HT3 owners -- what speaker cable are you using?

texas steve · « **Reply #20 on:** 28 Feb 2006, 04:51 pm »

Quote from: woody

Dennis,

From your reply, I gather that HT3's crossover was not designed for biwiring. Is this true?

Thanks for your participation in AudioCircle.

When I ordered my HT3s, Jim said no problem with bi wire.

Marbles · « **Reply #21 on:** 28 Feb 2006, 04:55 pm »

Quote from: texas steve

Quote from: woody
Dennis,

From your reply, I gather that HT3's crossover was not designed for biwiring. Is this true?

Thanks for your participation in AudioCircle.

When I ordered my HT3s, Jim said no problem with bi wire.

Mine is set up more for bi-amping (you have to bi-wire for that).

TomW16 · « **Reply #22 on:** 28 Feb 2006, 04:57 pm »

Quote

Can anyone explain to me the theoretical basis for bi-wiring? I tried it a couple of times, with no audible improvement. But I really didn't know why I should even expect to hear a difference.

Hey Dennis,

If you are objective, you probably won't hear a difference, however, with the right expectations...

Other than too small a guage cable (and doubling it for a bi-wire run), I don't think that there would be any audible difference.

Tom

Gordy · « **Reply #23 on:** 28 Feb 2006, 05:13 pm »

Hi Woody,

The HT-3's are wired for bi-wiring or bi-amping and can be special ordered for tri. I've tried bi-wiring with 3 different cables and combo's and couldn't hear any advantage with my system! I ended up using Jena Labs TFA's as they were far easier to hack to the four 4' runs that I needed to bi-amp than the Alpha Core Pythons.

brj · « **Reply #24 on:** 28 Feb 2006, 05:15 pm »

Both the HT1s and HT3s include two pairs of binding posts in their default configuration, which will allow either bi-wiring (2 wire runs per speaker from a single amp) or passive bi-amping (2 wire runs per speaker from two separate amplifiers). For bi-wiring and passive bi-amping, the designer's passive crossover remains in the signal path and retains its normal function. Take a look at the first 3 articles on this site for a description of bi-wiring and passive vs. active bi-amping.

I'm no expert on bi-wiring, but from what I've read, people generally seem to see an advantage to bi-wiring only when their initial single-wire run didn't offer enough total wire gauge to handle the current demands. I'm sure that the RLC values of the complete system may alter in some manner and thus have an additional affect, but I haven't yet found a source discussing it.

DMurphy · « **Reply #25 on:** 28 Feb 2006, 06:21 pm »

"I'm no expert on bi-wiring, but from what I've read, people generally seem to see an advantage to bi-wiring only when their initial single-wire run didn't offer enough total wire gauge to handle the current demands."

That's about the only theory I can think of. And using heavier gauge wire would seem like a simpler solution. Anyhow, I did not bi-wire the prototype HT3. But any parallel crossover can be configured for bi-wiring.
It won't change the performance parameters.

gitarretyp · « **Reply #26 on:** 28 Feb 2006, 07:13 pm »

Jon Risch provides the best explanation for the efficacy of bi-wiring that i've seen. http://www.geocities.com/jonrisch/biwiring.htm

He suggests that the benefit is essentially due to the current demands of the woofer versus that of the mid/tweeter.

DMurphy · « **Reply #27 on:** 28 Feb 2006, 08:31 pm »

He suggests that the benefit is essentially due to the current demands of the woofer versus that of the mid/tweeter.[/quote]

Thanks--I'll read through that.