Bi-Wiring & Bi-amping Clear As Mud?

[DanO55]

Thanks for Sharing

You either don't know how to read or were ignorant in commenting because you chose not to. There seems to always be at least one wanker in the crowd. You have the honour of being the first. If these useless comments are the way you wish to contribute to the forum then by all means. I cordially ask you and anyone else with nothing constructive to add to "contribute" elsewhere.

Touchy. There was absolutely no intent to diss ya buddy. It is a question that comes up weekly. That is all my comment referred to. As far as ignorant, your response to my post says it all.

 

[Markw]

This still doesn't make sense to me because "bi-wire" config #1 and config #2 are essentially the same when you consider the A & B amp terminals in #2 are in parallel. The separate terminals of each channel MUST be in parallel when bi-wiring of any form.

This is EXACTLY my point. This is the first time it's been acknowledged. I don't recall seeing that stipulation mentioned earlier.

Now, if both wires were eminating from the SAME speaker termiaal then this would not be an issue.

There are some units out there where they are in series and odds are that many don't know they have them..

As I said before, aside from that minor issue, good job.

 

[OverLoad]

I did touch upon the parallel configuration

 

[CruzBay]

Biwire 3=1 and biwire 4=2 if the jumpers are left in.

What did I win?

 

[OverLoad]

Tell him what he's won Chuck> you've won an all expense paid trip to the moon :butt2:

 

[Rick Vestal]

You should also try doing a little reading Rick

I am VERY well versed on the concept of bi wiring and neither of those fit the definition based on the alleged benefits of bi wiring in the first place... Perhaps a little further reading on your part might be in order. Its similar to me saying that my stacking my car on top of yours is parallel parking.

Diagram #3 is perfectly correct however.

 

[stereofanboy]

If you are going to provide diagrams and charts, can you please provide them for the inside of the speaker cabinet? What is going on with the crossover in bi-wireable and/or bi-ampable speakers?

 

[Markw]

Yes, clear as mud

I did touch upon the parallel configuration

I've done systems documentation for various software products developed by several of the companies I've worked for ove rmy career. Saying something clearly is a virtue. Merely "touching on" something is a guaranteed way to invoke problems.

Caveats should be stated clearly up front, not hidden in the subtext.

As I said several times before, your work is good but could use a bit of clarification in that area. I think your steadfast defense of your wording is interesting. All I did was gently, and politely, point out what is a glaring lack of clarity in part of your submission. I didn't want to start an argument.

Apparantly you seem to feel it's perfect as is. If all you wanted was validation you should have said so in the first place.

 

[hjames]

Please read the original post again. What you describe is bi-wire config #3, not bi-amp. I believe what you received with your Vandersteens are a pair of XLO bi-wire cables.

I fixed the typo - was thinking biwire and type biamp again.
Now please delete your response with the attitude.

 

[Somenut1]

Perfect example esp for us rookies, Guys like you are teachers to the guys like us. Good Job.

 

[House de Kris]

I fixed the typo - was thinking biwire and type biamp again.
Now please delete your response with the attitude.

I dunno now... I came back to this thread to delete my post, but attitude? I even used the magic word, please. My intent was to be helpful, not talking down to you. What if a newbie came here looking for information and saw your post in its original version? This would cause confusion, and I was trying to avoid that. Avoiding confusion is, I believe, the intent of this thread.

Have a good day (that's sincerity, not attitude).

 

[CruzBay]

Tell him what he's won Chuck> you've won an all expense paid trip to the moon :butt2:

Would you mind making that a round trip?

I'm set up for your #3 diagram for my home system, but haven't hooked it up yet.

 

[Brett a]

Thanks for taking the time. Obviously, it has already helped a few people understand what these configurations mean.


But I agree with Mark W. that even including bi-wire configurations #1 and #2 only serve to keep the pond muddied up. The reason I feel this way is because, although they are possible , they are never practiced or recommended AFAIK. So by including them, it pushes the presentation into information overload IMO.

Please people, read things in their entirety. As stated throughout my write up, I don't want this to turn into a debate on the merits of the various configurations or whether they are deemed so called "correct" or any of the other BS that these topics ALWAYS create. It's all the nonsense and misinformation that muddies the waters. The bottom line is that the configurations are ALL viable from a technical stand point regardless if one thinks there is any merit but this was NOT the focus of my write up.

I think you opened your own can of worms suggesting that bi-wiring 3&4 are no different than 1&2. When in practice, they often yield different sonic results (the truth of which is the essence of the "debate")

And I'm a little offended that you assume I didn't read things carefully. I did; and I came to this view.

What is incorrect about config 1 & 2? Are the connections not possible to do? Why yes they are. I can only assume that you agree with bi-wire config #4 so with that, please tell me the difference between config 3 and 4? I'll give you a hint.... THERE IS NONE. Think about it

As I had suggested before, I think all this consternation could be/could have been avoided if you simply started the presentation at bi-wire #3, B/C, in real life that's where the practice starts (or should IMO)
But really, thanks for taking the time. It sheds necessary light on what really should be a simple topic.

 

[tunz]

OverLoad Thank you.

 

[Brett a]

After thinking a bit more, what I was trying to say a couple post back is that you have to have speakers with two sets of binding posts before you should start thinking about the topic. It just adds confusion to suggest someone try bi-wiring to a single set of speaker terminals.

 

[TOM1040]

OverLoad Thank you.

I thank you as well. :yes:

 

[OverLoad]

I think you opened your own can of worms suggesting that bi-wiring 3&4 are no different than 1&2. When in practice, they often yield different sonic results (the truth of which is the essence of the "debate")

Please show me where I once stated this.

The reason I added "bi-wire" config#1 and #2 is because there has been people asking about those very set-ups and things like if I do this is, is this bi-wiring and other such questions. As I have clearly stated, this is not considered bi-wiring. I, me, myself, called them bi-wire just to give them a name. You say it muddies, I say it clears. It gives a pretty clear picture that yes, you can very well go a head and do these connections. However, once you SEE and can COMPARE config#1 and #2 with #3 & #4 and it being stated that #3 & #4 are what's referred to as bi-wiring it should be ummm well clear

 

[CruzBay]

I think it was actually me that suggested the connection among the diagrams, not him.

I didn't go through the posts again, FWIW.

Biwire 3=1 and biwire 4=2 if the jumpers are left in.

What did I win?

Please show me where I once stated this.

The reason I added "bi-wire" config#1 and #2 is because there has been people asking about those very set-ups and things like if I do this is, is this bi-wiring and other such questions. As I have clearly stated, this is not considered bi-wiring. I, me, myself, called them bi-wire just to give them a name. You say it muddies, I say it clears. It gives a pretty clear picture that yes, you can very well go a head and do these connections. However, once you SEE and can COMPARE config#1 and #2 with #3 & #4 and it being stated that #3 & #4 are what's referred to as bi-wiring it should be ummm well clear

 

[tnmike1]

I've tried bi-wiring my speakers so tell me if I did it right:

have B&W 601 speakers that have bi-wiring terminals. Have a Marantz 2230 with single posts--if that is the correct term--to connect speaker wire. So what I've done is run the wire from the speakers then twisted the ends together so they can go into the Marantz receiver terminals.

Have I done this properly??

Also, if I want to upgrade my cabling is there a cable that has a single connection for the receiver then double connection for the speakers??

And thanks for the education. Have been scratching my head over this for quite a while

 

[Ohifio]

Absolutely no confusion here. #1 & #2 are absolutely possible connection methods. If on #2 the A & B speaker terminals are indeed parallel with one another, and I know of no amp equipped with A & B that is not like that then electrically there is almost no difference in #1 and #2. That said what seems to be offered by #1 & #2 is that you put two different cables with differing electrical properties i.e. silver or copper, different self inductance properties, different capacitance, different twists, stranded or solid, flat/ribbon or conventional, different gauges, etc. You really have to be in the wire has a sound camp to see #1 & #2 as a substantive bi-wire configuration but as the OP stated no debate about which is a valid implementation. So I say thanks much OverLoad for the diagrams and clarification. :thmbsp: