I have not made any false statements. I’ve explained in scientific detail why it could work. Is it audible is in the ear of the listener? I’ve heard a more “relaxed” sound when biwiring my Vandersteen 3As, my NHT 2.9s and triwiring my Hyperion 938Ws.
And I tried to explain biwiring in terms the novice will understand as it’s obvious some of the posters don’t even comprehend Ohms Law.
Cambridge Audio saves five bucks by not adding an extra set of terminals to put money in”better” crossover components. BS
I favor Audioholics. Gene is a real asset to our community. But the biwiring article doesn’t work for me.
One more, biwiring doesn’t care what crossover topology is in the speaker. A simple first order series or parallel network. Or a fourth order Linkwitz Riley network. No difference. Nada.
Bi-amping can bring about improvements by removing the woofer induced distortion from the tweeter, however whether the improvements are actually audible is questionable.
There’s some commentary on it by John Siau of Benchmark Media here:
He also touches on bi-wiring though makes the statement that any differences are probably inaudible. When Benchmark state that things are probably inaudible, they’re usually talking in the realms of below -100 dBFS.
There’s some really interesting stuff in their application notes around audibility threshold, noise, distortion etc. It’s clear they approach things first and foremeost from an engineering perspective. Their entire website is a BS-free zone. Somewhat of a rarity these days.
IMD doesn’t occur in cables, only in non-linear devices, so your first statement is clearly false.
You tried to explain using Ohm’s Law, but actully Kirchoff’s Law explains better what is happening with the currents.
CA doesn’t believe in bi-wiring, so bi-wireable binding posts aren’t fitted to their speakers. What’s ■■ about that? The cost is considerably greater than five bucks. It requires separation of the crossovers, separate wiring, additional holes in the cabinet, additional binding posts and the extra time and resource to fit them. What’s ■■ about that?
Bi-wiring doesn’t separate anything - the same signal voltage is present at the ends of both cables.
The point about the crossover wasn’t about topology, it was to demonstrate the transfer function and the fact that there isn’t a simplistic separation of low and high frequencies within the crossover, therefore there isn’t in the cables.
The bi-wiring article may not work for you, but it was was written by Jim Lesurf, a lecturer in Physics and Electronics for over 20 years at the University of St. Andrews. The electrical theory is sound and based on my own knowledge and experience, I believe Jim’s writings over your claims.
I don’t think the idea of letting the speaker do its stuff internally as it sees fit is BS. Crossover circuits have to make sure they maintain the correct phase relation between the ways. When you bi-amp, that burden falls on the amp, and it may not sound right anymore. It’s somewhat similar to adding a subwoofer to a surround setup, in which case you usually need calibration.
AceRimmer
(Smoke me a kipper, I'll be back for breakfast!)
108
I think all that needs to be said has already been said…and more.
It’s time to let it rest.