Why Bi-wire speakers?

[mfr]

I've just bought my first pair of bi-wirable speakers (Totem Mites) and
have been wondering what the benefits of "bi-wire" are...Anybody have
opinions or facts???

[Typhoon News User]

> I've just bought my first pair of bi-wirable speakers (Totem Mites) and
> have been wondering what the benefits of "bi-wire" are...Anybody have
> opinions or facts???

I did a Google search:
http://www.sonicdesign.se/biwire.html
http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/audio/biwire/Page1.html
http://www.thielaudio.com/THIEL_Web/Pages/faqbiamp.html
http://www.audioasylum.com/audio/cables/messages/4953.html

Best

JP

[Wylie Williams]

No facts; only opinions. I have bi-wired speakers and what I heard was a
bit less harshness in mids and highs.Mids and highs seemed less forward .
In my experience not a huge difference, but an improvement worth trying if
speaker cable expense is not a problem.
Suggestion: Ask Totem why they put the biwire terminals on the speakers.

Wylie Williams

"mfr" > wrote in message
news:f4KVa.16523$Ho3.3718@sccrnsc03...
> I've just bought my first pair of bi-wirable speakers (Totem Mites) and
> have been wondering what the benefits of "bi-wire" are...Anybody have
> opinions or facts???
>

[Kalman Rubinson]

On Wed, 30 Jul 2003 07:02:35 GMT, mfr >
wrote:

>I've just bought my first pair of bi-wirable speakers (Totem Mites) and
>have been wondering what the benefits of "bi-wire" are...Anybody have
>opinions or facts???

There are opinions about this all over the place (including here)
which you can find with a Google search.

Kal

[Mike Prager]

On Wed, 30 Jul 2003 14:50:15 GMT, "Wylie Williams"
> wrote:

[...]>Suggestion: Ask Totem why they put the biwire terminals
on the speakers.

I believe it was Ken Kantor (then of NHT) who said he put
biwire terminals on his speakers NOT because he believed it
was superior, but because the market demanded it. My point?
Simply that what manufacturers do may not always imply what we
think it does.

Mike Prager
North Carolina, USA

[Uptown Audio]

The only benefit in most systems is to bypass the supplied brass
jumpers with the same wire used to wire the other set of drivers and
to avoid another mechanical connection created by the additional set
of terminals. It has a use for which it was intended and that is to
allow the use of separate amplifiers to drive the high and low
frequency sections. There are a lot of combinations that can be used
to achieve various results that way. A real cheap way to "bi-wire" is
to replace the jumpers with a few inch section of the main speaker
cables.
- Bill
www.uptownaudio.com
Roanoke VA
(540) 343-1250

"mfr" > wrote in message
news:f4KVa.16523$Ho3.3718@sccrnsc03...
> I've just bought my first pair of bi-wirable speakers (Totem Mites)
and
> have been wondering what the benefits of "bi-wire" are...Anybody
have
> opinions or facts???
>

[Uptown Audio]

The term Bi-Amp has more practical meaning.
- Bill
www.uptownaudio.com
Roanoke VA
(540) 343-1250

"Nousaine" > wrote in message
news:JERVa.20712$YN5.19494@sccrnsc01...
> wrote:
>
> >I've just bought my first pair of bi-wirable speakers (Totem Mites)
and
> >have been wondering what the benefits of "bi-wire" are...Anybody
have
> >opinions or facts???
>
> The term "bi-wire" defines a merchandising technique to give the
customer an
> opportunity to buy more wire.
>

[Sam Stark]

Excellent answer. If the same amp is wired to both drivers why or how could
it sound different? Is more wire better? The physics just doesn't make
sense. It must have something to do with this newfangled dark matter or
dark energy which I can't seem to understand.

"Nousaine" > wrote in message
news:JERVa.20712$YN5.19494@sccrnsc01...
> wrote:
>
> >I've just bought my first pair of bi-wirable speakers (Totem Mites) and
> >have been wondering what the benefits of "bi-wire" are...Anybody have
> >opinions or facts???
>
> The term "bi-wire" defines a merchandising technique to give the customer
an
> opportunity to buy more wire.
>

[Rich Andrews]

"Sam Stark" > wrote in
news:WU%Va.24338$o%2.13914@sccrnsc02:

> Excellent answer. If the same amp is wired to both drivers why or how
> could it sound different? Is more wire better? The physics just doesn't
> make sense. It must have something to do with this newfangled dark
> matter or dark energy which I can't seem to understand.
>

Is that like the "Dark Sucker" theory? (:>)

r

> "Nousaine" > wrote in message
> news:JERVa.20712$YN5.19494@sccrnsc01...
>> wrote:
>>
>> >I've just bought my first pair of bi-wirable speakers (Totem Mites)
>> >and have been wondering what the benefits of "bi-wire" are...Anybody
>> >have opinions or facts???
>>
>> The term "bi-wire" defines a merchandising technique to give the
>> customer
> an
>> opportunity to buy more wire.
>>
>

--
"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from
magic."

Arthur C. Clarke (1917 - ), "Technology and the Future"

[Stewart Pinkerton]

On Thu, 31 Jul 2003 03:03:39 GMT, Mike Prager >
wrote:

>On Wed, 30 Jul 2003 14:50:15 GMT, "Wylie Williams"
> wrote:
>
>[...]>Suggestion: Ask Totem why they put the biwire terminals
>on the speakers.
>
>I believe it was Ken Kantor (then of NHT) who said he put
>biwire terminals on his speakers NOT because he believed it
>was superior, but because the market demanded it. My point?
>Simply that what manufacturers do may not always imply what we
>think it does.

The same is true of Billy Woodman of ATC. He is quite vocal on the
'bi-wiring is bunk' issue, but the puts the terminals on his speakers
anyway. Other top brands such as Thiel, Dynaudio, and Wilson simply
refuse to comply with such nonsensical whimsies, and have single input
terminals.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

[Stewart Pinkerton]

On Thu, 31 Jul 2003 03:14:30 GMT, "Uptown Audio" >
wrote:

>The term Bi-Amp has more practical meaning.

Without an active crossover, it is still a meaningless exercise.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

[Wylie Williams]

Mike,

As you see there are opinions on both sides. Some noted speaker makers
do it even though they don't believe in it. No one has mentioned the
opinions of speakers makers who do believe it helps, but surely some exist.
In the links here also technical arguments that disagree.
It still remains to be discovered that bi-wiring will be an improvement
in your enjoyment of your speakers. Or whether the change will make a
difference, either better worse, in your system.
So why not try it. Listen and decide whether the cahnge ( if any) is an
improvement. It doesn't have to cost much to play - try cheap wire just for
the experiment. Or borrow from a local audio store.
I am assuming that this is a hobby with you so a little time playing
with the system connected with different wires a in differents ways can be a
pleasant diversion. No matter what the result it will be accepted by some
and not by others, so do whatever gives you more enjoyment of your music.
Maybe later you will change your mind. So? There are plenty of
audiophiles out there who abandoned tubes and horns for transistors and
acoustic suspension, then came back. Were they wrong either time? Was it a
waste of time and money? I don't think so. Not if they were enjoyably
engaged with their audio hobby at the time.

Wylie Williams

[james mitchell]

If your going to biwire, leave the jumpers between the binding posts in.
With two parallel wires, you cut the wire resistance and inductance in half.

The capacitance is doubled but this doesn't matter. The extremely low
output impedance of amplifiers and low input impedance of speakers makes
speaker cable capacitance unimportant.

Low resistance and inductance are what's important. Stick with 12 AWG ZIP.

Biwiring advantages defy all laws of electromagnetic physics. As stated,
it's a brilliant way to sell double the speaker wire.

"mfr" > wrote in message
news:f4KVa.16523$Ho3.3718@sccrnsc03...
> I've just bought my first pair of bi-wirable speakers (Totem Mites) and
> have been wondering what the benefits of "bi-wire" are...Anybody have
> opinions or facts???
>
>

[Fill X]

What's annoying is the quality of the jumpers they put on speakers made for
bi-wiring. MY B&W's have this and I made my own jumpers. I would have preferred
just one set of terminals, but some people like to bi-amp,I know.

P h i l i p

______________________________

"I'm too ****ing busy and vice-versa"

- Dorothy Parker

[[email protected]]

On Wed, 30 Jul 2003 07:02:35 GMT, mfr >
wrote:

>I've just bought my first pair of bi-wirable speakers (Totem Mites) and
>have been wondering what the benefits of "bi-wire" are...Anybody have
>opinions or facts???

For the fun of it do it in a double blind study. Have a friend hook
up the speakers and leave the room before you come back in and you
write your inpressions in a book you keep then leave the room before
he comes back in and repeat for about ten times and see if your result
is strongly leaning in either way.

In contrast listening tests do indicate that bi or tri amping
(assuming done properly and with active xovers) does result in most
people hearing a significant and repeatable difference.

In the end it comes down to what you feel you hear and enjoy.

Louis

[Arny Krueger]

"james mitchell" > wrote in message
news:LIlWa.36276$Ho3.6349@sccrnsc03

> If your going to biwire, leave the jumpers between the binding posts
> in. With two parallel wires, you cut the wire resistance and
> inductance in half.

Brilliant! BTW, this suggestion may help some understand the futility of
bi-wiring. When you remove the jumper you eliminate the paralleled
connection and all its benefits. Each half of the speaker sees just one
cable going back to the amplifier.

> The capacitance is doubled but this doesn't matter. The extremely low
> output impedance of amplifiers and low input impedance of speakers
> makes speaker cable capacitance unimportant.

Almost always true. There are a few marginally unstable amps that might be
affected by the capacitance of speaker cable, but they should be avoided
anyway.

> Low resistance and inductance are what's important. Stick with 12
> AWG ZIP.

In the states, Home Depot and other home improvement stores sell 12 gauge
speaker cable for something like $65 for a 250 foot roll. Good stuff, I'm on
my second roll.

> Biwiring advantages defy all laws of electromagnetic physics. As
> stated, it's a brilliant way to sell double the speaker wire.

Agreed.

[Stewart Pinkerton]

On Fri, 01 Aug 2003 04:14:27 GMT, "Uptown Audio" >
wrote:

>That's not true. There are a lot of options and without gutting the
>speaker, an external crossover could be called less meaningful.

It is true. An external crossover will definitely not suffer any
*possible* microphonic effects on its components (and of course is
very easy to convert to fully active mode), whereas there is *no*
advantage which can be shown for either bi-wiring or 'passive'
biamping. This is just another 'high end' scam to sell twice the wire
or twice the amplifiers. If your present amp is too weedy to drive
your speakers, don't buy *another* weedy amp, chop it in for one
decent big one!

>"Stewart Pinkerton" > wrote in message
>news:g33Wa.26242$YN5.24852@sccrnsc01...
>> On Thu, 31 Jul 2003 03:14:30 GMT, "Uptown Audio"
>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >The term Bi-Amp has more practical meaning.
>>
>> Without an active crossover, it is still a meaningless exercise.

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

[Uptown Audio]

More smoke and mirrors. Tell that to anyone who uses amps and speakers
professionally. It sounds almost like you have some sort of axe to
grind. I thought that you had said that all amps sound the same. Why
would you buy a larger one then? Any way you avoid my point about
flexibility (the ability to use various amps and levels). Personal
taste and creativity (or lack thereof) can come to play in the
selection of equipment and in it's implementation. That doesn't mean
that you have to like it, just accept that it's someone else's kit and
they will do with it as they will to get the best sound, form and
function for their
budget. They will cringe at your cable and you will cringe at their
tube amp. You both will have fun and contrary to your suggestions,
neither of you will be superior.
- Bill
www.uptownaudio.com
Roanoke VA
(540) 343-1250

"Stewart Pinkerton" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 01 Aug 2003 04:14:27 GMT, "Uptown Audio"
>
> wrote:
>
> >That's not true. There are a lot of options and without gutting the
> >speaker, an external crossover could be called less meaningful.
>
> It is true. An external crossover will definitely not suffer any
> *possible* microphonic effects on its components (and of course is
> very easy to convert to fully active mode), whereas there is *no*
> advantage which can be shown for either bi-wiring or 'passive'
> biamping. This is just another 'high end' scam to sell twice the
wire
> or twice the amplifiers. If your present amp is too weedy to drive
> your speakers, don't buy *another* weedy amp, chop it in for one
> decent big one!
>
> >"Stewart Pinkerton" > wrote in message
> >news:g33Wa.26242$YN5.24852@sccrnsc01...
> >> On Thu, 31 Jul 2003 03:14:30 GMT, "Uptown Audio"
> >
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >The term Bi-Amp has more practical meaning.
> >>
> >> Without an active crossover, it is still a meaningless exercise.
>
> --
>
> Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

[Wylie Williams]

James Mitchell said:
> Biwiring advantages defy all laws of electromagnetic physics. As stated,
> it's a brilliant way to sell double the speaker wire.

I wonder. Although I have been described as "technically challenged" by
one kind contributor (true enough, but still a manners challenged remark ) I
still try to think about why things work. I made a guess about bi wiring
that I would like to check with the technically gifted RAHE contributors.
If high frequencies traveling through a conductor are affected by the
presence of lower frequencies on that conductor, since the high pass filter
blocks most of the bass frequencies, might that not reduce some sort of
deleterious intermodulation effect on the sound of the high pass portion of
the speaker?
Feel free to comment. There is no need to be gentle, as in my 22 years
of retail experience I grew used to every engineering student who ventured
into the store telling me that he knew far more than ever would about sound.
Later I learned from my son that only scientists had the ability to reason,
and that only physicists were actual scientists. As he was about to receive
a PhD (fortunately in Physics) I knew that he must know whereof he spoke. I
of course, as an English major, I had no choice but to accept his word for
it. Therefore I have already been humbled, so don't worry about my feelings.

Wylie Williams

[Fill X]

>If your going to biwire, leave the jumpers between the binding posts in.
>With two parallel wires, you cut the wire resistance and inductance in half.

I never thought of this. I have some bi-wired speakers only because someone
gave me some speaker wire set up that way for free and I'm using it. Is this
really the best thing to do? obviously if you buy into the bi-wire idea, then
no, but since I don't...

I would of thought doubling the capacitance would be bad despite the low
aplifier impedence.

P h i l i p

______________________________

"I'm too ****ing busy and vice-versa"

- Dorothy Parker

[Stewart Pinkerton]

On 2 Aug 2003 00:40:24 GMT, "Uptown Audio" >
wrote:

>More smoke and mirrors.

No Bill, *your* argument is the one with smoke and mirrors, mine is
that there is *no* engineering reason why bi-wiring or passive
bi-amping will have any audible effect.

> Tell that to anyone who uses amps and speakers
>professionally.

They *never* bi-wire, and they only bi-amp with active crossovers.

> It sounds almost like you have some sort of axe to
>grind.

Me? I have no axe to grind, I have no commercial interest whatever in
selling more wire or more amps.

> I thought that you had said that all amps sound the same.

No, I said that most well-designed amps operated below clipping sound
the same. Tom Nousaine is a little bolder than I on this point.

> Why
>would you buy a larger one then?

Did you miss the point about clipping?

> Any way you avoid my point about
>flexibility (the ability to use various amps and levels).

I didn't avoid it, it's irrelevant. Since good amps sound the same, it
makes no difference what amps you use, and since the entire output
signal is delivered to both amps, it makes no difference whether one
or both are connected to the speakers. If you want to alter the
balance between bass and treble against the designers settings, that's
what tone controls are for.

> Personal
>taste and creativity (or lack thereof) can come to play in the
>selection of equipment and in it's implementation. That doesn't mean
>that you have to like it, just accept that it's someone else's kit and
>they will do with it as they will to get the best sound, form and
>function for their
>budget. They will cringe at your cable and you will cringe at their
>tube amp. You both will have fun and contrary to your suggestions,
>neither of you will be superior.

But one of us will have more accurate reproduction, and will have
better speakers for the same system budget.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

[Stewart Pinkerton]

On Sat, 02 Aug 2003 04:04:29 GMT, "Wylie Williams"
> wrote:

>James Mitchell said:
>> Biwiring advantages defy all laws of electromagnetic physics. As stated,
>> it's a brilliant way to sell double the speaker wire.

> If high frequencies traveling through a conductor are affected by the
>presence of lower frequencies on that conductor, since the high pass filter
>blocks most of the bass frequencies, might that not reduce some sort of
>deleterious intermodulation effect on the sound of the high pass portion of
>the speaker?

Yes, *but* the reality is that down to -160dB (the limit of
measurement with any gear I've been able to lay hands on), there
simply is*no* such intermodulation effect in cables. IOW, treble and
bass frequencies do *not* interfere with each other in the same cable.

There is the *possibility* of some level changes occuring in some
systems in the octave surrounding the crossover frequency, due to the
various impedance matches between amplifier and drivers, but such
effects will be limited to -40dB or so at most, and are almost
certainly inaudible. The bottom line is that not one single person has
ever demonstrated an ability to hear bi-wiring under double-blind
conditions, i.e. when they didn't *know* that the bi-wiring option was
engaged.

> Feel free to comment. There is no need to be gentle, as in my 22 years
>of retail experience I grew used to every engineering student who ventured
>into the store telling me that he knew far more than ever would about sound.

Well, there does seem to be an accumulation of evidence in this forum,
which points that way...... :-)

>Later I learned from my son that only scientists had the ability to reason,
>and that only physicists were actual scientists. As he was about to receive
>a PhD (fortunately in Physics) I knew that he must know whereof he spoke.

No, he is simply defending his turf! I am also a physicist by academic
training, but I would not be so dismissive of the other scientific
disciplines. Hopefully, he'll grow out of this youthful arrogance.

One might more logically argue that only philosophers and
mathematicians have the ability to reason, while scientists simply
make speculative guesses to explain why the universe measures the way
it does. Frequently, they are wrong guesses which have to be junked
when a new set of measurements proves that the fit is not good.
Science is not about reasoning, it is about investigation and
speculation.

BTW, I'm also a long-term professional engineer, and my take would be
that only engineers have the ability to make things work, as most
scientists seem barely able to tie their own shoelaces...... :-)

> I
>of course, as an English major, I had no choice but to accept his word for
>it. Therefore I have already been humbled, so don't worry about my feelings.

Consider me unworried.......... :-)
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

[Arny Krueger]

"RBernst929" > wrote in message
news:XBHWa.31560$cF.11010@rwcrnsc53

> Friends... i don't think you should be dogmatic about this subject one
> way or the other as there are too many variables. If your speakers
> have bi-wire terminals, then by all means try it.. you can always go
> back. Its that simple. For me, i tried it with my Martin Logan
> Aerius i's... and definitely heard and prefer them bi-wired.

I've tried bi-wiring any number of times with a variety of amps and speakers
and it makes no difference at all in my listening tests. I've done some
relevant measurements, and there actually are tiny differences, but they are
so tiny as to be irrelevant.

People have "heard" lots of strange things over the years. Green pen lines
around the edges of CDs, raising speaker wires off the floor, freezing wires
and CDs, demagnetising CDs, daubing parts inside amplifiers with oils and
lacquers, placing bricks on top of amplifiers, etc., etc.

Interestingly enough, if you do blind listening tests, all not just some,
but all of these things that so many people say they "heard" just go away.

> Reverting to the supplied jumpers resulted in less clarity and detail.

Or so you thought you "heard". And that's why there is such a controversy
about blind listening tests.

[Gary Rosen]

"Wylie Williams" > wrote in message
news:hLGWa.45067$Ho3.6272@sccrnsc03...
> James Mitchell said:
> > Biwiring advantages defy all laws of electromagnetic physics. As
stated,
> > it's a brilliant way to sell double the speaker wire.
>
> I wonder. Although I have been described as "technically challenged" by
> one kind contributor (true enough, but still a manners challenged remark )
I
> still try to think about why things work. I made a guess about bi wiring
> that I would like to check with the technically gifted RAHE contributors.
> If high frequencies traveling through a conductor are affected by the
> presence of lower frequencies on that conductor,

They don't.

> Feel free to comment. There is no need to be gentle, as in my 22 years
> of retail experience I grew used to every engineering student who ventured
> into the store telling me that he knew far more than ever would about
sound.
> Later I learned from my son that only scientists had the ability to
reason,
> and that only physicists were actual scientists.

So all those bridges and airplanes and computers designed by engineers
don't really work? I'll keep that in mind the next time I drive over the
Golden Gate Bridge.

- Gary Rosen

[chung]

Wylie Williams wrote:
>
> Later I learned from my son that only scientists had the ability to reason,
> and that only physicists were actual scientists. As he was about to receive
> a PhD (fortunately in Physics) I knew that he must know whereof he spoke. I
> of course, as an English major, I had no choice but to accept his word for
> it.

Here is an example of an extremely ill-formed opinion elevated to fact.
If I were you, I'll ask for a refund from the university about to grant
your son the Ph. D. degree. Assuming you were paying for the degree, of
course.

[Johnd1001]

I agree, but would suggest that the term "circuit theory" be used rather than
electromagnetic theory, which largly applies tothe behavior of "electromagnetic
waves" propagating through space (including our atmosphere) or other similar
mediums.

Of course, it is possible to apply E-M theory to almost any problem where
electric and/or magnetic fields exist.

[Johnd1001]

Whoops,

Sorry, but unless the cable posses non-linear properties (e-gads), their shoul
exist no opportunity for interaction between "signals" at differrent
frequencies.

Hmmm!

I would appreciate informed comments.

John

[Wylie Williams]

> Wylie Williams wrote:
> >
> > Later I learned from my son that only scientists had the ability to
reason,
> > and that only physicists were actual scientists. As he was about to
receive
> > a PhD (fortunately in Physics) I knew that he must know whereof he
spoke. >> I of course, as an English major, I had no choice but to accept
his word for
> > it.
>
> Here is an example of an extremely ill-formed opinion elevated to fact.
> If I were you, I'll ask for a refund from the university about to grant
> your son the Ph. D. degree. Assuming you were paying for the degree, of
> course.
>
This was just to say that I have observed that highly intelligent men in
technical fields of study develop egos in proportion to their education.
With time I am sure most mature and grow more tolerant. This aside seems
to have touched a nerve in several RAHE contributors. Sorry. Present
company excepted, of course.
Wylie Williams

[goFab.com]

On 2 Aug 2003 00:40:24 GMT, in article >, "Uptown
stated:
>
>More smoke and mirrors. Tell that to anyone who uses amps and speakers
>professionally. It sounds almost like you have some sort of axe to
>grind. I thought that you had said that all amps sound the same. Why
>would you buy a larger one then? Any way you avoid my point about
>flexibility (the ability to use various amps and levels). Personal
>taste and creativity (or lack thereof) can come to play in the
>selection of equipment and in it's implementation. That doesn't mean
>that you have to like it, just accept that it's someone else's kit and
>they will do with it as they will to get the best sound, form and
>function for their
>budget. They will cringe at your cable and you will cringe at their
>tube amp. You both will have fun and contrary to your suggestions,
>neither of you will be superior.
>- Bill
>www.uptownaudio.com
>Roanoke VA
>(540) 343-1250

If you like the sound of tubes (and, increasingly, tube designs are becoming
available that keep the sound that people love while minimizing the artifacts),
then bi-amping can be a sensible solution. Some of the leading cost-no-object
speaker systems on the market, particularly those designed to work with SETs and
other lower-power amplifiers, have biamping inherent in them: the Avantgarde
Trios (w/o the room-swallowing basshorns) and the Pipedreams are two examples.
Now, suppose you have excellent big dynamic speakers that require a lot of power
to drive their massive woofers; you've had beefy solid state amps to drive them
but want to try tube sonority. You probably can't drive those speakers to loud
volumes with many of the tube amplifiers on the market (you might try Hurricanes
or Atmaspheres, but you're not going to get, say, 300B sound with enough power);
one obvious solution is to keep your solid state amp and biamp the mids & uppers
with a valve amp. Audio solutions don't exist in a vacuum; in the real world
where people can't write blank checks (and even if they could may not desire to
throw beloved existing components in the trash), they must take into account
people's existing equipment and room limitations. For some of those situations,
biamping with different amplifiers makes a lot of sense.

I would agree, however, that the case for biwiring is much sketchier (and more
amenable to generalization).

interstate5

[[email protected]]

The senerio you posit is unlikely to be obtainable in a home
enviroment. However by avoiding sight of and any communication with
the person having knowledge of the state of the connections one can
approach the ideal.

Been a long time since my experimental design and stat courses but the
method I related is as close as is practical. The key being no
stimuli being percived by the listener which might indicate the state
of the wire.

Louis

On Tue, 05 Aug 2003 04:28:19 GMT, Steven Sullivan >
wrote:

wrote:
>> On Wed, 30 Jul 2003 07:02:35 GMT, mfr >
>> wrote:
>
>> >I've just bought my first pair of bi-wirable speakers (Totem Mites) and
>> >have been wondering what the benefits of "bi-wire" are...Anybody have
>> >opinions or facts???
>
>> For the fun of it do it in a double blind study. Have a friend hook
>> up the speakers and leave the room before you come back in and you
>> write your inpressions in a book you keep then leave the room before
>> he comes back in and repeat for about ten times and see if your result
>> is strongly leaning in either way.
>
>That's not double blind. That's more like single blind times two. ;>
>In a DBT, neither the person doing the switching, nor the person being
>tested, knows what 'state' the switch is in at any given time. In a
>clinical trial this is equivalent to neither the doctor nor the patient
>knowing which treatment the patient received, at the time of treatment.
>(The treatments are coded so that later on it can be determined whether
>the treatment was 'real' or placebo.)

[Straycat]

> wrote in message
news:PX_Xa.75750$YN5.58121@sccrnsc01...
> The senerio you posit is unlikely to be obtainable in a home
> enviroment. However by avoiding sight of and any communication with
> the person having knowledge of the state of the connections one can
> approach the ideal.
>
> Been a long time since my experimental design and stat courses but the
> method I related is as close as is practical. The key being no
> stimuli being percived by the listener which might indicate the state
> of the wire.
>
> Louis
>
> On Tue, 05 Aug 2003 04:28:19 GMT, Steven Sullivan >
> wrote:
>
> wrote:
> >> On Wed, 30 Jul 2003 07:02:35 GMT, mfr >
> >> wrote:
> >
> >> >I've just bought my first pair of bi-wirable speakers (Totem Mites)
and
> >> >have been wondering what the benefits of "bi-wire" are...Anybody have
> >> >opinions or facts???
> >
> >> For the fun of it do it in a double blind study. Have a friend hook
> >> up the speakers and leave the room before you come back in and you
> >> write your inpressions in a book you keep then leave the room before
> >> he comes back in and repeat for about ten times and see if your result
> >> is strongly leaning in either way.
> >
> >That's not double blind. That's more like single blind times two. ;>
> >In a DBT, neither the person doing the switching, nor the person being
> >tested, knows what 'state' the switch is in at any given time. In a
> >clinical trial this is equivalent to neither the doctor nor the patient
> >knowing which treatment the patient received, at the time of treatment.
> >(The treatments are coded so that later on it can be determined whether
> >the treatment was 'real' or placebo.)
>

If you take enough psych courses, and actually do psych. testing of
individuals you will discover that some of the things being thrown around by
the DBT or AXB testers overlooks one simple fact.
The "placebo" effect IS REAL.
Some patients who believe they are being medicated actually respond as if
they ARE being medicated.

Let us assume that a tweak, such as bi-wiring, has no negative effect on the
system. Suppose that the listener, who knows that the bi-wiring has been
done, believes that the sound has been improved. Since the whole idea of the
system is to create an illusion, and a better illusion has been introduced
in the mind of the listener, why should we need to argue the methods
involved?

If you want to destroy the illusion of improvement with science, so be it.
It is also the same in clinical testing. Once the patient finds out they
were not in the medicated group, their symptoms return (sometimes). This is
because our brain uses both stimulus and reason along with previous
experiences to process and present a real state of awareness. We cannot
process stimulus without reasoning, and we cannot percieve without a memory.
This is the basis for learning.

In short, there is a real difference between blind testing results which
always tend to be neutral, and reason which always tends to assume that
physical differences must be accompanied by perceptual differences.

[Arny Krueger]

"Wylie Williams" > wrote in message


> In looking for something about room treatment. I ran across an
> explanation of biwiring and I thought I would pass it on. Jon Risch
> mentions something about an AES paper or presentation so there is
> probably more to it than this one chart, but the chart seems to offer
> some validation for the idea of bi wiring..
> http://www.geocities.com/jonrisch/page8.htm

Jon is a technician, not an engineer. I've discussed this very issue with
him directly back in the days when rec.audio.opinion was still an audio
forum. He really doesn't understand that these diagrams of his are all about
linear, not nonlinear properties.

Jon and I share a common interest in using multitones for evaluating audio
gear. His confusion about the difference between linear and nonlinear issues
is where he and most others who use multitones for audio measurements split
ways.

If you want to see the true story about measuring with multitones, don't
trust me. Here's a place to download lots of authoritative, relevant stuff
from an widely-respected source:

http://audioprecision.com/publications/technical_papers/index.htm

[chung]

Wylie Williams wrote:
> In looking for something about room treatment. I ran across an explanation
> of biwiring and I thought I would pass it on. Jon Risch mentions something
> about an AES paper or presentation so there is probably more to it than this
> one chart, but the chart seems to offer some validation for the idea of bi
> wiring..
> http://www.geocities.com/jonrisch/page8.htm
>
> Wylie Williams
>
>

I do not know Mr. Jon Risch's background, but his analysis on that
webpage is lacking in one very crucial area. If he hypothesizes that it
is the intermodulation distortion products that account for the
different currents in the bi-wire and single-wire cases, then he should
vary the overall levels of his test signals to see how the differences
change as a function of level. If it were truly distortion, the
difference at low levels would be much reduced. Also, he is making it
overly complicated by using his "phi signals". There is a lot that can
be observed by using just two tones.

Maybe he presented his data much better in the AES paper. But it should
be possible to do the experiments to ascertain whether the differences
are due to distortion of the drivers. Another troublesome issue was
brought up when he said that the differences between different types of
cable are 3 to 4 dB. Since the distortion is generated in the drivers,
how can different cables yield different results between bi-wire and
single-wire?

[chris]

Stewart Pinkerton wrote
> One might more logically argue that only philosophers and
> mathematicians have the ability to reason,

sorry Stewart I must take issue here
Boole proved mathematically the only mathematicians can reason, Philosophers
make illogical statements. ¬)

> while scientists simply make speculative guesses to explain why the
universe measures the way
> it does. Frequently, they are wrong guesses which have to be junked
> when a new set of measurements proves that the fit is not good
VERY TRUE

Engineers make things work, - - usually because they were never told it
wouldn't work.

[Stewart Pinkerton]

On 7 Aug 2003 22:43:54 GMT, "chris"
> wrote:

>Stewart Pinkerton wrote
>> One might more logically argue that only philosophers and
>> mathematicians have the ability to reason,
>
>sorry Stewart I must take issue here
>Boole proved mathematically the only mathematicians can reason, Philosophers
>make illogical statements. ¬)

That only applies to Boolean logic......... :-)

>> while scientists simply make speculative guesses to explain why the universe measures the way
>> it does. Frequently, they are wrong guesses which have to be junked
>> when a new set of measurements proves that the fit is not good

>VERY TRUE
>
>Engineers make things work, - - usually because they were never told it
>wouldn't work.

Frequently, we''ve been told that it *can't* work - but we're a
bloody-minded bunch, and make it work anyway!
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering