers provided.. Which i'm yet too try.. It makes sense though.. I will probably try this when I settle on the speaker i'm 100% happy with (if it has dual terminals)

 

[Anonymous]

Replacing the short copper bus bars used to connect the 2 sets of terminals on bi-wirable speakers with a length of copper cable seems utterly pointless to me. The only possible cause of any improvement would be if the bus bars had become tarnished and were not making a good contact with the terminals, but the same could be said for poorly connected copper cable.

 

[the record spot]

I stuck with the binding plates provided when I bought my DC4s. Never found that the various alternatives offered a big difference to me, so I went with what Tannoy provided. The speakers are excellent.

 

[drummerman]

Depends but personally, I probably would rewire bi-wire terminals internally to single terminals.

regards

 

[Anonymous]

A question on this subject oh wise ones:

My amp has the facility to run 2 sets of speakers, A and B, which can be switched independently or simultaneously.

If I run A to the tweeters and B to the mid/low via biwired cable and switch amp to A+B, am I effectively bi-amping or just bi-wiring?

 

[BigColz]

A question on this subject oh wise ones:

My amp has the facility to run 2 sets of speakers, A and B, which can be switched independently or simultaneously.

If I run A to the tweeters and B to the mid/low via biwired cable and switch amp to A+B, am I effectively bi-amping or just bi-wiring?

Bi-wiring.. I used to run 2 channels and it saps the power as you only have powewr source.. If it was a dual mono amp maybe it would be possible but pretty pointless IMO

 

[Anonymous]

A question on this subject oh wise ones:

My amp has the facility to run 2 sets of speakers, A and B, which can be switched independently or simultaneously.

If I run A to the tweeters and B to the mid/low via biwired cable and switch amp to A+B, am I effectively bi-amping or just bi-wiring?

Bi-amping.

From the Marantz M-CR603 manual -

Speaker A - Outputs audio from the Speaker A output terminal.(Default)

Speaker B - Outputs audio from the Speaker B output terminal.

Bi-Amp - Outputs the same audio from Speaker A output

terminal and Speaker B output terminal.

 

[Anonymous]

I'm almost scared to ask... but has anyone noticed any benefits with cross connecting binding posts when using a single run of cable, i.e. whether using jumpers or plates to connect the terminals, connect the speaker cable positive to the + high frequency post and the negative cable to - mid/low binding post.

Never tried it, on my speakers I've connected the cable to the woofer posts then use jumpers to the tweeters. Simply because the woofer posts are nearer the floor.

I'd be stunned if by cross connecting the posts as you mention there would be an audible difference. But I'm actually quite intrigued :? (but not enough to go and try at this time of night...)

So has anyone tried this and did it make actually difference???

 

[andyjm]

I must admit to not bi-wiring speakers for development or listening. We prefer to include 2 sets of terminals in case customers prefer to bi-amp, which we feel does present a significant increase in performance. However we also configure speakers to take this into account. On all our 2 1/2 way or 3 way speakers (Like Silver RX6 for example), we wire the lower set of terminals to the bottom bass and the top set to the top bass/mid and tweeter. This therefore spreads the load when using two seperate amplifiers. Most speaker manufacturers still tend to just reserve the top set of bi-wire terminals for the tweeter only.

I've tended to stay out of conversations on cables for many years. However, we do try all sorts of test during development and I can say that (when new), the typical gold plated bi-wire links provided with most speakers are just as good as any speaker cable link. Afterall they measure micro Ohms and all we are concerned with is contact resistence over such a short length. After a while, perhaps contact resistence is affected by surface corrosion. We have tried measuring gold plate links over a period of time, but never managed to find a 'measureable' difference. But that is pure physics. As for Psyco-acoustic, or should I say Pscotic-acoustics well that's a different story.

Having just read this thread from the start, it is an interesting case study. On one hand we have a change that has no engineering basis, that a well respected manufacturer says makes no difference (comment above), on the other hand a group who maintain that they were able to detect an audible change. Given the unreliability of human percepton, and the lack of any scientific reason for a difference, the balance of probability is that the 'I hear a difference' group are being mislead by suggestion bias.

Before the howls of 'I know what I heard' protest start, perhaps a helpful tale.

My first job in the early 80's was in the research and designs group of a well known broadcaster. My lab was next to the team that developed a range of well respected loudspeakers including the LS3/5a and the LS5/9. Showing a keen interest in HiFI, the loudspeaker team took me through some of their development work, demonstrating a sequence of development loudspeakers, showing how they had ironed out various flaws and had 'tuned' their design. Sitting in the listening room, facing a range of speakers, I could hear every change and nuance they described as they swiched from one speaker to the next.

Except they didn't change anything at all, every demonstration was the same speaker. I was absolutely convinced I could hear very obvious changes - it taught me that unless steps are taken to avoid bias (ABX or similar) then human perception is pretty useless at comparisons.

So while I was convinced I could hear changes, and I am sure those who are changing their jumper plates are convinced, the most likely effect is no change at all. To be clear, this doen't mean that those who detect changes are imagining things, the changes are real to them (as they were to me), but hearing is done with the brain, not the ears, and sound waves are not the only input the brain uses when 'listening'.

 

[kissmeraas]

Quote:

"Except they didn't change anything at all, every demonstration was the same speaker. I was absolutely convinced I could hear very obvious changes - it taught me that unless steps are taken to avoid bias (ABX or similar) then human perception is pretty useless at comparisons. "

If you're still convinced even after knowing/believing something's fake/impossible, and you continue to be re-convinced anew every day for years (and perceive a negative difference when someone else changes things back to their original state without your knowledge), then the "upgrade" is absolutely genuine, even if it hasn't actually happened.

P.S. Regarding the constant advocation of blind listening tests by so many people: ABX testing exists to remove faulty human perception from negating the results of any study. You can't then use the faulty human perception itself, which you (and everyone else) agrees "is pretty useless at comparisons" to actually prove a theory via auditory comparison - that's the exact opposite of ABX testing, and not a little insane

 

[chebby]

.

 

[Al ears]

Quote:

"Except they didn't change anything at all, every demonstration was the same speaker. I was absolutely convinced I could hear very obvious changes - it taught me that unless steps are taken to avoid bias (ABX or similar) then human perception is pretty useless at comparisons. "

If you're still convinced even after knowing/believing something's fake/impossible, and you continue to be re-convinced anew every day for years (and perceive a negative difference when someone else changes things back to their original state without your knowledge), then the "upgrade" is absolutely genuine, even if it hasn't actually happened.

P.S. Regarding the constant advocation of blind listening tests by so many people: ABX testing exists to remove faulty human perception from negating the results of any study. You can't then use the faulty human perception itself, which you (and everyone else) agrees "is pretty useless at comparisons" to actually prove a theory via auditory comparison - that's the exact opposite of ABX testing, and not a little insane

A seven year old thread....... next.

 

[kissmeraas]

I was responding to a 5 and a half year old comment. Is that allowed, oh holy one?
Are opinions and scientific principles no longer valid after some magical 7 year period? Perhaps you should delete half the internet (and all the books). Why on earth are *you* responding to a 7 year old thread if it's illegal? Next...

 

[woodbino]

Personally I'd just use some speaker cable jumpers or small lengths of the speaker cable youve already got to make some

Replacing the OEM jumper bars on speakers can help a lot with the sound but bi-wiring in this case wouldnt IMO

How would replacing the OEM jumper bars with speaker cable make any difference? Why would speaker manufacurers omit a simple and cheap item that would positivly impact the sound of their units?

Or if you think about it the other way...After carefully engineering speakers, why would a manufacturer then poo-poo it all by putting someting that will ruin the sound?

This is all quakery - jumpers, speaker wire, doesn't matter, it will make NO difference whatsoever.

 

[nopiano]

Personally I'd just use some speaker cable jumpers or small lengths of the speaker cable youve already got to make some

Replacing the OEM jumper bars on speakers can help a lot with the sound but bi-wiring in this case wouldnt IMO

How would replacing the OEM jumper bars with speaker cable make any difference? Why would speaker manufacurers omit a simple and cheap item that would positivly impact the sound of their units?

Or if you think about it the other way...After carefully engineering speakers, why would a manufacturer then poo-poo it all by putting someting that will ruin the sound?

This is all quakery - jumpers, speaker wire, doesn't matter, it will make NO difference whatsoever.

If you are familiar with the respected reviewer, technical author and speaker designer, Martin Colloms, you might be interested to read this in a review he published in October 2017. The subject was an ATC speaker costing almost £10,000. Extract from the Hi-Fi Critic journal, reprinted on ATC’s website

“Even when well tightened I compared the sound quality before and after substituting wire jumpers: an unmistakable metallic sheen and extra crispness and projection in the high treble was then dispelled, and image depth improved. I make no apology for discarding the supplied hardware and making up a soldered, non-daisy-chained short wire harness to connect everything together. (A dealer should be able to help here.)”

And, no, I’ve not replaced the supplied links on my ATCs - yet!

 

[rainsoothe]

1. Or if you think about it the other way...After carefully engineering speakers, why would a manufacturer then poo-poo it all by putting someting that will ruin the sound?

2. This is all quakery - jumpers, speaker wire, doesn't matter, it will make NO difference whatsoever.

1. Easy: costs.

2. Ok, I double dare you to use a Nait 1 with high capacitance speaker cable, then post something while you use it as a doorstop after it stopped working. In the meantime, I'll be enjoying my TQ Black 2 that nullified the harshness and sybilance of the Naca5, whilst not dismantling music like the first gen TQ Black did. I genuinely do envy people with bad hearing, though, it would make my current attempts of downgrading so much easier.

 

[woodbino]

1. Or if you think about it the other way...After carefully engineering speakers, why would a manufacturer then poo-poo it all by putting someting that will ruin the sound?

2. This is all quakery - jumpers, speaker wire, doesn't matter, it will make NO difference whatsoever.

1. Easy: costs.

2. Ok, I double dare you to use a Nait 1 with high capacitance speaker cable, then post something while you use it as a doorstop after it stopped working. In the meantime, I'll be enjoying my TQ Black 2 that nullified the harshness and sybilance of the Naca5, whilst not dismantling music like the first gen TQ Black did. I genuinely do envy people with bad hearing, though, it would make my current attempts of downgrading so much easier.

Just use something that is within the operating parameters of your hardware. And actually high capacitance cable will be okay as long as you don't run the music too loud.

What the hell is 'harshness and sybilance"?! I think you;ve been reading too much marketing rubbish - or you're writing this stuff. WhatHiFi reviewer maybe?

I guess we all need to justify our existence.

 

[rainsoothe]

1. Or if you think about it the other way...After carefully engineering speakers, why would a manufacturer then poo-poo it all by putting someting that will ruin the sound? 

2. This is all quakery - jumpers, speaker wire, doesn't matter, it will make NO difference whatsoever.

1. Easy: costs.

2. Ok, I double dare you to use a Nait 1 with high capacitance speaker cable, then post something while you use it as a doorstop after it stopped working. In the meantime, I'll be enjoying my TQ Black 2 that nullified the harshness and sybilance of the Naca5, whilst not dismantling music like the first gen TQ Black did. I genuinely do envy people with bad hearing, though, it would make my current attempts of downgrading so much easier.

Just use something that is within the operating parameters of your hardware. And actually high capacitance cable will be okay as long as you don't run the music too loud.

What the hell is 'harshness and sybilance"?! I think you;ve been reading too much marketing rubbish - or you're writing this stuff. WhatHiFi reviewer maybe? 

I guess we all need to justify our existence.

Bad hearing AND paranoia! You know what happens when you make assumptions, right?

Ok, I'll play along, and pretend the sybilance and harshness comment was genuine lack of knowledge or understanding of the english language, instead of petty mockery: sybilance is when the "S"-es are overly sharp and sound like sizzling bacon instead of a normal spoken "S", and the harshness is somewhat related - when guitar plucks or cymbals sound tinny instead of sounding like the materials that are actually resonating.