hooking up bi-wire speakers to suround channels

[klippity]

Forgive me if this is a dumb question, but I have been away from audio for about 25 years.

First, some background. I just acquired a pair of Vandersteen 2C speakers. These have bi-wire input capability. To drive them, I ditched my old Onkyo receiver and bought a Denon AVR-3805. In reading reviews of the 3805, I see there is a way to bi-amp the Front Main speakers by hijacking the Zone 3 amp and the Surround Back channel.

My question is: If the only speakers I have are the Vandersteens, can I do the bi-amp setup by simply using, say, Surround A, to be the second amp in the bi-amp setup? I would wire one pair of speaker terminals to Front Main, and the other to Surround A, then set the delay to be zero and the size to Large for both. Is this a bad idea and if so, why? Be gentle!

 

[jcPanny]

Bi-amp with Denon

Due to the singal transformer in receivers like your denon, it is unlikely that you will hear a difference when biamping those speakers. Your denon will probably produce 120 WPC / 2 channels driven or 60 WPC / 4 channels driven when biamping. Read up on the all channels driven falicy for an explination.

Since the receiver has the biamp feature, it is worth a try if you have an extra set of of speaker cables.

 

[Swerd]

First, some background. I just acquired a pair of Vandersteen 2C speakers. These have bi-wire input capability. To drive them, I ditched my old Onkyo receiver and bought a Denon AVR-3805. In reading reviews of the 3805, I see there is a way to bi-amp the Front Main speakers by hijacking the Zone 3 amp and the Surround Back channel.

My question is: If the only speakers I have are the Vandersteens, can I do the bi-amp setup by simply using, say, Surround A, to be the second amp in the bi-amp setup? I would wire one pair of speaker terminals to Front Main, and the other to Surround A, then set the delay to be zero and the size to Large for both. Is this a bad idea and if so, why? Be gentle!

Unless there is a way to route the same signal to both the front main terminals and and the Surround A terminals of the Denon receiver (left & right channels as appropriate), bi-amping as you suggest will not work. It might be better to bi-amp them, as you first described, using the Zone 3 amp and the surround back channel. Since I don't have your Denon manual available, I leave it to you to decipher its language. I sincerely hope that Denon has improved its English translation since I bought my receiver.

Hope you enjoy those Vandersteens! They are the very best at creating the illusion of sound images.

Note to all those who have never had the pleasure of listening to Vandys, the manufacturer recommends bi-wiring or bi-amping these speakers. Richard Vandersteen specifically says do not use single wiring with a jumper. If Richard Vandersteen (one of the best speaker designers in the business) says do it this way, who are we to question him?

 

[mtrycrafts]

Richard Vandersteen specifically says do not use single wiring with a jumper. If Richard Vandersteen (one of the best speaker designers in the business) says do it this way, who are we to question him?

Don't know if it will make a difference with those speakers but Paradigm also has that in their speaker book, yet when I called the company, a company that has the facilities to conduct DBT listening with speakers, are able to swap them around as at the NRC, they couldn't offer any such test results.
I wonder if RV can.
I'd question the Pope if I had a chance.

 

[mulester7]

Richard Vandersteen specifically says do not use single wiring with a jumper. If Richard Vandersteen (one of the best speaker designers in the business) says do it this way, who are we to question him?

.....we're the guys who paid for our equipment, Swerd, not Richard Vandersteen....I know what you mean and I understand, but WE will use the speakers in OUR listening environment that WE paid for, so if we don't try ALL the variations possible, then WE'RE stewpid....I would have to "hear" a difference of the lesser, paralleling the two halves of one of his speakers at the posts of the speaker with a jumper, opposed to paralleling the speaker halves at the amp terminals using twice the amount of wire....I'll gladly try any suggestions the manufacturer advises for sound quality, but I'll try any other options also, then I'll decide, based on these things on the side of my head, which is connected to the person who laid out the green....

 

[PENG]

Some people are going to claim bi-wiring makes no difference as you are simply moving the link from the speaker end to the amplifier end. There is (at least one I assume) even an article on the web that tried to show the theory behind such claim.

I don't know where this argument originated from and how the misconception got started and propagated.... The fact is, if the speakers are truly designed for bi-wire, by removing the links you will effectively separate out the XO networks. Since each XO network will offer a different frequency/impedance characteristic, so once separated, one pair of cables will carry the predominantly low frequency range while the other pair will carry the high frequency signals. This can be proved by applying Ohm's law, Kirchoffs law, Superposition theorem etc., just basic circuit theory. Reputable speaker manufacturers obviously know the theory and the potential benefits of bi-wiring. Whether the electrical difference would result in audible difference in sound quality is a different matter.

 

[mulester7]

Some people are going to claim bi-wiring makes no difference as you are simply moving the link from the speaker end to the amplifier end. There is (at least one I assume) even an article on the web that tried to show the theory behind such claim.

I don't know where this argument originated from and how the misconception got started and propagated.... The fact is, if the speakers are truly designed for bi-wire, by removing the links you will effectively separate out the XO networks. Since each XO network will offer a different frequency/impedance characteristic, so once separated, one pair of cables will carry the predominantly low frequency range while the other pair will carry the high frequency signals. This can be proved by applying Ohm's law, Kirchoffs law, Superposition theorem etc., just basic circuit theory. Reputable speaker manufacturers obviously know the theory and the potential benefits of bi-wiring. Whether the electrical difference would result in audible difference in sound quality is a different matter.

.....but Peng, if you eliminate any kind of crossover cuts, the two sides of the bi-wireable speaker would "both" attempt to reproduce full-range....theres GOT to be a chopping of the signals "somewhere", now picture a woofer trying to reproduce up to 20K....and picture seperate internal crossovers, for both sides, that are inline between the external speaker enclosure's posts, and the internal speaker element posts....how are you going to eliminate those internal crossovers however you choose to wire at the external enclosure terminal posts?....your only option is to parallel both halves with a jumper using one set of wires, or use two sets of wires to individual external posts with no jumper, resulting in no paralleling....I still say, if you choose to bi-wire, you need to go ahead and bi-amp as the basis for the bi-wiring, or save wire and just use the jumper.....Guys, I'm here to learn just like everybody....if what I've just said is wrong, please offer correction.....

 

[jonnythan]

Uh, no.

You still have the same physical connection. The wiring diagram is identical. The only difference is that the connection point has moved from the speaker's binding posts to the amp's.

There is no possible way for the electricity getting to each driver to be different in the two different configurations unless there's significant loss in the speaker cable itself.

 

[mulester7]

Uh, no.

You still have the same physical connection. The wiring diagram is identical. The only difference is that the connection point has moved from the speaker's binding posts to the amp's.

There is no possible way for the electricity getting to each driver to be different in the two different configurations unless there's significant loss in the speaker cable itself.

.....ok, Jonny, you're saying using a jumper at the indivual posts on the back of the enclosure using one set of wires, and using two sets of wire to the individual posts at the enclosure terminals with the paralleling happening now at "one" amp section's posts, are in essence the same connectivity resulting in the same act of paralleling, just at different points....I couldn't agree more....and, I say why use the extra run of wire?....is this what you were saying?.....

 

[jonnythan]

I'm saying it doesn't matter whether the "jumper" that electrically connects the two terminals is at the *speaker binding post* or the *amp binding post*.

The electrical wiring diagram is identical.

In either case, there is zero resistance between each red binding post. In one instance, they are connected by a direct shunt, and in the other instance they are connected by 12-30 feet of 12 gauge wire.

So, yes, I believe we agree.

 

[PENG]

Uh, no.

You still have the same physical connection. The wiring diagram is identical. The only difference is that the connection point has moved from the speaker's binding posts to the amp's.

There is no possible way for the electricity getting to each driver to be different in the two different configurations unless there's significant loss in the speaker cable itself.

Johnny, the wiring diagram is not identical. Each individual crossover will present a different impedance characteristic once the common point is removed at the speaker end. Draw each circuit out carefully you will see the difference for yourself.

 

[mulester7]

I'm saying it doesn't matter whether the "jumper" that electrically connects the two terminals is at the *speaker binding post* or the *amp binding post*.

The electrical wiring diagram is identical.

In either case, there is zero resistance between each red binding post. In one instance, they are connected by a direct shunt, and in the other instance they are connected by 12-30 feet of 12 gauge wire.

So, yes, I believe we agree.

.....give this guy a gold star, and Heaven bless that endorsement of 12 ga wire, haha, wire is cheap, so why not?.....Guys, your receiver "cuts out" the lowest part of the full-range signal by the LFE thing sending it to your subs, and then the receiver sends the rest of the full-range signal to the full-range speakers, be they bi-wireable and thus bi-ampable, or not....at that point, there's GOT to be some form of crossover internally in the full-range speaker, if it is "at least" a two-way....whew, I better go get a nap, it looks like I could be called to go ride on a freight train around 3a central....good night, Gentlemen......

 

[PENG]

.....give this guy a gold star, and Heaven bless that endorsement of 12 ga wire, haha, wire is cheap, so why not?.....Guys, your receiver "cuts out" the lowest part of the full-range signal by the LFE thing sending it to your subs, and then the receiver sends the rest of the full-range signal to the full-range speakers, be they bi-wireable and thus bi-ampable, or not....at that point, there's GOT to be some form of crossover internally in the full-range speaker, if it is "at least" a two-way....whew, I better go get a nap, it looks like I could be called to go ride on a freight train around 3a central....good night, Gentlemen......

Not so fast mule, not giving up on you yet. Here's one link to Axiom:

http://www.axiomaudio.com/tips_biwiring_and_biamping.html

and for your convenience, they say:

"If you remove the gold metal links, however, you can biwire your speakers, using one speaker cable for the woofers, and the other cable for the midrange and tweeters. At the other end, both cables connect to the same amplifier output terminals. The practice became popular in Britain (not unknown for its eccentric audiophiles), the thinking being that using separate cables for low and high frequencies would somehow reduce interference between the two and improve sound quality.

If you look at the amplifier as a current source, then for amplifiers and receivers that are capable of supplying lots of current into low impedances, biwiring could offer theoretical advantages, particularly to loudspeakers that are linear and smooth, like the Axiom M80ti and M60ti, by eliminating potential intermodulation distortion between the low- and high-frequency portions of the audio signal. Using biwiring, this distortion would not occur because the low-frequency part of the speaker crossover would draw the current it needs for the woofers (and they need lots of current) through one speaker cable, while the midrange tweeter section would draw less current (it doesn't need as much) through its own speaker cable. This could prevent intermodulation distortion that may occur using one big “fire hose” or single speaker cable. (Using two cables per speaker will also lower total resistance to the audio signal—and that is well and good, although a single run of 12-gauge cable to each speaker will keep resistance to an insignificant level, well below 0.3 ohms.)"

More to come if I can find some more, good night!

 

[PENG]

mule, you can read similar and more concise explanation of how bi-wiring work from many loudspeaker manufacturer's sites but this guy really tried hard to explain it:

http://www.audioasylum.com/audio/cables/messages/4953.html

Before you make up your mind I hope you would take the time to read it. Again I am not pushing the idea, I cannot hear a difference anyway. I am only making the point that it is incorrect to say it does not make a difference electrically.

 

[mulester7]

Johnny, the wiring diagram is not identical. Each individual crossover will present a different impedance characteristic once the common point is removed at the speaker end. Draw each circuit out carefully you will see the difference for yourself.

.....Peng, you are indeed correct, the wiring diagrams are most definitely different, but the same result is achieved with actually the internal crossovers of the bi-wireable speaker, and whatever speaker element is attached to them individually, being paralleled in either application....and, indeed, an extra run of speaker wire could definitely bring other factors were the runs fairly long....I say everyone is correct.....

.....ok, Peng, I just saw and read your next post....interesting proposal, and that could very well be true, but what still confuses me is the amp section is kicking the crap out of both sets of wires paralleled at it's posts, and all that wattage shows up at both crossovers, and then the need by individual elements would/could come into play....but hey, on most audio topics, I know just enough to get over my head quick....Peng, I still say we're all correct to degrees....please find what else you can on this topic, and I wish others would get involved....now I'm gone, (poof).....

 

[jonnythan]

"the current it needs for the woofers (and they need lots of current) through one speaker cable, while the midrange tweeter section would draw less current (it doesn't need as much) through its own speaker cable."

That's really, really stupid.

Sure, they're coming through separate *speaker cables*, but they're coming from the exact same binding post at the amplifier, and the exact same internal wiring from the amplifier. Do you get that? All of the current is passing through a single binding post on the amp - it doesn't matter if it splits into two wires immediately after that gold post or ten feet after that gold post.

Both the "low" frequencies and the "high" frequencies are passing through the single wire that connects to the single binding post on the back of the amp.

Drop an ohmmeter in between the two "separate" red posts or black posts on the back of the speaker and you will measure a resistance of a big fat 0.

How about if you use one wire halfway to the speaker, then break it into two wires?

What if you use one wire all the way to the speaker, but break it into two wires four inches before the terminals?

What if you use one wire an inch long that then breaks into two wires for the rest of the run?

These are all 100% identical electrically.

PENG, think about it for a second. Look at the red binding post on the back of the amp. See how it goes into the amplifier? All of the current for both drivers (assuming a two driver speaker) is going through that single gold post. It's got to split to two cables somewhere between that gold post and the crossover network. When you have two wires between that post and the speaker, how is that different than having what is essentially an extension of the post that doesn't split until the speaker binding post?

 

[mtrycrafts]

Johnny, the wiring diagram is not identical. Each individual crossover will present a different impedance characteristic once the common point is removed at the speaker end. Draw each circuit out carefully you will see the difference for yourself.

No, it is not identical to the point of the difference in resistance between the shorting bar and the length of 12ga speaker wire.
You still have the same voltages, less the difference in voltage drops to that delta R in the wire, across the terminals. The internal crossovers are already separated in both cases. It is a fixed setup.

 

[mtrycrafts]

mule, you can read similar and more concise explanation of how bi-wiring work from many loudspeaker manufacturer's sites but this guy really tried hard to explain it:

http://www.audioasylum.com/audio/cables/messages/4953.html

Before you make up your mind I hope you would take the time to read it. Again I am not pushing the idea, I cannot hear a difference anyway. I am only making the point that it is incorrect to say it does not make a difference electrically.

It might be best to get information from other sources that Jon Risch.
He is the one that every tweak makes sense to him, including CD demagnetization, etc.

 

[mtrycrafts]

Johnny, the wiring diagram is not identical. Each individual crossover will present a different impedance characteristic once the common point is removed at the speaker end. Draw each circuit out carefully you will see the difference for yourself.

Impedance is frequency dependent, right? So, the impedance the low driver and crossover sees is that wire from the amp to the terminals and the crossover. Same applies going to the tweeter, it sees the same cable.
If you bi-wire, with the same ga. the tweeter still sees the same impedance; frequency dependant.

 

[mtrycrafts]

"the current it needs for the woofers (and they need lots of current) through one speaker cable, while the midrange tweeter section would draw less current (it doesn't need as much) through its own speaker cable."

That's really, really stupid.

Sure, they're coming through separate *speaker cables*, but they're coming from the exact same binding post at the amplifier, and the exact same internal wiring from the amplifier. Do you get that? All of the current is passing through a single binding post on the amp - it doesn't matter if it splits into two wires immediately after that gold post or ten feet after that gold post.

Yes, the current is coming from the same terminal as does the voltage. Amps are voltage devices, mostly, not current. In a bi-wire mode, the voltages at both speaker terminals, lows and highs, will be identical. The current for the low driver will depend on the low frequency voltage in the signal no matter which way it is wired. But, in a bi-wire mode, that current will only pass through the wire to the low drive. Same for the high driver. But, it makes no difference if the wire shares all the current in one wire or two, as the impedance and currents are frequency dependent.
The only question would be current induced IM. I have not seen any such evidence.
If this was an issue, we might as well have wire for each single frequency. And we cannot neglect all the wires in the components before the speakers that shares a common wire or traces on a board.

I'd like to see that speaker makers explanation why.