Biwire Cables: Two Seperate Runs or Single Run

Many spkr mfr's will tell you that bi-wiring is nonsense
(Sonus Faber, Genesis, & Dunlavy to name a few).
Great way to sell more wire.
Separating the lows and highs when they both originate from the same point?
Laughable.

Somehow the description of bi-ampable has morphed into bi-wireable.
Probably because bi-amping is a costly option that few want to do, while bi-wiring
is a less costly option, but not an option in the same league.

Bound For Sound had a very good article on this subject in a recent (within the last year or so) issue.
They elaborated on what we have been telling people for years on this, but few listen, as
many audiophiles love to believe those that push hype, which if enough people believe it,
seems to often become the rule that many follow in the audiophile world.

Many single wires can turn your rack into a bowl of spaghetti. On the possitive side, single wires can assure that all speaker drivers are getting the proper current or grade of metal. Biwired speaker cables on the other hand split the cable down the middle. Half goes to the woofer, the other half goes to the squawker and tweeter. Since the woofer uses the most current to drive massive amounts of air, shouldn't the woofer get most of the wire mass? Tweeters are more sensitive to metal impurities and should get a better grade of metal. I'll use biwiring when cable companies realize these requirements for different drivers.

Thanks for the insights so far. It seems like there is some contradictory opinions, as John Risch thinks two separate cable runs is superior, but simulations on Audioengr's site suggest a combined biwire cable is better. Sonic_genius - by "mono-wire" do you mean two separate runs rather than a premade biwire cable.

Nikkidanjo, I am asking what is the difference between biwiring with two sets of wire versus the special bi wire cables that have on set of connectors at the amp end and two sets at the speaker end. I'm perceiving that this is the question that other posters are answering.

Thanks Again.

I think people are misinterpreting your question (or maybe I am). It sounds like your are asking what is the difference between biwiring with two sets of wire versus the special bi wire cables that have on set of connectors at the amp end and two sets at the speaker end. I doubt there is much of a difference. I use the biwire specific cables because my Bryston has only one set of connectors. This makes connecting two sets of wire very impractical. I imagine this is why many people use the special biwire cables.

My $.02: Mono-wire is best unless you use different cables for the lows and highs. The fun of mix and match...

I performed some simulations of this and have the results posted on my website at the Audio FAQ page of:
http://www.empiricalaudio.com

Jon Risch has conducted some tests on the subject and you can find the results on his website at Audio DIY notes & tweaks .

In theory, separate runs of cables for the highs / lows should be superior to a single run that is "internally" bi-wired. This has to do with removing the lower current high frequency cables from within the field of the higher current low frequency cables. As to whether this is truly audible or not will depend on the resolution of one's system and / or the hearing acuity of the listener. As Sugarbrie mentions though, the "technically superior" method of using separate cables will instantly double your costs. Sean
>

Unless someone has your system, it is unlikely they could really predict an outcome. I have found a little improvement in one system using double runs of an Audioquest cable that can also be internally (single) biwired. A little better low level detail. The downside is only that the double run will cost twice as much.

Some biwire cables on the market are already double runs, such as the Analysis Plus "Bi-Oval" biwire cables.