TEACH ME ABOUT BI-WIRE

702, i don't doubt what yure saying, but emf produced by the woofer, absorbed by the amplifier, & rejected by the tweeter's side of the x-over network, is going thru more wire from woof-to-amp-to-tweet, & when going to amp, the tweet isn't seeing signal fighting the emf coming at it.

look, i'm no scientist, yust looking for logical info as to why it sounds better. see also, paulwp's experience - even his spl tinks it's better... ;~)

don't tell me it doesn't sound better yust cuz there's no logic in it for *ewe*. it *does* sound better, please help me figure out why.

doug s.

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.