To Bi-wire or not to Bi-wire?

[A9X]

22 minutes ago, andyr said:

I have read Rod's articles

I wasn't quoting you in my previous reply.

 

22 minutes ago, andyr said:

and you use the HP filter built into the sub(s), because you want to roll off the stand-mounts to complement the sub roll-off.

Which subs have a HPF (please link to manuals)? Only ones I've read about are some RELs and it's a simple cap, basically useless.

 

24 minutes ago, andyr said:

n this passively bi-amped scenario, the signal going to the tweeters is not compromised. 

It's not "compromised" by doing it in DSP. No need for the passive sections at all.

[andyr]

1 hour ago, A9X said:

 

Which subs have a HPF (please link to manuals)? Only ones I've read about are some RELs and it's a simple cap, basically useless.

 

 

It was the plate amp that Rythmik Audio sent me with the 12" sub kit that I bought from them, about 10 years ago.  I have NFI if there's a manual on-line or not.

 

Quote

 

It's not "compromised" by doing it in DSP. No need for the passive sections at all.

 

 

I know it's not compromised doing it in DSP (such as the miniDSP 10x10HD I use in my main system).  But the HPF in the Rythmik plate amp is not a digital filter - simply a cheap, opamp-based 24dB analogue one.

 

Andy

 

Edited November 6, 2019 by andyr

[Guest kab]

Short answer is try it

if you like the results thats good

if not no harm done.

 

Cheers.

[GregWormald]

On 05/11/2019 at 5:50 PM, ray4410 said:

so can anyone recommend a sensibly priced set of bi wire cables for the op.

Bi-wiring with cheap cables (Bunnings, Blue Jean, ...) should tell you whether it works with YOUR SYSTEM. You can then decide whether a larger investment is warranted.

 

Dr Rod Crawford designed speakers for Linn and now runs Legend Acoustics. In my email conversation with him he recommended bi- and tri-wiring for my speakers. I certainly heard a difference that was (for me) an improvement.

[needlerunner]

Hi Glen,

I have tried single and bi-wiring on my PMC twenty.23 speakers. I can say l heard a big improvement to the sound with the bi-wired option.

So to my ears, they deffinetly seemed to bring more bass, and vocal clarity is much improved.

In fact everything was more pronounced. Seemed to open the speakers up more.

 

Try it for yourself.  It doesn't have to be huge money. I bought mine from a guy in classifieds. Couldn't be happier. 

 

[anewmission]

I do bi I wiring, though I don't think it makes a difference. 

I have tried bi amping and that does give a bit of a difference. 

 

The strange thing I have noticed is that half the time, high end speakers such as focal sopra no. 2/3 use single inputs. I'm guessing because the crossover is so good they don't want people messing with bi amping. Same with alit of sonus Faber stuff. 

 

But then I have also seen the very high end reference kef models had triple binding posts, for tri wiring. They have since gone back to dual binding posts. 

 

[Syrot]

Bi-amping works a treat, if you going to double up on cables whats the point with out doubling up on the power.  

[almikel]

On 18/11/2019 at 1:28 AM, Syrot said:

Bi-amping works a treat, if you going to double up on cables whats the point with out doubling up on the power.  

I would agree that active bi-amping (or tri-amping) works a treat with well designed low level crossovers, but bi-amping (active or passive) doesn't double the power - 2 x 100W amps isn't 200W, it's still 100W.

 

Mike

[Ittaku]

1 minute ago, almikel said:

I would agree that active bi-amping (or tri-amping) works a treat with well designed low level crossovers, but bi-amping (active or passive) doesn't double the power - 2 x 100W amps isn't 200W, it's still 100W.

This is correct, except in the case where there is 100W of bass energy playing with 100W of treble energy at the same time - in that situation it is acting like a 200W amplifier. On the other hand, this almost never happens since there is usually a magnitude less energy in the treble region than there is in the bass region, and it's not uncommon for bi/tri-amped systems to have more powerful amps for the bass to correspond with where the energy is.

[almikel]

2 minutes ago, Ittaku said:

This is correct, except in the case where there is 100W of bass energy playing with 100W of treble energy at the same time - in that situation it is acting like a 200W amplifier.

Hi Con,

I disagree - in the biamp case you will likely have less voltage droop on each amp's power supply so each can achieve 100W output, but a well designed 100W amp with a sufficient power supply can do the same.

 

If the amp/amps stay below current/voltage clipping, it remains at 100W.

 

cheers

Mike

[Guest Muon N']

On 05/11/2019 at 2:43 PM, blakey72 said:

Yeah I guess it's just too open for interpretation. I've thought about tinkering with cables to see if there is an improvement. Nothing expensive, less than $200 for an RCA

Stretch a tad more and you can get some R1 Dragons

[andyr]

24 minutes ago, almikel said:

I would agree that active bi-amping (or tri-amping) works a treat with well designed low level crossovers, but bi-amping (active or passive) doesn't double the power - 2 x 100W amps isn't 200W, it's still 100W.

 

Mike

 

Umm, Mike - Rod Elliott's white paper on active bi-amping says that if you have:

• a 100w amp on the woofers
• and a 100w on the tweeters

... then you have the equivalent of a 400w single amp, driving the same speaker with a passive XO.

 

IOW power quadruples in an active setup - not just doubles. 

 

Andy

 

[almikel]

17 minutes ago, Ittaku said:

and it's not uncommon for bi/tri-amped systems to have more powerful amps for the bass to correspond with where the energy is.

agreed - my tweeter and mid amps are 65W, my mid bass amps are 400W, and my sub is 2 x 370W - but it's not additive - just less likely to clip (current or voltage)

 

Mike

[almikel]

5 minutes ago, andyr said:

 

Umm, Mike - Rod Elliott's white paper on active bi-amping says that if you have:

• a 100w amp on the woofers
• and a 100w on the tweeters

... then you have the equivalent of a 400w single amp, driving the same speaker with a passive XO.

 

IOW power quadruples in an active setup - not just doubles. 

 

Andy

 

you'll need to qualify where Rod says that...I suspect it's to do with voltage clipping

25 minutes ago, almikel said:

If the amp/amps stay below current/voltage clipping, it remains at 100W.

I stand by my comment above.

 

Of course a major advantage of bi-amping is the reduced chance of clipping at high SPL, but if you remain below clipping on a single 100W amp, then bi-amping does not deliver:

23 minutes ago, andyr said:

the equivalent of a 400w single amp, driving the same speaker with a passive XO.

I have huge respect for Rod Elliot, and you've cherry picked bits of his content out of context.

 

Mike

[blakey72]

14 hours ago, Muon N' said:

Stretch a tad more and you can get some R1 Dragons

Don't worry mate, that is on the cards. Me old mate Cafad likes them too so I think I will save the pennies  

[frednork]

14 hours ago, andyr said:

Umm, Mike - Rod Elliott's white paper on active bi-amping says that if you have:

• a 100w amp on the woofers
• and a 100w on the tweeters

... then you have the equivalent of a 400w single amp, driving the same speaker with a passive XO.

 

IOW power quadruples in an active setup - not just doubles. 

 

Andy

Assume this is about removing the losses that occur in a passive crossover

[andyr]

1 hour ago, frednork said:

Assume this is about removing the losses that occur in a passive crossover

I'm afraid I have no idea, FN - I just believe what Rod says! 

 

Andy

 

[Wayne Elliott]

On 04/11/2019 at 9:40 PM, jt301 said:

I know that Colin Whatmough was a passionate advocate for bi wiring or tri wiring speakers.  So much so, Whatmough don’t supply the terminal bars with their speakers.  If I remember correctly, his argument was along the same lines that you’re suggesting. That is, different types of wire work best at different parts of the frequency range.  

Using different Cables in a Bi-Wire Set-up has worked well in a few of my Set-Ups. Guess like nearly everything in Audio can be System dependant.

[scruffy1]

well, colour me confused

 

i have a pair of wharfedale 10.1's and they are on the end of a pair of monster cables old enough to have made their first acquaintance with my retired (but loitering) epicure model 10's from the luxman L2 last century

 

however, the 10.1's have dual posts for bi-wiring, and the gap is taken up by the bespoke metal plates supplied

 

i guess i could butcher some redundant monster cable to make a patch cord, but looking at manufactured options, they seem to have a spade > cord > banana to traverse the gap

 

i find myself wondering whether one spade to a banana via two connection points trumps a pair of spades with solid metal pathway, which is the plates currently in situ - but it seems the advantage would be a bee's dick to my unsophisticated audiophilia

 

still, i recently upgraded my interlinking rca's to a short run of canare cable with gold uuadio plugs for the eponymous chifi supplier on aliexpress, plus a canare with magnetic choke to my active subwoofer, and confess they added considerable enjoyment to my listening experience in terms of attack and clarity, although observer bias may be the difference

 

 

 

so, to get to the point after that ramble : is passive bi-wiring likely to improve on a solid chunk of metal ?  i have sincere doubts that electrons will flow more beautifully, but as everyone here seems to have a good time arguing i thought i'd provoke more heart-felt opinion like ... audio signals through an exorbitantly expensive piece of wire

 

is monster cable a joke ? have i been ripped off so many years ago ?  how can such a fat-arse cable not be beneficial to lowering resistance... if that helps

 

 

carry on

 

[frednork]

2 hours ago, scruffy1 said:

well, colour me confused

 

i have a pair of wharfedale 10.1's and they are on the end of a pair of monster cables old enough to have made their first acquaintance with my retired (but loitering) epicure model 10's from the luxman L2 last century

 

however, the 10.1's have dual posts for bi-wiring, and the gap is taken up by the bespoke metal plates supplied

 

i guess i could butcher some redundant monster cable to make a patch cord, but looking at manufactured options, they seem to have a spade > cord > banana to traverse the gap

 

i find myself wondering whether one spade to a banana via two connection points trumps a pair of spades with solid metal pathway, which is the plates currently in situ - but it seems the advantage would be a bee's dick to my unsophisticated audiophilia

 

still, i recently upgraded my interlinking rca's to a short run of canare cable with gold uuadio plugs for the eponymous chifi supplier on aliexpress, plus a canare with magnetic choke to my active subwoofer, and confess they added considerable enjoyment to my listening experience in terms of attack and clarity, although observer bias may be the difference

 

 

 

so, to get to the point after that ramble : is passive bi-wiring likely to improve on a solid chunk of metal ?  i have sincere doubts that electrons will flow more beautifully, but as everyone here seems to have a good time arguing i thought i'd provoke more heart-felt opinion like ... audio signals through an exorbitantly expensive piece of wire

 

is monster cable a joke ? have i been ripped off so many years ago ?  how can such a fat-arse cable not be beneficial to lowering resistance... if that helps

 

 

carry on

 

The fat arse cable will be changing the frequency response. whether you hear it or not is another matter.

 

Typically the metal links are not good. You can test for yourself by changing the way you connect to the speakers. try connecting negative to tweet and positive to bass. If it sounds no different not worth changing jumpers.  If it is better or worse then change.

 

As for the monsters, plenty of suggestions in this thread.

[scruffy1]

2 hours ago, frednork said:

The fat arse cable will be changing the frequency response. whether you hear it or not is another matter.

 

Typically the metal links are not good. You can test for yourself by changing the way you connect to the speakers. try connecting negative to tweet and positive to bass. If it sounds no different not worth changing jumpers.  If it is better or worse then change.

 

As for the monsters, plenty of suggestions in this thread.

 

i can't grok why a spade trumps a flat plate, as they are the same form factor +/- aesthetics

 

does pos need to be bass ?  or is the flip orientation same same ? and am i correct to presume the top connector is to the tweeter and lower to bass / mid ?

 

i read the thread but didn't see any monsters appearing - the gist i got was thick electric flex is as good as anything else, unless you are a purist and buy expensive placebos, because... reasons

 

 

 

Edited December 5, 2019 by scruffy1

[andyr]

5 minutes ago, scruffy1 said:

 

the gist i got was thick electric flex is as good as anything else, unless you are a purist and but expensive placebos, because... reasons

 

 

Shirley, being a 'purist' is what it's all about?? 

 

The reason why thick electric flex (or any other thick, stranded cable - such as Monster Cable) is not ideal for spkr cable is, AFAIAC:

a. because it is stranded.  , and

b. because it has PVC dielectric.

 

But you don't have to use 'expensive' cable to get a much better result.  I use Belden 1585A - which has teflon coated, solid core 24g strands.  (Use as many strands to each binding post as needed for the length and current passing capability.)

 

Andy

 

[almikel]

3 hours ago, scruffy1 said:

is monster cable a joke ?

monster cable was clever marketing - clear insulation made the conductor look bigger - but that didn't/doesn't make it poor speaker cable - it's fine

 

54 minutes ago, frednork said:

The fat arse cable will be changing the frequency response. whether you hear it or not is another matter.

not much more or less than most other speaker cables - but I am in the camp that considers any "reasonable" cables and interconnects to be sufficient - I use Blue Jeans interconnects and a variety of speaker cables of reasonable gauge for a 4 way active setup.

Of course everything has an impact on frequency response, but I prefer to use active EQ when I want to make a change in the frequency response.

 

2 hours ago, frednork said:

Typically the metal links are not good.

Many people on this site agree - it's such an inexpensive experiment - just do it - replace the metal plates with "reasonable" speaker wire well terminated - I won't comment further as I haven't run a passive crossover for 25 years or so.

On 23/11/2019 at 8:50 PM, andyr said:

Umm, Mike - Rod Elliott's white paper on active bi-amping says that if you have:

• a 100w amp on the woofers
• and a 100w on the tweeters

... then you have the equivalent of a 400w single amp, driving the same speaker with a passive XO.

 

IOW power quadruples in an active setup - not just doubles. 

 

Andy

 

On 24/11/2019 at 11:50 AM, frednork said:

Assume this is about removing the losses that occur in a passive crossover

yes passive crossovers cause losses, but I went and re-scanned Rod's article on bi-amping  https://sound-au.com/bi-amp.htm  - and Andy's paraphrasing of Rod's article was based on voltage clipping of amps - where the treble signal rides on top of the bass signal, beyond the voltage swing capability of the amp - under this scenario of course active bi-amping will provide more output without clipping compared to a single amp driving a passive crossover.

 

 

If a single 100W amp isn't voltage or current clipped, then 2 x 100W amps in a biamped setup is still 100W

On 24/11/2019 at 12:54 PM, andyr said:

I'm afraid I have no idea, FN - I just believe what Rod says! 

 

Andy

In lots of your posts I've read, you've demonstrated you have a good handle on electronics -  I'm surprised at your "I just believe what Rod says!" comment...

I also believe what Rod Elliot says - but not blindly - he writes great stuff and I've learned heaps from his site - he deserves to be taken in context (although I'm sure he's very used to be being taken out of context ). 

 

cheers

Mike

 

[scruffy1]

will i hear the dielectric shrinking like my pride from being so naive regarding cable selection ?

 

per two sites quoting Poly(vinyl chloride) dialectric constants, i get :

2.9 - 3.1     and   4.0

hang on !  that's not very constant; later still one site offers 3 - 5 as the number... what trickery is this ?

 

and what of teflon ?  at 2.10 it's "better"  unless it has glass fibre reinforcement, and then it's  3 .   Three !!!  that's more than 2.9, which is one of the low numbers for pvc

 

 

curioser and curioser !

 

there appears to be no local source to procure this magical beast 1585a

 

and now for my next ignorant question - what gauge do i need given the equipment i am connecting ?  the nad d3020  pumps 30w per specs, but i don't wind it up

 

 

 

damn.... now i need to consider some different cables, and all i wanted to know about was bi-wiring 

 

 

will this ocd ever stop ? 

 

[scruffy1]

26 minutes ago, almikel said:

3 hours ago, frednork said:

Typically the metal links are not good.

Many people on this site agree - it's such an inexpensive experiment - just do it - replace the metal plates with "reasonable" speaker wire well terminated - I won't comment further as I haven't run a passive crossover for 25 years or so.

 

what is a good terminator ?

 

is it like arnold schwarzennegger in the second movie of the franchise ?

 

or does it reflect the degree of twirl i impart to the strands, like hercule poirot pimping his moustache ?

 

does it benefit from adding solder or other exotic ingredients to simple wire ?

 

 

here was me, innocently enjoying pretty sweet reproduction of my favourite tunes, and suddenly i am getting anxious like a facepage fan with fomo

 

it was much easier to be ignorant and satisfied than informed and discontented