Why Bi-wiring Makes No Sense.

[jneutron]

Teaching cannot be done apart from teachability... and that has to a) exist, and b) be granted. Force-feeding knowledge never works, so I suspect the ones who want to learn from threads like this will hand around and the rest will move on.

Yah, I know..I tried.

But one of the best things to happen is to see the eyes light up when a sudden dawn of realization occurs. That makes the attempts all worth while. Someday, someone's gonna post a "holy mackeral, there is an anomoly there just like ya said".... And then either concur with the provided explanation, or submit a different, plausible one which also satisfies the anomoly without breaking any of the laws of thermodynamics.

So far, the refutations provided all break the law of conservation of energy..I cannot accept that.

For a moment there, I saw a glint...sigh. Well, let's see.

If there are lurkers here who do read these posts and enjoy, that's good.

Cheers, John

 

[rode]

Rod...you used a simulation package?? I told you that your simulator doesn't have the correct math package to see what I am talking about..I warned you.

You are using a DC voltmeter to look at an AC waveform..and proclaiming victory

John,
I just sent you a PM for follow-up on this. Yes, I used a simulator, and while it may not have the maths capability that you need for your calculations, it generally gives results that agree with reality (whatever that is)

I didn't use a DC voltmeter - SIMetrix only has 'voltmeters', and AC parameters are all computed. Nor did I proclaim victory - just that there was no measurable difference between the signals.

The (agreed by most) lack of audibility of the issue and the fact that it has never been brought up before would seem to indicate that there's not much in it. My primary concern is that it seems that your calculations imply intermodulation distortion, and this has never been shown in any measurement of metallic conductors (at least for all 'normal' signals).

Cheers, Rod

 

[Audioholics]

If there are lurkers here who do read these posts and enjoy, that's good.

Of course there are - and those three guys really love these kinds of topics - I'M JUST KIDDING! haha

 

[mtrycrafts]

To have any affect whatsoever, there has to be a difference between channels.. If the lf and hf are both center, nothing will happen to the image regardless of any effect.

But if one channel has lf, while both have the hf center image...that is where lateral shifting of the image can occur.

I've never heard this with music, only contrived signals..
Cheers, John

Thanks. I am just too dense
If the low fr in the left channel had a value that was equal to the high fr in that channel, you would have this effect of a capability of shifting the high fr image by that magnitude, 5 ft, by your calculation, correct? Would that depend at all what the same signals magnitude is in the other channel? Why?

And, if I see your picture, if the high fr was playing, that image presented someplace in the soundstage, a low fr comes along with signal on one channel equal to the high fr, what would happen then? Why wouldn't that high fr image shift?

In your special signals for this, did you experiment on duration of signal for audibility? a few ms duration works? Longer? Shorter? Curious minds are hard to squelch

 

[Alex2507]

Of course there are - and those three guys really love these kinds of topics - I'M JUST KIDDING! haha

and the rest of us just wonder wtf ????? ...........

 

[mtrycrafts]

I have pointed out multiple times the obvious anomoly of dissipation in case 2 of my diagrams, yet everybody dismisses it without thought..

Cheers, John

Uhm, not totally I am trying to understand this issue, really. Not as swift as you.

 

[jneutron]

John,
I just sent you a PM for follow-up on this. Yes, I used a simulator, and while it may not have the maths capability that you need for your calculations, it generally gives results that agree with reality (whatever that is)

As far as I am aware, the simulators and equations we have been taught and used (me for 3.5 decades) have agreed with reality. I've never had any reason to think it was otherwise.....till now.. I really can't blame you for using what we have all been taught is accurate.

I didn't use a DC voltmeter - SIMetrix only has 'voltmeters', and AC parameters are all computed. Nor did I proclaim victory - just that there was no measurable difference between the signals.

Ah, the statement referring to a dc voltmeter was allegorical. As part of my teaching advanced electrical safety here, I have to stress very carefully the use of BOTH a DC and AC meter to verify the de-energization of some circuits when both are present in a system. So I was using it as I do in my class, the use of a tool which is not correct for the job.

When I said "proclaim victory", I was referring to your statements of "red herring", with a "red hue". You were alluding to "problem over".

The (agreed by most) lack of audibility of the issue and the fact that it has never been brought up before would seem to indicate that there's not much in it.

I certainly concur as to both lack of audibility and "not much in it". For the latter, just raising the guage lowers the effect, it is possible however, that any audibility of change could as easily been attributed to inductance change, or damping factor. I see much floobydust around when it comes to inductance..statements like larger guages have less inductance, or even skin effect occurring at audio frequencies and normal guage wires causing or removing "something".

The former, audibility...if the effect is shifting localization cues a foot or so, the standard DBT testing methodology is not equipped to find that reliably, as humans ADAPT to altered localization cues, AND, there is no recorded music which has the correct localization cues for a specific speaker system setup geometry. For localization cue drift, current test methodology is not up to the task.

My primary concern is that it seems that your calculations imply intermodulation distortion, and this has never been shown in any measurement of metallic conductors (at least for all 'normal' signals).
Cheers, Rod

That is indeed a good concern. The possibility that IM products were missed over decades of work is certainly implausible..However, a low level error component which is not visible to current test methods such as FFT's, well, we've never had reason to suspect the existance of a signal we can't see.

Don't worry about "metallic" conductors, as nowhere in my discussion have I alluded to some wonderful subatomic or quasi-dimensional magic to cover my assertions. I have simply used the equation P = I²R, and a law of thermodynamics.

I'll check the PM. I've blocked popups, so have to finish the post first.

Cheers, John

 

[jneutron]

Of course there are - and those three guys really love these kinds of topics - I'M JUST KIDDING! haha

Bah...I think perhaps you are overestimating...

Cheers, John

 

[jneutron]

Thanks. I am just too dense
If the low fr in the left channel had a value that was equal to the high fr in that channel, you would have this effect of a capability of shifting the high fr image by that magnitude, 5 ft, by your calculation, correct? Would that depend at all what the same signals magnitude is in the other channel? Why?

Don't get hung up on the 5 foot number.

A while ago, I had read (Roger Russel I believe) that the recommendation for wire guage vs distance for a speaker was based on the wire resistance being les than 5% of the speaker impedance, limiting the power loss to 5%. A reasonable number if there are no other consequences..

So the 5 foot number is based on using a wire at that 5% limit. In most practical applications I am aware of, specifically home audio, nobody uses wire that small. So the .2dB number, hence the 5 foot drift, is a calculated maximum. Everybody uses larger guage.

And, if I see your picture, if the high fr was playing, that image presented someplace in the soundstage, a low fr comes along with signal on one channel equal to the high fr, what would happen then? Why wouldn't that high fr image shift?

The lf will cause the dissipation on that channel to change, sometimes being larger, sometimes being smaller, average being exactly the same as without the lf. So that channel's signal will waver a tad. This will cause the image to waver. And the beast of it is, with the hf and a lf signal present, the confounding and masking effects make it so much more difficult to detect.

That's certainly why I haven't heard it..and I suspect most others.

In your special signals for this, did you experiment on duration of signal for audibility? a few ms duration works? Longer? Shorter? Curious minds are hard to squelch

I ran a band limited mono audio signal into both channels...then pushed a 20 hz signal into one, never taking the amp anywhere close to max..I ran perhaps 10 watts.

I used a qsc rmx1450 as drive, and my speakers are comprised of an eminence 15 incher (sigma pro I think) in a bass cab, a delta pro 12 inch mid and selenium d205ti in a hid/high cab. The best part about that setup is I have the mid/high physically detached from the bass cabs, so I can actually put the bass cabs in another room. Wires: neutriks both ends, 12/2 conductors (90, 45, 25, 10, 5 foot lengths I have..) I monowire to the bass cabs, and a separate jack on the bass cabs feed the mid/high, meaning the mid/high current goes through the main cables..

Oh, btw Gene....my tweets do not burn out at 10 watts nor 20..they are 2 inch voice coils in ferrofluid.

Cheers, John

 

[jneutron]

Uhm, not totally I am trying to understand this issue, really. Not as swift as you.

Sorry, didn't mean you..questions are required.. I will not "tolerate" blanket acceptance based on who says something. That applies to what I say as well.

One who origionates the idea is not necessarily swifter..just off the blocks first (yes, sometimes a false start..)

Cheers, John

 

[gene]

The former, audibility...if the effect is shifting localization cues a foot or so, the standard DBT testing methodology is not equipped to find that reliably, as humans ADAPT to altered localization cues, AND, there is no recorded music which has the correct localization cues for a specific speaker system setup geometry. For localization cue drift, current test methodology is not up to the task.

John;

So what I gather from your last few posts:

• you can't simulate it with typical software packages used by Engineers for decades to design the most sophisticated circuits and electronis

• you can't measure it with typical engineering test gear (Audio Analyzer, Impedance Analyzer, TIM, etc

• You can't hear it through controlled DBT testing or normal listening tests since our ears adapt out these "changes" almost instantaneously

You're starting to sound more and more like an exotic cable vendor

 

[jneutron]

John;

So what I gather from your last few posts:

• you can't simulate it with typical software packages used by Engineers for decades to design the most sophisticated circuits and electronis

• you can't measure it with typical engineering test gear (Audio Analyzer, Impedance Analyzer, TIM, etc

The simple fact is, the bulk of our equipment is based on the FFT. That includes simulation packages as well.

1. Can you name one algorithm that is capable of finding a zero integral power waveform?

2. Can you explain why an FFT can or cannot find it?

3. Why would you make the assumption that an FFT can find every signal type?

4. Why do you make the assumption that the people who design the equipment would know how to find a signal they do not know exists.?

BTW, sometimes the most sophisticated hardware and software on the planet is insufficient for a task. As a result, many times it must be created from scratch..welcome to my world...much of what I am forced to use is custom.

• You can't hear it through controlled DBT testing or normal listening tests since our ears adapt out these "changes" almost instantaneously

No, there you are wrong. It isn't instantaneous. We adapt to localization cue changes a bit slower. Much in the way we adapt to SPL, although that is a distinct one way thing, rising SPL our ears comp very quickly, falling takes much more time, just like our eyes. I find much fault with rapid switch tests, the information change is subtle and not noticed quickly.

And then, theres the fact that all the recorded material out there does not have the localization cues we as humans grew up to recognize? You listen to your stereo, and it produces an image that you believe. Do you think the image would be there if your ears didn't adapt to the pseudo-cues that were presented to them? Pan pots which alter IID only??? That doesn't exist in nature.

You're starting to sound more and more like an exotic cable vendor

You are sounding like somebody who cannot refute an argument, so resorts to brandishing an undesireable label in front of me. If you are going to discuss a topic, please limit your talk to the topic rather than ad-hominen.

The differences between myself and an exotic cable vendor??

1. I use maxwell's equations. This stands me apart from ECV's.

2. I provide equational proof of my assertions. Again, ECV's do not.

3. I build and test cables for my own use at home and work. ECV's do not typically test.

4. I model cables based on widely accepted equations, build them, and test to validate those equations and my build process..ECV's do not.

5. I question all my models, all my equations, I discuss online the strengths and weaknesses of my assertions and theories. ECV's do not.

6. I point out (for example, this biwire thread) where the effect occurs, why it occurs, why it has not been found, HOW it can be found, how to compensate for it, how to avoid it. ECV's always force the issue without regard to the merit of applicability.

7. I relate what I assert to what we hear, tying an effect directly to the repercussions of stated effect.

8. I have no, repeat, no financial ties to anything I have asserted online. None, period. This is far an wide, completely at odds with Exotic cable vendors. This, unfortunately, is also in direct opposition to you and this forum. You have built this forum on the exposing and elimination of "snake oil", which I absolutely feel is a very important and worthy task. However, you are now working far too hard to badger down scientific understanding because it does not agree with your hard line stance. I told you long ago, when I proofed some of you pre-prints, it is not all black and white.

9. Much of what I present online is considerably beyond the current state of the art of understanding, either in cable physics, or in localization research. Cable physics I can understand, since I am heavily involved in that area of knowledge. Localization research...It is an abomination that I find I have to create new word descriptors for what I do..differential localization, where can one find this???

It is my belief that this rift between segments of today's audio world has gone on far too long. It prevents the advancement of audio in ways you do not know.

My world is not that one. And that is by my choice.

Please think twice before brandishing a label at me. My reaction to such behaviour is this list of 9..

Cheers, John

 

[gene]

John;

First off take a deep breath and relax. I was joking with you and playing devils advocate.

Secondly; surely you realize there is a lot more to Audioholics than just cables and this forum wasn't founded on that premise at all as you elude to. As for our hard line stance. I am not sure what you are talking about other than my common mantra of "only poorly designed cables are sonically distinguisable". So far I don't see how your "research" refutes that.

You point out a theoretical path to find these "effects" but don't back them up with real world measurements or audibility tests. Theory is great, but proof is even better.

 

[Audioholics]

I have no, repeat, no financial ties to anything I have asserted online. None, period. This is far an wide, completely at odds with Exotic cable vendors. This, unfortunately, is also in direct opposition to you and this forum. You have built this forum on the exposing and elimination of "snake oil", which I absolutely feel is a very important and worthy task. However, you are now working far too hard to badger down scientific understanding because it does not agree with your hard line stance. I told you long ago, when I proofed some of you pre-prints, it is not all black and white.

John, I also think all your dedication is commendable. However, from a laymen's perspective, you are so far out in "space" in these discussions that you have lost all grounding to anyone who doesn't hold a Doctorate degree in the related subject matter.

I think all we're really saying is... please... write a white paper and have it peer reviewed by AES or the scientific community. That way you are driving the bus - cause on this thread, you're just a participant with a theory and a topic of discussion.

 

[jneutron]

John; I was joking with you and playing devils advocate.

I know. And I find it necessary to remind you what I am all about, as you chose to brandish the term "exotic cable vendor", rather than answer my specific question..which was, explain case 2's dissipation error.

Secondly; surely you realize there is a lot more to Audioholics than just cables and this forum wasn't founded on that premise at all as you elude to.

I allude to the fact that what I have posted is in direct contention with the assertions here on this forum, that biwiring is of no significance. And this site has a large basis in dispelling the notions which are out there and of no merit, and education of the topics through articles...as I've stated, I find that invaluable..

The origional poster questioned the use of biwiring technique, and I have answered his question.

As for our hard line stance. I am not sure what you are talking about other than my common mantra of "only poorly designed cables are sonically distinguisable". So far I don't see how your "research" refutes that.

Your gut reaction to my initial posts was, ummm what? I'm joking....

A news flash....I am not.

You point out a theoretical path to find these "effects" but don't back them up with real world measurements or audibility tests. Theory is great, but proof is even better.

Then answer the question. Why is it the case 2 dissipation doesn't add up on an instantaneous level? This is not a difficult question, but it does require considering the problem in ways you have not.

Unless you are randomly missing posts, I've explained what I've heard, how I've setup the test, what equipment I've used, why it is not an issue for heavy guage wire, why it is not an issue for standard music, and what I am waiting for to re-do the measurement tests...did you miss those?? Or just ignore them..

If you choose to ignore the technical discussion, that is your choice. But, if you do choose to ignore it, don't allude to strawman arguments or ad-hom style, emoticons notwithstanding. (I believe I put that sentence together correctly ..but ya know what I mean. ..even if english fails me..

Cheers, John

 

[jneutron]

John, I also think all your dedication is commendable. However, from a laymen's perspective, you are so far out in "space" in these discussions that you have lost all grounding to anyone who doesn't hold a Doctorate degree in the related subject matter.

No, that is incorrect. On a regular basis, I teach others, from grade school to Univ prof, and on occasion, to some really smart guys.

I made this topic very simple from the jump, including diagrams to detail what I speak of, diagrams geared towards the educational level of those I was speaking with. The fact that some do not follow is fine, I do not expect all to.

I think all we're really saying is... please... write a white paper and have it peer reviewed by AES or the scientific community. That way you are driving the bus - cause on this thread, you're just a participant with a theory and a topic of discussion.

No white papers, they are typically garbage, as they are never peer reviewed.

AES is out, they have their own issues, plus I am not an "Audio Engineer", which is the basis for membership within the AES.

In this thread, I have answered the OP's question. Subsequently, I have addressed all criticism which has befallen me as a result of my answering the OP's question. And I have answered all that criticism in the vein in which it was given.. Technical criticism is responded to technically..all others must consider that I have responded in kind.

All would be well served to consider that the one here who historically has asked the most difficult questions, has been Mtry. And, I expect that he will be speaking with others who are either closest to me in the understanding, or far above me...and that is how it is supposed to work.

Forums are...ask questions.....get answers.

If you have a list of topics to which you do not wish me to reply because they are too technical for some, let me know.

Cheers, John

 

[Bruno Putzeys]

Gene asked me to have a look at this thread. The "dissipation modulation effect" is obviously true. Suppose I take a resistor and drive it with a sine wave. The power dissipation follows a cosine wave of twice the frequency. The power wave form is a heavily distorted form (that's an understatement) of the voltage waveform. If one had to listen to the power waveform, it would not be recognizable. The graph of post #99 does not make this immediately obvious because the voltage waveforms aren't shown.

Next suppose I drive it with the sum of two sine waves. I get a component at twice the first frequency, another at twice the second frequency plus a sum and difference product. You could say that the losses caused by one waveform are indeed modulated by the other.

It is a simple fact of life that power is always the product of two quantities:
*Voltage times current
*Speed times force
Furthermore, in a linear system, these quantities are linearly dependent upon eachother, so the product of the two looks like a highly distorted version of either.

Since even a perfectly linear system by definition entails power waveforms that are a non-linear (second order) function of the signals, this fact cannot imply that the system should in some way be non-linear. From a practical perspective this means that it is impossible to build an electronic circuit using linear components (resistors, capacitors, inductors) where the non-linear power function would manifest itself as distortion in the voltage and current waveforms. You'll find "distorted powers" everywhere throughout the circuit (zero integral for the C and L's, positive for the R's), but nowhere does it show up as distortion in the current or voltage itself. Power is simply not a state variable in a linear system.

In other words, the import of the quadratic behaviour power waveform upon signal transmission, as implied in the biwire argument, has not been shown.

 

[jneutron]

Gene asked me to have a look at this thread. The "dissipation modulation effect" is obviously true.
It is a simple fact of life that power is always the product of two quantities:
*Voltage times current
*Speed times force
Furthermore, in a linear system, these quantities are linearly dependent upon eachother, so the product of the two looks like a highly distorted version of either.

Since even a perfectly linear system by definition entails power waveforms that are a non-linear (second order) function of the signals, this fact cannot imply that the system should in some way be non-linear. From a practical perspective this means that it is impossible to build an electronic circuit using linear components (resistors, capacitors, inductors) where the non-linear power function would manifest itself as distortion in the voltage and current waveforms. You'll find "distorted powers" everywhere throughout the circuit (zero integral for the C and L's, positive for the R's), but nowhere does it show up as distortion in the current or voltage itself. Power is simply not a state variable in a linear system.

In other words, the import of the quadratic behaviour power waveform upon signal transmission, as implied in the biwire argument, has not been shown.

Hey Bruno, long time no talk..

Another pinch hitter, eh Gene? First Rod with 10 posts to his name, now Bruno..

Cool This is exactly as it should be...welcome Bruno..

Bruno:

go to post 146. Print out the picture of 1 amp(lifier) driving both a monowire set, and a biwire set.

Circle the biwire speaker.

Circle the monowire speaker.

Now, with the amp pushing the two sines, make this assumption: BIWIRING MAKES NO DIFFERENCE WHATSOEVER.

Therefore, the energy dissipated within the two circles you have made is EQUAL AT ALL TIME!!!. You have to assume that, otherwise biwiring made a difference, which you are assuming does not.

Now, calculate the dissipation in the wiresets A, B, and C.

Note that the dissipation when the currents are equal and opposite is reduced for wire C, in point of fact, it is zero..

Now, from the vantage point of the amplifier, calculate the amount of power being delivered to each system.. For the biwire case, it is the sum of the speaker, A, and B. For the monowire case, it is the sum of C and the speaker.

Now, explain to me, if the speaker dissipations are exactly the same, why is it the amp is delivering more power to the biwire system than the monowire system at the instant in time specific to case 2.


Gene, soon enough I believe you will be bringing in Dr Johnson..

Cheers, John

 

[Audioholics]

Another pinch hitter, eh Gene? First Rod with 10 posts to his name, now Bruno.

Blame me - I won't let him spend more time here discussing this stuff. We are WAY too busy and, no offense, this topic is WAY too obscure for 99.9996% of our readers (I'll give you 4).

 

[jneutron]

Blame me - I won't let him spend more time here discussing this stuff. We are WAY too busy and, no offense, this topic is WAY too obscure for 99.9996% of our readers (I'll give you 4).

Blame you???

NO.

Thank you.

Cheers, John