# Bi-Wiring Speakers



## eaglerider94

I've read that Bi Wiring results in better sound. That being said, since I've already run speaker wire thru my wall can I simply split the wires from the speaker junction terminal on the wall (speaker plate) or do I have to run an second cable from the amp? I have Monitor Audios which are capable of Bi-Wiring.


----------



## brucek

> do I have to run an second cable from the amp?


Yes, you would need to run a second set of cables from the amp.

brucek


----------



## nova

Yes, as Bruce said, you'll need a second cable. 

"I've read that Bi Wiring results in better sound"

That statement is definitely debatable. :boxer: :bigsmile:


----------



## Candoo

I have been told that because of my bieng visually impaired that my hearing is better in some ways to compensate. here is my experiences reguarding bi-wireing usieng a pair of Polk Audio Monitor 60's

now i fullly recognize and understand that the Polk monitor 60's don't stand out in their catagory as strong heart stopping sound. and for them biwireing is more a gimick than a feature. but let me say this.

during my tests and calabration i have found that biwireing can add too the definiiton and clearity of the sound and too the fullness and richness.
the audio having two seperate direcitons to reach seperate ends allows for seperation and a fuller more sperated sound between speaker sections that are seperated by the biwire method.

ok that said. my test went as fallows

1. I disconnected one speaker and connnected it with a single pair of wires. and left the other biwired.

2. i listened too a track that had suble timbres and sudden deep base sounds.

3. i reversed the speakers making the opsite one biwired and the other stright single paired.

while the MOnitor 60's don't show much difference between the two. i can say that there was some very suble differences.

can this be atttributed to speaker placement or room shape. who knows.
but at the cost of a few extra bux for some wire. why not just do the slightly more work involved task of biwireing them. than you can experience for yourself.

thank you for readirgn my reply. and i really am enjoying this forum


----------



## Jeff Aguilar

When my system comprised of Energy Veritas, I tried bi-wiring them and eventually bi-amped them. To me, in my system, in my mind, there was a difference, a definite difference. I then moved to Martin Logan's and bi-amped them. I could definitely tell a difference between bi-amping them and not bi-amping them. I eventually ended up getting tube amps and did not bi-amp them. (I tried, but trying to mix tubes and solid state biamping, just didn't work for me, with the equipment I had).

For demanding speakers, I think it is benificial to biamping speakers. But that is just my opinion. This is such a touchy subject to people, it usually starts flame wars.

Jeff Aguilar


----------



## eaglerider94

Thanks Tim & Jeff. I guess I'll just have to wire them up and test for myself. Since I already ran the wires thru the wall I thought I could just split them from the speaker receptacles but was informed that I need to run separate wires from the amp, ugh.


----------



## tonyvdb

Bi Wireing speakers is not going to improve sound unless you do it properly. This means running two dedicated amps (or amp channels) for each speaker and alot of time spent making sure levels are correct as this gives you the ability to increase/decrease the level to the highs/lows without affecting the the other (this is where most people hear a difference). Running two separate sets of speaker cables but attaching them to the same terminals on the amp wont make any difference unless your speaker wire gauge is too small to begin with. Increasing the gauge of the wire would be far more beneficial.
If you do bi-amp your speakers, make sure the lengths of wire are the same and that the same kind of wire is used for both.


----------



## tcarcio

Bi-wireing and bi-amping are two different things completly. I have done both. Bi-wireing I found no difference, Bi-amping on the other hand it was definitly better.


----------



## eaglerider94

Well Tony,
That makes sense. Perhaps I'll just forget about Bi-wiring for now and concentrate on buying a much needed sub. I've emailed Ron over at SVS and received his suggestion on which one for my room size. (20Lx15.5Wx8H) I'd really love to buy their New SB12-Plus but due to a sudden set of circumstances, (this economy is no picnic) I'll have to settle for their older SB-12 Plus.


----------



## Candoo

well. i'll be honest while my Polk Monitor 60's support biamping or biwireing

I see it more as a gimik than a functianl improvement for these speakers
now perhaps for higher end speakers it would offer more noticeable differnces.

I have a Sony DGS910 reciever and can't see forking out another $400 to buy another one just to bi amp the speakers.

the reciever i use the dgs910 as speaker sets for A and B so biwireing done'st connect too the same terminals unless it's the same terminals internally.


----------



## brucek

> the receiver i use the dgs910 as speaker sets for A and B so biwiring doesn't connect too the same terminals unless it's the same terminals internally.


It would be the same terminals internally, through a set of select switches.



> I see it more as a gimmick than a functional improvement


Well, bi-wiring can theoretically create an improvement, but whether you will hear depends on some variables.

The standard debate is that the superposition theorem states bi-wiring cannot produce a benefit. But, this assumes that the bi-wire speaker cables present a zero impedance, and that distortion from one driver will not affect the performance of the other driver.

Superposition only holds true for a linear system. Bi-wiring will only theoretically be a benefit when drivers distort and linearity is no longer maintained.

With sufficient voltage a driver can deviate from ideal linearity so the current in the connection between the low output impedance of the amplifier and the woofer (in this case), will carry harmonic distortion components which can create intermodulation products. In a simple non-bi-wire situation, the tweeter driver terminals will see these distortion components through the speakers low to zero impedance straps (when a single non bi-wire set of cables is used).

The theoretical advantage is now valid if you assume a set of bi-wire speaker cables has some finite impedance (obviously, the longer the cables, the more pronounced the effects will be). When bi-wire cables are used rather than single wires with straps, the distortion components (caused by the woofer driver) will have a lower impedance path to the amplifiers low output impedance sink, rather than travel back and down the tweeters speaker cable.

Yeah, you're right, it's a small advantage and you could argue that the tweeters crossover would help to reduce the problem, but I suppose you could argue that the harmonic and intermodulation products will be at a higher frequency and may pass through to the tweeter driver.

The entire advantage is gained by asking this question. From the perspective of the woofer driver terminals, which is the lower impedance path to the tweeters driver terminals? Is it a set of straps in a non bi-wire situation, or is it the route of a set of bi-wire cables that has a theoretical ideal voltage source (amplifiers low output impedance) in the path?..........

brucek


----------



## Candoo

Thoes are very good points. and i'd have to research a bit more I could answer in any intelectual way...

i was thinking that looking the hdmi out of one sony dgs910 to another identical sony dgs910 would give me the ability to do bi-amping with mathcing recievers from digital sources.


----------



## badaboom

if you have speakers that support bi-amping (four posts in rear) then you're probably NOT getting the right power/sound out of them if you fail to bi-amp them, and many receivers support bi-amping now (no need to get another reciever

my Denon AVR-1907 allows you to use the rear surround channel amplifiers to bi-amp the front R/L. it's an amazing feature - I didn't realize why my Polk Audio Rti10 speakers sounded so weak. I wasn't impressed with them, after all that $$ ----but I was using the rear two channels to power speakers in a 7.1 layout. what a waste - there are so few DVD's that provide distinct channel information to those speakers. most amps actually FAKE the sound. 

the result ? a muddied sound with a strange confusion of presence. 

but now that I've bi-amped my front speakers, it is simply night and day. like I have a new system. 

I just wish Polk Audio had put a better plug in for this than they do in their manuals, etc. the speakers sound professional and the presence is intense and clear. the bass especially was suffering greatly from one pair of wires going in. 

I'm so excited by this change that I've posted in other forums...so noone has to suffer the years I did from underpowered front R/L. what a waste !

when a good strong selection of 7.1 source material - DVD's and HD TV - comes around, I'll definitely go for 7.1, but I will never underpower my fronts again....I will get a 7.1 receiver that ALSO offers bi-amped fronts, or, better yet, a solid multi-channel amp (from what I've learned, much better channel separation, lower distortion, etc than a receiver/amp combo)

never again !


----------



## recruit

I have never noticed improvements by biwiring speakers, bi-amping is a different matter and improvements can certainly be made by doing this...


----------



## badaboom

my point exactly !!!


----------



## tonyvdb

badaboom said:


> my point exactly !!!


All you proved by bi-amping your speakers with your receiver is that your receiver was underpowered to drive the fronts properly without distortion. I bet if you took an external amp and hooked them up to it using the receivers pre outs you would hear the same difference.
As I stated above to truly bi-amp your speakers properly they need time and money spent buying EQs and external amps.


----------



## badaboom

I guess I'm still learning...above you say "This means running two dedicated amps (or amp channels) ". 

Aren't the 2 rear back channels at 120W per channel that I'm re-directing to the Front R/L for the bi-wire "dedicated amp channels" ? 

And doesn't that mean I now have max 240W per channel going to those speakers now, whereas before I had 120W per channel ? 

My speakers handle 300W per channel, so I guess you're saying when I run the autosetup and let the Denon adjust the levels of all the speakers using it's microphone, Denon is bumping up the watts going to the fronts so high that it is maxing out the amp ? But when I had one set of wires going to them, after I ran the setup, when I checked speaker levels, there wasn't a +5 next to R/L - it was like +1 (the auto-set level). 

I'm not sure if I can adjust the levels now going to the midrange/tweeter (regular front R/L) separately from the levels going to the bass (surround redirected to front R/L). But I really like the balance between the two right now. Seems perfect. Are you saying the ability to adjust these two separately is essential ?


----------



## Kal Rubinson

badaboom said:


> And doesn't that mean I now have max 240W per channel going to those speakers now, whereas before I had 120W per channel ?


Not really considering the dynamic distribution of music energy. Effective increase is probably much less than 3dB.


----------



## tonyvdb

badaboom said:


> I guess I'm still learning...above you say "This means running two dedicated amps (or amp channels) ".
> 
> Aren't the 2 rear back channels at 120W per channel that I'm re-directing to the Front R/L for the bi-wire "dedicated amp channels" ?
> 
> And doesn't that mean I now have max 240W per channel going to those speakers now, whereas before I had 120W per channel ?


No not really as Kal has already stated. Most receivers do not drive all channels at there rated output (this usually drops to half) Bi-Amping the speakers highs is not the real issue as that draws very little you still are trying to drive the mids/lows using the same amplifier you were before. Its not really the amplifiers limitation its the power supply in the receiver supplying power to the amps that cant keep up.



> Are you saying the ability to adjust these two separately is essential ?


Yes, essentially bi-ampling was intended to give the user the ability to have control over how the speaker sounds by adjusting the highs and the low/mids separately.


----------



## badaboom

so perhaps much of my improvement came from the thing that accompanied my switch to bi-amping - that I went from 7.1 to 5.1, redirecting the power from lesser spearkers and a muddy presence (faked rear back channels for most sources) to my Rti10's front R/L


----------



## tonyvdb

Yes, you released the power supply of driving the extra two channels. If you still push the receiver hard during movies you will still likely have issues driving them.


----------



## nathometheatre

I was considering doing the same with my Denon 4308CI. I'm currently running a 7.1 system, and on the back of the 4308 there are two seperate speaker connections for zones 2 & 3. Since I'm not utilizing zones 2 or 3, I was considering bi-amping my front speakers with these two sets of extra speaker terminals that are labled "surround "B"/Amp assign" & "Amp assign 2". So if I'm understanding you correctly, you're saying that this (obviously) will strain my power supply more so than hearing the benefits of bi-amping my front speakers (L&R)?


----------



## tonyvdb

nathometheatre said:


> So if I'm understanding you correctly, you're saying that this (obviously) will strain my power supply more so than hearing the benefits of bi-amping my front speakers (L&R)?


Yes, You would be far better off getting an external amp (for less than $250) and simply run your mains off of it using the receivers pre outs, you will hear an even greater difference in quality.


----------



## nathometheatre

If that's the case, why would Denon even have these two additional speaker terminals if their not beneficial?? Their seperate amps just under the same hood aren't they?? A little confusing.....


----------



## tonyvdb

Its a money maker, If they can get away with offering extra features on a receiver they will sell more but if you read the fine print you will read that the receiver can not output its rated power on all 7 channels at the same time only Two. There are few receivers that can as the power supply is the limitation and is usually way to small.


----------



## nathometheatre

Thanks Tony. It's not necessary that I do this anyway, as I'm using Klipsch RF-7's that are already extremely effecient, in a room that's 19x9x8. So their more than ample for my size room. I was just thinking, since I'm not using the additional amps, why not bi-amp my fronts. 
My real concern right now is addressing early reflections, and fine tuning my room with acoustical panels, and bass traps. Can you recommend a thread that covers how to locate where I should treat my room with acoustical treatment? That would be major helpful! I've been speaking with a Klipsch engineer, and sent him pics of my theatre, and so far all he's done is recommend a couple of sites that address what kind of materials are best for acoustical treatment, but I really need to read up on how to find standing waves, early reflections etc.....


----------



## tonyvdb

For room acoustics have a look through here We have some great members who know alot about that area, Bryan is a great help as he manufacturers really good quality panels see here GIK Acoustics


----------



## Kal Rubinson

nathometheatre said:


> If that's the case, why would Denon even have these two additional speaker terminals if their not beneficial??


Marketing.


----------



## badaboom

so far I'm very pleased with using the rear back channels to bi-amp my fronts on my Denon AVR1907 - the difference is amazing - and I'm convinced my speakers won't be happy without the extra power.

what I'm hearing is that by going from 7.1 to 5.1 I freed up some power in my amp by getting rid of those extra 2 channels and that is why I'm getting better power from the bi-amping. Not to mention the upgrade in presence - those back 2 channels are just faked data. True 7.1 isn't all that common - just a few Blu-Ray titles. apparently 7.1 video games are coming, but only one title so far. when that day comes, I'll buy a 7.1 amp that has 2 extra channels for bi-amping my fronts.

I wonder though how I would know if my amp was maxing out - I don't hear the distortion predicted above, and I just listened to the water crashing over NY in The Day After Tomorrow and it sounded clear. Maybe someone knows a more demanding movie scene I should try....?


----------



## nathometheatre

Im still not convinced that the Denon's extra amps won't benefit my front channels, although I do appreciate all the feedback. I'm going to do some extensive research on this, including trying it with my system. I just don't buy the opinion that Denon would design a receiver that can support two extra zones, and the power supply can't handle it, or is being pushed to its limitations. I've had 7 denon H/T receivers, and not as powerful as the 4308 mind you, and pushed much heavier speaker loads down to 4ohm speakers, and they've always impressed me. Not necessarily disagreeing here, just want to follow up on this. Thanks for the thread recommendations Tony!


----------



## tonyvdb

There is a reason why alot of the more serious setups of members on here and on other forums use outboard amplification its not snake oil but you have to try it in order to believe it. Its all about the amount of power available from one power supply For example the Onkyo 805 weighed in at 52lbs and is one of the only receivers made in the below $1500 price range that could actually drive all channels at its rated output its replacement the 806 and now the 807 only weigh 40lbs because Onkyo cut back on the size of the PS and they both fail the driving all channels driven test and lost there THX Ulta2 certification because of it. Most receivers if not all in that range weigh less then 40lbs and the power supply is the main weight of a receiver.


----------

