Bi-wiring: real benefits?

My new Paradigms can be bi-wired or bi-amped. I understand the proven benefits of bi-amping. I've read speaker reviews that extoll the virtues of bi-wiring. However, the more I looked into the "scientific" end of bi-wiring, it doesn't look to be beneficial. It wouldn't be expensive to bi-wire as an experiment and my Onkyo can be setup for it, so I may try it. This will come later, I've only got about 15 hrs on them and still breaking them in. I am liking what I'm hearing very much.

What's some folk's experience with bi-wiring? Thanks for any feedback.

what's the label on that box? Paradigm, or Pandora?

It wont change the character of the speaker much, but having a different amp on both the tweeters and the woofers will give you a difference with each amp/receiver you use. Regardless of whether you use an electronic crossover in line with your receiver/amp

noise gate said:

what's the label on that box? Paradigm, or Pandora?

Click to expand...

Not sure what you mean there. Label, box?

budgetaudio6 said:

It wont change the character of the speaker much, but having a different amp on both the tweeters and the woofers will give you a difference with each amp/receiver you use. Regardless of whether you use an electronic crossover in line with your receiver/amp

Click to expand...

That's what I'm thinking, bi-wiring won't really change much as opposed to bi-amping.

I've run Vandersteen speakers for many, many years. Their designer, Richard Vandersteen, is an advocate of bi-wiring and recommends it strongly in his User Manual (at least for the 2C models).

Since I respect him and his product, I've generally kept them bi-wired. However, I've never been able to discern a difference. Of course, I've not done a true A/B comparison...I had to change the wiring arrangement between listening sessions.

I've used several different cables over the years (standard 14 ga stranded, Kimber 8TC, Audioquest StarQuad, and my current Canare 4S 11 bi-wire cables from Ram Electronics), and do believe that I've heard subtle differences between them...but not between the same cables running in a standard configuration vs bi-wired.

Perhaps my ears or my equipment are not of a high enough quality for me to gain the benefits of bi-wiring. But in any case, I still run them bi-wired....primarily in deference to their designer. However, if doing so was significantly more expensive, I would probably just be using a single pair!

I've seen some speakers while I was shopping around that recommended being run bi-wired. Since I'm running basic 12 ga stranded wire, I may give it a shot. Looks neat if nothing else!

I've tried it and rejected it as being nothing more than a waste of speaker wire. No discernible results to my ears.

As mentioned, Vandersteen has been an advocate of bi-wiring for years. Here's his assessment of why he believes in it http://www.vandersteen.com/pages/Answr7.htm

I happen to run bi-wires to my KEFs, but it's largely because I have the wiring run already for bi-amping, so it was easy. I'm not sure if I've noticed much improvement over just using a good jumper on each speaker. I did find changing the stock jumpers (flat metal bars) to good speaker wire was surprisingly noticeable.

Like most "tweaks", I suspect it matters more in some systems, than others, and it's best to just try it yourself to see.

I read Vandersteen's page and am trying to wrap my head around it.

It seems he is stating that when one bi-wires their speakers, the crossover actually takes place at the termination on the amplifier.
In other words, certain frequencies do not even travel the wire between the amp and the speaker (no bass to the "top-end", no highs to the "bottom-end").

If this is indeed true, it could put a whole new spin on the never-ending argument of the efficacy of bi-wiring.

Where I question the credibility of the statement is the connection at the amplifier:
If two wires are connected to a single terminal, then run to individual speaker terminals, why not just run a heavier gauge wire, then split it just before the speaker terminal (he mentioned keeping the wires spaced an inch apart, but that's not entirely possible if you have to connect them to a common point).

robgmn said:

I read Vandersteen's page and am trying to wrap my head around it.

It seems he is stating that when one bi-wires their speakers, the crossover actually takes place at the termination on the amplifier.
In other words, certain frequencies do not even travel the wire between the amp and the speaker (no bass to the "top-end", no highs to the "bottom-end").

If this is indeed true, it could put a whole new spin on the never-ending argument of the efficacy of bi-wiring.

Where I question the credibility of the statement is the connection at the amplifier:
If two wires are connected to a single terminal, then run to individual speaker terminals, why not just run a heavier gauge wire, then split it just before the speaker terminal (he mentioned keeping the wires spaced an inch apart, but that's not entirely possible if you have to connect them to a common point).

Click to expand...

Yep, tried to get my head around his explanation. He says that the speaker crossovers have high and low pass filters and then that crossover for bass to mids takes place at the amp. My Onkyo actually uses both sets of speaker terminals to bi-wire as opposed to one terminal on the amp going to two terminals on the speaker. Make a difference? Don't know, but might still try.

robgmn said:

I read Vandersteen's page and am trying to wrap my head around it.

It seems he is stating that when one bi-wires their speakers, the crossover actually takes place at the termination on the amplifier.
In other words, certain frequencies do not even travel the wire between the amp and the speaker (no bass to the "top-end", no highs to the "bottom-end").

If this is indeed true, it could put a whole new spin on the never-ending argument of the efficacy of bi-wiring.

Where I question the credibility of the statement is the connection at the amplifier:If two wires are connected to a single terminal, then run to individual speaker terminals, why not just run a heavier gauge wire, then split it just before the speaker terminal (he mentioned keeping the wires spaced an inch apart, but that's not entirely possible if you have to connect them to a common point).

Click to expand...

Don't question it, he knows what he's talking about. The input impedance of the crossover is why. When it goes high, then the current flow drops. That's what a crossover does...

So on the low input side of the crossover, the higher frequencies are at a very high impedance. So it doesn't draws the current flow at the frequencies above the crossover. And then on the high input side...the lower frequencies don't draw current. So the wire has much less energy present at the frequencies the crossover isn't asking for them at.

Now...add into this picture that the drive point of the crossover has moved. Precious fractions of ohms are added between the input points making the lows modulating the high frequencies try to do this right at the lowest impedance point possible in the circuit....right at the output terminals.

How much advantage does this make? Depends. Depends on the output impedance of the amp...the wire and the crossover elements along with the drivers themselves.

It only stands to reason that some people will have a combination of equipment where it makes more difference and others much less. Plus you must throw in that the effect of the cross modulation may not be an effect that some people hear. Not that they're deaf or anything, just that the things they listen for in music, not to mention the type of music they tend to listen to will differ.

Bi-wiring has a solid fundamental basis in what it is...it's just not always going to show itself in all situations.

EV3

evsentry3 said:

Don't question it, he knows what he's talking about. The input impedance of the crossover is why. When it goes high, then the current flow drops. That's what a crossover does...

So on the low input side of the crossover, the higher frequencies are at a very high impedance. So it doesn't draws the current flow at the frequencies above the crossover. And then on the high input side...the lower frequencies don't draw current. So the wire has much less energy present at the frequencies the crossover isn't asking for them at.

Now...add into this picture that the drive point of the crossover has moved. Precious fractions of ohms are added between the input points making the lows modulating the high frequencies try to do this right at the lowest impedance point possible in the circuit....right at the output terminals.

How much advantage does this make? Depends. Depends on the output impedance of the amp...the wire and the crossover elements along with the drivers themselves.

It only stands to reason that some people will have a combination of equipment where it makes more difference and others much less. Plus you must throw in that the effect of the cross modulation may not be an effect that some people hear. Not that they're deaf or anything, just that the things they listen for in music, not to mention the type of music they tend to listen to will differ.

Bi-wiring has a solid fundamental basis in what it is...it's just not always going to show itself in all situations.

EV3

Click to expand...

I question it because he states that it is a BELIEF that bi-wiring will make an audible difference, then backs it up with pseudo-scientific statements about the internal crossover causing the crossover to actually occur at the amplifier's speaker terminals.

If taken as fact, his statements would wholly support my theory that bi-wiring would really only be necessary at a short distance from the speaker, as opposed to having to do the full run from the speaker to the amp.

Also, "he knows what he's talking about" doesn't really work for me.
Some audio engineers call bunk on boutique cables, some proclaim them as the next coming of Tan.
Some say that "burn-in" or "break-in" is hooey, others declare it an absolute must.
Hell, I've read reviews in which the reviewer was sent a well-worn and well-traveled component, only to state it sounded better after they broke it in. Why didn't it break in when everyone else was listening to it?

I don't believe in magic, but I do believe in facts. If Mr Vandersteen is willing to back up what he states with some proof, it would go a long way in closing one chapter of the "Audio Debate" book.

Bi-wiring will yield positive results due to wire capacitance, but the results will be subtle as in improved soundstage. Now bi-amping is a totally different story. The results are not subtle to say the least. Bi-amping for more volume is ridiculous when watts are so cheap. I'll attempt to explain in terms even a neophyte might understand.

Have you ever noticed your lights dim momentarily when your AC kicks on? Ever wonder why even with a 200 amp service when the AC only draws 20 amps? Without getting to deep into the relationship between inductive loads and resistive sharing the same power supply, just suffice it to say something similar is happening here. Bi-amping gives the high frequency drivers their own power supply unaffected by the bass driver.

Being as the bass driver draws exponentially more current than the high frequency drivers each time it hits the signal to the other drivers will sag. This will in effect cause the high frequencies to pulsate in rhythm. This will also cause the tweeters to sound strident, shrink the sound field, and kill the midrange bloom.

I have a pair of Klipsch Heresys that I've vertically, passively bi-amped and the change was not subtle. With the Klipsch being so efficient they're more revealing of this effect and why I think so many find them shouty? Hope this helps answer your query.





When attempting to explain to my students it's easiest to think of electricity as water, and why we use the term current for amperage. Think of the wire as a garden hose, it can only allow so much water to flow. Now imagine this hose is supplying two different sprinkler zones and we want an increase in flow. We could increase the size and this would work, but the larger system will always draw more than the smaller even if the connections are the same size. If we then call for more flow in the larger system the smaller will suffer. If we use two completely separate hoses connected to the same source the pressure in the smaller system's hose will be less affected. This should make it clear as to why bi-amping works so much better, two completely different sources. This is simplifying things to the extreme without getting too technical, hope this helps.

Kingshead said:

When attempting to explain to my students it's easiest to think of electricity as water, and why we use the term current for amperage. Think of the wire as a garden hose, it can only allow so much water to flow. Now imagine this hose is supplying two different sprinkler zones and we want an increase in flow. We could increase the size and this would work, but the larger system will always draw more than the smaller even if the connections are the same size. If we then call for more flow in the larger system the smaller will suffer. If we use two completely separate hoses connected to the same source the pressure in the smaller system's hose will be less affected. This should make it clear as to why bi-amping works so much better, two completely different sources. This is simplifying things to the extreme without getting too technical, hope this helps.

Click to expand...

Nope. Water in a hose is a one-way street (so to speak).
Audio signals are an alternating current.

But, to use your analogy:
15 foot 3/4" i.d. water line gets split to two different ten foot hoses.
One is 1/2", one is 1/4".

AND

22 foot 3/4" line is split to two different three foot hoses.
One is 1/2", one is 1/4".

With a feed flow rate of 5 GPM, which system will deliver more water per hour?

robgmn said:

Nope. Water in a hose is a one-way street (so to speak).
Audio signals are an alternating current.

But, to use your analogy:
15 foot 3/4" i.d. water line gets split to two different ten foot hoses.
One is 1/2", one is 1/4".

AND

22 foot 3/4" line is split to two different three foot hoses.
One is 1/2", one is 1/4".

With a feed flow rate of 5 GPM, which system will deliver more water per hour?

Click to expand...

Funny. What weighs more, a ton of feathers or a ton of bricks? Sorry but your theory doesn't hold water. If you think of the water pressure as being the electromotive force this might help make things more clear.

This is some of the info that got me thinking about this subject. Some scientific reasoning. Any more thoughts??

"The truth is that biamping makes sense in certain cases, even with a passive crossover, but biwiring is pure voodoo. If you move one pair of speaker wires to the same terminals where the other pair is connected, absolutely nothing changes electrically. The law of physics that says so is called the superposition principle. In terms of electronics, the superposition theorem states that any number of volt- ages applied simultaneously to a linear network will result in a current which is the exact sum of the currents that would result if the voltages were applied indi- vidually. The audio salesman or 'phile who can prove the contrary will be an instant candidate for some truly major scientific prizes and academic honors."

Kingshead said:

Funny. What weighs more, a ton of feathers or a ton of bricks? Sorry but your theory doesn't hold water. If you think of the water pressure as being the electromotive force this might help make things more clear.

Click to expand...

OK, so if you are delivering 7 amps of current through a 10 gauge wire, how many amps does it become through a 1/0 gauge?
How many if you connect two 12 gauge wires to the same terminal?

Oh, and the water delivery "theory" is an exact duplication of what is being proposed as the reason bi-wiring works.

jcg1112 said:

This is some of the info that got me thinking about this subject. Some scientific reasoning. Any more thoughts??

"The truth is that biamping makes sense in certain cases, even with a passive crossover, but biwiring is pure voodoo. If you move one pair of speaker wires to the same terminals where the other pair is connected, absolutely nothing changes electrically. The law of physics that says so is called the superposition principle. In terms of electronics, the superposition theorem states that any number of volt- ages applied simultaneously to a linear network will result in a current which is the exact sum of the currents that would result if the voltages were applied indi- vidually. The audio salesman or 'phile who can prove the contrary will be an instant candidate for some truly major scientific prizes and academic honors."

Click to expand...

First; it states at the beginning this is only a theory. Second; by definition, linear means in a straight line. What does this have to do with bi-wiring?


a (1) : of, relating to, resembling, or having a graph that is a line and especially a straight line : straight (2) : involving a single dimension
b (1) : of the first degree with respect to one or more variables (2) : of, relating to, based on, or being linear equations, linear differential equations, linear functions, linear transformations, or linear algebra
c (1) : characterized by an emphasis on line <linear art> (2) : composed of simply drawn lines with little attempt at pictorial representation <linear script>
d : consisting of a straight chain of atoms
2
: elongated with nearly parallel sides <linear leaf> — see leaf illustration
3
: having or being a response or output that is directly proportional to the input
4
: of, relating to, or based or depending on sequential development <linear thinking> <a linear narrative>

robgmn said:

OK, so if you are delivering 7 amps of current through a 10 gauge wire, how many amps does it become through a 1/0 gauge?
How many if you connect two 12 gauge wires to the same terminal?

Oh, and the water delivery "theory" is an exact duplication of what is being proposed as the reason bi-wiring works.

Click to expand...

It's not about how much current will be drawn, or how much current the wire will carry. It's about the interaction of the two. Try laying a piece of wire next to your power cords, then measure the induced voltage on the unconnected wire. It's this induced current bi-wiring is attempting to avoid by placing the larger draw of the woofer on a different conductor than the high frequency drivers. If the split is at the beginning rather than at the end termination the interaction will be reduced.

Here is a test you can try at home. Attach two hoses to the same hose bib with a splitter. With the water running, interrupt the flow through one by placing your thumb over the end for just a split second and watch the affect on the other hoses output. Now shorten the two hoses to 12" in length and try the same experiment and watch the results. The second hose will respond to the change in pressure much more rapidly, the same holds true with bi-wiring.