View Full Version : To BiWire or Not To BiWire
I would like to ask for help on my next speaker cables:
Do you BiWire your speakers, or not?
Im about to buy new cables- and realized i was planning to biwire them based on some old assumptions - So, i need your help, is this really a good idea, does it improve sound?
Looking back through this forum - there is some debate, maybe biwiring looses soundstage, maybe its just not necessary if your cable is good enough, maybe different size cable is better for tweets (small) and base (big) - though that last one may be technically correct but feels suspect. So i would like to ask what you have done in your system/what works and what doesnt.
Thanks for your help, much appreciated!
For cables i am considering Van Damme 4mm or Black Rhodium twist - would appreciate for your advice on this too
jandl100
03-06-2013, 07:19
Hi Stuart
Yes, it can be worthwhile, depending on the speaker and amp - I think you just have to try it.
My personal reccie would be for neither of the cables on your short list!
For a very good low cost bi-wire cable I'd go for these http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/ARROW-Speaker-CABLE-Bi-Wire-OFC-LEAD-per-METRE-/190839815516?pt=UK_Computing_Sound_Vision_Audio_Ca bles_Adapters&hash=item2c6ef07d5c
They sound great and have the added advantage of the two sets of cable being bundled together - makes things tidier.
They are a bit colourful, though. :D
Another factor to consider is, if you retain jumpers, how you connect the cable to your speaker terminals. I posted a little while ago on this but search doesn't seem to be working at the moment so I can't provide the link.
In summary, my speakers are triwireable but I biwire them. On each speaker, one pair of wires feed the bass driver (red and black) then the other pair plugs into treble red and mid black with jumpers connecting up the rest. Distinctly better then other combinations.
Worth trying out. Could save you a run of cable.
Chris
kenworthy100
04-06-2013, 10:47
In my own case I had very mixed results and on the whole preferred my system sound with single wired cable.
I therefore elected to get the best single wire I could afford , for me it also had the advantage that when I subsequently changed speakers to Kef LS50's, which aren't bi-wireable, I didn't have to change cables again.
Really the only way is to experiment in your own system and make the choice which is best for you.
gariusmacus
04-06-2013, 10:58
Really the only way is to experiment in your own system and make the choice which is best for you.
Absolutely, at the end of the day its what "your" ears prefer not what someone else likes or says is the best thing to do , we're all different. for the record i do bi-wire but there are just as many that don't.
Hey guys, thanks for the comments and thoughts. I agree i just will have to try it - and see what my ears believe.
Please keep the reviews coming! Anyone have some views on the cable (van damme 4mm, black rhodium twist or other...)
Thanks in advance!
That Arrow speaker cable that Jerry recommends is interesting:
http://i14.ebayimg.com/02/i/000/e9/be/83c3_1.JPG
With its relatively few (12), but quite thick, strands it is a bit like Naim NacA5 (but cheaper).
Hi Stuart
Yes, it can be worthwhile, depending on the speaker and amp - I think you just have to try it.
My personal reccie would be for neither of the cables on your short list!
For a very good low cost bi-wire cable I'd go for these http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/ARROW-Speaker-CABLE-Bi-Wire-OFC-LEAD-per-METRE-/190839815516?pt=UK_Computing_Sound_Vision_Audio_Ca bles_Adapters&hash=item2c6ef07d5c
They sound great and have the added advantage of the two sets of cable being bundled together - makes things tidier.
They are a bit colourful, though. :D
Hi Jerry!
This cable does look interesting - the description does not seem clear about the thickness of the core - it says '6mm thick' - but its not clear if that is the core, or includes the insulation, i guessed it includes everything.
Its very well priced, especially for biwire. by comparison, the 4 core 4mm van damme cable is twice the price - however when only buying a few meters is not much more expensive really:
http://www.vdctrading.com/shop/van-damme-cable/speaker/van-damme-black-series-tour-grade-multicore/van-damme-black-series-tour-grade-4-x-400mm-multicore-per-metre/
Have you seen any reviews on the Arrow cable? vandamme has some great reviews - i might lean toward the van damme unless there are more reviews for comparison
That Arrow speaker cable that Jerry recommends is interesting:
http://i14.ebayimg.com/02/i/000/e9/be/83c3_1.JPG
With its relatively few (12), but quite thick, strands it is a bit like Naim NacA5 (but cheaper).
Hi Hm!
Do you have something in mind when you say 'interesting'?
I remember reading that thicker and fewer strands are better for high frequencies - however low frequencies travel better in cables with more and thin strands.
If that is correct - it would mean that this cable might be weaker on base.
What do you think?
jandl100
05-06-2013, 08:41
Hi Jerry!
This cable does look interesting - the description does not seem clear about the thickness of the core - it says '6mm thick' - but its not clear if that is the core, or includes the insulation, i guessed it includes everything.
Its very well priced, especially for biwire. by comparison, the 4 core 4mm van damme cable is twice the price - however when only buying a few meters is not much more expensive really:
http://www.vdctrading.com/shop/van-damme-cable/speaker/van-damme-black-series-tour-grade-multicore/van-damme-black-series-tour-grade-4-x-400mm-multicore-per-metre/
Have you seen any reviews on the Arrow cable? vandamme has some great reviews - i might lean toward the van damme unless there are more reviews for comparison
Well, to my ears Van Damme is drab and boring.
I've heard the Twist and it gets great reviews and has won awards - but personally I disliked it intensely. I did a review >here< (http://hifipig.com/black-rhodium-twist-speaker-cables/), probably the only negative review it's ever received! :lol:
In your position I know where my money would go, but it's your money so ..... why not buy the Twist and the Arrow. As you say, it's not a lot of dosh and I bet you can move whatever is the "loser" on easily enough. ;)
What I think is that there are a lot of rather fanciful ideas regarding cable sound and construction. I'm not saying i don't think cables make a difference because I do think they can sound different - but the mechanism by which this is occurring is only theory at present. There is no actual scientific evidence that thin cables are better for high frequencies and thick for low, or that fewer strands are better for higher frequencies etc.
I've not come across that Arrow cable before, but it is a very good price and looks to be a good buy. Naim Nac A5 (which it looks very like in terms of strand construction) is a very tight and fast sounding cable, almost lean. I wouldn't say it is bass lite but it doesn't sound as atmospheric as some.
Mark Grant
05-06-2013, 08:50
For cables i am considering Van Damme 4mm or Black Rhodium twist - would appreciate for your advice on this too
The van damme 4mm is huge and really has 4mm2 conductors, the black Rhodium twist is only 0.75 MM ( zero point 75 !!) which is very small even though it is sometimes advertised as having 3.2mm conductors it really is only 0.75 mm2. Does get good reviews though but don't be thinking you are getting 3.2mm2 of copper.
I should add that personally I do bi-wire my speakers and use thick, copper. multi strand cable (the same for both runs)).
My speakers are also a three-way design (Yamaha NS-1000Ms) and they are wired so that one run goes to the mid and bass and the second run goes to the tweeter.
After all the research, I have decided not to bi-wire the speakers, at least not for now. I thought I would share why, maybe someone will follow down this path and find it useful:
1) The principle positive impact of bi-wiring is to lower the resistance of the speaker cable - which can be achieve through bigger cables anyway
2) My amp does not have separate terminals for bi-wiring, thus i would need to squeeze two cables into one banana connector - which im not very excited about - im not sure that can be achieved effectively. Yes, there are some bananas that allow another 'piggy back' banana - but i didnt find any of these from a good name manufacture (perhaps they are out there, but i didnt find them)
4) There is some timing risks when using biwire it seems,
5) The other benefits of bi-wire (e.g. minimizing impact of base speaker settling) just didnt convince me enough
6) I will add better jumpers between the bi-wire bindings on the speakers, replacing the original jumpers, since some just dont do the job well enough (and some benefit from bi-wiring comes from replacing the OEM jumpers)
7) when i upgrade amps later, if the next one has more speaker cable bindings, i can just add more cables, after all!
For speaker cable i have chosen 2 core 4mm van damme from Mark (if he had 6mm i would probably buy that to reduce the resistance further). These fit in my price range for now.
If i had unlimited funds i would rather choose the Tellurium Q Black - partly because of the reviews, and partly due to the spacing of the wire cores - i can believe the spacing really does improve the sound by reducing induction related interference. I have seen cables melt from induction effects in hi-current situations. If there was a lower-cost speaker cable with spaced cores i would be keen to try it - I think some will come out soon, so maybe that is a future upgrade... maybe i will find good piggy-back bananas by then too! :eyebrows:
Of course the proof is in the pudding - and some time in the future i will get some good bi-wires for comparison
Thanks again for all your help, and discussion! I appreciate everyones advice!
Regards,
Stuart
Colin Wonfor
10-06-2013, 09:03
What I think is that there are a lot of rather fanciful ideas regarding cable sound and construction. I'm not saying i don't think cables make a difference because I do think they can sound different - but the mechanism by which this is occurring is only theory at present. There is no actual scientific evidence that thin cables are better for high frequencies and thick for low, or that fewer strands are better for higher frequencies etc.
I've not come across that Arrow cable before, but it is a very good price and looks to be a good buy. Naim Nac A5 (which it looks very like in terms of strand construction) is a very tight and fast sounding cable, almost lean. I wouldn't say it is bass lite but it doesn't sound as atmospheric as some.
Please read
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skin_effect
I'm familiar with the concept of skin effect (I would have thought most enthusiasts are as masses of manufacturers all claim to address it in their various cable/connectors etc.) - but the actual scientific evidence does not support the idea that it is relevant at audio frequencies.
StanleyB
10-06-2013, 10:42
I'm familiar with the concept of skin effect (I would have thought most enthusiasts are as masses of manufacturers all claim to address it in their various cable/connectors etc.) - but the actual scientific evidence does not support the idea that it is relevant at audio frequencies.
Scientific evidence, or lack of it, is not a valid benchmark as to whether a claim is valid or not. Many discoveries and inventions flew in the face of scientific evidence available at the time.
I would agree in that I don't think science has discovered everything there is to discover or that everything that has been discovered is fully understood; on the other hand, pure theory doesn't constitute fact either...
What is tricky, in my view, is to point to science as validation of ones opinion and then, when it doesn't actually fully support it, fall back on the premise that science doesn't know everything - this smacks of 'if science agrees with me it's right and if it doesn't it's wrong'..!
My personal view is that cables can make a difference to the sound of ones system; but don’t expect science to explain why these differences exist (as you say, science doesn’t know everything). In extreme circumstances (very high resistance, capacitance etc.) there may be scientific justification but, for the most part, any reference to science is tenuous and marketing claims to the contrary should be taken with a generous pinch of salt.
StanleyB
10-06-2013, 12:16
It took decades to scientifically confirm that light bends when subjected to a magnetic field. Einstein was long dead before they confirmed his theory. And let's not go into the theory of relativity. It's bad enough that the Higgs Bossom is turning out to be so difficult to corner scientifically. Based on your assertion, these scientists should have been sent home years ago instead of spending time dishing out pinches of salt.
The fact is that when it comes to magnetic and electrical properties, we don't have all the scientific evidence to be certain of many things. To pour scorn on observations of others reminds me of Galieo Galilea, the Wright brothers, and even Columbus.
Based on your assertion, these scientists should have been sent home years ago instead of spending time dishing out pinches of salt.
How you have arrived at this conclusion I cannot fathom; with respect, I can only suggest you read my previous post more carefully as, essentially, it is in line with what you have written. Note, it is not I, but Colin Wonfor, who cited science in support of cable differences.
______________
I do like the way you imply that questioning the marketing claims made by cable manufacturers is equivalent to pouring scorn on Galileo, the Wright brothers, and even Columbus - most amusing :).
Lol - I think you're both guilty of misunderstanding each other! Stan, having read Mark's post, it's obvious that he's pretty much in agreement with you, so I'm not sure where the confusion has arisen from...
Mark, I suspect that your last paragraph misunderstands where Stan was coming from. As I read it, his comments about Galileo, etc, were in reference to those who are so blinkered as to believe that science currently has the answer to everything (folk like Serge, etc, on pfm and elsewhere), not those who question the (often ridiculous) marketing claims made by cable manufacturers :)
Me? I'm thoroughly in agreement with both of you. In my book, anything which pooh-poohs the ludicrous notion that all scientific facts today are 'done deals' and therefore warrant no further scrutiny, is to be applauded and supported!! :clap:
Marco.
StanleyB
11-06-2013, 08:38
Mark, I suspect that your last paragraph misunderstands where Stan was coming from. As I read it, his comments about Galileo, etc, were in reference to those who are so blinkered as to believe that science currently has the answer to everything (folk like Serge, etc, on pfm and elsewhere), not those who question the (often ridiculous) marketing claims made by cable manufacturers :)
As one of my English teachers used to point out: some people can spell the letters in a word, some people can tell you what the word means, and some people can do both :).
Recently heard Cable Talk 3 (the new stuff) in my system, its very good.
Not as good as my TQ Black, but I've still to come across a cable that makes my Rega speakers sing the way it does.
Talk 3 is very nice, sounds a bit lean to me though, but as always its system dependant.
Have the arrow biwire Jerry speaks about, its good too.
I had the Van Damme Black tour grade cable too... didn't sound dull to me, just shows how the same cable can sound different in differerent systems...unfortunately!!
Figlet108
11-06-2013, 12:11
...In my book...
Ooh, I didn't know you'd written a book Marco!
Send it over and I'll review it for you :D
Hehehehe... It's a daftees book, for daftees only. Do you feel you might qualify? :D
Marco.
Mark, I suspect that your last paragraph misunderstands where Stan was coming from. As I read it, his comments about Galileo, etc, were in reference to those who are so blinkered as to believe that science currently has the answer to everything (folk like Serge, etc, on pfm and elsewhere)
Just read this from Serge, on pfm, and couldn't resist posting it here, as it demonstrates exactly what I've referred to above:
"I don't take a lot of notice of audible differences I can't quantify. If I were to make a change that I preferred, I would not be happy until I understood what difference the change made. Until then, it would always bother me that even though I preferred the changed sound, it would be worse than what I had before. Sound has to be right as well as sound right."
A classic case of cognitive dissonance and someone, who in the face of overwhelming evidence from his senses telling him that something sounds right *to him*, still refuses to accept it, unless the existence of the effect is confirmed by a (limited) set of measurement parameters on (limited functionality) test equipment (i.e. it can only reveal what it has been designed to reveal, based on said limited set of measurement parameters)! :doh:
I find this shunning of one's innate humanness, and the instincts one was born with, truly sad. What if his ears are genuinely identifying the existence of a sonic phenomenon that (as yet) isn't quantifiable by measurement on currently available test apparatus?
No wonder these people never discover anything new for themselves! Their tunnel vision and blinkeredness is the very opposite of good scientific practice...
Marco.
StanleyB
12-06-2013, 07:38
Worse still is when individuals cling on to the idea that scientific evidence is the only thing that they would accept as fact and are quick and happy to lambaste anyone who doesn't share their views.
I myself believe that speaker leads design are heavily affected by the corkscrew rule. I designed a couple of cables many years ago for my former employer to demonstrate the effect. But it came to nothing because the marketing team were looking for scientific measurements and figures, even though the sonic effects were as clear as night and day.
Just read this from Serge, on pfm, and couldn't resist posting it here, as it demonstrates exactly what I've referred to above:
A classic case of cognitive dissonance and someone, who in the face of overwhelming evidence from his senses telling him that something sounds right *to him*, still refuses to accept it, unless the existence of the effect is confirmed by a (limited) set of measurement parameters on (limited functionality) test equipment (i.e. it can only reveal what it has been designed to reveal, based on said limited set of measurement parameters)! :doh:
I find this shunning of one's innate humanness, and the instincts one was born with, truly sad. What if his ears are genuinely identifying the existence of a sonic phenomenon that (as yet) isn't quantifiable by measurement on currently available test apparatus?
No wonder these people never discover anything new for themselves! Their tunnel vision and blinkeredness is the very opposite of good scientific practice...
Marco.
Marco - Wow, there is a lot said here, and, alas, part of the human condition. I find this topic really interesting.
People have an amazing need to explain stuff. Instinct drives people to find an explanation; often any explanation will do, preferring a bad or wrong explanation than to live with an uncertainty. People hate uncertainty. For example, a couple thousand years ago, when the mountain blew up or the rains didnt come, or the earth shook, the explanation was that "the gods must be angry":stalks: - and a lot of religious activity was to appease the angry gods. Go figure! I continue to marvel and such human creativity! (who can argue against the gods, after all :scratch:
Today we may know a bit more about mountains blowing up, yet the human need remains – to reduce uncertainty – unfortunately often taking supposition as fact.
On the other hand, then there is something else.
This drive to explain is the root of all human progress, our pursuit of knowledge and desire to learn and understand. I am a great believer that experience, knowledge + discipline leads to fabulous insight. :bulb: Take nothing for granted, challenge the established norms, and find new science that breaks the previous paradigm. Nothing truly remarkable has ever been discovered without this uncompromising approach. :yay:
Unfortunately, theories of the greatest thinkers are often difficult to prove or untestable because science has not caught up yet (ignorance without choice). Even more unfortunate when the political establishment* works better under the current belief system (ignorance by choice due to greed or fear). And sometime people refute the proof in front of them, because they want some other proof that the establishment will accept better - like Marco said (ignorance by choice, but due to a different fear?).
And voila – here is the human condition! I feel lucky when truth finally comes out – and it is something I question daily, especially if I read the news.
:drugs:
On a lighter note…
The ancient Greeks believed that absurdities of life were evidence that the gods were playing with our lives. Obviously the gods needed entertainment (after all what else was there for a god to do between the occasional mountain boom ;) – and, from my point of view looking at all the absurdities in my life for which I can find no explanation, about that I must agree, the Greeks were right!
:lolsign:
If you read this far, hope you enjoyed it! I feel as if i have just dumped all my problems on you.. :sorry:
*in this case the ‘political establishment’ means whoever has some authority/position at risk, e.g. other scientists, or just the local bully…
Worse still is when individuals cling on to the idea that scientific evidence is the only thing that they would accept as fact and are quick and happy to lambaste anyone who doesn't share their views.
I myself believe that speaker leads design are heavily affected by the corkscrew rule. I designed a couple of cables many years ago for my former employer to demonstrate the effect. But it came to nothing because the marketing team were looking for scientific measurements and figures, even though the sonic effects were as clear as night and day.
Im sorry to hear that Stan - truth interrupted again.
What is the corkscrew rule? - if you would consider sharing and it is not to difficult to explain, i would be interested to hear.
StanleyB
12-06-2013, 08:58
The right-hand screw rule, also known as corkscrew rule, associates the direction of an electric current with the direction of the magnetic force lines circling the current, see Ampère's law.
See:
DxIz1c6N3K8
The right-hand screw rule, also known as corkscrew rule, associates the direction of an electric current with the direction of the magnetic force lines circling the current, see Ampère's law.
Ah, yes, i remember!
So perhaps the twist rate was somehow related to the induction effect (prehaps frequency)?
StanleyB
12-06-2013, 09:27
My design was based on a variable twist rate, and with the red wire (+) twisted in a reverse direction to the black wire(-). Variable twist rates are used in copper based network cable construction after it was shown to increase transmission speeds. I am not sure if there are any scientific rules or evidence to back up the practical results of this variable twist rates in network cable construction.
My design was based on a variable twist rate, and with the red wire (+) twisted in a reverse direction to the black wire(-). Variable twist rates are used in copper based network cable construction after it was shown to increase transmission speeds. I am not sure if there are any scientific rules or evidence to back up the practical results of this variable twist rates in network cable construction.
Very interesting! Have any speaker cables out there tried this technique yet?
StanleyB
12-06-2013, 09:45
I have no idea if anyone has since developed a cable along those lines.
Very interesting! Have any speaker cables out there tried this technique yet?
Black Rhodium Twist maybe?:)
Very interesting! Have any speaker cables out there tried this technique yet?
I'm using some home brew TNT audio cables which use 3 lengths of cat 5 network cable braided together to make a bi wireable cable. From memory all the colour cores in 2 cables go to the bass +ve terminal and whites to -ve. And then the whites and colours are split in the third cable to feed the tweeter.
Seem to work pretty well.
Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk HD
Neither the Black Rhodium Twist nor the braided CAT5 cable actually make use of the idea presented by StanleyB.
Unfortunately, theories of the greatest thinkers are often difficult to prove or untestable because science has not caught up yet (ignorance without choice). Even more unfortunate when the political establishment* works better under the current belief system (ignorance by choice due to greed or fear). And sometime people refute the proof in front of them, because they want some other proof that the establishment will accept better - like Marco said (ignorance by choice, but due to a different fear?).
Of course science doesn't know everything, it's a continuous knowledge evolution, that's what makes science (like a lot of human activities) interesting ! :)
But, when a new evidence comes out, that may come with contradiction with certain established theories there are plenty of testing protocols to validate such evidence. It's enough to choose the one that fits, or create a new one if none applies.
Validation and peer reviewing of theories is an essential ingredient if one feels the need to promote one's own beliefs to facts. This applies also to evidence where no corresponding theory exists.
Without a validation a belief remains a belief, and can be dismissed without any further discussion. A belief that is validated is a fact. And facts create knowledge.
I understand, though, that some of us don't care about validating their beliefs. It's fare : not all of us are "scientists" or have the time or energy to spend in communicating about what they believe.
Ultimately it's a pity, because without validation science cannot advance, but it's the way it is. We're all humans, not perfect. ;)
StanleyB
15-06-2013, 09:39
This somehow reminds me of the case behind the discovery of a treatment for upset stomach. The Helicobacter pylori was identified as the culprit by Barry Marshall and Robin Warren in 1982 as the main cause of gastrisis and gastric ulcers, reversing decades of medical doctrine holding that ulcers were caused by stress, spicy foods, and too much acid.
In 1982, they performed the initial culture of H. pylori and developed their hypothesis related to the bacterial cause of peptic ulcer and gastric cancer. The H. pylori theory was ridiculed by the establishment scientists and doctors, who did not believe that any bacteria could live in the acidic environment of the stomach. Marshall has been quoted as saying in 1998 that "everyone was against me, but I knew I was right."
But who's laughing now? First and foremost the former patients no doubt.
A nice example, Stan.
Nevertheless, I think that the following needs clarification:
(the establishment) who did not believe that any bacteria could live in the acidic environment of the stomach
To my knowledge, it would be rather that
everyone who has taken a microbiology course in the past few decades is aware that there are bacteria adapted to conditions far harsher than inside the stomach, including some that live at near-boiling temperatures and others that use ether—usually a powerful disinfectant—as a food source.
The H. pylori example is a good one, but it doesn't point out any science or methodological dysfunction. It barely illustrates the inertia (time-wise) needed to establish cause-result mechanisms.
I found a good article (that needs futher research and contradiction, as always) on H.pilori here : http://www.csicop.org/si/show/bacteria_ulcers_and_ostracism_h._pylori_and_the_ma king_of_a_myth
Of course science doesn't know everything, it's a continuous knowledge evolution, that's what makes science (like a lot of human activities) interesting ! :)
But, when a new evidence comes out, that may come with contradiction with certain established theories there are plenty of testing protocols to validate such evidence. It's enough to choose the one that fits, or create a new one if none applies.
Validation and peer reviewing of theories is an essential ingredient if one feels the need to promote one's own beliefs to facts. This applies also to evidence where no corresponding theory exists.
Without a validation a belief remains a belief, and can be dismissed without any further discussion. A belief that is validated is a fact. And facts create knowledge.
I understand, though, that some of us don't care about validating their beliefs. It's fare : not all of us are "scientists" or have the time or energy to spend in communicating about what they believe.
Ultimately it's a pity, because without validation science cannot advance, but it's the way it is. We're all humans, not perfect. ;)
Hello Themis,
Nice to have you join our chat!
I believe wholly in the scientific method, and use its principles often. Also i believe that most scientists would be ready to hear new theories and ideas, and be ready to consider their merits.
I imagine a scientist would be keen to trust their ears when listening as one of their measurements – I guess that’s why we on the site called: the “art of sound”… because not all things in audio are figured out yet… after all ;)
More than that, science is our partner to help figure things out. So I was not slighting science. Real science is an ally in the search for truth. If you are a scientist then welcome!
Rather I was trying to point out that the human need for certainty can lead people to jump to conclusions or to avoid the evidence that is available for rational, logical comparison. Or to insist on something for which their is contrary evidence. And people can have other ‘truth avoidance’ motivators, like greed/fear.
Im probably a bit over keen on this topic – Im just so disappointed when I see truth interrupted, – and it is just too often!
Rather I was trying to point out that the human need for certainty can lead people to jump to conclusions or to avoid the evidence that is available for rational, logical comparison. Or to insist on something for which their is contrary evidence. And people can have other ‘truth avoidance’ motivators, like greed/fear.
Spot on, Stuart! I'll get to your other post later... I have no problem whatsoever with real science (an incomplete and thus constantly evolving entity), and real scientists, whom I'm sure would never be so arrogant as to believe that everything relevant in audio has already been discovered and validated, and there is NOTHING still new to learn! :nono:
Personally, I have no big need for certainty. I'm perfectly happy acknowledging that there are still many grey areas in our understanding of certain phenomena. I consider this a healthy position to occupy. The notion that certain areas of science are a 'done deal', and warrant no further scrutiny, is as deluded as that of believing the human senses can never be fooled. As ever, reality lives in the middle of those two extremes.
The assholes I have a (big) problem with are the pseudo-scientists and 'consumer saviours', who infect forums with their skewed version of science and scientific principles, simply to ridicule those of a different (equally valid) mindset, demeaning people's perfectly valid subjective opinions, and who use said forums as a vehicle to strut their arrogance and ego...
Rid all forums of those blinkered tossers, and they'd be a far better place!!! :exactly:
Dimitri, you're 100% right in what you're saying. However, I have no desire to 'validate my beliefs'; merely express my subjective opinions about audio on a forum without being arrogantly badgered by 'characters' such as mentioned above, in the hope that others may benefit from my experience, as I may from theirs. Thankfully, on AoS, carrying that out isn't a problem. Elsewhere, sadly, it's a rather different matter...
Marco.
Rather I was trying to point out that the human need for certainty can lead people to jump to conclusions or to avoid the evidence that is available for rational, logical comparison. Or to insist on something for which their is contrary evidence. And people can have other ‘truth avoidance’ motivators, like greed/fear.
Well, as you know (and as Marco states in his post just after your), people whose " human need for certainty" leads to "jump to conclusions or to avoid the evidence that is available for rational, logical comparison" do NOT use scientific protocols. Simple.
It's not because they classify themselves in the "rational" or "objective" side, that this simple fact makes them part of science in any way. :steam:
To come back to the subject of the thread "To biwire or not to biwire" : I, personally, have never experienced any difference whatsoever by biwiring speakers. But, sometimes, I have experienced a better result by bi-amping speakers.
Of course, when bi-amping makes a difference there are plenty of technical reasons (widely accepted) that backup such differences.
In short, there should be as much difference for bi-amping as for using an amplifier with grossly the double power (because that's what it is ! :eyebrows:).
So, I came to the (evident) conclusion that double terminals on speakers are made for bi-amping, not for bi-wiring. I may be wrong.
What I firmly don't believe is that there is a night-and-day difference between bi-wiring and simple wiring. All A/B tests that I participated in showed no such differences, unfortunately.
In the end, if you don't persuade yourself that you need to use mega-bucks speaker cables, then bi-wiring -or not- doesn't really matter. If you do, it is only bad for your wallet, that's all : it cannot harm the amp or the speakers and (if you use the minimum wire thickness required for your speakers and length) it cannot worsen your personal pleasure. So why worry ? ;)
jandl100
16-06-2013, 07:49
Re: the science debate.
Sadly, there are countless examples of new (and superior) ideas being ridiculed by the scientific establishment - generally, it's a generational thing, and the old 'masters' have to wane and lose influence (or expire!) before newer ideas can be widely accepted. Weight of evidence and persistence of repeatability also help, as well, but that can take a surprising and depressing amount of time to happen.
It's partly closed-mindedness, I suspect, and partly the desire to retain influence and stature in the scientific community. There are as many entrenched views in the scientific community as anywhere else.
... then, of course, it happens all over again when further improvements to scientific theory are discovered by the next generation.
...generally, it's a generational thing, and the old 'masters' have to wane and lose influence (or expire!) before newer ideas can be widely accepted.
Interesting that you mention this, Jerry, as over the years, that's exactly what I've found. On forums, it's generally folk of Serge's vintage (old farts), with a strict engineering background that have these very entrenched views, and who behave the way I've outlined. People my age or younger, tend to be much more open-minded and receptive to new ideas, and willing to challenge the status quo.
Any ideas why that is? I reckon that the education system in those days and/or the general upbringing of these people, must've been rather dogmatic in its focus and outlook, and thus created these strange types of characters. Mind you, you're also of that vintage yourself, lol, and seem to have escaped becoming similarly 'infected'! ;)
Marco.
Interesting that you mention this, Jerry, as over the years, that's exactly what I've found. On forums, it's generally folk of Serge's vintage (old farts), with a strict engineering background that have very entrenched views, who behave the way I've outlined. People my age or younger, tend to be much more open-minded and receptive to new ideas, and willing to challenge the status quo.
Any ideas why that is? I reckon that the education system in those days and/or the general upbringing of these people, must've been rather dogmatic in its focus and outlook, and thus created these strange types of characters. Mind you, you're also of that vintage yourself, lol, and seem to have escaped being similarly 'infected'! ;)
Marco.
What I can say, when I examine carefully my own profession/field (which is one of the most challenging ones, as far as "change" is concerned), that, although you can find some people who have "entrenched views" and are over 50, the bulk of such people are in the 25/35 age partition.
In my opinion, this is not a generational problem, it is a character problem : people who -somehow- don't master enough their field and use their influence and opinions to prevent others from advancing.
Fearing that they may be left behind ? Perhaps, I don't know.
Fortunately, scientific methodology, already has all the "weaponry" necessary to counter such people. The weaponry are the testing protocols : when an idea can be reproduced, it cannot be countered. ;)
jandl100
16-06-2013, 08:41
Me? Yeah, I try and be open minded, with fair success. I'm always ready to try something new. But then, I've nothing to lose by doing so - if I had university tenure and a nice solid professor-ship and widely acknowledged status and influence in the scientific community, and then some young whippersnappers with new ideas came along which made me seem irrelevant, then .... well, it's just human nature, ain't it!
Not everyone is like that, of course. But it often takes a fairly tough and 'ornery nature to get to the top in science, and those same personality traits are then used to protect their position.
What I can say, when I examine carefully my own profession/field (which is one of the most challenging ones, as far as "change" is concerned), that, although you can find some people who have "entrenched views" and are over 50, the bulk of such people are in the 25/35 age partition.
Yup, but I'm but I'm talking about on forums... Generally, you'll find that the 'troublemakers', in that respect are in their mid-fifties/early 60s, and possess the very personality traits Jerry has just outlined.
Marco.
...if I had university tenure and a nice solid professor-ship and widely acknowledged status and influence in the scientific community, and then some young whippersnappers with new ideas came along which made me seem irrelevant, then ....
<Snip>
...it often takes a fairly tough and 'ornery nature to get to the top in science, and those same personality traits are then used to protect their position.
Nail > head, I feel :)
It's this 'protecting their position' thing that's the problem. Also, some of them have no such professional qualifications; they merely cling onto the side of science in order to further their own (dogmatic and blinkered) agendas...
Marco.
Yup, but I'm but I'm talking about on forums... Generally, you'll find that the 'trouble makers', in that respect are in their mid-fifties/early 60s, and possess the very personality traits Jerry has just outlined.
Marco.
Ah ok, I had misunderstood.
Well, in my opinion, it depends on the forums. In Hi-Fi forums you have two categories : the "troublemakers", as you say, and their "accompanying court" that barks with them. The first category is the one you perfectly described. The second one is younger, but easier to counter : when the leader gets contradicted, the dogs bark less ... :eyebrows:
In other types of forums (from what I know, basically the computer technical and the game forums) the situation is a bit different and looks more than the one I described.
There is a possibility that the engineers/scientists that actually know what they are talking about have better things to do with their time then pontificate on hifi forums. This of course leaves us with the ones that nobody else will listen to :rolleyes:
Good point, and most probably very true!!
Marco.
I agree with Mike, as well.
StanleyB
17-06-2013, 06:29
There is a possibility that the engineers/scientists that actually know what they are talking about have better things to do with their time then pontificate on hifi forums. This of course leaves us with the ones that nobody else will listen to :rolleyes:
There is a third way as well:). And that is that engineers like me, Paul Haynes, Lucher(Nick) etc. spend their time on forums like this to get an idea of what the real life audio problems are that need solving. Then we go away and try to find the solution before presenting it here for further analysis.
Stan, I wasn't aiming at you. I was aiming at the people who tell me that theory says it can't happen, therefore it doesn't. If they just said it shouldn't happen I would be more then happy to listen and perhaps learn something new.
StanleyB
17-06-2013, 08:26
Stan, I wasn't aiming at you. :scratch:. I didn't even duck for cover :D.
:scratch:. I didn't even duck for cover :D.
I've made a mental note on a piece of paper...must try harder :ner:
There is a third way as well:). And that is that engineers like me, Paul Haynes, Lucher(Nick) etc. spend their time on forums like this to get an idea of what the real life audio problems are that need solving. Then we go away and try to find the solution before presenting it here for further analysis.
Indeed, which is *precisely* why your products are promoted and recommended so heavily on AoS, as we appreciate such things! :)
Marco.
There is a third way as well:). And that is that engineers like me, Paul Haynes, Lucher(Nick) etc. spend their time on forums like this to get an idea of what the real life audio problems are that need solving. Then we go away and try to find the solution before presenting it here for further analysis.
100% correct, as an example I told Nick the mdac was poor, he designed a nice PSU for it, 100's sold later and it's still pretty poor (:lol:) only joking of course!
how are sales of your DAC chief? not heard much about it lately, are you developing a new one that does DSD maybe?
StanleyB
19-06-2013, 07:42
how are sales of your DAC chief? not heard much about it lately, are you developing a new one that does DSD maybe?
I have been carrying out upgrades to the Bushmaster whilst waiting my turn to get my production of the metal case started. A simplified version of the Venom upgrade, together with various other mods, is on constant test and sounding good. Someone lent me a thing marked DAC-V1 on it to do comparisons :eyebrows:.
Oh dear, I must be one of those old-fashioned Radio Frequency engineers in their 50s with fixed ideas! :eek:
But I am open to the science with these things. There ARE measurable differences with different cables and wiring topologies, but they have more to do with some extreme high capacitance cables and amplifier stability interaction and impedance extremes in loudspeakers, as Roger Russell of the McIntosh company, another old fart in my mould explains:
http://www.roger-russell.com/wire/wire.htm#wiretable
You can calculate properties of regular twin pair cables here, and surprisingly the RF characteristic impedance is around 70-150 ohms:
http://www.mogami.com/e/cad/electrical.html
In general, resistance, capacitance and self and mutual inductance will be negligeable with decent twin pairs in the typical 5m run. Russell concludes that regular decent copper paired cables are more than adequate. We could also consider the effect of oxide tarnishing on the conductor surface, I suppose, but the theory is that skin effect really only kicks in around 100kHz.
I do notice big biwireable speaker sockets make more room for bigger crossovers mounted on them. This is useful to manufacturers.
StanleyB
08-07-2013, 07:29
Oh dear, I must be one of those old-fashioned Radio Frequency engineers in their 50s with fixed ideas! :eek:
It's a massive problem that has affected engineering and manufacturing the the UK for decades. Since your RF days the world has seen the invention of USB and network cables, which rely on design and manufacturing method that seemed a marketing ploy at first. Equipment manufacturers are still struggling to manufacture everyday hardware that can make full use of the speed of USB2, but the market is already talking up USB3.
Richard Kimber
08-07-2013, 12:29
Well, to my ears Van Damme is drab and boring.
I've heard the Twist and it gets great reviews and has won awards - but personally I disliked it intensely. I did a review >here< (http://hifipig.com/black-rhodium-twist-speaker-cables/), probably the only negative review it's ever received! :lol:
I've not leard the Van Damme, nor the Twist, but I've recently been able to compare (courtesy of one of my friends, and MCRUS) 11 different cables. The list was:
My own Sinclair Acoustics pure silver cables.
My friend's Vertex Moncayo cables
and from MCRUS:
BR Twirl
BR Tango
BR Salsa
BR ACT 1
BR ACT 2
BR ACT 3
TelluriumQ Blue
TelluriumQ Black
MCRUS Ultimate
The reason for doing this was that with my silver cables some operatic recordings sounded somewhat unpleasant when the singers were at full volume, though they gave a good soundstage with quite a lot of detail. So I was looking for a cable that solved the opera issue but also was the equal of the silver cable in terms of soundstage, detail, and general sound quality.
All the cables gave some improvement with the more difficult opera recordings, which perhaps says something about pure silver.
Although the Black Rhodium Twirl was the least good, it seemed OK for the price. However it didn't match my silver cables for general sound quality. Basically I needed to go up the BR range to Salsa before I got a sound that approached my existing cable for soundstage and detail. The TelluriumQ cables were OK, but I found the sound a bit unexciting, a bit flat and dull, but quite nice - a sort of well-manicured sound that would be OK for 'easy listening' but not for serious music (at least on my system). However MCRUS Ultimate was better than all these.
I thought there wasn't much to choose between MCRUS Ultimate, which was a good cable, and BR ACT 1. I thought ACT 2 was less good than ACT 1, but it came down to a choice between MCRUS Ultiimate, BR ACT 3 (the best of the Black Rhodium cables I listened to), and getting a Vertex cable (probably second hand!). In the event, the ACT 3 and the Vertex produced more detail on complex recordings. I wasn't able to hear much difference between the ACT 3 and the Vertex, and for me the sound of the ACT 3 was more involving, so that was my choice.
There's no substitute for listening to the cables on your own system in your own home, and I'm grateful to David of MCRUS for letting me do this. I suggest the OP should contact him and ask to hear the Twist if he's interested in it.
- Richard.
Richard,
Great list of cables! Thank you for the comparison - very interesting. I appreciate that you took the time to actually listen to all these cables and compare. I live in a far away place just now and dont have that luxury. If i did i would too.
Your final choice of 4mm Ultimates is interesting - the Van Damme I chose is also a 4mm diameter OFC cable - As yet i have not heard them, unfortunately, because i have been traveling - and shipping to bulgaria takes a very long time. So next week i can actually report report back...
Among the cables you tested, were any larger than the Ultimates in diameter? (or cross section area?) I find this information sometimes very difficult to locate - more marketing information over substance.
About silver cables. In the past I have tried silver cables and also found them too harsh at volume (as you say, on my system). Recenly, I wondered if the cables have changed some since then - i guess not! I wonder why silver has this sound characteristic - technically it would seem unlikely for the silver to 'add sharpness' to the sound, so it must be taking something away.
Pure speculation: is there some similarity in the timing differences that cause the harsh sound from digital source music (e.g. different frequencies travel at different rates in silver)? Perhaps there is no technical similarity, but there is some similarity in the sound.
Regards, Stuart
I've not leard the Van Damme, nor the Twist, but I've recently been able to compare (courtesy of one of my friends, and MCRUS) 11 different cables. The list was:
My own Sinclair Acoustics pure silver cables.
My friend's Vertex Moncayo cables
and from MCRUS:
BR Twirl
BR Tango
BR Salsa
BR ACT 1
BR ACT 2
BR ACT 3
TelluriumQ Blue
TelluriumQ Black
MCRUS Ultimate
The reason for doing this was that with my silver cables some operatic recordings sounded somewhat unpleasant when the singers were at full volume, though they gave a good soundstage with quite a lot of detail. So I was looking for a cable that solved the opera issue but also was the equal of the silver cable in terms of soundstage, detail, and general sound quality.
All the cables gave some improvement with the more difficult opera recordings, which perhaps says something about pure silver.
Although the Black Rhodium Twirl was the least good, it seemed OK for the price. However it didn't match my silver cables for general sound quality. Basically I needed to go up the BR range to Salsa before I got a sound that approached my existing cable for soundstage and detail. The TelluriumQ cables were OK, but I found the sound a bit unexciting, a bit flat and dull, but quite nice - a sort of well-manicured sound that would be OK for 'easy listening' but not for serious music (at least on my system). However MCRUS Ultimate was better than all these.
I thought there wasn't much to choose between MCRUS Ultimate, which was a good cable, and BR ACT 1. I thought ACT 2 was less good than ACT 1, but it came down to a choice between MCRUS Ultiimate, BR ACT 3 (the best of the Black Rhodium cables I listened to), and getting a Vertex cable (probably second hand!). In the event, the ACT 3 and the Vertex produced more detail on complex recordings. I wasn't able to hear much difference between the ACT 3 and the Vertex, and for me the sound of the ACT 3 was more involving, so that was my choice.
There's no substitute for listening to the cables on your own system in your own home, and I'm grateful to David of MCRUS for letting me do this. I suggest the OP should contact him and ask to hear the Twist if he's interested in it.
- Richard.
After all the research, I have decided not to bi-wire the speakers, at least not for now. I thought I would share why, maybe someone will follow down this path and find it useful:
1) The principle positive impact of bi-wiring is to lower the resistance of the speaker cable - which can be achieve through bigger cables anyway
2) My amp does not have separate terminals for bi-wiring, thus i would need to squeeze two cables into one banana connector - which im not very excited about - im not sure that can be achieved effectively. Yes, there are some bananas that allow another 'piggy back' banana - but i didnt find any of these from a good name manufacture (perhaps they are out there, but i didnt find them)
4) There is some timing risks when using biwire it seems,
5) The other benefits of bi-wire (e.g. minimizing impact of base speaker settling) just didnt convince me enough
6) I will add better jumpers between the bi-wire bindings on the speakers, replacing the original jumpers, since some just dont do the job well enough (and some benefit from bi-wiring comes from replacing the OEM jumpers)
7) when i upgrade amps later, if the next one has more speaker cable bindings, i can just add more cables, after all!
For speaker cable i have chosen 2 core 4mm van damme from Mark (if he had 6mm i would probably buy that to reduce the resistance further). These fit in my price range for now.
If i had unlimited funds i would rather choose the Tellurium Q Black - partly because of the reviews, and partly due to the spacing of the wire cores - i can believe the spacing really does improve the sound by reducing induction related interference. I have seen cables melt from induction effects in hi-current situations. If there was a lower-cost speaker cable with spaced cores i would be keen to try it - I think some will come out soon, so maybe that is a future upgrade... maybe i will find good piggy-back bananas by then too! :eyebrows:
Of course the proof is in the pudding - and some time in the future i will get some good bi-wires for comparison
Thanks again for all your help, and discussion! I appreciate everyones advice!
Regards,
Stuart
Hi Stubbies
Your point 1) is very good. I could not agree more.
2) I don't really get this. If you have a dedicated bi-wire cable (ie 2 plugs for AMP and 4 plugs for Speakers) what is the problem.
3) No-one will disagree with you.
4) I thought [and I am no expert] that the timing would be better with bi wire. With single cable the signal has a few extra picoseconds to get to the treble through the jumper. (I think it is picoseconds given the speed of electricity over a few inches, but either way we are talking about something that lawyers would call de minimus.)
5) Haven't heard of this so can't comment.
6) It certainly seems fashionable to use aftermarket jumpers, and I for one have succumbed to that fashion.
7) Nordost make a valid point. For a given amount of dollars you can get a better single wire loom rather than bi-wire. So the advantage of bi-wire is more than offset by better quality cables.
As for me I have this year gone from bi-wire Nordost Heimdall to single-wire Nordost Frey. There was a small improvement.
I am particularly interested in your point about Tellurium Q and the spacing between the wires. I know there is an electrical field around a current passing through wire, but how large is that? Many years ago I used to drive my mother to Auckland. She had a pacemaker and we had to pass under high voltage electric powerlines, the sort that are supported by pylons every 100 meters or so. As we passed under I could actually hear the pacemaker going into overdrive, and so I would always drive flat-out to get through the 'danger-zone' as soon as possible!
At the end of the day, in the final analysis, when all is said and done: it probably does not make much difference!
Andrei
Hi Stubbies
Your point 1) is very good. I could not agree more.
2) I don't really get this. If you have a dedicated bi-wire cable (ie 2 plugs for AMP and 4 plugs for Speakers) what is the problem.
3) No-one will disagree with you.
4) I thought [and I am no expert] that the timing would be better with bi wire. With single cable the signal has a few extra picoseconds to get to the treble through the jumper. (I think it is picoseconds given the speed of electricity over a few inches, but either way we are talking about something that lawyers would call de minimus.)
5) Haven't heard of this so can't comment.
6) It certainly seems fashionable to use aftermarket jumpers, and I for one have succumbed to that fashion.
7) Nordost make a valid point. For a given amount of dollars you can get a better single wire loom rather than bi-wire. So the advantage of bi-wire is more than offset by better quality cables.
As for me I have this year gone from bi-wire Nordost Heimdall to single-wire Nordost Frey. There was a small improvement.
I am particularly interested in your point about Tellurium Q and the spacing between the wires. I know there is an electrical field around a current passing through wire, but how large is that? Many years ago I used to drive my mother to Auckland. She had a pacemaker and we had to pass under high voltage electric powerlines, the sort that are supported by pylons every 100 meters or so. As we passed under I could actually hear the pacemaker going into overdrive, and so I would always drive flat-out to get through the 'danger-zone' as soon as possible!
At the end of the day, in the final analysis, when all is said and done: it probably does not make much difference!
Andrei
Andrei,
Interesting to hear you switched to single wire with some improvement - and comforting for me! I am finally burning in the new van damme 4mm cables (just plugged them in today, delayed due to travel) - soon i hope to have more thoughts to share. They LOOK very impressive at least ;) - hugely thick.
Here is an article that has a few (if lengthy) issues described on the bi-wire discussion, several i have seen debated on forums.
http://www.achievum.eu/bi-wiring.html
Generally i mostly agree with the points - though im not an expert, just read a bunch - and then follow my gut.
Re 2) Its difficult to stick 2x4mm cables into one banana connector - that said, there is a solution that i found (about 10 minutes after posting that!:doh:), it would make it easier, this is a different way to 'piggy-back' a banana:
http://thumbs2.ebaystatic.com/d/l225/m/m1Scdvp0JcrLBBgu8xn_QSQ.jpg
Your pacemaker story sounds really scary!!! i hope they shield them better now! Induction is the same effect that Stan was describing in the 'right hand rule' earlier in this thread, and is what cause the pacemaker to speed up:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=DxIz1c6N3K8
This effect is also present in an MRI room - where the magentic field will cause metal (e.g. implants) to heat up a lot. A transformer works on the same principle - electricity transfered via magnetic field.
My 'learning' example was from a power cable for a satelite uplink truck, which was still mostly on the reel, and became very very hot. Later i learned to unreel the whole cable before turning on the power...
So it would seem that in a speaker cable, the power flowing through one leg of a cable would effect the power in the other leg (which is going the other way)- and vica versa - and the magnetic induction should create noise. Since the effect magnetic field strength diminishes with distance (just as you drove quick to get away!)- the wider spaced the speaker cables 'legs' the less noise - in theory at least.
Probably the effect would be more true with higher power/higher volume.
And Nice to hear you are in Auckland - my wife is a NZer too, one day we may be moving there too :) Its a beautiful country!!
Personally I have always preferred the sound my speakers make when Bi-Wired but then again I now have them Bi-Amped and that made an even bigger improvement.
My previous speakers (Linn Nexus LS250) also sounded better Bi-Wired.
I have heard that some people prefer the sound of Single Wired speakers but I have never been one :(
Paul.
I had been bi-amping with two LK-140s but after an unfortunate accident, am now bi-wiring with one :(. I had been using Kimber 8VS cable feeding the treble and some Van Den Hul "The Revolution Hybrid" speaker cables to the bass. I decide to experiment with some 4x2.5mm Van Damme cables from Mark Grant. First impression was that the Van Damme were way better than the Kimber 8VS but the bass weight and low frequencies were noticably worse. I then used the Van Damme for treble, sold the Kimber Kable (for over three times what I paid for the Van Damme) and kept the VdH for the bass, which together produces a very nice sound.
I have recently been trying the Van Damme alone again to see if there is a "burn in" effect but its too early to tell.
Haselsh1
17-01-2014, 19:48
What about the current that flows back from the speakers down the cables towards the amplifier...? If you use a biwired system then surely there is less interference between bass and treble...? If this is so then there must be an improvement with a biwired system...? No...?
Jimification
01-02-2014, 08:22
My speakers aren't bi-wireable (SF Cremona Auditors) but I currently have double cable runs to each speaker non-biwired (in parallel) simply because I had lots of (cheap Gale) cable from a previous setup. I'm not sure if I can tell the difference but presumably halves the resistance (which I imagine would have more affect on the sound with a 4 ohm speaker like the SF's) I certainly like the way it sounds. It does look a bit messy so I'm tempted to replace...possibly with an off the shelf bi-wire cable doubled up again - any reason not to do this?
Better off (and likely cheaper) just going for a larger gauge than your current one. Look for 2.5mm2 section multistrand (assuming your speaker cable runs are no greater than 5m or so). If you use 4 runs of twisted cores you increase capacitance which is undesirable. Twin core is all you need. For resistance, always aim for no more than 5% of your minimum impedance. Eg if that's 4 Ohms, the the total DC resistance of your speaker cable should be within 0.2 Ohms. Remember that to measure this, you include both the positive and return lengths of cable (ie resistance of the length of each side doubled) as that's the total length in circuit.
I may sell cable BUT I always advise against bi-wiring as you're just throwing money away. Bi-amping is a whole different ball game though and has tangible benefits for many speakers.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2026 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.