whoaru99
Epic Member
But they are not separated. They are still in parallel, only with long jumpers rather than short jumpers.
All it would seem to do is move the point of disturbance, not eliminate it.
Bi-wiring via separate speaker outs
- Thread starter pocketrabbit
- Start date
-
- Tags
- bi-wiring
But they are not separated. They are still in parallel, only with long jumpers rather than short jumpers.
All it would seem to do is move the point of disturbance, not eliminate it.
unfairlane
Well-Known Member
You do not get this do you? Biwiring is a lot moore effective than most audiophiles thinks. Only a few meters of separation does a lot to the high-frequense signal. The reciever-guys might not get too much out of it, but the closer you get to the higher end the moore..
whoaru99
Epic Member
onplane
What! No Wake???
Thanks for the clarification, Jeff.
As I mentioned earlier, I would use remote for the high frequency drivers. This gets you flexibility in that you could listen to either half of your speakers alone for diagnostic purposes.
In terms of additive resistance, there isn't any. Each half of your speaker will see a switch (with some finite resistance) and then the amp. The amount of that resistance should be the same as if going through a single switch. There is a difference IF BACK EMF is significant. (Now I'm not saying it's real. I'm merely stating the situation if it were real.)
OK, returning to Back EMF, it would have to pass through two switches before it could impact the high frequency drivers. These switches will have some finite resistance and thus will knock down this back EMF (if it indeed exists).
Regards,
Jerry
Last edited:
no..
it's pointless to bi-wire from the same amp circuit .. main and remote is barely same thing as speaker A and B, which are both either parallel or series in some models to the same left and right circuit.
as others mentioned one biwiring logic is to eliminate the back EMF signal generated by the larger drivers hence reduce distortion in the circuit.
if you plug a volt meter to a woofer, and then push the coil in and out you will see that it actually generates voltage..
when your amp drives the woofer, bass notes played, amp sends voltage signals to the woofer, but woofer's mechanic movement also creates its own voltage, and this is dumped back to the amplifier as well as other speaker drivers in the circuit, where amp has to deal with this and eliminate it from the new signals it sends.. some amps are better are doing this some are not. this is the basic explanation of what EMF signal on the speaker wire is.
using bigger dual wires, to gain tiny resistance improvements is insignificant.. just parallel the terminals and plug as normal speakers.
other useful aspects of bi-wiring is if you for instance use active crossovers via processors and then run these from different amplifiers,
so basically if you want to bi-wire, you need individual amps for each channel, you need two stereo amps for a two way speaker and sometimes 3 stereo amps for a three way biwire if there are 6 terminals.
Last edited:
I think you are talking about bi-amping which is a totally different animal.
hmm... yes thinking over it, there might actually be some use in using dual wiring even from the same terminal.. in theory amplifier's back signal error correction in this case would apply to both lines at the source level.. instead of woofer emf dumping directly to the HF line in the crossover level, i ll give it a go today and check if there is any audible difference.
i found a somewhat sensible reading here https://www.qacoustics.co.uk/blog/2016/06/08/bi-wiring-speakers-exploration-benefits/
i think some of it is mere bullshit.. i can't wrap my mind exactly how it might help..
even the error correction of the amp further thinking on it is between the + and -, not on the + paralelled coming from the speakers.
the fact that half of the hifi world aparently names this buywiring, proves my suspicion.. the article above talks about high and low frequencies travelling from different cables.. IMO this is utter BS analogy..
if there is any audible effect that can be created by doing this, could possibly be either
1- crap cables used to begin with, hence dual crap cables performs better
2- all in the imagination.. which is very often observed on hifi lovers
3- there might be a slight advantage in increasing the distance of HF to LF sides so EMF has to travel a longer way before it can distort the HF driver.. in this case using longer cables would theoretically be more beneficial. and maybe inductance and capacitance of the longer wiring might be having some sort of dampening effect on the created EMF..
even if there is somewhat difference that is measurable only by a device, i don't think this will be audible.. though, i'll give it the benefit of the doubt, and have a listen today.
i think some of it is mere bullshit.. i can't wrap my mind exactly how it might help..
even the error correction of the amp further thinking on it is between the + and -, not on the + paralelled coming from the speakers.
the fact that half of the hifi world aparently names this buywiring, proves my suspicion.. the article above talks about high and low frequencies travelling from different cables.. IMO this is utter BS analogy..
if there is any audible effect that can be created by doing this, could possibly be either
1- crap cables used to begin with, hence dual crap cables performs better
2- all in the imagination.. which is very often observed on hifi lovers
3- there might be a slight advantage in increasing the distance of HF to LF sides so EMF has to travel a longer way before it can distort the HF driver.. in this case using longer cables would theoretically be more beneficial. and maybe inductance and capacitance of the longer wiring might be having some sort of dampening effect on the created EMF..
even if there is somewhat difference that is measurable only by a device, i don't think this will be audible.. though, i'll give it the benefit of the doubt, and have a listen today.
onplane
What! No Wake???
Glenn, not just proximity changes (i.e. back EMF is adjacent to the HF xover in the speaker), but if you use the A and Remote switches, the back EMF has to traverse two switches and two lengths of cable before it can get to the HF xover.
I mean that is the bi-wire argument. I know some really smart guys in the business who state unequivocally that back EMF is insignificant.
I do not bi-wire. Instead, I choose to passive bi-amp and I know I can hear a difference! There can be no argument here as I vary the power sent to each half to suit my ear. I change upon changing sources or indeed, even upon changing audio channels.
Regards,
Jerry
Can you explain passive bi-amp, please?
hi Jerry,
if this is what you mean http://i322.photobucket.com/albums/nn416/VintageAudi0/Stereo Configurations/6_Horizontal_Bi-Amp.jpg
i am all in for that.. i can see the full reason and logic behind this,,
in fact i find it a very adventurous and interesting game as it gives you many aspects to play with.. you can even use different amplifiers excelling at different tonal qualities for HF and LF to get very interesting results from the speakers.
he means not using active crossovers
So basically feeding the woofer and tweeter from two separate amps through the built in crossover.
Doesn't that mess with the impedance the amplifiers see?
Doesn't that mess with the impedance the amplifiers see?
not necessarily..
the main load on your impedance to the amp is from the woofer, that is the biggest power sucker..
you ll see speaker drivers in a cabinet, all rated for instance 4 ohm midrange, 4 ohm tweeter, 4 ohm woofer, but speaker is rated nominal 4 ohms.. 3 in parallel should have reduced this to under 2 ohms.. but it doesn't due to the crossover and HF driver loads being insignificant in proportion to bigger drivers
maybe in very high volume systems this might be an issue, but you ll choose good amps that suit the load anyway.
this is the system i was explaining in my first post and why it makes sense.
someone else might be able to formulate this more scientifically .. i don't like math and formulas
onplane
What! No Wake???
Glenn, actually what they were measuring with current probes was current flow at different frequencies in single wire vs bi-wire. This is the one part of the article that does make sense. Now, both wires will see exactly the same voltage. Current, however, will split up such that there will be negligible LF current in the tweeter lines and similarly negligible HF current flowing in the woofer lines.
Now, the real mumbo jumbo is how this relates to IM distortion. Significant IM distortion is created when we mix high and low frequencies and then .... amplify!
Regards,
Jerry
@GlenGC post#38
I was thinking that since the amp sees the full signal but is only allowed to reproduce the highs or lows it might present a problem.
But then most NON-tube (solid-state) amps have no problem with an infinite impedance (no speaker connected) so this probably isn't an issue.
A lower impedance would present a problem but that isn't the case here.
I was thinking that since the amp sees the full signal but is only allowed to reproduce the highs or lows it might present a problem.
But then most NON-tube (solid-state) amps have no problem with an infinite impedance (no speaker connected) so this probably isn't an issue.
A lower impedance would present a problem but that isn't the case here.
Last edited:
hi Jerry,
then their argument is the current load on the "wire", yes i can understand that.. but amp is still pushing same full frequency towards both of the cables.. at the crossover end of HF for instance, the lower frequencies are filtered, and as these are high passed, naturally the load on that wire reduces, so less current. so, what they say in the article, "high and low frequencies split on the wire" umm.. impossible ? regardless of what the amp receives back from that particular crossover loop, it cannot magically split HF LF load on paralleled wires.. what am i missing ?
only distant benefit i can imagine is what i theorised as
3- there might be a slight advantage in increasing the distance of HF to LF sides so EMF has to travel a longer way before it can distort the HF driver.. in this case using longer cables would theoretically be more beneficial. and maybe inductance and capacitance of the longer wiring might be having some sort of dampening effect on the created EMF..
onplane
What! No Wake???
Hi, Glenn, that pic you posted is close, but I use (recycle) strictly integrated amps/receivers. Thus I have two volume controls, one for each speaker half.
Some have asked, "Isn't that a pain? I mean to change volume you have to make two adjustments."
My answer is: you get accustomed to it real fast, and the speaker voice control is well worth it!
Next, Glenn, your comment about using different amps is spot on! Absolutely, you can mix amps. I'm a huge proponent of recycling those old mid power amps collecting dust in our basements. I've proved that if you use tone controls judiciously, you can use mid power amps on the HF drivers, and have even more headroom than you have on the high power "brute" driving the woofers...
http://audiokarma.org/forums/index....d-power-receivers-and-integrated-amps.771788/
Regards,
Jerry
Last edited:
AFAIK a full range amp reproduces full range no matter what you do at the crossover level..
crossover merely dumps or ignores the full range signal to split desired frequencies
hence.. it would make no difference for the amp..
with a bi-amp system, you can also do things like, use a high power amp for the LF, but use a High quality for instance pure class A amp only rated 20 watts or something and still get balanced even sound..
depending on the speakers of course, how many and what type of drivers are in the HF line
onplane
What! No Wake???
Glenn, when you have separate wires for the HF and LF drivers, the current in those wires will flow due strictly to the load. Thus the woofers will create a serious load on low frequencies, but almost no load for high frequencies. So they argue we do not mix HF current and LF current, thus by magic we get lower IM distortion.
That's the part that bothers me. Mixing high and low frequencies should not of itself cause IM distortion. IM distortion is a by-production of non linearity in the amplification stage.
On the back EMF, the idea is to get it back to the amp and let the amp "kill" it before it can get to the HF drivers. There are two problems with these back EMF arguments:
1. Very knowledgeable people maintain back EMF is insignificant
2. Even if it were significant, the frequencies would be low and totally rejected by the HF xover
Like I said, Glenn, since I have sooo many old amps, I prefer to passive bi-amp and I can guarantee there is an audible difference!
Regards,
Jerry
Last edited: