No one actually knows how to lculate what speaker cable they need

@geoffkait , absolutely. While the logic and absolute-ness (in audio, indeed!) might not be agreed on by everyone, I'm an advocate of trying it and seeing how I get on. If bi-wiring has claims to work (ignoring any bi-amping, whether active or passive) then swapping the cable for one double thick run instead of two thinner runs should achive a similar effect. Maybe that's what's being seen here? Either way, agreeing that bi-wiring might work but this can't seems like a contradictory argument.

Again, I'm putting aside the argument presentation, the use of DF as a variable, and the maths involved in the calculation. I'm just talking about increasing the cable size, which is all we're really doing.

@b4icu, can we see inside those cables to see what's under the heat shrink? I'd be interested in to see how you've stepped down from 0 awg to bananas. Doesn't the thinner bridge cable act as a limiter? The weak link in the chain, if you will?

Mr. geoffkait
You,  Mr. John Atkinson or others you may quote, never got the speaker cable thing right from the first time! so they added a second wire, of the same gauge to the single and the sound improved...
This is what this thread is all about. As if you read this thread thoroughly, you could get a slight impression of Mr. keppertup on his sharing of implementing this idea. A beautiful one.

I'm sure you would rather keep sticking to your false ideas and a limited sound quality (you most likely call high end) because Mr. John Atkinson or others said so. Enjoy both.

If you would get that, many of your falls accusations could be saved, with many of your postures posts and so you would earn less points...Sorry about that.

I've seen you on a parallel thread about the burn in, and I felt really bad for you.

 

Mr. conradnash

Sorry, the one you see serves my friend in Vancouver BC. If you live nearby, I can get you acquainted.

I have no pictures of that as I never thought to be asked for.

The wire between the thick 0 AWG cable and the banana plug is of 8 AWG. I really believe that this banana plug is the best possible electrical and physical way to connect between it and a binding post.

The banana plug is soldered thoroughly to that 8 AWG wire. 100% of its inside perimeter and 100% of the 8 AWG wire for the entire common length (about 2cm long).

The other end was soldered to the spade (cable shoe) that is of way thicker and more firm than the one Mr. keppertup has. It is soldered on both sides of the shoe (over the center hole). The shoe is crimped on two presses with a 70 DIN size tool.

Than the ends were worn, with a black sleeve (larger diameter) on the thick cable, the shoe and the edge of the 8 AWG cable. A second sleeve (white) is covering that edge and all the 8 AWG wire and secures (permanently) the banana plug sleeve from open.

This structure ensures the best electrical and mechanical construction, and it is very strong. It took me a while to figure it out…For the record, I also have a perfect solution to use two and four 0 AWG wires in one cable, for those who really need that.

Audioquest checks in on the dodgy subject of bi wiring,

http://www1.audioquest.com/resource_tools/downloads/literature/learning_modules/Understanding-BiWiri...

B4icu, by the way, as instated previously, you don’t seem to know what bi wiring actually is. 

Mr. geoffkait

Did you notice that the bottom of your ref. was written or approved by AudioQuest that is a cable maker? Do I need to explain you why Bi-wires are better for AudioQuest than a single wire? (I'll give you a clue: they make double the money on bi-wire).
Would I base an argument on a biased quote with interest, rather a scientific approach?
I rather stick to my explanation (technical, supported by electronics knowledge and proven by simulation) than your lovely words that guide nowhere. Do you still believe that the earth is flat?

Your lovely description of bi wire could be also applied to a chair or a table. It would work the same.