chadnliz
Addicted Member
No its not an Oxymoron, a small difference is still definite no matter what its size.
-
Feeling lucky? Check out the AK 24th Anniversary Giveaway thread and join in the fun!
Does Bi-Wiring improve the sound on your speakers?
- Thread starter MWalt
- Start date
No its not an Oxymoron, a small difference is still definite no matter what its size.
JimInPA
Member
Gee, Ok I admit to being an oxy moron.
I agree with you. The effect of a mid on woofer will be smaller than the reverse. But remember, over the space of the octave centered on the crossover frequency the two are relatively tightly connected, and operating in different phase domains due the xover/driver dynamics. This is where they will exchange energy the most. And isn't that xover transition one of the hardest things to get right anyway?
One driver, one amp. Sounds good to me...
I agree with you. The effect of a mid on woofer will be smaller than the reverse. But remember, over the space of the octave centered on the crossover frequency the two are relatively tightly connected, and operating in different phase domains due the xover/driver dynamics. This is where they will exchange energy the most. And isn't that xover transition one of the hardest things to get right anyway?
One driver, one amp. Sounds good to me...
No, obviously you are delusional. The reason this topics pop-up so frequently is because:
A. Manufacturers produce the damn things and ppl want to learn about the product
B. They get confused with bi-amping
C. Individuals that have shelled the cash post outlandish reviews driven by their psyche more than anything.
And if I was so obviously wrong, there would be science to back up the claims, but it's quite the opposite. The fact is that it's been refuted by people that know what they are talking about.
Delicious copypasta:
Bi wiring (and cables), what a load of rubbish (long) pt 1
Fed up of the pseudo mumbo jumbo that gets passed off as authoritative guides to bi-wiring I have decided to put pen to paper. Flame away.
I DON’T believe bi-wiring works. This is audiophile nonsense (a self confessed obsessive audiophile speaking). It is audio flim flam, garbage put about by What Hif-Fi and it’s readers (or the ones who believe what they write anyway). Full stop. I have never seen any serious research that would make me think otherwise. (Please no What HiFi quotes, this will just wind me up more). I am a serious researcher and will look at any authoritative journals like AES or others for further guidance. I am open to any serious comments. But in my experience, non of my tests (rigorously controlled, not of the usual hook it up and turn the volume up demos from shops) have proved otherwise and I have the national cable collection here in Cumbria following my experiments to date. I am also willing to undertake any tests within my capability (no Gallos today!). I can match levels to 0.1B with both sound meters (non Tandy, quality units) and multi-meters / digital oscilloscopes to test things. I have access to a decent variety of speakers.
The late Peter Snell was an early bi-wire fan, and later recanted saying it was ‘baloney’. Many TOP speaker companies now either don’t offer the ‘dual’ terminals at all or do so only for bi-amping purposes. Many speak openly about it’s detrimental effects.
[Bi-amping is not to be confused with bi-wiring - they are totally different animals. Bi-amping can lower IM distortion in the critical mid range frequencies and to which the ear is most sensitive, as Paul Klipsch and others have demonstrated over many years. You also get about 4dB more headroom, which can subjectively increase the perceived dynamic range.]
The law of superposition (the basis for why your speaker can reproduce a complex series of wavelengths simultaneously) states that any two voltages applied to a linear network (in this case, your crossover) will have the same voltage transfer as if they were applied separately. Simply stated, it says that any two currents applied simultaneously to a linear network result in the same current as when applied individually. If the crossover is poorly isolated (bass to Mid/treble) no manner of cable TWEAKING will correct it. Regarding the cable theorists (suppliers?) claim that running bass and treble frequencies protects the delicate trebles from the mean bass currents is sheer nonsense, and shows a complete lack of knowledge of the principles of electro-magnetism that govern signal transfer of audio frequencies over short distances. It is invented for you to buy- wire and not based in science / engineering.
As I have said repeatedly here previously there have been some situations where bi-wring may have compensated for a poorly designed crossover network, but that does not make the principle valid. Poor crossover design is quite common unfortunately.
Don’t believe me, try this
Replace the pressed metal tags of you speakers bi-wire terminals with cables and listen to the gains. Bi wiring? No just removing detrimental cheap pressed tin plate. Cheap and easy upgrade. Note many manufacturers now supply wire links, I wonder why?
Still not convinced and want to try bi-wiring: Well consider your £200 cable. You bi-wire with another £200 cable. It sound is better, is this because of your bi wiring or is it because you now have £400 of cable with different electrical properties, like R. A great test is to try Kimber 4TC, then bi wire with more Kimber 4TC. Finally try single wiring with Kimber 8TC (same number of wires as bi-wired 4TC and a very similar construction). 8TC is the preferred option, it has lower R, therefore bass is better reproduced. No bi-wiring gains but gains simply because of better electrical properties.
Well I am a technical sort of guy, lets use science to look at the differences between single wiring and bi-wiring, try
http://www.pcavtech.com/techtalk/biwire/index.htm
I think this accurate analysis of the science behind the techniques says much. There is no difference electrically guys, wake up time.
Now I am not saying cable don’t make differences, they do, it is all down to C, L and R Simple and basic electrical characteristics. Simple first year engineering. Then we have screening, RFI issues and a host of other things to add to the cable debate. However I will say that if you satisfy the requirements for the engineering basics (R, C, L, screening and RFI) than I can hear no difference between them. What I do say is that properly designed and performing cable isn’t expensive and more often than not any differences are elsewhere in the system (amp stability, level differences, poor connectors, oxidation etc etc). How many crimp loudspeaker connections? Well done QED for their excellent airtight AIRLOCK crimps or do you want to send your delicate audio signals via lead solder that oxidises? Connections just need to be tight and corrosion free.
Tom Nousaine’s 1995 paper to the AES is good here for those with a technical bent on cable differences.
I quote the following for interest from elsewhere on the internet giving the story of the paper as it can do a better job than me, from
http://www.vxm.com/21R.64.html
but quoted in full here for completeness
Note: The following is a mailing list posting by John Dunlavy, a well known audio designer. I stashed a copy of this posting because I wanted to cite it in my stereo equipment page, and at the time there were no good repository of the mailing list or usenet articles that was accessible via a stable URL. I would suggest you check out audio postings by dunlavy for even more information.
Date: Tue, 5 Nov 1996 13:08:50 -0500
From: 102365.2026@compuserve.com (Dunlavy Audio Labs)
To: bass@mcfeeley.cc.utexas.edu (bass group)
Subject: Cable Nonsense (Long)
Having read some of the recent comments on several of the Internet audio groups, concerning audible differences between interconnect and loudspeaker cables, I could not resist adding some thoughts about the subject as a concerned engineer possessing credible credentials.
To begin, several companies design and manufacture loudspeaker and interconnect cables which they proudly claim possess optimized electrical properties for the audiophile applications intended. However, accurate measurements of several popularly selling cables reveal significant differences that call into question the technical goals of their designer. These differences also question the capability of the companies to perform accurate measurements of important cable performance properties. For example, any company not possessing a precision C-L-R bridge, a Vector Impedance Meter, a Network Analyzer, a precision waveform and impulse generator, wideband precision oscilloscopes, etc., probably needs to purchase them if they are truly serious about designing audio cables that provide premium performance.
The measurable properties of loudspeaker cables that are important to their performance include characteristic impedance (series inductance and parallel capacitance per unit length), loss resistance (including additional resistance due to skin-effect losses versus frequency), dielectric losses versus frequency (loss tangent, etc.), velocity-of-propagation factor, overall loss versus frequency into different impedance loads, etc.
Measurable properties of interconnect cables include all of the above, with the addition of those properties of the dielectric material that contribute to microphonic noise in the presence of ambient vibration, noise, etc. (in combination with a D.C. off-set created by a pre-amp output circuit, etc.).
While competent cable manufacturers should be aware of these measurements and the need to make them during the design of their cables, the raw truth is that most do not! Proof of this can be found in the absurd buzzard-salve, snake-oil and meaningless advertising claims found in almost all magazine ads and product literature for audiophile cables. Perhaps worse, very few of the expensive, high-tech appearing cables we have measured appear to have been designed in accordance with the well-known laws and principles taught by proper physics and engineering disciplines. (Where are the costly Government Consumer Protection people who are supposed to protect innocent members of the public by identifying and policing questionable performance claims, misleading specifications, etc.?) --- Caveat Emptor!
For example, claiming that copper wire is directional, that slow-moving electrons create distortion as they haphazardly carry the signal along a wire, that cables store and release energy as signals propagate along them, that a final energy component (improperly labeled as Joules) is the measure of the tonality of cables, ad nauseum, are but a few of the non-entities used in advertisements to describe cable performance.
Another pet peeve of mine is the concept of a special configuration included with a loudspeaker cable which is advertised as being able to terminate the cable in a matter intended to deliver more accurate tonality, better imaging, lower noise, etc. The real truth is that this special configuration contains nothing more than a simple, inexpensive network intended to prevent poorly-designed amplifiers, with a too-high slew-rate (obtained at the expense of instability caused by too much inverse-feedback) from oscillating when connected to a loudspeaker through a low-loss, low-impedance cable. When this box appears at the loudspeaker-end of a cable, it seldom contains nothing more than a Zobel network, which is usually a series resistor-capacitor network, connector in parallel with the wires of the cable. If it is at the amplifier-end of the cable, it is probably either a parallel resistor-inductor network, connected in series with the cable conductors (or a simple cylindrical ferrite sleeve covering both conductors). But the proper place for such a network, if it is needed to insure amplifier stability and prevent high-frequency oscillations, is within the amplifier - not along the loudspeaker cable. Hmmm!
Having said all this, are there really any significant audible differences between most cables that can be consistently identified by experienced listeners? The answer is simple: very seldom! Those who claim otherwise do not fully grasp the power of the old Placebo-Effect - which is very alive and well among even the most well-intentioned listeners. The placebo-effect renders audible signatures easy to detect and describe - if the listener knows which cable is being heard. But, take away this knowledge during blind or double-blind listening comparisons and the differences either disappear completely or hover close to the level of random guessing. Speaking as a competent professional engineer, designer and manufacturer, nothing would please me and my company's staff more than being able to design a cable which consistently yielded a positive score during blind listening comparisons against other cables. But it only rarely happens - if we wish to be honest!
Oh yes, we have heard of golden-eared audiophiles who claim to be able to consistently identify huge, audible differences between cables. But when these experts have visited our facility and were put to the test under carefully-controlled conditions, they invariably failed to yield a score any better than chance. For example, when led to believe that three popular cables were being compared, varying in size from a high-quality 12 AWG ZIP-CORD to a high-tech looking cable with a diameter exceeding an inch, the largest and sexiest looking cable always scored best - even though the CABLES WERE NEVER CHANGED and they listened to the ZIP Cord the entire time.
Sorry, but I do not buy the claims of those who say they can always audibly identify differences between cables, even when the comparisons are properly controlled to ensure that the identity of the cable being heard is not known by the listener. We have accomplished too many true blind comparisons with listeners possessing the right credentials, including impeccable hearing attributes, to know that real, audible differences seldom exist - if the comparisons are properly implemented to eliminate other causes such as system interactions with cables, etc.
Indeed, during these comparisons (without changing cables), some listeners were able to describe in great detail the big differences they thought they heard in bass, high-end detail, etc. (Of course, the participants were never told the NAUGHTY TRUTH, lest they become an enemy for life!)
So why does a reputable company like DAL engage in the design and manufacture of audiophile cables? The answer is simple: since significant measurable differences do exist and because well-known and understood transmission line theory defines optimum relationships between such parameters as cable impedance and the impedance of the load (loudspeaker), the capacitance of an interconnect and the input impedance of the following stage, why not design cables that at least satisfy what theory has to teach? And, since transmission line theory is universally applied, quite successfully, in the design of cables intended for TV, microwave, telephone, and other critical applications requiring peak performance, etc., why not use it in designing cables intended for critical audiophile applications? Hmmm! To say, as some do, that there are factors involved that competent engineers and scientists have yet to identify is utter nonsense and a cover-up for what should be called pure snake oil and buzzard salve - in short, pure fraud. If any cable manufacturer, writer, technician, etc. can identify such an audible design parameter that cannot be measured using available lab equipment or be described by known theory, I can guarantee a nomination for a Nobel Prize.
Anyway, I just had to share some of my favorite Hmmm's, regarding cable myths and seemingly fraudulent claims, with audiophiles on the net who may lack the technical expertise to separate fact from fiction with regard to cable performance. I also welcome comments from those who may have other opinions or who may know of something I might have missed or misunderstood regarding cable design, theory or secret criteria used by competitors to achieve performance that cannot be measured or identified by conventional means. Lets all try to get to the bottom of this mess by open, informed and objective inquiry.
I sincerely believe the time has come for concerned audiophiles, true engineers, competent physicists, academics, mag editors, etc. to take a firm stand regarding much of this disturbing new trend in the blatantly false claims frequently found in cable advertising. If we fail to do so, reputable designers, engineers, manufacturers, magazine editors and product reviewers may find their reputation tarnished beyond repair among those of the audiophile community we are supposed to serve.
Best regards,
John Dunlavy
Date: Tue, 5 Nov 1996 13:08:50 -0500
From: 102365.2026@compuserve.com (Dunlavy Audio Labs)
To: bass@mcfeeley.cc.utexas.edu (bass group)
Subject: Cable Nonsense (Long)
Having read some of the recent comments on several of the Internet audio groups, concerning audible differences between interconnect and loudspeaker cables, I could not resist adding some thoughts about the subject as a concerned engineer possessing credible credentials.
To begin, several companies design and manufacture loudspeaker and interconnect cables which they proudly claim possess optimized electrical properties for the audiophile applications intended. However, accurate measurements of several popularly selling cables reveal significant differences that call into question the technical goals of their designer. These differences also question the capability of the companies to perform accurate measurements of important cable performance properties. For example, any company not possessing a precision C-L-R bridge, a Vector Impedance Meter, a Network Analyzer, a precision waveform and impulse generator, wideband precision oscilloscopes, etc., probably needs to purchase them if they are truly serious about designing audio cables that provide premium performance.
The measurable properties of loudspeaker cables that are important to their performance include characteristic impedance (series inductance and parallel capacitance per unit length), loss resistance (including additional resistance due to skin-effect losses versus frequency), dielectric losses versus frequency (loss tangent, etc.), velocity-of-propagation factor, overall loss versus frequency into different impedance loads, etc.
Measurable properties of interconnect cables include all of the above, with the addition of those properties of the dielectric material that contribute to microphonic noise in the presence of ambient vibration, noise, etc. (in combination with a D.C. off-set created by a pre-amp output circuit, etc.).
While competent cable manufacturers should be aware of these measurements and the need to make them during the design of their cables, the raw truth is that most do not! Proof of this can be found in the absurd buzzard-salve, snake-oil and meaningless advertising claims found in almost all magazine ads and product literature for audiophile cables. Perhaps worse, very few of the expensive, high-tech appearing cables we have measured appear to have been designed in accordance with the well-known laws and principles taught by proper physics and engineering disciplines. (Where are the costly Government Consumer Protection people who are supposed to protect innocent members of the public by identifying and policing questionable performance claims, misleading specifications, etc.?) --- Caveat Emptor!
For example, claiming that copper wire is directional, that slow-moving electrons create distortion as they haphazardly carry the signal along a wire, that cables store and release energy as signals propagate along them, that a final energy component (improperly labeled as Joules) is the measure of the tonality of cables, ad nauseum, are but a few of the non-entities used in advertisements to describe cable performance.
Another pet peeve of mine is the concept of a special configuration included with a loudspeaker cable which is advertised as being able to terminate the cable in a matter intended to deliver more accurate tonality, better imaging, lower noise, etc. The real truth is that this special configuration contains nothing more than a simple, inexpensive network intended to prevent poorly-designed amplifiers, with a too-high slew-rate (obtained at the expense of instability caused by too much inverse-feedback) from oscillating when connected to a loudspeaker through a low-loss, low-impedance cable. When this box appears at the loudspeaker-end of a cable, it seldom contains nothing more than a Zobel network, which is usually a series resistor-capacitor network, connector in parallel with the wires of the cable. If it is at the amplifier-end of the cable, it is probably either a parallel resistor-inductor network, connected in series with the cable conductors (or a simple cylindrical ferrite sleeve covering both conductors). But the proper place for such a network, if it is needed to insure amplifier stability and prevent high-frequency oscillations, is within the amplifier - not along the loudspeaker cable. Hmmm!
Having said all this, are there really any significant audible differences between most cables that can be consistently identified by experienced listeners? The answer is simple: very seldom! Those who claim otherwise do not fully grasp the power of the old Placebo-Effect - which is very alive and well among even the most well-intentioned listeners. The placebo-effect renders audible signatures easy to detect and describe - if the listener knows which cable is being heard. But, take away this knowledge during blind or double-blind listening comparisons and the differences either disappear completely or hover close to the level of random guessing. Speaking as a competent professional engineer, designer and manufacturer, nothing would please me and my company's staff more than being able to design a cable which consistently yielded a positive score during blind listening comparisons against other cables. But it only rarely happens - if we wish to be honest!
Oh yes, we have heard of golden-eared audiophiles who claim to be able to consistently identify huge, audible differences between cables. But when these experts have visited our facility and were put to the test under carefully-controlled conditions, they invariably failed to yield a score any better than chance. For example, when led to believe that three popular cables were being compared, varying in size from a high-quality 12 AWG ZIP-CORD to a high-tech looking cable with a diameter exceeding an inch, the largest and sexiest looking cable always scored best - even though the CABLES WERE NEVER CHANGED and they listened to the ZIP Cord the entire time.
Sorry, but I do not buy the claims of those who say they can always audibly identify differences between cables, even when the comparisons are properly controlled to ensure that the identity of the cable being heard is not known by the listener. We have accomplished too many true blind comparisons with listeners possessing the right credentials, including impeccable hearing attributes, to know that real, audible differences seldom exist - if the comparisons are properly implemented to eliminate other causes such as system interactions with cables, etc.
Indeed, during these comparisons (without changing cables), some listeners were able to describe in great detail the big differences they thought they heard in bass, high-end detail, etc. (Of course, the participants were never told the NAUGHTY TRUTH, lest they become an enemy for life!)
So why does a reputable company like DAL engage in the design and manufacture of audiophile cables? The answer is simple: since significant measurable differences do exist and because well-known and understood transmission line theory defines optimum relationships between such parameters as cable impedance and the impedance of the load (loudspeaker), the capacitance of an interconnect and the input impedance of the following stage, why not design cables that at least satisfy what theory has to teach? And, since transmission line theory is universally applied, quite successfully, in the design of cables intended for TV, microwave, telephone, and other critical applications requiring peak performance, etc., why not use it in designing cables intended for critical audiophile applications? Hmmm! To say, as some do, that there are factors involved that competent engineers and scientists have yet to identify is utter nonsense and a cover-up for what should be called pure snake oil and buzzard salve - in short, pure fraud. If any cable manufacturer, writer, technician, etc. can identify such an audible design parameter that cannot be measured using available lab equipment or be described by known theory, I can guarantee a nomination for a Nobel Prize.
Anyway, I just had to share some of my favorite Hmmm's, regarding cable myths and seemingly fraudulent claims, with audiophiles on the net who may lack the technical expertise to separate fact from fiction with regard to cable performance. I also welcome comments from those who may have other opinions or who may know of something I might have missed or misunderstood regarding cable design, theory or secret criteria used by competitors to achieve performance that cannot be measured or identified by conventional means. Lets all try to get to the bottom of this mess by open, informed and objective inquiry.
I sincerely believe the time has come for concerned audiophiles, true engineers, competent physicists, academics, mag editors, etc. to take a firm stand regarding much of this disturbing new trend in the blatantly false claims frequently found in cable advertising. If we fail to do so, reputable designers, engineers, manufacturers, magazine editors and product reviewers may find their reputation tarnished beyond repair among those of the audiophile community we are supposed to serve.
Best regards,
John Dunlavy
Welcome to AK.
I find this statement offensive, and against our credo. I've seen far too many threads around the boards lately, with "contributions" from the usual suspects, arguing about the same old nit-picky and horse-beaten bullsh#t.
Both you and chadnliz should chill out.
Our Thinking Out Loud forum is the appropriate venue for this type of discussion, IMO.
Welcome Chingon.
Nice to hear some properly reasoned input from an engineer, rather than the usual "golden eared" brigade!
I have to agree with pretty much everything you have said, as my experience tells me the same.
In my job I get to play with some very well designed, expensive cable from the likes of Swiss company Huber & Suhner amongst others.... apart from shielding, these sound no different to cheap zip-cord, assuming the guage is the same. (I commonly use 5M lengths on my audio system)
Nice to hear some properly reasoned input from an engineer, rather than the usual "golden eared" brigade!
I have to agree with pretty much everything you have said, as my experience tells me the same.
In my job I get to play with some very well designed, expensive cable from the likes of Swiss company Huber & Suhner amongst others.... apart from shielding, these sound no different to cheap zip-cord, assuming the guage is the same. (I commonly use 5M lengths on my audio system)
exracer
music speaks
Well I will just add a comment that every Transparent dealer has a kit of Transparents' cables, from budget(relative) to exotic, which they lend out so that prospective customers can try their cables in their own home. Now maybe it is possible that thay sell their thousand dollar Ultra cables over their entry line sub-$200 music links just because people like the way they look, or they want to impress their friends, or they just believe they hear the difference, but also possibly the in home demo kit comes back without the thousand dollar cables because the customer actually likes the sound better than the entry level interconnects. Believe what you want.
While I am an engineer (ME) I did not write any of the copy/paste above (w/the exception of the remark that got me in "trouble" ; just want to get that out of the way). If someone's said it better why bother re-writing it?
So true!
Unfortunately, unless you sing the praises of overpriced wire & small jars of stones, you will run into a lot of that!
I'm currently running GLL/Tannoy ICT speakers, which being a true point source with an inductively coupled tweeter in the pole piece of the driver, mean that there is no crossover to sap power & cause other problems
Cable is H+S Radox 3GKW 1.5mm2 5M long, which has replaced household lighting 1.5mm2 twin, purely because it is flexible multi core rather than single solid core.
My hearing must be reasonably good, as at 33 years of age, I can still hear right the way up to 23KHz, yet I can't find a single difference in sound between these extremely different cables.
As far as bi-wiring goes, i've been there, done that... (on many different speakers)
Did it sound "better"? Yes
Did it still sound the same when I replaced the bridging links? Yes
However, when restoring & modifying speakers, I always add dual sets of binding posts... don't ask me why!
... Because I do it! :yes:
I bi-wire my modded Tannoy Oxfords, use 10AWG OFC stranded for bass & 18AWG solid for treble. Whether it makes any difference or not is debatable, but it looks nice and seems to impress my friends... And it cost next to nothing to do, since I don't personally believe in using expensive cables when my multimeter tells me these have less than 0.01 ohm resistance anyway
... Because I do it! :yes:
I bi-wire my modded Tannoy Oxfords, use 10AWG OFC stranded for bass & 18AWG solid for treble. Whether it makes any difference or not is debatable, but it looks nice and seems to impress my friends... And it cost next to nothing to do, since I don't personally believe in using expensive cables when my multimeter tells me these have less than 0.01 ohm resistance anyway
If an instrument w/sensitivities of +/- 1% can't measure it, I'm not going to fool myself into believing I would.
Brett a
~◦●○o0o○●◦~
Instead you're going to fool yourself that you can't?
You shouldn't think so little of your own abilities as to think a measuring device is going to do a better job at picking up such subtleties.
Last edited:
Test equipment with a basic accuracy of +/-1%... don't make me laugh!
Some of us:
A) Are Qualified engineers.
B) Don't buy test equipment at radio shack.
C) Don't believe marketing hype.
D) Repair & modify other companies offerings.
E) Design & build our own hi-fi gear.
Maybe it is me, but I don't get your point.....
Brett a
~◦●○o0o○●◦~
I think he's trying to say that he trusts his test equipment more than he trusts his ears. Andhe might also be trying to say that we're fools for thinking differently than he does.
Last edited:
draconus
Mal from Oz
After reading this thread with some curiosity, as an experiment, just bi-wired my B & W 683's (using $2.00/metre electrical twin-flex) over the top of the existing Tara Labs Prism speaker cables....
FWIW... I just stuck on my Madeleine Peyroux - Dreamland CD much to the wife's disgust (I always use her to see if there are any differences after a tweak).
Anyway - initial thoughts: not much change in bass but her vocal, the guitar and the piano appear to be significantly more forward and more defined. A bit surprised I must confess. Took the bi-wire off, played same CD again, then put them back on played it a third time (wife now cringing) - definitely a difference.
Will I keep this configuration ? Too early to say :scratch2:
YMMV
FWIW... I just stuck on my Madeleine Peyroux - Dreamland CD much to the wife's disgust (I always use her to see if there are any differences after a tweak).
Anyway - initial thoughts: not much change in bass but her vocal, the guitar and the piano appear to be significantly more forward and more defined. A bit surprised I must confess. Took the bi-wire off, played same CD again, then put them back on played it a third time (wife now cringing) - definitely a difference.
Will I keep this configuration ? Too early to say :scratch2:
YMMV
