Why do you think Bi-Wiring improves the sound ?

Several thoughts, all tempered with real world listening to a variety of speakers ( currently I own Apogee, Quad, Thiel and Vandersteen, three of those four vaunted designers sent them from the factory with biwire provisions.

The Vandersteen recommendation is based on science and listening with his products, since 1977. He does recommend an external biwire configuration If possible and get cables spaced appropriate 2”+. He is a pretty frugal designer/ engineer, the Model two in various versions over a quarter million sold, has beat inflation- IF he didn’t believe bi wired sounded better with additional cost to manufacture, it wouldn’t be on his product. Obviously there is hardly agreement on many principles of speaker design. Many a lauded designer cares nothing about pistonic motion and tolerates out of phase breakup in the passband ( see the Vandersteen Utube video on pistonic motion ) ain’t it great to have choices ???

Vandersteen model 2 to 7 including the high pass amplifier all have biwire provisions.

your results will always vary

enjoy the music and Libations of your choice, Ripple included

@bigkidz i have an 8’ set of AQ type 6 shotgun biwire, spades all around w Vandy size spades on speaker end - perfect for your listening session - they have about 50k miles on them as I loan them out to the agnostic for fun. I can put them in mail to you Sunday, chlorox wipe included !!!!
jim

OP vairrobert- the Cardas posts are awesome and allow for a gas tight connection- essential to good sound over the long haul. 

@tomic601 
Thank you for your offer , since you are a Thiel owner you might have read about my theroy on seperation of polarity on the Thiel owner forum.
@chorus 
Thank you , 2 of the 3 who converted are using 18 gauge
for the tweeter/midrange and 14 guage for the bass .
This is another thing to consider if I go to bi-wiring .
@mrklasou
You have done testing ! Something that my friend and I have been doing
for many weeks, upgrades or changes on our systems , which in the end is the only way hear what works or doesn't .

I read all the posts and appreciate them all , this hobby is a constant learning experience , at the same time I'm trying not to fall into making it a money pit .

This sure sounds like hard science. Lots and lots of "I believe" in there. He couldn't even be bothered to listen to it. It is no more authoritative than Vandersteen's anecdotal evidence. Is there any evidence that Richard Vandersteen does not use science in his designs? I would say that quite the opposite is true. In fact, he would say that designers that choose to not pay attention to phase in their speakers are absolutely wrong. He does back that with measurements. I am not saying either is right or wrong. I am just pointing out that many people here love to pick out the expert that they want to believe. You know, appeal to authority.

How ironic that you would accuse me of cherry-picking, then pluck just one of a number of quotes from Shaw that I provided, while ignoring those that include scientific reasons supporting his skepticism.

The onus of proof is on those, including Vandersteen, who claim that biwiring DOES make a meaningful difference, to support those claims with science. Has he done so? I am still awaiting proof that he has.

This:

Is there any evidence that Richard Vandersteen does not use science in his designs?

is a silly straw man. No one has suggested anything of the sort. And of course the fact that Vandersteen does, broadly speaking, use science in his designs, is irrelevant to the specific question being debated.

Shaw and the many other skeptics have provided technical reasons why biwiring does not make a meaningful, audible difference. If you are able to provide evidence to the contrary, I'll be happy to listen to it.