testing 'sound audio facts'...

[Paul R]

Vandersteen, which is not in the cable business, has always recommended biwiring. I'm sure that deep down it has some nefarious motivation.

 

I am not at all willing to say BiWiring has any benefits, but I do not think BiWiring can do any harm either. So if someone wants to BiWire, more power to them.

 

Now BiAmplification is a totally different story, and can both help or utterly destroy the sound of a speaker. Not to mention, destroy the speaker while it is at it!

[gmgraves]

I am not at all willing to say BiWiring has any benefits, but I do not think BiWiring can do any harm either. So if someone wants to BiWire, more power to them.

 

Now BiAmplification is a totally different story, and can both help or utterly destroy the sound of a speaker. Not to mention, destroy the speaker while it is at it!

 

 

+1!

[gmgraves]

No need to bet, I've already tried. Not only that, but many other combinations as well. But like I said before, the difference you here depends on the equipment. Most of my speakers are Vandersteen, and biwiring makes the biggest difference with them over any other brand. Just to give an example, I took the Tara 2's ($3800 for a single run) off my Wilson's (Wilson is at the other end of the spectrum. They don't believe in biwiring and offer no connection for it), and put them on a pair if Vandersteen model 2's. I compared them to 2 runs of AQ Type 6 ($400 for both pairs) and found that AQ beat the Tara's in every possible way. I don't know about you, but I would much rather spend $400 on speaker cables, than $3800.

 

 

It shouldn't depend on the equipment since bi-wiring does not work the way the marketing departments of the various speaker manufacturers always seem to explain it.

[Jud]

It shouldn't depend on the equipment since bi-wiring does not work the way the marketing departments of the various speaker manufacturers always seem to explain it.

 

In the case of Vandersteen it's in the owner's manual, I guess for the purpose of marketing the speaker to you after purchase.

 

It's quite possible for Vandersteen's view on this to be wrong, but if it's for marketing reasons they're doing a damned bad job.

[CR250]

"It's quite possible for Vandersteen's view on this to be wrong, but if it's for marketing reasons they're doing a damned bad job."

 

Why do you say they're doing a bad job marketing? The Vandersteen Model 2's are the best selling high end speaker of all time.

[CR250]

"It shouldn't depend on the equipment since bi-wiring does not work the way the marketing departments of the various speaker manufacturers always seem to explain it."

 

Can you give an example of how a company like Vandersteen explains biwiring, and where they are going wrong?

[rodrigaj]

"It shouldn't depend on the equipment since bi-wiring does not work the way the marketing departments of the various speaker manufacturers always seem to explain it."

 

Can you give an example of how a company like Vandersteen explains biwiring, and where they are going wrong?

 

Off topic:

CR250: If you click on "Reply With Quote" you don't have to manually quote. It also makes it easier for others to follow who you are quoting. If you already know this and are doing it your way for a reason, I apologize.

[wwaldmanfan]

"It's quite possible for Vandersteen's view on this to be wrong, but if it's for marketing reasons they're doing a damned bad job."

 

Why do you say they're doing a bad job marketing? The Vandersteen Model 2's are the best selling high end speaker of all time.

 

I think Jud was being facetious. You can download a .pdf of the Vandersteen owner's manual here, with details about biwiring their speakers:

VANDERSTEEN AUDIO 2CE SIGNATURE II OPERATION MANUAL Pdf Download.

[Sal1950]

In the world of High End manufacturers, one hand washes the other. Anything that helps to sell each others products is good the industry.. RV is just playing along.

[gmgraves]

I think Jud was being facetious. You can download a .pdf of the Vandersteen owner's manual here, with details about biwiring their speakers:

VANDERSTEEN AUDIO 2CE SIGNATURE II OPERATION MANUAL Pdf Download.

You notice that nowhere in this "explanation" does it tell you "why" bi-wiring works, It just whets your appetite to try it. This is classic "Marketing Speak". Anyone contemplating bi-wiring should call the speaker manufacturer and ask someone in engineering to explain why a long shorting strap (the dual run of speaker cables) should sound better than the supplied shorting straps of just a couple of inches. If they can give a real engineering explanation, I'll eat my speaker cables!

[gmgraves]

I am not at all willing to say BiWiring has any benefits, but I do not think BiWiring can do any harm either. So if someone wants to BiWire, more power to them.

 

Now BiAmplification is a totally different story, and can both help or utterly destroy the sound of a speaker. Not to mention, destroy the speaker while it is at it!

 

 

You're right Paul, Bi-wiring does no harm. But Bi-amping, especially using an active crossover before the power amp in place of the low-impedance, high power crossover in the speaker cabinet itself can really yield spectacular results if properly implemented. Unfortunately, few speaker manufacturers give the consumer a means of by-passing the in-speaker crossover network.

[r_w]

Agreed... active properly done is indeed spectacular.

 

 

You're right Paul, Bi-wiring does no harm. But Bi-amping, especially using an active crossover before the power amp in place of the low-impedance, high power crossover in the speaker cabinet itself can really yield spectacular results if properly implemented. Unfortunately, few speaker manufacturers give the consumer a means of by-passing the in-speaker crossover network.

[NeroMetalliko]

You're right Paul, Bi-wiring does no harm. But Bi-amping, especially using an active crossover before the power amp in place of the low-impedance, high power crossover in the speaker cabinet itself can really yield spectacular results if properly implemented. Unfortunately, few speaker manufacturers give the consumer a means of by-passing the in-speaker crossover network.

 

The bi-wiring thing is one of the most puzzling to me...

I'm far to say that I have made so extensive test to give a final judgment, but looking back I have to admit that every time in my life I have the opportunity to compare bi-wiring vs single wiring I have always noticed no to little difference, and the difference, if any, was always for the worst (i.e. single wired seemed better). So why the bi-wiring myth is still so alive is a real mystery for me...

 

I keep my opinion on hold regarding bi-amping, due to lack of proper test.

I have to admit that I'm inclined to remain skeptical, at least in regard to the more common analog bi-amping using the loudspeaker crossover, specially if the distance between the amps and the speakers is not short.

 

In the past I have even tried to DIY a DRC (Dynamic Room Correction) thing, and after all the hassle to setup it properly I noticed some big differences indeed, but overall it was not for the good...

Never tried the DEQx stuff in any case, so cannot tell.

 

However, I think that in the modern era of digital source files the maximum potential advantage it could be to make the crossover filtering directly in the digital domain (which could include even a linearization of the drivers and ambience correction, if desired) by putting all the stuff (including DACs/amps) directly connected to the drivers (bypassing the analog crossover obviously) with very short cables/wires (as short as possible, possibly all the stuff in the loudspeaker cabinet case itself).

 

This is not easy to achieve, and is not well matching my ideal simplistic-minimal approach (too much added manipulation of the signal always leaves me something afraid...). It could require some heavy modding on common products and/or special designed components for this exact purpose, but nonetheless it could be interesting to try.

 

Have a nice listening time,

ciao,

 

Andrea

[semente]

Now that we have agreed on the lesser issue of bi-wiring let's refocus on the major ones.

 

7) to remove a large measure of guesswork out of speaker/amp matching, go active. with a pair of decent active loudspeakers (and subs as necessary) from a trusted brand. but refer to *, ** and *** as above before taking that (deep) plunge.

 

I would say that unless one chooses extremely current-hungry loudspeakers the "guessworking" isn't that much of a task if one goes for solid state.

But valve amplifiers on the other hand tend to have a high output impedance that leaves the frequency response of the combo at the mercy of the loudspeakers' load, which varies in impedance and phase along the audible range.

 

Stereophile dummy-load used for testing amplifiers

 

 

A high output impedance Prima Luna's frequency response when subject to aforementioned load (black trace)

 

I defend that one should never evaluate speaker performance with valve amps for this reason, unless we are putting the amplifier selection before that of the speakers which in my opinion is not how it should be done.

 

R

[NeroMetalliko]

pre-computer audio/head-fi explosions…

4) speakers are most important:

 

Speakers are REALLY important in my opinion, but this aspect could be extended to a more general concept.

 

I think that, even with the current technology, the weakest parts in a audio chain are the ones I can call, just to give the idea, "transducers", i.e. those components that are transforming a physical thing to another one.

 

Some of these we cannot avoid at all and all the related effects are always inside the final recording we have, just think to the microphones for example: they transform the sound to an analog electrical signal to start with.

 

Leaving all the editing/mastering thing outside, just to simplify a bit, in the old analog ages to get a recording in our hands we had to face to the tape recording (electrical to magnetic conversion) and vinyl print (to get the mechanical tracks).

 

All of this was/is outside of our control, we cannot do nothing other than choose and buy the best sounding recordings available.

 

But once at home, with our LP, for playback we had to start again with a MM/MC pickup transforming mechanical movements to analog electrical signal.

Note that the pre/power amplifiers and crossovers are not a "transducer" as I'm intending here, because they does not really change the physical domain, they just process electrical to electrical (not saying they are not important btw).

Finally the last transducers: the loudspeakers drivers, transforming electrical to physical sound again.

 

Wow, there were a lot of conversions, only few of which we can try to optimize based on technological availability, our passion and obviously the budget.

 

Today the things are a bit changed: in the out of control area there is an analog to digital conversion (which I still tend to consider a change in domain) to get the recording.

 

Leaving outside, for further simplicity, the optical stuff (including CD print and spinners) which is not more mandatory, starting form music files in the modern home playback audio chain there is at least the need of a complimentary digital to analog (DAC) conversion.

 

But after the amplification the last transducer is always the same: the loudspeaker (or headphone) driver, nothing changed here.

 

In my opinion it always was (and is) that the transducers are adding problems more than the non-transducers components during the required audio path, because of a lot of additional non-linearity, distortions and inefficiency necessarily involved in the delicate task to change the physical domain.

 

So the old gold rules to pay special attention (and budget) to speakers (and to turntables and pickups in the past) is not without sense.

 

The technology is always evolving, but in my opinion one of the (if not the) most sensible/critical part of the audio chain is still the last unavoidable transducer: the loudspeaker driver (the "highlander" one, we can say...)

 

Just to add some academicals talk...

Ciao.

 

Andrea

[audiventory]

Stereophile dummy-load used for testing amplifiers

 

 

 

Hi Semente,

 

I have questions about first picture:

 

1. What is solid line and point line?

 

2. What in left and right y-axises?

 

 

For easier interpretation of results need panoramic (by frequency) SPL-measurements of amplifier+speaker in anechoic room.

 

Otherwise need math modeling amp+speakers. The math should have many input arrays of variables. That practically is difficult.

[NeroMetalliko]

Now that we have agreed on the lesser issue of bi-wiring let's refocus on the major ones.

 

I defend that one should never evaluate speaker performance with valve amps for this reason, unless we are putting the amplifier selection before that of the speakers which in my opinion is not how it should be done.

 

R

 

I have difficulty to think to something like an "absolute speaker", the one who will be good for all combinations, especially because I consider it a very critical piece of technology (just look to my post above about "transducers", if you like).

 

So it is not so insane to choose a new loudspeaker (which can give huge enhancements to the audio listening experience) keeping fixed the already owned audio chain (including the amplifier).

 

I don't have tube amps, but from my point of view it could perfectly make sense to listen to a speaker pairs using tube amps (similar to, or the same as, the already owned), even knowing there will ne unavoidable interactions.

 

I like to add (but I don't want to fire up the never ending measurements vs good sound issue) that you can keep the frequency response and whatever measurements you like very "ideal" if you want, by choosing different circuits topologies, components, feedback ratio and so on, even with tubes...

I'm still not so sure that pursuing this pure electrical task will automatically means that the system will be better sounding (at least in my humble experience).

 

Have a nice listening time,

Ciao.

 

Andrea

[esldude]

Hi Semente,

 

I have questions about first picture:

 

1. What is solid line and point line?

 

2. What in left and right y-axises?

 

 

For easier interpretation of results need panoramic (by frequency) SPL-measurements of amplifier+speaker in anechoic room.

 

Otherwise need math modeling amp+speakers. The math should have many input arrays of variables. That practically is difficult.

 

Solid line is impedance in ohms, and dashed line is phase. Solid line values are read off the left axis. And phase read off the right axis. This is a dummy test speaker load use by Stereophile to load amplifiers and test the resulting response.

 

Details here:

Heavy Load: How Loudspeakers Torture Amplifiers | Stereophile.com

[esldude]

I have difficulty to think to something like an "absolute speaker", the one who will be good for all combinations, especially because I consider it a very critical piece of technology (just look to my post above about "transducers", if you like).

 

So it is not so insane to choose a new loudspeaker (which can give huge enhancements to the audio listening experience) keeping fixed the already owned audio chain (including the amplifier).

 

I don't have tube amps, but from my point of view it could perfectly make sense to listen to a speaker pairs using tube amps (similar to, or the same as, the already owned), even knowing there will ne unavoidable interactions.

 

I like to add (but I don't want to fire up the never ending measurements vs good sound issue) that you can keep the frequency response and whatever measurements you like very "ideal" if you want, by choosing different circuits topologies, components, feedback ratio and so on, even with tubes...

I'm still not so sure that pursuing this pure electrical task will automatically means that the system will be better sounding (at least in my humble experience).

 

Have a nice listening time,

Ciao.

 

Andrea

 

I think I can give an example of when tube amps are a good idea. I for a long time used Quad ESL63 speakers. Over 32 ohm impedance in the lower octave of its response and just 3 ohms or so in the upper octave or so. With a good triode amp, having a significant fraction of an ohm output impedance you boosted the lower couple octaves enough to notice slightly, and slowly rolled off the treble more than just enough to notice. Both together were quite noticeable. In essence you were unintentionally moving toward a room curve similar to what many room correction softwares suggest. There is more than just that though that was a big part of why tube amps and electrostats were often a good match. Stick a typical SS amp on those speakers and though perhaps better fidelity in the sense of not being much effected by the speaker loading it actually was less satisfactory for enjoying music.

[Jud]

"It's quite possible for Vandersteen's view on this to be wrong, but if it's for marketing reasons they're doing a damned bad job."

 

Why do you say they're doing a bad job marketing? The Vandersteen Model 2's are the best selling high end speaker of all time.

 

I think Jud was being facetious. You can download a .pdf of the Vandersteen owner's manual here, with details about biwiring their speakers:

VANDERSTEEN AUDIO 2CE SIGNATURE II OPERATION MANUAL Pdf Download.

 

In the world of High End manufacturers, one hand washes the other. Anything that helps to sell each others products is good the industry.. RV is just playing along.

 

You notice that nowhere in this "explanation" does it tell you "why" bi-wiring works, It just whets your appetite to try it. This is classic "Marketing Speak". Anyone contemplating bi-wiring should call the speaker manufacturer and ask someone in engineering to explain why a long shorting strap (the dual run of speaker cables) should sound better than the supplied shorting straps of just a couple of inches. If they can give a real engineering explanation, I'll eat my speaker cables!

 

 

Yep, I was being facetious. The Vandersteen 2 series, as CR250 notes, are generally acknowledged to be the best-selling "high end" speakers of all time, so they apparently know something about marketing.

 

Their manuals are absolute models of how it should be done in my opinion, spending many pages for example on how to set up the speakers in a listening room to sound their best, which is something notably absent from other owner's manuals I've read.

 

If Vandersteen wanted to efficiently help cable companies or audio dealers with their marketing, manuals that will be read primarily by people who already own the speakers, rather than the much larger number of all those who might possibly be interested in them, would seem to be a funny way to go about it. Also, contrary to the impression one might get from the "marketing-speak" description, the careful, thorough explanation of how Vandersteen feels bi-wiring or bi-amping should be done goes on for four closely typed pages. It should further be noted that some of the explanation runs expressly counter to the presumed interests of cable manufacturers and dealers:

 

The effects of bi-wiring are not subtle. The improvements are large enough that a bi-wire set of moderately priced cable will usually sound better than a single run of far more expensive cable.

 

All the cables in a bi-wire set must be the same. There is often great temptation to use a wire known for good bass response on the woofer inputs and a different wire known for good treble response on the midrange/tweeter inputs. This will cause the different sonic characteristics of the two wires in the middle frequencies to interfere with the proper blending of the woofer and midrange driver through the 600Hz crossover point. The consistency of the sound will be severely affected as the different sounding woofer and midrange drivers conflict with each other in the frequency range where our ears are most sensitive to sonic anomalies. The disappointing result is a vague image, a lack of transparency through the midrange and lower treble and loss of detail and clarity.

 

Thus you're told not to spend lots of money on expensive cable, but to use a moderately priced bi-wired set for better sound; and that you should not go looking for "specialist" cables for frequency ranges (thus possibly spreading money - perhaps more money, given the idea of "specialist" cables - among different cable manufacturers), but instead stick with the moderately priced bi-wired set.

 

Both of these pieces of advice are the opposite of what one would expect from a speaker manufacturer trying to sell more expensive audio cables (which, by the way, in case no one has thought of this, would raise the total cost for anyone looking to purchase Vandersteen's own products, presumably not something the company would be in favor of any more than they would want their vendor costs to rise).

 

It is quite true that Vandersteen does not explain any engineering theory behind bi-wiring in the owner's manual. Then again, they don't explain the engineering theory behind bi-amping in that same section of the manual, nor do they explain acoustical theory in the equally careful and thorough four and a half pages of room set-up directions that follow the four pages on bi-wiring and bi-amping. After all, it isn't an engineering text, it's a speaker owner's manual.

 

So, bottom line: Whether or not bi-wiring works (a subject on which I'm agnostic: I am currently happily using a single run of speaker wiring with jumpers to connect my Vandersteens to my amp, while formerly I was happily using bi-wiring), the hypothesis that Vandersteen recommends it in their owner's manuals in order to market other companies' cables for the benefit of those companies and dealers just doesn't hold up. It seems most likely they recommend it because they think it matters, whether that thinking is correct or not.

[NeroMetalliko]

Quoting the quoted above:

 

The effects of bi-wiring are not subtle. The improvements are large enough that a bi-wire set of moderately priced cable will usually sound better than a single run of far more expensive cable.

Based on my limited experience (nothing compared to a manufacturer, obviously) I humbly disagree with this statement.

The effects of bi-wiring could be not subtle, cable length and overall physical geometry are playing a definitive role, but if a difference is present, I have always noticed that it was at detriment.

Good sense should be master here, comparing vastly different kind (and price) of cables in single/bi wiring could not help to figure it out for several reasons (some are explained below).

 

All the cables in a bi-wire set must be the same.

This is an absolute must, in my opinion mixing different cable types for different drivers in bi-wiring is a sure recipe to loose overall coherency.

 

There is often great temptation to use a wire known for good bass response on the woofer inputs and a different wire known for good treble response on the midrange/tweeter inputs. This will cause the different sonic characteristics of the two wires in the middle frequencies to interfere with the proper blending of the woofer and midrange driver through the 600Hz crossover point. The consistency of the sound will be severely affected as the different sounding woofer and midrange drivers conflict with each other in the frequency range where our ears are most sensitive to sonic anomalies. The disappointing result is a vague image, a lack of transparency through the midrange and lower treble and loss of detail and clarity.

I definitely agree here, but I add that this is exactly the kind of disappointing results that could be present even using identical cables in bi-wiring, and for similar reasons to the ones already explained: due to the mutual interactions between the two branch loops carrying different signals (which are always different, not because the different cable but because the different crossover network part + driver involved). Again cable lengths and mutual loops geometry are the key here and they could produce more or less noticeable effects, which in any case I have found to be always detrimental, and of the same type already illustrated, from the listening point of view.

 

The bottom line for me is that when a friend ask me regarding this topic I always suggest him to get the best good sense reasonably priced cables for the given budget connecting the speakers in single wire (or X-connection, as explained in one of my previous post, if possible) and stick to it happily.

 

Have a nice listening time,

ciao.

 

Andrea

[Allan F]

All the cables in a bi-wire set must be the same. There is often great temptation to use a wire known for good bass response on the woofer inputs and a different wire known for good treble response on the midrange/tweeter inputs...

The foregoing is apparently open to debate. Many cable manufacturers design their bi-wire cables with the runs to the bass drivers considerably thicker than those to the mid/treble drivers.

 

[CR250]

Sorry Jud. I didn't realize you were kidding. I got so emotionally caught up in the life critical decision of how to connect a pair of speaker cables, I had no room left for humor.

[Jud]

I got so emotionally caught up in the life critical decision of how to connect a pair of speaker cables

 

[Jud]

The foregoing is apparently open to debate. Many cable manufacturers design their bi-wire cables with the runs to the bass drivers considerably thicker than those to the mid/treble drivers.

 

 

Yep - which was actually part of my point: If Vandersteen's motivation was playing to the cable manufacturers' interests, why would they expressly recommend against this in their owner's manual?