Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
#1
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Bi-Wiring
Hi,
I'm just installing the wiring for passive monitors. Should I install 2x2 per monitor for bi-amping or not? Does bi-amping have actual advantages or is it a kind of voodoo? If yes what thinkness? (4m and 6m length) Thomas |
#2
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Bi-Wiring
Thomas Thiele wrote:
I'm just installing the wiring for passive monitors. Should I install 2x2 per monitor for bi-amping or not? You might as well. Does bi-amping have actual advantages or is it a kind of voodoo? The idea is that biamping will reduce the interaction between the two drivers caused by the series resistance of the cable. There is no longer as much series resistance shared by both tweeter and woofer. If yes what thinkness? (4m and 6m length) Whatever you have around. 12ga is probably fine. 10ga might be better. Use the finest stranding you can get; in Germany you can get all of these really great finely-stranded cables at the hardware store which we cannot easily get in the US. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#3
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Bi-Wiring
"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message
... Thomas Thiele wrote: I'm just installing the wiring for passive monitors. Should I install 2x2 per monitor for bi-amping or not? You might as well. Does bi-amping have actual advantages or is it a kind of voodoo? The idea is that biamping will reduce the interaction between the two drivers caused by the series resistance of the cable. There is no longer as much series resistance shared by both tweeter and woofer. Isn't the cross-over filter already taking care of that? Meindert |
#4
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Bi-Wiring
"Meindert Sprang" wrote in
message "Scott Dorsey" wrote in message ... Thomas Thiele wrote: I'm just installing the wiring for passive monitors. Should I install 2x2 per monitor for bi-amping or not? You might as well. Does bi-amping have actual advantages or is it a kind of voodoo? Vodoo. If it wasn't for sighted evaluations, this audiophile urban legend, like many others would have died decades ago. The idea is that biamping will reduce the interaction between the two drivers caused by the series resistance of the cable. There is no longer as much series resistance shared by both tweeter and woofer. If the speaker cable is linear (including linear inductance and capacitance as well as resistance) and good ones always are, the interaction between the woofer and tweeter are effectively determined by the crosover. Isn't the cross-over filter already taking care of that? To a very, very large degree. Biwiring can actually have miniscule measurable effects, but with reasonable speaker cables, they are way down in the noise. |
#5
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Bi-Wiring
In article ,
Meindert Sprang wrote: "Scott Dorsey" wrote in message ... Thomas Thiele wrote: I'm just installing the wiring for passive monitors. Should I install 2x2 per monitor for bi-amping or not? You might as well. Does bi-amping have actual advantages or is it a kind of voodoo? The idea is that biamping will reduce the interaction between the two drivers caused by the series resistance of the cable. There is no longer as much series resistance shared by both tweeter and woofer. Isn't the cross-over filter already taking care of that? No, that's the point. The crossover filter needs to see the lowest possible source impedance to work properly. That is in fact where a lot of the weirdness using tube amps with modern loudspeaker designs comes from; crossovers that are intended to see a lower Z source. It also cases similar weirdness using older speaker designs with modern amps. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#6
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Bi-Wiring
Meindert Sprang wrote:
"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message ... Thomas Thiele wrote: I'm just installing the wiring for passive monitors. Should I install 2x2 per monitor for bi-amping or not? You might as well. Definitely install required cabling and then some, ie. install for putting 4 way's up later, you can always parallel unneded separate wires and it is unpleasantly costly and difficult to upgrade to more wires later. Remember: any wiring harness dimensioned to requirement will be too small ..... O;-) Does bi-amping have actual advantages or is it a kind of voodoo? Bi-amping is a poorly defined wording, I read the OP to suggest using the passive x-overs of the loudspeakers, but driving each pair of bi-wire connectors from a separate amp. Doing that has slight merit, but some. It does not give you the full advantages of an electronic x-over, but it does give you the advantage of not having to redo the existing passive in a passive box as electronic. The idea is that biamping will reduce the interaction between the two drivers caused by the series resistance of the cable. There is no longer as much series resistance shared by both tweeter and woofer. Isn't the cross-over filter already taking care of that? No, you need to consider the reverse direction of current, ie. imagine the cross-over network driven by the loudspeaker units as generators and loaded either with only an amplifier via half the x-over or with an amplifier and the full cross-over loaded by the other units section. (For simplicity considering a 2-way!). Loading with the amplifier only, as you would with a full electronic cross-over solution loads the loudspeaker unit with a dead short, loaading with a long cable presents it with a bit of impedance and loading it with cross-over and possibly also the other units cross-over and the other unit with varying complex loads. This is all about the dampening of the unit, a dead short proving the shortest settlting time and a complex ""high impedance"" load the longest, a cross-over with attenuation could provide such a load. We are NOT talking big effects here, this is about subtleties that are NOT going to be obvious on any and all setups. Some three or four years ago someone did the math over in rec.audio.tech and found some special case where the difference between bi-wiring to the same amp or not would be a 0.5 dB frequency response variation. The general finding was and remains that the best to do when presented with a biwired setup is to parallel all wires to all units for lowest possible cable impedance. IMO either use the passive, optimized, cross-over and be happy or use a properly customized active cross-over and be very happy and totally eliminate some of the possible intermodulation distortions. If you are building yourself the cost of high quality passive components suggests that you might as well go active .... Meindert Kind regards Peter Larsen |
#7
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Bi-Wiring
"Peter Larsen" wrote in message
k... No, you need to consider the reverse direction of current, ie. imagine the cross-over network driven by the loudspeaker units as generators and loaded either with only an amplifier via half the x-over or with an amplifier and the full cross-over loaded by the other units section. (For simplicity considering a 2-way!). There is no such reverse current unless you believe that the speaker has negative impedance. All that happens due to the so-called "back EMF" from the voice coil is that the the impedance of the driver is higher than you would expect from traditional resistance measurements. Loudspeakers differ from other familair situations like dynamic braking in vehicles in that loudspeaker propulsion systems are very, very inefficient. Most of us know that a loudspeaker with 1% efficiency is a very efficient speaker. That is partially due to the fact that for example a typical 8 ohm loudspeaker starts out with a resistor of no less than 7.5 ohms in series with all of the rest of it. Whatever the voice coil does because it is in a magnetic field, is highly isolated from the speaker terminals. |
#8
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Bi-Wiring
No, you need to consider the reverse direction of current, ie.
imagine the cross-over network driven by the loudspeaker units as generators and loaded either with only an amplifier via half the x-over or with an amplifier and the full cross-over loaded by the other units section. (For simplicity considering a 2-way!). There is no such reverse current unless you believe that the speaker has negative impedance. And that isn't what negative impedance is, anyway Loudspeakers differ from other familair situations like dynamic braking in vehicles in that loudspeaker propulsion systems are very, very inefficient. Most of us know that a loudspeaker with 1% efficiency is a very efficient speaker. It isn't, nor has it ever been. The early acoustic-suspension speakers were around 1%, which was considered quite low. And despite the existance of inexpensive high-powered amplifiers, almost every speaker currently made is ported (rather than sealed) to get a bit more efficiency out of it. For all practical purposes, the acoustic suspension speaker is dead. That is partially due to the fact that for example a typical 8 ohm loudspeaker starts out with a resistor of no less than 7.5 ohms in series with all of the rest of it. This is a fundamental -- and understandable -- misunderstanding. ALL the current flowing through the voice coil -- whether resistive or reactive -- generates a magnetic field that moves the driver. * The energy "consumed" by the driver's resistance is not wasted. An "8 ohm" speaker whose impedance was wholly reactive would be no more or less efficient than one with a wholly resistive impedance. The driver's motion is determined by the current flowing through it, and nothing else (assuming the Bl product is the same). Whatever the voice coil does because it is in a magnetic field, is highly isolated from the speaker terminals. This is an interesting point. The more-reactive the driver's impedance, the less-isolated it is (ignoring the crossover's effect, of course). A few years ago, a British speaker manufacturer inveighed /against/ active crossovers, claiming that passive crossovers did a better job isolating the driver from the amplifier. The company apparently felt that having an amplifier directly "look at" a reactive load was not a good thing! (There are plenty of amplifiers, including modestly priced ones, that have no trouble with electrostatic speakers.) * I'm ignoring the phase angle between the reactive and resistive components. But "8 ohms" is "8 ohms", regardless. |
#9
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Bi-Wiring
Arny Krueger wrote:
"Peter Larsen" wrote in message k... No, you need to consider the reverse direction of current, ie. imagine the cross-over network driven by the loudspeaker units as generators and loaded either with only an amplifier via half the x-over or with an amplifier and the full cross-over loaded by the other units section. (For simplicity considering a 2-way!). There is no such reverse current unless you believe that the speaker has negative impedance. Oh yes, no contest, I just suggested a viewing angle that makes the concepts simpler, the actual currents are regulated by Ohm's law and a loudspeaker unit with a high internal impedance is not likely to be able to deliver relevant power back to a near zero ohm powered up and unclipped amplifier. All that happens due to the so-called "back EMF" from the voice coil is that the the impedance of the driver is higher than you would expect from traditional resistance measurements. Loudspeakers differ from other familair situations like dynamic braking in vehicles in that loudspeaker propulsion systems are very, very inefficient. Yes, for household implement type loudspeakers there is so little power lost in the generation of sound that it is a suitable asumption that all the power the amplifier delivers to the voice coil needs to be removed as heat. Most of us know that a loudspeaker with 1% efficiency is a very efficient speaker. That is partially due to the fact that for example a typical 8 ohm loudspeaker starts out with a resistor of no less than 7.5 ohms in series with all of the rest of it. Whatever the voice coil does because it is in a magnetic field, is highly isolated from the speaker terminals. A helpful image, thanks! Kind regards Peter Larsen |
#10
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Bi-Wiring
Arny Krueger wrote:
"Peter Larsen" wrote in message . dk... No, you need to consider the reverse direction of current, ie. imagine the cross-over network driven by the loudspeaker units as generators and loaded either with only an amplifier via half the x-over or with an amplifier and the full cross-over loaded by the other units section. (For simplicity considering a 2-way!). There is no such reverse current unless you believe that the speaker has negative impedance. All that happens due to the so-called "back EMF" from the voice coil is that the the impedance of the driver is higher than you would expect from traditional resistance measurements. What do you mean "all that happens is the impedance is higher?" What more do you want? The fact that the impedance of the driver varies with frequency as the result of back-emf is a major, major problem and it's the main glitch in passive crossover design. Loudspeakers differ from other familair situations like dynamic braking in vehicles in that loudspeaker propulsion systems are very, very inefficient. Most of us know that a loudspeaker with 1% efficiency is a very efficient speaker. That is partially due to the fact that for example a typical 8 ohm loudspeaker starts out with a resistor of no less than 7.5 ohms in series with all of the rest of it. Whatever the voice coil does because it is in a magnetic field, is highly isolated from the speaker terminals. Depends on the driver, but indeed the poor coupling is about the only salvation poor crossover designers get. On the other hand, we have zobel networks to deal with some of the worst of the issues. It's a wonder speakers work as well as they do. And by the standards of the rest of the signal chain, they don't work very well at all. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#11
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Bi-Wiring
On Thu, 04 Mar 2010 01:55:35 +0100, Thomas Thiele
wrote: Hi, I'm just installing the wiring for passive monitors. Should I install 2x2 per monitor for bi-amping or not? Does bi-amping have actual advantages or is it a kind of voodoo? If yes what thinkness? (4m and 6m length) Thomas Bi-amping has some justification. Bi-wiring is something else, and is merely audiophile voodoo. For recording monitors it's perhaps more likely that a future upgrade would be to active speakers, where the amplification is completely integrated with the drivers. |
#12
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Bi-Wiring
On 3/3/2010 6:04 PM, Laurence Payne wrote:
Bi-amping has some justification. Bi-wiring is something else, and is merely audiophile voodoo. Bi-wiring = Buy wire |
#13
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Bi-Wiring
wrote in message
On 3/3/2010 6:04 PM, Laurence Payne wrote: Bi-amping has some justification. Bi-wiring is something else, and is merely audiophile voodoo. Bi-wiring = Buy wire Author: My good friend Tom Nousiane. |
#14
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Bi-Wiring
Thomas Thiele wrote:
Hi, I'm just installing the wiring for passive monitors. Should I install 2x2 per monitor for bi-amping or not? Does bi-amping have actual advantages or is it a kind of voodoo? If yes what thinkness? (4m and 6m length) Bi-amping, or 'just' bi-wiring ? geoff |
#15
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Bi-Wiring
You're confusing bi-wiring with bi-amping. They're quite different things.
The former assumes that speaker cables are non-linear, and separating the bass and treble will reduce intermodulation, and possibly other effects caused by THE CABLES. This is almost certainly not true. The latter is, in theory, the best way to drive a speaker. It allows higher output before the amplifiers clip, and gives control not possible with a passive crossover. |
#16
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Bi-Wiring
On 4 Mrz., 03:22, "William Sommerwerck"
wrote: You're confusing bi-wiring with bi-amping. They're quite different things. My posting was a little bit confusing. So the questions a 1. Should I install 2 pairs of wiring for each monitor to have the option to bi-amping/bi-wiring. 2. Does simple Bi-Wiring (same amp) have any real advantages or is it voo-doo. 3. Is Bi-Amping a great solution or waste of money, too. Whats to regard? Frequency crossover (since the passive one are still in de box) ? |
#17
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Bi-Wiring
Thomas Thiele wrote:
1. Should I install 2 pairs of wiring for each monitor to have the option to bi-amping/bi-wiring. That's two questions. I assume that you are committed to putting the power amplifier(s) at the opposite end of the wires as the speaker? This will determine what kind of wiring to install. 2. Does simple Bi-Wiring (same amp) have any real advantages or is it voo-doo. With today's power amplifiers, it's voodoo. With tube amplifiers with output transformers which have a measurable source impedance, there was some justification for bi-wiring. But with a solid state amplifier that is essentially a constant voltage (load impedance independent as long as it can deliver enough current) source, bi-wiring doesn't help anything. 3. Is Bi-Amping a great solution or waste of money, too. Whats to regard? Frequency crossover (since the passive one are still in de box) ? Don't bother if you're only going to bi-wire, and use a single power amplifier at the other end of the cable. If you're likely to update to an electronic crossover and two power amplifiers, and maintain the installation with the power going through your wiring, then run two cables. There are other options, however. You might want to put the crossover and amplifiers close to the speaker, in which case you'd want only one cable per speaker, but you'd want it shielded, and probably two-conductor for balanced wiring. Or you might want to put the crossover at the source end and the power amplifiers at the speaker end, in which case you'd want two shielded cables. Or you might jusst get powered speakers. If this is going to be a once-in-a-lifetime cable pull, run both power and low level (speaker and "audio") cables, two of each for each speaker. Wire, even if it's never used, is cheaper than tearing out walls. -- "Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be operated without a passing knowledge of computing, although it seems that it can be operated without a passing knowledge of audio." - John Watkinson |
#18
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Bi-Wiring
"Thomas Thiele" wrote in message
On 4 Mrz., 03:22, "William Sommerwerck" wrote: You're confusing bi-wiring with bi-amping. They're quite different things. My posting was a little bit confusing. So the questions a 1. Should I install 2 pairs of wiring for each monitor to have the option to bi-amping/bi-wiring. No, its a waste of time and money. 2. Does simple Bi-Wiring (same amp) have any real advantages or is it voo-doo. Almost entirely vodoo. 3. Is Bi-Amping a great solution or waste of money, too. The classic bi-amping that is done with one amplifier per driver and minimal to no passive crossovers is great technology if properly exploited. For one thing it opens a lot of possibilities for making crossovers do a better job of exploiting drivers. It allows using less powerful amplfiiers, and matching amplifier size to the actual needs of the drivers. I think that in a purely rational world most quality audio systems would now use this technology. But, tradition is a powerful force and its not a black-and-white situation in every case. For example, good speakers in 1-2 cubic foot range tend to be pretty heavy to heft around, even when implemented passively. Adding a 18-35 pound amplfier to a 30-50 pound speaker can lead to an 80 pound contraption that is as much fun to carry as a bag of cement. People like to decouple the amplfiiers from the speakers for economic and psychological reasons. If you have a serious failure in an active speaker and scrap it you're throwing away both a power amp and the speaker. If they are two different boxes, you can upgrade or replace either separately. Whats to regard? Frequency crossover (since the passive one are still in de box) ? Well, that's one problem with trying to make a speaker that was designed with a passive crossover into one with an active crossover. You may have spent good money for the passive crossover, and now you're throwing it away. If you want to use speakers with separate amplifiers and electronic crossovers, then it is very rational to buy an ensemble of speaker drivers, amplifiers and crossovers that were designed to work together. IOW get an active speaker. I think the technology and economics of most studio monitors say that the logical way to make this conversion is to sell off the passive speaker and re-invest in a new active one. |
#19
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Bi-Wiring
On 4 Mrz., 13:57, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
Hi Mike and Arny, I think the technology and economics of most studio monitors say that the logical way to make this conversion is to sell off the passive speaker and re-invest in a new active one. So my conclusion at the end is: one cable per monitor. There are other investments to make before a new monitor system. And who knows how long I'll keep my new rooms now. |
#20
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Bi-Wiring
"Thomas Thiele" wrote in message
... On 4 Mrz., 13:57, "Arny Krueger" wrote: Hi Mike and Arny, I think the technology and economics of most studio monitors say that the logical way to make this conversion is to sell off the passive speaker and re-invest in a new active one. So my conclusion at the end is: one cable per monitor. There are other investments to make before a new monitor system. And who knows how long I'll keep my new rooms now. FWIW bi-amping.... For monitors I'll stick with whatever the speakers came with. If it's a good speaker with a well designed cross-over, I'm probably not going to improve it by bi-amping it and fiddling with the settings. If I want bi-amp then I'll buy an active, bi-amp monitor and rely on the engineers to design it properly. Sean |
#21
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Bi-Wiring
Would the real Arny Kreuger please stand up?
|
#22
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Bi-Wiring
Thomas Thiele wrote:
On 4 Mrz., 03:22, "William Sommerwerck" wrote: You're confusing bi-wiring with bi-amping. They're quite different things. My posting was a little bit confusing. So the questions a 1. Should I install 2 pairs of wiring for each monitor to have the option to bi-amping/bi-wiring. Yes. You can never have too much wiring in the wall. 2. Does simple Bi-Wiring (same amp) have any real advantages or is it voo-doo. I don't think it makes any real advantage but if you have extra cable you might as well use it. 3. Is Bi-Amping a great solution or waste of money, too. Whats to regard? Frequency crossover (since the passive one are still in de box) ? It can be a great thing or basically unnecessary, depending on your system design. There are some real advantages to active crossovers, like being able to make sharper filters and having filters that are not dependant on the impedance curves of the speaker drivers. There are also disadvantages, like having a lot more stuff in your signal path. Pick a system that you like... if it uses an active crossover or a passive crossover, then use whatever it's designed for. Get a monitor system that sounds the way you want and then worry about what technology was used to implement it. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#23
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Bi-Wiring
Hi Thomas,
Thomas Thiele" wrote: 3. Is Bi-Amping a great solution or waste of money, too. Whats to regard? Frequency crossover (since the passive one are still in de box) ? You've gotten a lot of good responses, so I'll only toss my $0.02 in regarding bi-amping, since there are some variables that I haven't seen discussed. I presume that your installation is for a small listening area rather than an auditorium or arena, so much of the reason for biamping is already negated. Also, today's power amps are almost all too powerful for speakers with any decent level of efficiency, so there is no need to increase the power available to low frequency drivers in small environments. Decent speakers are designed to perform with the supplied components; the physical behavior of the drivers and performance parameters of the enclosure have been taken into consideration to make a speaker that delivers a decent overall frequency response. Since these factors are fixed, the most likely outcome would be that speaker performance would be degraded by inserting active crossovers, as that will alter the drivers' behavior at the point of crossover due to 1) a shift in center frequency, 2) different rolloff characteristics at the crossover point, 3) reduced insertion loss, 4) a change in allocation of power to the drivers, or most likely, all of the above. At the end of the day, if biamping was done perfectly by designing the crossovers to match your passive crossover performance, your listening environment will have a much greater impact on the audible quality of your system than the change. -- HTH, Neil --- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: --- |
#24
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Bi-Wiring
Neil Gould wrote:
Decent speakers are designed to perform with the supplied components; the physical behavior of the drivers and performance parameters of the enclosure have been taken into consideration to make a speaker that delivers a decent overall frequency response. Since these factors are fixed, the most likely outcome would be that speaker performance would be degraded by inserting active crossovers, as that will alter the drivers' behavior at the point of crossover due to 1) a shift in center frequency, 2) different rolloff characteristics at the crossover point, 3) reduced insertion loss, 4) a change in allocation of power to the drivers, or most likely, all of the above. Which is why I used the wording "properly optimized". At the end of the day, if biamping was done perfectly by designing the crossovers to match your passive crossover performance, your listening environment will have a much greater impact on the audible quality of your system than the change. Yes, but first use money on the acoustics. Kind regards Peter Larsen |
#25
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Bi-Wiring
"Peter Larsen" wrote in message
k... Neil Gould wrote: Decent speakers are designed to perform with the supplied components; the physical behavior of the drivers and performance parameters of the enclosure have been taken into consideration to make a speaker that delivers a decent overall frequency response. Since these factors are fixed, the most likely outcome would be that speaker performance would be degraded by inserting active crossovers, as that will alter the drivers' behavior at the point of crossover due to 1) a shift in center frequency, 2) different rolloff characteristics at the crossover point, 3) reduced insertion loss, 4) a change in allocation of power to the drivers, or most likely, all of the above. Which is why I used the wording "properly optimized". As I wrote at the outset, I was only mentioning some items that I didn't see in other posts. I didn't see "properly optimized" in your post... I did see "properly customized", but it appeared to be in a different context than the above, and I read a usage of "optimized" in that paragraph that seems to be in the same context, but with a somewhat different conclusion. At the end of the day, if biamping was done perfectly by designing the crossovers to match your passive crossover performance, your listening environment will have a much greater impact on the audible quality of your system than the change. Yes, but first use money on the acoustics. "...but first..."? I _think_ we're in agreement, but, just to be clear, I'm suggesting that Thomas drop the idea of bi-amping decent speakers that have passive crossovers altogether and put the money where it might make an audible difference. The details, above, were my rationale for taking that position. -- best regards, Neil --- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: --- |
#26
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Bi-Wiring
William Sommerwerck wrote:
You're confusing bi-wiring with bi-amping. They're quite different things. The former assumes that speaker cables are non-linear, and separating the bass and treble will reduce intermodulation, and possibly other effects caused by THE CABLES. This is almost certainly not true. No. The point of biwiring is not that the cables are linear, but that the cables are resistive. Throw a resistor in series with your speaker... now if you have low frequency information going through the woofer, the voltage drop through the cable also affects the tweeter. The two drivers can modulate one another due to the voltage drop. I think the effect is extremely minimal and I have never been able to hear it, but the theory is actually reasonable. And hell, cable is cheap, so you might as well. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#27
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Bi-Wiring
You're confusing bi-wiring with bi-amping. They're quite different
things. The former assumes that speaker cables are non-linear, and separating the bass and treble will reduce intermodulation, and possibly other effects caused by THE CABLES. This is almost certainly not true. No. The point of biwiring is not that the cables are linear, but that the cables are resistive. Throw a resistor in series with your speaker... now if you have low frequency information going through the woofer, the voltage drop through the cable also affects the tweeter. The two drivers can modulate one another due to the voltage drop. That's non-linearity -- and it's an incorrect explanation. There's a basic rule of mathematics -- superposition -- that says, in a linear system, the output of input A+B can be found by adding the separate outputs of the A and B inputs applied individually. As far as the currents representing the signals to the woofer and tweeter are concerned, they "see" the resistance of a linear cable separately. There is no interaction among them. |
#28
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Bi-Wiring
"William Sommerwerck" wrote in message ... You're confusing bi-wiring with bi-amping. They're quite different things. The former assumes that speaker cables are non-linear, and separating the bass and treble will reduce intermodulation, and possibly other effects caused by THE CABLES. This is almost certainly not true. No. The point of biwiring is not that the cables are linear, but that the cables are resistive. Throw a resistor in series with your speaker... now if you have low frequency information going through the woofer, the voltage drop through the cable also affects the tweeter. The two drivers can modulate one another due to the voltage drop. That's non-linearity -- and it's an incorrect explanation. Bingo! There's a basic rule of mathematics -- superposition -- that says, in a linear system, the output of input A+B can be found by adding the separate outputs of the A and B inputs applied individually. That's electrical circuits 225. As far as the currents representing the signals to the woofer and tweeter are concerned, they "see" the resistance of a linear cable separately. There is no interaction among them. True as long as the inductance, capacitance, and resistance (including skin effect) is linear. As a rule they are very linear. We're talking air-core inductors and air-dielectric capacitance. Very linear! |
#29
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Bi-Wiring
"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message ... William Sommerwerck wrote: You're confusing bi-wiring with bi-amping. They're quite different things. The former assumes that speaker cables are non-linear, and separating the bass and treble will reduce intermodulation, and possibly other effects caused by THE CABLES. This is almost certainly not true. No. The point of biwiring is not that the cables are linear, but that the cables are resistive. Right, so fix that with copper. Throw a resistor in series with your speaker... now if you have low frequency information going through the woofer, the voltage drop through the cable also affects the tweeter. The crossover went away? Letsay that there are two signals flowing through a cable, LF (destined for the woofer) and HF (destined for the tweeter). Add a series resistor. Both signals are attenuated by the resistance of the resistor, but if the resistor and the cable are linear, then the attenuation of each signal happens completely independently. There is no cross-modulation without nonlinearity. The two drivers can modulate one another due to the voltage drop. Nope, not if the cable and resistor are linear. That's electrical circuits 225. I think the effect is extremely minimal and I have never been able to hear it, but the theory is actually reasonable. And hell, cable is cheap, so you might as well. To me that's the best non-controversial argument. It's ironic that snake oil cable vendors work so hard to inflate the price of copper. It's the low price of copper that makes it such a good solution. |
#30
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Bi-Wiring
"Thomas Thiele" wrote in message
I'm just installing the wiring for passive monitors. I'm with Scott. Get some 12 gauge stranded speaker wire, and you don't have to worry. Should I install 2x2 per monitor for bi-amping or not? You are confusing bi-amping with bi-wiring. 2 vastly different things. Furthermore, thanks to the obsessivness of audiophiles, we even have 2 different styles of bi-amping. There is only one kind of bi-amping that can make any technical sense at all, and that is where you use electronic crossovers and 2 power amps, one separate channel for each half of 2-way speakers. That requires essentially re-engineering the speaker. All else is BS technical vodoo. Does bi-amping have actual advantages or is it a kind of voodoo? Biwiring is almost entirely vodoo. If yes what thinkness? (4m and 6m length) I'm with Scott. Get some 12 gauge stranded speaker wire, and you don't have to worry. One of the first rules of professional audio involves *not* listening to audiophiles. They want to tell you how to choose mics and position them. They've never touched a mic in their lives and would struggle to unfasten a XLR because their beloved RCA jacks don't latch. They want to tell you how to mix and master. They've never touched a fader in their lives and become hysterical if you mention even the simplist signal processing. As a rule they first need to remove their heads from where the sun shines not! :-( |
#31
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Bi-Wiring
Arny Krueger schrieb:
"Thomas Thiele" wrote in message I'm just installing the wiring for passive monitors. I'm with Scott. Get some 12 gauge stranded speaker wire, and you don't have to worry. Should I install 2x2 per monitor for bi-amping or not? You are confusing bi-amping with bi-wiring. 2 vastly different things. Furthermore, thanks to the obsessivness of audiophiles, we even have 2 different styles of bi-amping. There is only one kind of bi-amping that can make any technical sense at all, and that is where you use electronic crossovers and 2 power amps, one separate channel for each half of 2-way speakers. That requires essentially re-engineering the speaker. All else is BS technical vodoo. Does bi-amping have actual advantages or is it a kind of voodoo? Biwiring is almost entirely vodoo. If yes what thinkness? (4m and 6m length) I'm with Scott. Get some 12 gauge stranded speaker wire, and you don't have to worry. One of the first rules of professional audio involves *not* listening to audiophiles. They want to tell you how to choose mics and position them. They've never touched a mic in their lives and would struggle to unfasten a XLR because their beloved RCA jacks don't latch. They want to tell you how to mix and master. They've never touched a fader in their lives and become hysterical if you mention even the simplist signal processing. As a rule they first need to remove their heads from where the sun shines not! :-( Certainly true. I have to say that not only the so-called audiophiles can drive you crazy with their weird terminology- it is the 'audiophile industy', that is constantly working on making things less understandible...to sell 'special' proprietary voodoo technology. A typical example Today I listened to a Linn Ninka pair that sounded like crap to me (well, for the money it costs) with one terminal wired to an Adcom amp (which is a great amp btw.). Then we listened to the Linns wired to 2 Adcoms with both terminal pairs used. That was a tremendous improvement. I would call it 'bi-amping' with a strang3e kind of internal passive crossover, but in Linn's weird terminology it is called : 'Bi-Wiring'...??? Apparently the internal passive crossover is designed for this procedure only, because it sounds sooo much better. The 'recommended' method for using only one amp is certainly a joke to drive customers into buying a second amp after getting trapped- But it comes worse, they sell a kind of active crossover for the speaker model that is to be installed *after* the amp and from the outside to the terminal of the speaker (well, if I understood it right from the brochures...). Wow, if that is not an interesting concept *cough*. Don't ask for the money a complete system costs... Try to discuss bi-wiring with a guy who bought such a system to listen to a live version of 'Money for nothing' because the guitar riff sounds 'soooo goood.' Yesterday a customer asked me if he has to push the Naim-preamp-system-interconnect-voodoo-cable to the left or the right side of the Hafler studioamp.... You might know what I mean. They are talking religion ('what they believe how things are functioning'), not technology. When I was a young live musician, we called them 'hi-fi guys'. Unfortunately some of those guys believed they were real live sound engineers. Worst sound you can get. Clueless mixing desasters...and always it was the fault of the 'bad, bad sounding PA', hahaha.... I guess it was too many pots and no 'loudness' knob. Personally, I prefer an active monitoring every day. The old K+H O98 still do it for me until I can afford buying O300D or Geithain RL's. Triamped active design where you do not have to worry about anything regarding wiring, impedance matching between amp and speakers, poor (or expensive) passive crossovers or speaker cable resistance. Kind regards, Martin |
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Sub wiring ----------------------------* | Car Audio | |||
Sub and amp wiring | Car Audio | |||
Wiring an amp | Car Audio | |||
4 Sub Wiring | Tech | |||
need wiring help | Tech |