Bi-wiring speakers with Zitron cables

[Masterlu]

Originally Posted by BlueFox

This is what I received from Aerial this morning regarding this subject.

"We don't have a general recommendation on bi-wiring because the results are variable. Bad cable isn't saved by bi-wiring. Also, Bi-wiring isn't necessary on the best cables. For cable in between, it can help.

Best is to disconnect one speaker, listen in mono for awhile until you are used to it, then bi-wire the first speaker using the extra cable from the disconnected speaker. Do not change anything else. Then listen again. This will give you some idea of what the effect is with your current cables. If you have good cables, the effect should be limited.

With a X600.5 you might consider the 20T V2's in the future. They are a whole new world. Not just better 7Ts but something beyond that in many ways. It's certainly more improvement than changing cables would provide, but it is more expensive too.

Thank you for choosing the 7T's."

[jdandy]

Originally Posted by BlueFox

Caelin,

I was reading a technical paper on the AudioQuest web-site regarding bi-wiring speakers. The gist of it is that this separates the low and high frequencies between cables, with a theoretical improvement in sound. Like everything else in audio, there are opinions on both sides of this subject. I have the Zitron Anaconda speaker cables, and I wonder what your opinion is on bi-wiring. Thanks for your time.

Bud.......I find it a shame that some manufactures and many retailers, especially those who have an interest in wire sales, offer information like you have presented in such a misinformed way to consumers. It is often eluded to that bi-wiring is like bi-amping, that is low frequencies are on one set of wires and high frequencies on the other set of wires. I have actually heard sales people say that bi-wiring is the poor man's bi-amping. This is absolute malarkey. As was clearly stated by Caelin in post #3, an excellent post by the way, all that is actually being achieved with bi-wiring is an increase in aggregate wire size. There is no separation of high and low frequencies on the speaker wires since both runs originate on full frequency taps at the amplifier. Furthermore, any differences in wire guage, length, terminations, or conductive material can create all sorts of additional problems, particularly capacitance and impedance issues. It is my opinion that bi-wiring is pushed by wire sellers to get you to buy-wire.

There is only one way to get low frequencies on one pair of wires and high frequencies on a second pair of wires. It is called bi-amping. This requires the use of an external crossover before the amplifiers. Bi-amping has its issues as well, but my point here is that bi-wiring is in no way an alternative for bi-amping. In my humble opinion, bi-wiring is a placebo.

[CGabriel]

Originally Posted by jdandy

Bud.......I find it a shame that some manufactures and many retailers, especially those who have an interest in wire sales, offer information like you have presented in such a misinformed way to consumers. It is often eluded to that bi-wiring is like bi-amping, that is low frequencies are on one set of wires and high frequencies on the other set of wires. I have actually heard sales people say that bi-wiring is the poor man's bi-amping. This is absolute malarkey. As was clearly stated by Caelin in post #3, an excellent post by the way, all that is actually being achieved with bi-wiring is an increase in aggregate wire size. There is no separation of high and low frequencies on the speaker wires since both runs originate on full frequency taps at the amplifier. Furthermore, any differences in wire guage, length, terminations, or conductive material can create all sorts of additional problems, particularly capacitance and impedance issues. It is my opinion that bi-wiring is pushed by wire sellers to get you to buy-wire. There is only one way to get low frequencies on one pair of wires and high frequencies on a second pair of wires. It is called bi-amping. This requires the use of an external crossover before the amplifiers. Bi-amping has its issues as well, but my point here is that bi-wiring is in no way an alternative for bi-amping. In my humble opinion, bi-wiring is a placebo.

+1 and thank you. There is a remarkable amount of misunderstanding or worse misrepresentation.

cg

[russellhorn]

It seems to me that we are living in the "misinformation age" As usual it is threads like this that prove this forum to be indispensable and well worth being a subscriber. Thank you for taking the time to respond CGabriel (and others)!

Originally Posted by CGabriel

+1 and thank you. There is a remarkable amount of misunderstanding or worse misrepresentation.

cg

+ 2. In fact I just went back and edited my earlier post after realizing I got some of my facts wrong

[BlueFox]

Originally Posted by jdandy

In my humble opinion, bi-wiring is a placebo.

I don't think it is a placebo, but, rather, the benefits, if any, are marginal. The question is whether any improvements are worth the outlay, especially if using relatively good/expensive cable.

What started this discussion was a thread on another site where the benefits of upgrading the stock jumpes on a speaker was being discussed. That bought bi-wiring into the discussion since you can think of bi-wiring as another form of jumpers. Some people liked it, others felt there was no benefit. Sort of sounds like most cable threads.

I guess I will continue saving towards my Typhon purchase, although I bet some, but not here, will say that is also a placebo.

[G8YU]

Originally Posted by jdandy

Bud.......I find it a shame that some manufactures and many retailers, especially those who have an interest in wire sales, offer information like you have presented in such a misinformed way to consumers. It is often eluded to that bi-wiring is like bi-amping, that is low frequencies are on one set of wires and high frequencies on the other set of wires. I have actually heard sales people say that bi-wiring is the poor man's bi-amping. This is absolute malarkey. As was clearly stated by Caelin in post #3, an excellent post by the way, all that is actually being achieved with bi-wiring is an increase in aggregate wire size. There is no separation of high and low frequencies on the speaker wires since both runs originate on full frequency taps at the amplifier. Furthermore, any differences in wire guage, length, terminations, or conductive material can create all sorts of additional problems, particularly capacitance and impedance issues. It is my opinion that bi-wiring is pushed by wire sellers to get you to buy-wire.

There is only one way to get low frequencies on one pair of wires and high frequencies on a second pair of wires. It is called bi-amping. This requires the use of an external crossover before the amplifiers. Bi-amping has its issues as well, but my point here is that bi-wiring is in no way an alternative for bi-amping. In my humble opinion, bi-wiring is a placebo.

As I was reading this thread I wondered if someone was going to bring up bi-amping. I have one amp running the left and right tweeter and midrange and an identical amp running the left and right woofer. One amp is "slaved" to the other and the master amp is passing it the full frequency range through interconnects. I've always wondered if this method of master and slave amp would cause a timing issues (or other musical reproduction issues) to the part of frequency that is driven by the slave amp. I think there have been some amps that have a "bi-amp" switch or selector on the back that adjusts the master amp to better match the slave; or maybe it just turns on the RCA outs.
For those of you who bi-amp, do you run your speaker wires completely separated or do you physically cross one wire over the other once (like an X)? I know signal and power wires should cross at 90 degree angles (if they have to cross at all) and many people say to separate your wires as much as possible but; years ago I was told that when running bi-amped with separate speaker wires always run them across one another once between the speaker and amp. I think they said that running them completely parallel between the speaker and amp wouldn't sound as good. Maybe this was only true for poorly shielded wire or it's not true at all?

[GaryProtein]

Originally Posted by jdandy

. . . . It is my opinion that bi-wiring is pushed by wire sellers to get you to buy-wire.

There is only one way to get low frequencies on one pair of wires and high frequencies on a second pair of wires. It is called bi-amping. This requires the use of an external crossover before the amplifiers. Bi-amping has its issues as well, but my point here is that bi-wiring is in no way an alternative for bi-amping. In my humble opinion, bi-wiring is a placebo.

+10

[MyPal]

This is an interesting thread as bi-wiring has always been a contentious topic. It is interesting that some of the cable manufacturers mentioned in this thread do offer bi-wire termination options. One of those respected brands is also sponsored here & offers their bi-wire cable for basically the same price as their standard termination option.

So in that scenario where the alternative requires jumpers, the solution offering is indeed a lower cost option! So it is not necessarily about selling more cable or selling an option for a higher price. Now we are talking about premium cable that is multi-core with complex windings to begin with.

I am not sure whether or not there is twice as much metal or "cores" in that chord winding though & I am seeking confirmation on this. Given the published specs, it looks as if the cores are split out further in some ratio.

So if a loudspeaker manufacturer recommends bi-wiring as opposed to post shorting or jumpers, wouldn't the "Platinum" bi-wire cable option be the better choice as opposed to the standard offering plus jumpers?

[prepress]

Originally Posted by jdandy

Bud.......I find it a shame that some manufactures and many retailers, especially those who have an interest in wire sales, offer information like you have presented in such a misinformed way to consumers. It is often eluded to that bi-wiring is like bi-amping, that is low frequencies are on one set of wires and high frequencies on the other set of wires. I have actually heard sales people say that bi-wiring is the poor man's bi-amping. This is absolute malarkey. As was clearly stated by Caelin in post #3, an excellent post by the way, all that is actually being achieved with bi-wiring is an increase in aggregate wire size. There is no separation of high and low frequencies on the speaker wires since both runs originate on full frequency taps at the amplifier. Furthermore, any differences in wire guage, length, terminations, or conductive material can create all sorts of additional problems, particularly capacitance and impedance issues. It is my opinion that bi-wiring is pushed by wire sellers to get you to buy-wire.

There is only one way to get low frequencies on one pair of wires and high frequencies on a second pair of wires. It is called bi-amping. This requires the use of an external crossover before the amplifiers. Bi-amping has its issues as well, but my point here is that bi-wiring is in no way an alternative for bi-amping. In my humble opinion, bi-wiring is a placebo.

I'm no expert certainly, but my experience favors bi-amping where possible. I was bi-amping (passively) with two pair of monoblocks, with separate runs of speaker cable for each pair. When one pair of monos was taken out of the system, but using the same two pair of cables, the sound thinned out at the lower frequencies noticeably. These days I have a single pair of Mac 501s, and bi-wire using two sets of taps on the amps. I have never tried using a jumper so I have no comments on that.

With some bi-wire pairs of speaker cable, the regular number of conductors across the wire is reduced. For example, Kimber 12TC has 12 conductors for each terminal in its regular configuration, but the bi-wire version divides that so there are 8 conductors for the low frequencies and 4 for the mids/highs. I prefer two full runs over bi-wire runs.