[jneutron]

If using the same cable and running it both in a bi-wire configuration and using all conductors but not bi-wiring I have not heard a difference "yet".

Honestly, I'd expect the diff to be small.  I'm not sure if the source material you would have used is sufficient to the task.  Especially if the source material were mixed down on a sound board with pan controls...they decimate the interchannel timing necessary to image reconstruction, and there is no possibility of reconstructing the information.

North Central Texas.

Ah, too far...ups is available however, for experimentation.

I am an open minded guy and will try just about anything in audio.

Cool.  Someday a correlation must be attempted betweeen the LC product, localization, and biwiring.

Ask Alpha Core. I think that blurb came from them.

Ah, OK.  I was hoping you had test verification as proof of "lack of skinning" on foil inductors.  As it turns out, it's not a problem unique to foil inductors, it affects particle beam kicker magnets as well.  I find very few people outside of magnet technology who understand the proximity effects that occur in the foil inductors.

Cheers, John

[Daygloworange]

Especially if the source material were mixed down on a sound board with pan controls...they decimate the interchannel timing necessary to image reconstruction, and there is no possibility of reconstructing the information.

By virtue of what John?

Is it because the pan controls might not be adjusted hard right and hard left while playing a stereo signal? Because of phase shift or group delay, or non linearity just by virtue of the input signal routed through them?

I'm curious.

If you guys wanna have some fun, I could take some stereo samples, and shift one side of a stereo recording by amounts as small as one sample compared to the other side. If there is any way for the results of that to be analyzed to see if there is anything that can be measured by conventional instruments, hey, then we could have some fun. 

Cheers

[jneutron]

Especially if the source material were mixed down on a sound board with pan controls...they decimate the interchannel timing necessary to image reconstruction, and there is no possibility of reconstructing the information.

By virtue of what John?

Is it because the pan controls might not be adjusted hard right and hard left while playing a stereo signal? Because of phase shift or group delay, or non linearity just by virtue of the input signal routed through them?

I'm curious.

We determine where a sound is by amplitude as well as timing, ear to ear difference.

Pan pots use only amplitude.  Humans have to take half the information we are used to, and reconstruct the location by "filling in the gaps".

We adjust within the brain to the different stimulus.  We always do that, and have no control.

Cheers, John

[Ethan Winer]

He performed the analysis using only a single sine of varying frequency. That is not the same as multiple frequencies branching at the crossover simultaneously.

Sure it is! Unless you think Fourier was wrong. If you believe otherwise, please explain.

--Ethan

[Daygloworange]

We determine where a sound is by amplitude as well as timing, ear to ear difference.

Pan pots use only amplitude.  Humans have to take half the information we are used to, and reconstruct the location by "filling in the gaps".

We adjust within the brain to the different stimulus.  We always do that, and have no control.

Localization cues being amplitude and delay between the left and right signals, I agree with you there. I'm trying to visualize what you are saying about pan pots only adjusting amplitude.....

There are a number of different stereo mic techniques, X/Y, spaced pair, MS, etc....

The X/Y technique being the most popular, altering the included angle between the mics alters the perceived sound. We often alter the sound by panning the left/right signals during mixdown. I'm not sure that this (not taking into account the difference of included angle being affected by the mics' polar patterns) is not the same as widening or lessening the included angle between mics, thereby affecting timing.

We adjust the soundstage width and center image density to taste when mixing by altering the panning between the left/right signals, as sometimes you have no choice. You can also adjust depth by shifting left/right signals in time as well.

This is for simple ambient recording. You can also get into multiple X/Y captures, X/Y plus M,  Blumlein MS, spaced pair, etc...

I like, and use them all, and get a lot of enjoyment from experimenting with them, both in setting up the capture, and subsequently, during mixdown.

Cheers

[jneutron]

Sure it is! Unless you think Fourier was wrong. If you believe otherwise, please explain.

--Ethan

For you to grasp the issue, you must start at the beginning.

Conceptually... that will be the hardest for you.  It is always the hardest for everybody.  The equations are easy, the ramifications are NOT..

Inspect biwire vs monowire.  two way speaker.

Assume the wires have 1 ohm resistance.
Monowire:
When bass is +1 amp, wireloss is 1 watt.
When hf is at +1 amp, wireloss is 1 watt.
When both are at +1 amp, wireloss is 4.
When bass is +1 and hf is -1, wireloss is zero..

Biwire:

When bass is +1 amp, loss is 1 watt.
When hf is at +1 amp, loss is 1 watt.
When both are at +1 amp, loss is 2 watts.  (hey, a difference..)
When bass is +1, hf is -1, loss is ....2 watts (another difference)

The salient point?  Within a monowire, when the currents are opposite, there is no wire loss.  Biwire doesn't do that.

Note the above is instantaneous losses.  If you peruse the equations, you will find that the rms losses do not change.

The reason:  The difference is a zero net integral power waveform, it has exactly the same dissipation above zero as below..  It cannot exist but for the primary signal dissipation..


And FFT's can't find them.

Cheers, John

[Speedskater]

Sometimes I totally agree with John.
Other times I have no clue of what he is writing about.
Bass is one frequency range and treble is another.

[Ethan Winer]

The salient point?  Within a monowire, when the currents are opposite, there is no wire loss.  Biwire doesn't do that.

First, normal speaker wire will be a lot lower than 1 Ohm, and the resistance in the crossover and voice coils will be more than 1 Ohm. But who cares what the wire losses are anyway? How could this affect anything audibly? Again, if the same signals are measured at each driver's terminals, the same sound will be emitted. This is what matters.

--Ethan

[Speedskater]

Second, almost all power amplifiers are voltage sources not current sources.
But in any case I think that Kirchhoff's laws, the Superposition Theorem, Thevenin's Theorem and Norton's Theorem will prevail.

[*Scotty*]

A friend of mine theorizes that bi-wiring probably upsets the partnering amplifiers feedback mechanism less than a single wire connection and reduces intermodulation  distortion products. Given that an amplifier is part of the equation, this additional factor would also contribute to the inconsistent
results observed by people who try bi-wiring.
Scotty

[jneutron]

The salient point?  Within a monowire, when the currents are opposite, there is no wire loss.  Biwire doesn't do that.

First, normal speaker wire will be a lot lower than 1 Ohm, and the resistance in the crossover and voice coils will be more than 1 Ohm.

Gee, ya think?  If you prefer, I could have used a 100 milliohm loop resistance with 20 miliohms per connection, normalized the signal to 100 wrms, and provided the exact same analysis scaled to whatever whim you desire. 

Instead of trying to divert from the analysis, understand it instead.  The crux is, if you have a monowire loop resistance that is 2% of the load impedance, there will be a 2% variance in the instantaneous dissipative loss within the wire loop, this due to the branching at the crossover.   

But who cares what the wire losses are anyway? How could this affect anything audibly?

Hmmm. If I toss a shottky in series with the wires, that's a loss...do we care???  Of course.

You seriously think that 1,2,or 5% loss variation at the whim of the musical content is of no issue??

Again, if the same signals are measured at each driver's terminals, the same sound will be emitted. This is what matters.

--Ethan

Didn't I already provide you a test schematic towards this end?  What did you do about it?

Cheers, John

Gee, ya think??

[jneutron]

Second, almost all power amplifiers are voltage sources not current sources.
But in any case I think that Kirchhoff's laws, the Superposition Theorem, Thevenin's Theorem and Norton's Theorem will prevail.

Hmmm..

I did indeed use Kirchhoffs law, as well as watt's, and, a little bit of algebra.

And the most important aspect...conservation of energy.

 Not rocket science.

Cheers, John

edit...joules law...sheesh, I typed too fast..

[Ethan Winer]

Didn't I already provide you a test schematic towards this end?  What did you do about it?

Er, nothing. I don't need to spend half a day setting up a test and measuring to know that bi-wiring is a waste of time so far as audibility. Maybe you can clarify:

Are you arguing that in theory it is possible to measure infinitesimal differences between one wire and bi-wiring? Or are you arguing that the sound can be audibly improved? That is, are we talking theory or practice?

--Ethan

[jneutron]

Didn't I already provide you a test schematic towards this end?  What did you do about it?

Er, nothing. I don't need to spend half a day setting up a test and measuring to know that bi-wiring is a waste of time so far as audibility.

An interesting take.  You are refusing to perform a specific measurement simply because of a belief, because you "know".

Isn't that what everybody rails about with respect to wire vendors? They balk at measurements to confirm their specific beliefs and "white papers", so the scientifically minded people (such as you) bash them for it.  As I've said, goose and gander.  Using a "belief" to refuse to measure something, that is not very scientifically minded..

Edit:  Yes, it would appear I'm being hard on ya...sorry about that.  I do of course agree that there are things we always have to trust in, lest anarchy take over.  I've presented a mathematical proof which seemingly conflicts with what we have been taught, and you are just presenting as a cautious guy who prefers to stick to what we've ben taught.  Not a problem for me, I'm very happy for the repartee as opposed to blind acceptance..

Maybe you can clarify:

Are you arguing that in theory it is possible to measure infinitesimal differences between one wire and bi-wiring? Or are you arguing that the sound can be audibly improved? That is, are we talking theory or practice?

--Ethan

1.  I am saying that the differences will be on the order of the ratio of delivery system resistance to end load resistance.  If one uses a delivery system with 5% of the total load resistance (Roger Russel's upper limit), then the instantaneous differences will be at the 5% level.  I do not consider 5% "infinitesimal", nor 2 %, nor 1%.  Personally, I prefer .01%, but I am realistic as well as nitpicking.  2 to 3% is far more reasonable in the real world.

2.  Audible improvement...I've heard an effect using a contrived not real world test, and am concerned with it possibly being something that is indeed audible.

3.  Standard DBT practices fall short when it comes to testing of relative localization, in fact, localization and human interpretation adaptation of altered localization parameterics is a completely uncharted science. (and no, I can't say that fast three times)

4.  We are talking both theory and practice.  That is the reason we are having this conversation..me with theory, you with practice.

Cheers, John

ps..edit, spelling...it's always spelling...

[jneutron]

Localization cues being amplitude and delay between the left and right signals, I agree with you there. I'm trying to visualize what you are saying about pan pots only adjusting amplitude.....

Put a sound source 10 feet in front of you, a bell for example. Close your eyes, somebody rings it.

You point to where you think the sound is.  You chose that direction because each ear heard the same volume, and both ears heard it at the exact same time.

Move the bell to 45 degrees off axis, to the right.  Ring again.

You point to the bell, and again, you made that decision because your right ear heard a louder signal than your left, and, your right ear heard it first.

Now, same bell, recorded.  Center the pan control, the image is centered...you point to the middle of the speaker setup.

Pan it...rotate the pan control to the right, do so until the bell is at that 45 degree position.

This is not equivalent.  Now, you are pointing to a spot based entirely on the difference in amplitude between right and left.  But that decision is not made with ANY time difference information, strictly amplitude.

You adapted to the localization information you were presented, not to the localization parameters that should have been present for a bell in that location.

The amount of time it takes for a human to re-adjust to the difference in localization parameters??  I don't know.  Nobody does.

So we ignore it..

My guess:  high end audio guys don't ignore it.  They may not understand what is going on scientifically, but they are indeed paying attention to "something" that is altering their perceptions.  Given a lack of understanding for why, they are given a whole mess of claptrap pseudoscience explanations...what else do they have?  People who tell them they're stupid, or dim witted, or gullible?

Cheers, John

[AJinFLA]

Where you located? 
Cheers, John

John, if you do go over to Danny's (he seems like a pretty nice guy) for a "listening party", make sure to have him demonstrate to you what he swore he could clearly (audibly) demonstrate to me, if I came over. Wire "burn in". That ought to be priceless. Or at least worth the "trip".

cheers,

AJ

[Daryl]

Bi-wiring is B.S. but if you were to bi-wire a speaker system and leave the jumpers installed you could effectively cut the resistance and inductance of your speaker wires in half which might be nice.

[AJinFLA]

Daryl, I would have to say that might be generally true, but that I cannot claim that it cannot make an (audible) difference. I can only say that I have neither seen proof of it or heard it myself. That does not mean it is not possible.
And, yes, I realize audiophiles are quite adept at fooling themselves. A lot
Perhaps mild soundstage differences. Perhaps. Or maybe an unintended radio station. But not the wife heard it in the driveway type stuff...

cheers,

AJ

[Daygloworange]

Put a sound source 10 feet in front of you, a bell for example. Close your eyes, somebody rings it.

You point to where you think the sound is.  You chose that direction because each ear heard the same volume, and both ears heard it at the exact same time.

You point directly in front of you, yes. Same amplitude to both ears, same delay. Gotcha.

Move the bell to 45 degrees off axis, to the right.  Ring again.

You point to the bell, and again, you made that decision because your right ear heard a louder signal than your left, and, your right ear heard it first.

Amplitude is much stronger at the right ear, and the delay is much shorter at the right ear, also more direct sound vs radiated sound is heard. The density of early and late reflections, and the associated comb filtering and room gain effects are masked by the louder direct sound.

 At the same time, left ear hears a lower amplitude, with a longer delay, and a more diffuse sound. There will be a higher ratio of early and late reflections, and the associated effects I described earlier.

The brain combines and interpolates all this (independant L/R) information, and allows us to localize where the sound is eminating from, and from how far away.

Now, same bell, recorded.  Center the pan control, the image is centered...you point to the middle of the speaker setup.

Pan it...rotate the pan control to the right, do so until the bell is at that 45 degree position.

This is not equivalent.  Now, you are pointing to a spot based entirely on the difference in amplitude between right and left.  But that decision is not made with ANY time difference information, strictly amplitude.

You adapted to the localization information you were presented, not to the localization parameters that should have been present for a bell in that location.

Same bell, recorded how? It sounds like you are describing a mono source. You mention center the pan (singular) control.
In the case of a mono signal panned to 45 deg. off axis to the right, then I agree, you would get only amplitude differences from the L/R speakers, but no delay between L/R (assuming you are sitting in a near field listening environment, free of room reflections, or with headphones).

However, in a stereo recording, you have a L and R signal that are assigned to 2 separate channels, and panned hard R and hard L. If you record with a stereo mic configuration pointing directly forward, and you move your "bell" 45 deg, off axis, it will play back as your ears would have heard it in your first example.

I totally get what you are saying about amplitude, and delay between the L/R hearing, but in the second example, with an amplitude only change, then you are talking about a mono signal.

Cheers

[*Scotty*]

John,thanks for shedding some light on this perplexing subject. Your open mindedness and your willingness to take the time to do the research and question commonly held assumptions is appreciated.
Scotty