Nic Rhodes
Distinguished Member
Bi wiring (and cables), what a load of rubbish (long) pt 1
Fed up of the pseudo mumbo jumbo that gets passed off as authoritative guides to bi-wiring I have decided to put pen to paper. Flame away.
I DONT believe bi-wiring works. This is audiophile nonsense (a self confessed obsessive audiophile speaking). It is audio flim flam, garbage put about by What Hif-Fi and its readers (or the ones who believe what they write anyway). Full stop. I have never seen any serious research that would make me think otherwise. (Please no What HiFi quotes, this will just wind me up more). I am a serious researcher and will look at any authoritative journals like AES or others for further guidance. I am open to any serious comments. But in my experience, non of my tests (rigorously controlled, not of the usual hook it up and turn the volume up demos from shops) have proved otherwise and I have the national cable collection here in Cumbria following my experiments to date. I am also willing to undertake any tests within my capability (no Gallos today!). I can match levels to 0.1B with both sound meters (non Tandy, quality units) and multi-meters / digital oscilloscopes to test things. I have access to a decent variety of speakers.
The late Peter Snell was an early bi-wire fan, and later recanted saying it was baloney. Many TOP speaker companies now either dont offer the dual terminals at all or do so only for bi-amping purposes. Many speak openly about its detrimental effects.
[Bi-amping is not to be confused with bi-wiring - they are totally different animals. Bi-amping can lower IM distortion in the critical mid range frequencies and to which the ear is most sensitive, as Paul Klipsch and others have demonstrated over many years. You also get about 4dB more headroom, which can subjectively increase the perceived dynamic range.]
The law of superposition (the basis for why your speaker can reproduce a complex series of wavelengths simultaneously) states that any two voltages applied to a linear network (in this case, your crossover) will have the same voltage transfer as if they were applied separately. Simply stated, it says that any two currents applied simultaneously to a linear network result in the same current as when applied individually. If the crossover is poorly isolated (bass to Mid/treble) no manner of cable TWEAKING will correct it. Regarding the cable theorists (suppliers?) claim that running bass and treble frequencies protects the delicate trebles from the mean bass currents is sheer nonsense, and shows a complete lack of knowledge of the principles of electro-magnetism that govern signal transfer of audio frequencies over short distances. It is invented for you to buy- wire and not based in science / engineering.
As I have said repeatedly here previously there have been some situations where bi-wring may have compensated for a poorly designed crossover network, but that does not make the principle valid. Poor crossover design is quite common unfortunately.
Dont believe me, try this
Replace the pressed metal tags of you speakers bi-wire terminals with cables and listen to the gains. Bi wiring? No just removing detrimental cheap pressed tin plate. Cheap and easy upgrade. Note many manufacturers now supply wire links, I wonder why?
Still not convinced and want to try bi-wiring: Well consider your £200 cable. You bi-wire with another £200 cable. It sound is better, is this because of your bi wiring or is it because you now have £400 of cable with different electrical properties, like R. A great test is to try Kimber 4TC, then bi wire with more Kimber 4TC. Finally try single wiring with Kimber 8TC (same number of wires as bi-wired 4TC and a very similar construction). 8TC is the preferred option, it has lower R, therefore bass is better reproduced. No bi-wiring gains but gains simply because of better electrical properties.
Well I am a technical sort of guy, lets use science to look at the differences between single wiring and bi-wiring, try
http://www.pcavtech.com/techtalk/biwire/index.htm
I think this accurate analysis of the science behind the techniques says much. There is no difference electrically guys, wake up time.
Now I am not saying cable dont make differences, they do, it is all down to C, L and R Simple and basic electrical characteristics. Simple first year engineering. Then we have screening, RFI issues and a host of other things to add to the cable debate. However I will say that if you satisfy the requirements for the engineering basics (R, C, L, screening and RFI) than I can hear no difference between them. What I do say is that properly designed and performing cable isnt expensive and more often than not any differences are elsewhere in the system (amp stability, level differences, poor connectors, oxidation etc etc). How many crimp loudspeaker connections? Well done QED for their excellent airtight AIRLOCK crimps or do you want to send your delicate audio signals via lead solder that oxidises? Connections just need to be tight and corrosion free.
Tom Nousaines 1995 paper to the AES is good here for those with a technical bent on cable differences.
I quote the following for interest from elsewhere on the internet giving the story of the paper as it can do a better job than me, from
http://www.vxm.com/21R.64.html
but quoted in full here for completeness
Fed up of the pseudo mumbo jumbo that gets passed off as authoritative guides to bi-wiring I have decided to put pen to paper. Flame away.
I DONT believe bi-wiring works. This is audiophile nonsense (a self confessed obsessive audiophile speaking). It is audio flim flam, garbage put about by What Hif-Fi and its readers (or the ones who believe what they write anyway). Full stop. I have never seen any serious research that would make me think otherwise. (Please no What HiFi quotes, this will just wind me up more). I am a serious researcher and will look at any authoritative journals like AES or others for further guidance. I am open to any serious comments. But in my experience, non of my tests (rigorously controlled, not of the usual hook it up and turn the volume up demos from shops) have proved otherwise and I have the national cable collection here in Cumbria following my experiments to date. I am also willing to undertake any tests within my capability (no Gallos today!). I can match levels to 0.1B with both sound meters (non Tandy, quality units) and multi-meters / digital oscilloscopes to test things. I have access to a decent variety of speakers.
The late Peter Snell was an early bi-wire fan, and later recanted saying it was baloney. Many TOP speaker companies now either dont offer the dual terminals at all or do so only for bi-amping purposes. Many speak openly about its detrimental effects.
[Bi-amping is not to be confused with bi-wiring - they are totally different animals. Bi-amping can lower IM distortion in the critical mid range frequencies and to which the ear is most sensitive, as Paul Klipsch and others have demonstrated over many years. You also get about 4dB more headroom, which can subjectively increase the perceived dynamic range.]
The law of superposition (the basis for why your speaker can reproduce a complex series of wavelengths simultaneously) states that any two voltages applied to a linear network (in this case, your crossover) will have the same voltage transfer as if they were applied separately. Simply stated, it says that any two currents applied simultaneously to a linear network result in the same current as when applied individually. If the crossover is poorly isolated (bass to Mid/treble) no manner of cable TWEAKING will correct it. Regarding the cable theorists (suppliers?) claim that running bass and treble frequencies protects the delicate trebles from the mean bass currents is sheer nonsense, and shows a complete lack of knowledge of the principles of electro-magnetism that govern signal transfer of audio frequencies over short distances. It is invented for you to buy- wire and not based in science / engineering.
As I have said repeatedly here previously there have been some situations where bi-wring may have compensated for a poorly designed crossover network, but that does not make the principle valid. Poor crossover design is quite common unfortunately.
Dont believe me, try this
Replace the pressed metal tags of you speakers bi-wire terminals with cables and listen to the gains. Bi wiring? No just removing detrimental cheap pressed tin plate. Cheap and easy upgrade. Note many manufacturers now supply wire links, I wonder why?
Still not convinced and want to try bi-wiring: Well consider your £200 cable. You bi-wire with another £200 cable. It sound is better, is this because of your bi wiring or is it because you now have £400 of cable with different electrical properties, like R. A great test is to try Kimber 4TC, then bi wire with more Kimber 4TC. Finally try single wiring with Kimber 8TC (same number of wires as bi-wired 4TC and a very similar construction). 8TC is the preferred option, it has lower R, therefore bass is better reproduced. No bi-wiring gains but gains simply because of better electrical properties.
Well I am a technical sort of guy, lets use science to look at the differences between single wiring and bi-wiring, try
http://www.pcavtech.com/techtalk/biwire/index.htm
I think this accurate analysis of the science behind the techniques says much. There is no difference electrically guys, wake up time.
Now I am not saying cable dont make differences, they do, it is all down to C, L and R Simple and basic electrical characteristics. Simple first year engineering. Then we have screening, RFI issues and a host of other things to add to the cable debate. However I will say that if you satisfy the requirements for the engineering basics (R, C, L, screening and RFI) than I can hear no difference between them. What I do say is that properly designed and performing cable isnt expensive and more often than not any differences are elsewhere in the system (amp stability, level differences, poor connectors, oxidation etc etc). How many crimp loudspeaker connections? Well done QED for their excellent airtight AIRLOCK crimps or do you want to send your delicate audio signals via lead solder that oxidises? Connections just need to be tight and corrosion free.
Tom Nousaines 1995 paper to the AES is good here for those with a technical bent on cable differences.
I quote the following for interest from elsewhere on the internet giving the story of the paper as it can do a better job than me, from
http://www.vxm.com/21R.64.html
but quoted in full here for completeness
Tom Nousaine, a rigorous audiophile 'objectivist', gave a talk at a BAS/AES joint meeting in Boston, MA, in January 1995. Nousaine presented a paper that reported the experimental results of double blind tests with regards differences in audio cable sound. His paper essentially stated that all audio cables were sonically alike, and that not one of the experiment's participants could hear any differences when put in carefully controlled test settings. Furthermore, Nousaine went on to publicly state that all vendors'/dealers'/reviewers' claims of superior cable sound were bogus.
Now, as it so happened, the president of Transparent Audio, Jack Summer, was also in attendance. Summer was giving a talk immediately following Nousaine. Transparent is one of the better known audiophile cable makers. Summer was, not too surprisingly, miffed at Nousaine's contention that all cable makers' claims for audio performance are so much marketing nonsense.
In front of all present that night, including myself, Summer jumped up, and immediately challenged Nousaine to come to Chez Transparent in Hollis, Maine. Tom would then have an opportunity to do one of his cable comparison tests, using Transparent cables. Summer publicly stated that Nousaine would definitely hear a big difference in cable 'sound' . Nousaine grew testy, and rather red in the face, as he sparred back and forth with Summer. Things proceeded to get rather tense.
Like everyone else there that night, I watched all this with grim fascination. Quite frankly, given the players involved, it should not have been a totally unexpected development. Finally, everyone calmed down, and the evening's agenda proceeded.