Why Bi-wiring Makes No Sense.

[Audioholics]

jneutron,

You can be as disappointed as you like, I have already indicated that Gene is not able to spend the amount of time here that you would prefer. As for "hired gun" - that would imply payment and negative motives... Gene's goal is quite the opposite and it's astounding that he cares enough to invite others to jump into the discussion.

Carry on, but please keep your assumptions and criticisms of motive to yourself.

As for our policy on IP - you may want to stop posting. As smart as you are I do not think you have read and comprehended the policies of this forum (particularly the third paragraph from the bottom). Here they are for your review.

http://forums.audioholics.com/forums/faq.php

So far, you seem to be the only one in any of your discussions who understands your own arguments... this is, I must say, rather convenient if not frustrating to anyone wishing to participate.

 

[jneutron]

jneutron,
You can be as disappointed as you like, I have already indicated that Gene is not able to spend the amount of time here that you would prefer. As for "hired gun" - that would imply payment and negative motives... Gene's goal is quite the opposite and it's astounding that he cares enough to invite others to jump into the discussion.

Don't worry, I am indeed dissapointed. The term "hired gun" was without the connotation of payment.

As for motives, that is quite clear. Unable to discuss a topic, another was brought in to "rebut" the argument. That is not a problem, as I've enjoyed the fact that Gene has brought other's in.

The method Gene employed here is beneath contempt (and that is not a motive, just an action.). It has opened Jim Leseuf to criticism, as he has written a webpage without understanding the arguments presented. That has done a disservice to Jim, as it opens him to criticism for presenting a strawman argument, and it does a disservice to me, as I was not included in the discussion. If Jim decides to listen to the argument, and finds that he indeed agrees with me, what then? A public apology? A Whoops? A simple removal of the page??? Then what of the legitimacy of the rest of his pages?? (especially the ones I like?)

I've hoped through the years that the operation of forums would mature, this episode however, is a step backward.

Carry on, but please keep your assumptions and criticisms of motive to yourself.

Let Gene answer for his own actions, please. His actions demanded criticism.

As for our policy on IP - you may want to stop posting. As smart as you are I do not think you have read and comprehended the policies of this forum (particularly the third paragraph from the bottom). Here they are for your review....

I have not read the policies of this forum. However, if you re-read my post, you will see that I have posed it as a question. And as I e-mailed to Jim, I also questioned it but stated that the legality either way, was not important to me.. It is of course, an expectation of civility that I should be asked to use material I have posted.

So far, you seem to be the only one in any of your discussions who understands your own arguments... this is, I must say, rather convenient if not frustrating to anyone wishing to participate.

It is not convienient. It is a PITA. But I remain patient, trying to explain to anyone who discusses it.

I would have expected Jim to read my argument carefully, it is unfortunate he did not but yet still posted a "rebuttal" to an argument I did not make.... With any luck, he will address my e-mail.

Cheers, John

 

[Resident Loser]

Well...

...this is a fine kettle of fish...

I'll be the first to say that much of this thread has gone way over my head, charts and graphs-wise...however the third party involved seems to have JNs agenda dead wrong...some of the critique implies that jneutron is advocating bi-wiring as viable...Seems to me that all he (JN) is saying is that yes, there are some measureable differences, under certain circumstances, between monowire and bi-wire, but that they are inconsequential under most if not all listening conditions...and that like much of high-end tweakdom, while there may indeed be some underlying (apparently measureable) truth, it's conditional premise so specific, so far down in the food-chain, that in practice it's much ado about nothing.

The further premise I see from JN is that dismissing the possibility out-of-hand, in a sheep-like manner, does little to add to the credibility of the argument against bi-wiring...

jimHJJ(...just my two cents...)

 

[jneutron]

...this is a fine kettle of fish...

I'll be the first to say that much of this thread has gone way over my head, charts and graphs-wise...however the third party involved seems to have JNs agenda dead wrong...some of the critique implies that jneutron is advocating bi-wiring as viable...Seems to me that all he (JN) is saying is that yes, there are some measureable differences, under certain circumstances, between monowire and bi-wire, but that they are inconsequential under most if not all listening conditions...and that like much of high-end tweakdom, while there may indeed be some underlying (apparently measureable) truth, it's conditional premise so specific, so far down in the food-chain, that in practice it's much ado about nothing.

The further premise I see from JN is that dismissing the possibility out-of-hand, in a sheep-like manner, does little to add to the credibility of the argument against bi-wiring...

jimHJJ(...just my two cents...)

Give that man a cigar...

You are indeed correct.

A refreshing post indeed...thank you.

Cheers, John

ps..on a lighter note, at least "bir-wiring" has been fixed to bi-wiring..Now where's your googling gonna go??

 

[gene]

Let Gene answer for his own actions, please. His actions demanded criticism.

John;

If you want to criticize me, follow our forum rules and do so via a PM or email to me at: gds@audioholics.com. If these actions were repeatedly carried out by any other member than yourself, I would have banned you long ago. I don't pay the bills here to have you question my motives.

The way I see it is your argument is flawed for the reasons I and others have stated in the past. You attribute non linear behavior to a linear device and continuously report it as fact on our forums when in fact it’s a theory that you have which you cannot prove with measurements or with real life listening tests.

Until you can take this premise to the next level by:

• Having it peer reviewed by the scientific community (surely someone must understand the intent of your theory, perhaps Steven Hawkins?)

• Show real world measurements to support your claims

• Demonstrate audibility

Your theory will be under scrutiny on our forums since you chose that as an avenue to purport it.

 

[Resident Loser]

Well...

Give that man a cigar...

You are indeed correct.

A refreshing post indeed...thank you.

Cheers, John

ps..on a lighter note, at least "bir-wiring" has been fixed to bi-wiring..Now where's your googling gonna go??

...the math may elude me but my reading comprehension has always been a few grades ahead. BTW, I don't smoke...could you make it a chocolate-chip cookie?

And I'll thank you not to mention my googling in mixed company...

jimHJJ(...people might get the wrong impression...)

 

[jneutron]

John;

If you want to criticize me, follow our forum rules and do so via a PM or email to me at: gds@audioholics.com. If these actions were repeatedly carried out by any other member than yourself, I would have banned you long ago. I don't pay the bills here to have you question my motives. .

Since I have not repeatedly criticized you, nor do I intend to do so, your statement regarding "banning" is moot. So, why make it?

What I have done is criticize your method. You have enlisted the aid of Jim to "rebut" my argument here, without asking me, nor ever intending to. Simply put, you have chosen to have my assertions and discussion lambasted using a strawman argument, and I have no recourse on forum.

Is this not the methodology you rail against? Do you not lambast vendors with their silly white papers, which they do not allow discussion of?

• Having it peer reviewed by the scientific community (surely someone must understand the intent of your theory, perhaps Steven Hawkins?)

.

I believe Jim can easily understand..however, he needs to understand the claim. You did not provide him that opportunity. Just as you provided me no opportunity.

[Your theory will be under scrutiny on our forums since you chose that as an avenue to purport it.

An interesting veiled threat.

Wow.

btw. yours is not the only forum on which this has been posted..yours is over a year after the fact.

Cheers, John

 

[gene]

BTW John;

It was not my intent to offend you by having Jim author an article about the topic on this thread. I want to get to the bottom of the truth about this topic just like everyone else does. After re-reading your PM, I apologize if using your quotes in this article has caused you offense.

I didn't see the difference between having Jim quote you in the forums and posting a rebuttal here as opposed to writing a concise, easy to read article with illustrations which I intend to publish on this site, especially since our forum policy is clear as Clint stated about Audioholics property and usage of it. If you would like to be credited as the author of those posts within the article, I will gladly ask Jim to do so and will also do so when I post the article.

 

[Seth=L]

My interest in this thread has rekindled. I was just mentioning earlier how civil this thread was for so long and it stumbled just a little.

Jneutron,

I know that you don't know if it makes an audible difference in the case of bi-wiring, but what is your feeling about it? Do you believe it makes an audible difference or enhances the system? Or do you think that what ever differences there may be that they wouldn't make a significant impact on the performance of the system?

Now, after answering these questions (this is not a jab at you, just trying to understand the reasoning, and justification for making a new 300 some post thread.) would you say this is relevant to the purpose of this forum?

I see it this way. The purpose of the forum is to learn and spread knowledge about audio and video, which you have done. We have learned something here. The real question is when does it end? Is there any more to learn here? I don't really know, but this is something to think about, or maybe I don't know what I am talking about.

Regards,

Seth=L

 

[Dan Banquer]

Biwiring

I have a suggestion: I think we could dismiss this issue entirely if we used series crossovers instead of paralell crossovers.
Just think of the possibilities here, less wire to use, bi wiring doesn't make much sense for a series crossover, and if John is correct we may have a more "stable image" for those who get into that kind of thing.
Just a thought or two;
d.b.

 

[jneutron]

BTW John;
It was not my intent to offend you by having Jim author an article about the topic on this thread. I want to get to the bottom of the truth about this topic just like everyone else does. After re-reading your PM, I apologize if using your quotes in this article has caused you offense.,.

Sigh..we all lose it sometimes. I also apologize, I get too riled up when articles like that show up without discussion by the author..this time me.. It's way too one sided, to have someone of Jim's caliber write up a big ole bashfest, especially when he does not test (nor address) the salient points of my analysis..

I didn't see the difference between having Jim quote you in the forums and posting a rebuttal here as opposed to writing a concise, easy to read article with illustrations which I intend to publish on this site,......

Jim quoting me out of context (even anonymously (sp)), and missing the "meat" entirely, did me no favor..

(correct me if I'm wrong...did you just say "easy to read" sheesh, it's not easy for ME to read... )

I've been quite scientific in my postings, I've not broken any physical laws that I am aware of, and until such time as others of the caliber of Jim or Rod or Bruno duplicate my analysis, the book is not completed. I would caution against trying to close the chapter, as in a forum article..

especially since our forum policy is clear as Clint stated about Audioholics property and usage of it. If you would like to be credited as the author of those posts within the article, I will gladly ask Jim to do so and will also do so when I post the article.

I post an anomoly in dissipation, one which is entirely unexpected. If others such as Jim actually work out why my analysis is incorrect, that is fine. So far, others better than him have been unable to refute my actual argument, I was a bit peeved that he refuted something which was not my argument..

Until such time as the analysis is accepted or refuted, it is not wise to either link to thread posts, nor assign authorship. The discussion should play out first.

If you wish to use my analysis, it would be wiser to assign it as a possibility until it is accepted or refuted properly, with the caveat that I have stated I consider it of little use for most. Higher guages reduce it tremendously, and only if copper is too expensive should biwiring ever be considered.

Cheers, John

 

[jneutron]

My interest in this thread has rekindled. I was just mentioning earlier how civil this thread was for so long and it stumbled just a little.

Hey, color me "human"...

waitaminute...did you just say you're only interested in watching fights??

I know that you don't know if it makes an audible difference in the case of bi-wiring, but what is your feeling about it? Do you believe it makes an audible difference or enhances the system? Or do you think that what ever differences there may be that they wouldn't make a significant impact on the performance of the system?

I have never listened for any impact biwiring could have. Honestly, I'm not interested. If my analysis is correct, there can be an impact on image stability, as dan said. But in reality, stability of what??? None of the recorded material out there considers YOUR personal stereo when they record the music, so none of the recorded material has a correct image anyway.

Some try biwiring, they swear by it. Maybe they do hear a diff. But worth the effort? Nah, I don't think so. I certainly wouldn't spend much money to try it. But I'm sure as heck interested in determining that a difference either exists or doesn't.

Now, after answering these questions (this is not a jab at you, just trying to understand the reasoning, and justification for making a new 300 some post thread.) would you say this is relevant to the purpose of this forum?

To state unequivically that something is pure snake oil, only to find that later in life it is shown to have an effect, lowers the credibility of the initial source.

The purpose of this forum (cables), is to provide accurate information so that others may make a decision based in fact. If some of that information proves incorrect, then what? What other information suddenly becomes suspect?..

another 300 post thread...are you threatening us???

Cheers, John

 

[Seth=L]

I believe the "new 300 post thread" was a typo, I don't know exactly what I meant to put there.

It is human nature to be intrigued by argument, fighting, and any sort of conflict. Now not everyone would describe it as enjoyment, just that it interests people.

For the record, the only thing that lost my interest was that I did not understand what was going on in this thread. I checked on it every once in a great while to see if it was back to my level, and it has just reached that. So here I am.

 

[Dan Banquer]

Biwiring

"If my analysis is correct, there can be an impact on image stability, as dan said. But in reality, stability of what??? None of the recorded material out there considers YOUR personal stereo when they record the music, so none of the recorded material has a correct image anyway."

Oh shucks John; some us could go on forever about microphone placement techniques, mixdown and mastering, but I digress. One of these days you're going to send me a snail mail address so I can send you a symphonic recording that was done with Blumlein stereo pair microphone placement.
d.b.

 

[jneutron]

Oh shucks John; some us could go on forever about microphone placement techniques, mixdown and mastering, but I digress. One of these days you're going to send me a snail mail address so I can send you a symphonic recording that was done with Blumlein stereo pair microphone placement. d.b.

I didn't remember you requesting one..I'll pm ya.

Re: Series crossover...

That sounds like it would get around the cable part....but I don't know about the extra nodes that are created...hmmm..might hafta think bout that...

Cheers, John

 

[jneutron]

Update..

Jim e-mailed me..I splained my issues with the whole shebang...not a problem.

I sent him this diagram with a (better) explanation..perhaps it will float Rod's, Bruno's, Bruce's , and Gene's boats...

Gene/Clint...I believe that it is allowed for me to post the contents of MY e-mail to him. If this is in bad form, feel free to spank me and remove this post..


start of transmission.

The crux of my argument pertains to the current node between the feed wire from the amp, to the reactive branches of the crossover.

I've attached a diagram for you, it is of one of the nodes feeding the speaker. For ease of discussion, current A is hf sine, and current B is lf sine. The crossover components, the amp, and the frequencies are unimportant and independent from the currents within the wires, I'm sure you agree with that..Note that I choose "simple sines" as the mathematics of analysis using Vivaldi's "Spring" would be, shall we say, daunting?

The top is a generic diagram, showing the resistive dissipation on each of the wires. The middle is a monowire case, note the dissipation of the feed line, which of course contains the 2AB component. The bottom case is the biwiring case, where the losses of the feedlines are simply the squared currents without the 2AB component.

The 2AB component as a standalone entity is of course, nonsense. It has equal area above zero as well as below. It integrates to zero long term, and cannot exist without the current square terms. Since it is indeed integral zero, it in no way alters the RMS dissipation. But the 2AB term is not consistent with either load dissipation profiles when the loads branch, and the 2AB is precisely the difference between mono and biwire.

Audibility, I do not argue. I am not concerned with that.

The argument you put forth was that of one load, one wire. As such, your analysis is spot on. However, as you can see, it doesn't address the difference entity, the 2AB.

Thanks for responding..I hope you will entertain further discussion.."""

end of transmission..(beep)

edit:. Kirchhoffs current law states that the sum of all currents entering a node is zero. So at the node depicted, if you have a hf sine at 1 ampere and a lf sine at one ampere, the currents must add up in the feedwire.

the power that is dissipated within a resistor is P=I²R

And from simple algebra, (A+B)² = A² + B² + 2AB
Cheers, John

 

[Resident Loser]

Well...

"If my analysis is correct, there can be an impact on image stability, as dan said. But in reality, stability of what??? None of the recorded material out there considers YOUR personal stereo when they record the music, so none of the recorded material has a correct image anyway."

Oh shucks John; some us could go on forever about microphone placement techniques, mixdown and mastering, but I digress. One of these days you're going to send me a snail mail address so I can send you a symphonic recording that was done with Blumlein stereo pair microphone placement.
d.b.

...all well and good for those recordings...or binaural...bu-u-u-u-t...most multi-track stuff is a composite of multiple mono tracks tweaked, EQd and otherwise altered, without any of the directional cues we experience in the real world...then plopped into a discretionary position in a virtual soundfield, within a world of artifice...And yet we hear, from the golden-eared among us, who listen to just this sort of near-virtual thing, raving about soundstage, depth, inner details all supposedly afforded by the newest and bestest of $1k/m IC packed in the laser-etched bubinga-wood presentation case or NASA-endorsed, cross-fed, teflon-coated bi-wires...

In prior communications with JN, we seem to be of a like mind on this issue, and while I would never think to speak for anyone else, I don't think it's well recorded, minimally processed performances that are the sticking point...

jimHJJ(...in fact, as routine program material used to generate these anecdotal accolades, they strike me as a rarity on this and like sites...)

 

[jneutron]

...all well and good for those recordings...or binaural...bu-u-u-u-t...most multi-track stuff is a composite of multiple mono tracks tweaked, EQd and otherwise altered, without any of the directional cues we experience in the real world...then plopped into a discretionary position in a virtual soundfield, within a world of artifice

What I enjoy is listening to some of my favorite tracks, and finding that the images play games.. I believe it is a result of grafting several different recording takes together for the final product. And, between takes, somebody moves one or more of the controls. Sometimes, one instrument or vocal will shift position with respect to another, and sometimes it will shift back..

I laugh when I hear it.

Course, it'd be waaaaay to easy to use this technique to develop a methodology for measuring human sensitivity to relative image movement of a vocal (for example), embedded within a complex MUSICAL program....after all, that's the LAST thing they'd be expected to do, measure human capability to what they do...with respect to what we hear..

Wanna bet they'll find we're sensitive to sub .2 dB interchannel shifts even when confounding signals are present.? Conjecture, of course...but not a simple guess...rather, a more complex one...

Ah but, I digress...

Cheers, John

Flew in from Miami Beach BOAC
Didn't get to bed last night
Oh, the way the paper bag was on my knee
Man, I had a dreadful flight

 

[roverx]

So does bi-wiring makes a sense? And is ti audible?
If it makes sense , think it is time to rename the topic, such, how does biwiring sense and how much.
My floorstand speakers are bi wireable, it recommends biwiring, in its booklet it says biamping will be the more noticable . But biwiring is also encouraged.
Thanks to all participants that they made me join the forum by this topic.

 

[jneutron]

So does bi-wiring makes a sense? And is ti audible?
If it makes sense , think it is time to rename the topic, such, how does biwiring sense and how much..

For me, biwiring makes no sense. I haven't heard a difference, and if it does make a difference, it is so small that I don't even care.

By constructing a hugely ridiculous and contrived test, I have heard the effect. But it used sines at decent power levels, and I had to remove the woofer cabinet from the listening area to hear it. NOBODY either listens to sines, nor has a three way cabinet in their listening area with the bass driver in a seperate cab that can be put outside..(neighbors thought I was nuts, and I could not disagree with their assessment of me..)

But I've NEVER heard it make a difference with music..well, not something I could attribute to the wires. There are so many other things one should worry about first, like eq, balancing of bass, room treatment..

My floorstand speakers are bi wireable, it recommends biwiring, in its booklet it says biamping will be the more noticable . But biwiring is also encouraged..

I think it's plausible that biwiring was added to the cabs for marketing reasons and not audibility or engineering ones. It's tough to say. As the guys here are fond of saying, there is a whole lot of snake oil explanations floating about on this topic. The problem is, when an analysis and experiment comes along which does indeed validate a difference (even though it does not validate an audible difference), it is binned as just more snake oil as a gut reaction.

I do concur with the guys here on one point..if a wire vendor explains to you why biwiring makes sense using technical terms, take your wallet and run..their explanation is most likely without any merit whatsoever..you'd be better off just goin with larger guage.

Thanks to all participants that they made me join the forum by this topic.

Welcome.

Cheers, John