TEACH ME ABOUT BI-WIRE

Sedond, you've got part of it. But the tweeter's side of the crossover network is a very high impedance--typically several kilohms--to the woofer's back EMF, while the amplifier is a very low impedance, typically several milliohms. That means that the tweeter network is going to reject the woofer's back EMF, and the amplifier will absorb it, regardless of the extra wire. It's like pouring water on the side of an incline; it's going to flow downhill (the low impedance path) instead of uphill (the high impedance path), and you don't need to do anything extra to make the water not flow uphill.

To improve the amplifier's absorption of the back EMF (better known as damping), you should provide a path between woofer and amplifier that is as low in resistance as possible. That would entail wire with large conductors. Alternatively, you could place the jumpers on the speaker terminals, and thus use doubled-up conductors, which would provide the same benefit as using wire 3 AWG larger.

So the irrefutable logic of Jostler, Stevemj and 702 wins the day. The only explanation (if we believe Jostler) is that biwiring is beneficial because it deludes audiophiles into enjoying their music more, or is there some mystical unknown (to Jostler and his merry men that is) influence, tee hee - like "star earthing" and other such mystical unknown stuff. RHUBARB to the three wise men - when, by the way, will we ever hear about any of your listening experiences guys? Or does listening to music not enter your agenda? Just in case you are interested, there was a calculation of the distortion changes due to bi-wiring published in HFN&RR about a dozen years ago - it was actually a calculation of the effect of star-earthing a cross-over, but the same logic applies. But personally, I could not care less. The calculation only produced a number. Whether or not the difference is muscally significant, only the ears can tell.

702, again, yer explanation sheds no lite on why biwiring my speakers sounds better than not. perhaps having a separate wire for the *downhill* signal, & the *uphill* signal, as opposed to one wire for *both* signals, has something to do w/it. the tweeter network may reject the back emf, but if it doesn't have to, then it's one less ting for it to do when sending signal to the tweeter. again, i'm no scientist, but i *can* hear.

doug s.

Good post Doug: The back of my mind had been mentioning this to me, but could not quite grasp it until now. I had been thinking of plumbing systems in which certain areas of a home receive better service (even though they are further away from the main with more pipes and a longer travel distance), perhaps through the positioning of a vent or who knows. It seems that BI-wiring may just offer such a vent.

Sedond and Dekay, I admire your patience with the bullies. When Jostler makes claims that bi-wiring makes no difference, and yet claims the scientific high ground he is being fraudulent - and his band of cohorts have been variously guilty of the same thing. Draw the circuits. Assume you have a four core speaker cable and assume each conductor has some resistance. Then assume that each pair and each quad has some other electrical properties such as capacitance and inductance. Draw the circuits for single-wire, internal bi-wire and double bi-wire - and none of these circuits is the same. Therefore for a scientist to claim there is no difference then that scientist has to assume away the importance of the electrical properties of the speaker cable. What kind of scientist is this? These are the same discredited guys that that claim amps and speaker cable are perfect and want you to throw all your money at speakers and drive it with a competent receiver, since it is only the speaker that shows gross distortions by their measurements. This is the same kind of scientist that makes no reality check to his assumption and then has the gall to tell audiophiles that do hear a difference, that they only hear it because they assumed they would hear a difference before listening. Now when I look at that, I reckon the audiophile comes out on top in such a comparison. The so-called scientist looked at his numbers and made an assumption - not bothering to listen with his ears. Yes, I am getting steamed up again, I will bite hard on my lip and receive my whipping now in silence. Just ever-so occasionally I will creep out and point out the arrogant and fraudulent nature of certain posters here who decry others reported experiences and offer none of their own.