Remember Monster Cables???

Still have some.

Lol genius 😝

I heard that too, but first they told me ‘buy amp’🥴☺️

It's like directional interconnects. They direct more of your money into the seller's pocket.

Where on earth did you get your degree? You must know he's talking absolute nonsense.

Thats what I have done via my Bluesound node, could not believe my ears as the workload to the front left and right was eased by the sub and everything got so much clearer.

@@7966016 Since the tweeter is said to not use much power, could I use these 2 amps I have to bi amp just the woofer of my floor standing? It can take 200 watts and I have 2 amps that both give about 50 each. I was going to biamp to get 100 watts into the speaker but I guess that would be wasted on the tweeter. idk

Those Ashly Audio amps are a well kept secret. They used to use them in movie theaters. I powered Infinity Kappa 8's with those while everyone else was spending 1000's. I still have mine somewhere ?

HI! I too am looking in the comments where inline RCA filter ? any luck? please pass on the link . Much appreciated!

I’ve been using LINN systems since 1986 and fully active since 1988. They have dedicated electronic filters for each speaker model and amplifier type, typically a pair of cards fitted into a power amp. My Keltik speakers have eight input sockets on the back because of the dual Isobarik bass drivers (so four channels of amplification per speaker) I’m currently running them with two four channel amps. But have moved up to the klimax EXAKTBOX (with the new ORGANIK DAC) which performs the DAC and crossover functions and has XLR line outs to the power amps for 0:04 treble mid and bass.

You can still bi-amp with a passive crossover on each of the tweeter and woofer. Many speakers have the crossover separated. Use two amplifiers. It's still bi-amping.

@@David_Span That's true but for reasons I no longer remember it was said that it is better to use active electronic crossovers between the preamp and amp stage than passive crossovers after the amp stage.

@@donaldwilson5693 Yes, it could be better, avoiding the losses in inductors in particular -- just saying that it is still bi-amping with passive crossovers, and possibly more accessible for many audiophiles.

@@David_Span I think they also reduce IM distortion more compared to passive ones. Active crossovers will obviously cost more and they must be designed to the speaker manufacture's specifications.

There can be some differences, but much less than just replacing the cable with a higher quality cable.

@@dannyrichie9743 Right - I have some 8 wire braid similar to your cables, and they sound great. The bundle of 4 wires a side on mine are not small, and I can't imagine getting 12 into a tube connector is very easy.

@@NeilBlanchard See how: www.audiocircle.com/index.php?topic=172291.0

With respect, the load the amplifier sees when connected to a speaker is a combination of the amp connectors, the cable itself and the speaker terminals in addition to any induced electrical interference picked up en route. By adding a second cable from the same amplifier source you are doubling up the effects that the amplifier sees before it even gets to the speaker which must, therefore, adversely effect the purity of the source signal and hence the sound from the speaker.

Back EMF from the speaker is a reaction to the EMF from the amplifier. Back EMF is opposition to the EMF. The back EMF is the why speaker impedance is higher than the DC resistance. The back EMF does not exceed the EMF and does not affect the parallel high frequency speaker circuit. The impedance of the high pass filter attenuates signals in the low frequency range of the back EMF. However, I don't think there are any bad affects to prevent biwiring. I would probably biwire if I had biamp capable speakers and an amplifier with parallel A B speaker switching. The only bad effect to biwiring would be two lengths of expensive speaker wire rather than one.

If I remove the passive crossover from the speakers and duplicate the passive crossover frequencies with an active crossover, it doesn't change the room acoustics, but it removes the impedance of passive filters between the speakers and the amplifiers that produces dynamic compression distortion. The active crossover isn't sensitive to speaker impedance like the passive crossover is. Conceivably, I could duplicate the crossover frequencies and increase the slopes to 4th order Linkwitz-Riley and get better filter damping (better transient response, lower energy storage, less ringing), better speaker damping by the amplifier, lower dynamic compression, and reduce destructive interference between speakers. The only difficult part is matching the levels, which I should be able to do easily by ear.

That was not my experience, but then I'm using a DSP active crossover. It really is very easy with the mini-DSP system, and I played a bit with the Hypex GUI but I don't yet have their plate amps. I haven't tried the Dayton GUI. But even with camilladsp (no gui - say what you mean in config) it is trivial to make changes and test with REW. Where's the difficulty? After all, to design a passive crossover you have to understand target curves and addition of signals etc and achieving them is going to be harder - and as for aligning phase - its a nightmare. After all, with DSP I can just delay the tweeter to match the mid, then choose a textbook crossover without having to fudge delay with phase, and then if the tonal balance isn't to my liking I can add shelving, notching etc before the XO.

@@paulsebring6930 wouldn`t bi amping(with identical power amps) on passive xovers also have a good effect. the common argument against it is that the amps receive the full signal, but does this really matter? the amp(say for the tweeter) as far as I understand it.. won`t work with any of the signal that is restricted by the passive xovers anyway. so one end up with more control/power to each driver. especially the upper freq drivers who don`t have to compete with the woofer for current. then you also have the issue with feedback from the drivers that probably affect the sq of each other..with a regular single amp setup. with two amps wouldn`t the feedback/ringing between drivers be mitigated. ive tried vertical(one integrated power amp per speaker) bi amp myself with what seemed like a good positive effect. not blind tested though

You are right! If we use a low pass filter with a woofer, we absolutely damage a front ridge of a “punch”, and this leads to a jelly sound. The more bands we use with a traditional crossover, the slower bass we get. For me a woofer with a heavy cone works well without a low pass filter. But it’s hard to find a good one which does not pollute to a HF band at the same time. A high pass filter for a tweeter is fine. And the most interesting thing is that measurement will continue to say that everything is fine. Because they use a nice clear swiping tone.

@@sc0or I'm using 3-way full range tower speakers w/15" woofers. They originally had a single pair of binding posts. After having the crossovers rebuilt, I added a second pair of binding posts. One set for the woofer, the other for mid and tweeter. I'm using a single 220 watt amp to drive them. In your opinion, would you add the LPF/HPF, replace the crossovers with LPF/HPF, or just use the existing crossover? I was under the impression that the speaker manufacturer built all necessary filters into the crossover, so I guess I find this discussion a bit confusing. Also, with this single amp, I would be better off using a good jumper wire rather than running an additional speaker wire (Biwire)?

Never believe in the 80hz crap for home cinema my speakers are full range and go down to 40hz i leave it to that after audessy room correction and have notice your are missing so much bass in all the other channels if you set it to 80hz and leave the rest to your subwoofer to deal with. Example at 40hz i got a punch in my chest when a character slammed the beer glass on the table in the movie brave at the start. But at 80hz nothing and same can be said with all movies 80hz in my honest opinion is over rated and a bad idea. Try for your self and feel the difference

@@harpalchauhan428 NO - that is your system and setup. I know for a fact my system has more bass/punch when I filter my mains as high as possible. I settle for 120hz to blend them and I have FAR more bass there then 40hz - even 80hz.

@@harpalchauhan428 cmn is correct. Your sub / seat placement and room acoustics may have a dip in that 40~80Hz range so when the sub plays those frequencies, it's reduced versus when it plays from the mains where you get more power. If you get the Audyssey app for your phone, you can view the response graphs and get a visual of what's going on. You might benefit from moving your sub, or getting a second one to smooth out the frequency response.

High pass filters?

@@AluminumHaste Yes, it was just a cap I would get from the local car stereo store

Most speakers have pretty high distortion under 100 hz, so putting a high pass active filter on them is a no brainer. With most systems it's 80Hz which is a reasonable number without knowing the specifics of the room.

yes how about offering these for xls encore with correct capasitor values. soon as possible please.

There are pros and cons to each depending on the application.

Great video? all snakeoil if you know anything about electronics.

Well, that helps, but is a bit of a baby step. You could simply wire all to one set of binding posts internally. Or replace all of them with a set of tube connectors.

Indeed, the separation of current paths is a main candidate for there being a possible difference in the resultant sound, as this does deliver greater isolation between the low and high frequency circuits (it can't fully eliminate interaction, bi-amping goes the extra step there). It's less clear though whether any change should necessarily be an improvement in the perceived sound quality. People don't always hear it as such, some have said the speaker sounds less cohesive. A plausible cause is the likelihood that the speaker has been designed from both technical and listening test perspective to be performing its best in the way the majority of owners will use it, that is, not in bi-wire configuration. The most likely candidate I see there is a change in phase behavior in the crossover band between bi-wiring and single wire. Bi-wiring does small but potentially significant rearrangement of some of the possible electrical interaction of reactive components, and this can alter phase. If the crossover is already ideal with single wire configuration, and degrades with bi-wiring, that might outweigh other factors that theoretically should be good. If the crossover behavior is unchanged or tidied up a little, then that would either not affect or add to other potential benefits of bi-wiring like reduced cable and terminal contact resistance losses.

He simply doesn't understand impedance, and load with respect to the output amplifier and speaker impedance. He sales this as if he thinks the low output impedance of the amplifier and the low impedance of the speakers will support RF and EMI. He doesn't seem to understand that inducing voltage into low impedance becomes more difficult as the impedance goes lower.

It still has an effect. See what another amplifier designer has to say about it: kzfaq.info/get/bejne/e7iPn9R_q8nPqI0.html

@@dannyrichie9743 Just more BS marketing from another company that thinks you should over pay for an amp that you could not distinguish from a any other good quality amp. So if you don't believe it is just marketing hype watch the same guy talk about damping factor and the importance of low output impendence in this video were he claims this is the most critical feature. Start it at 2 minutes in. kzfaq.info/get/bejne/n9ePjZeKutmrd6M.html. You know, to control the Back EMF from the woofer he is say is effecting the feedback loop in the other video. But in this video it not problem because of the low output impedance. Go figure. And also, in school it was very simple, any amplifier that did not incorporate negative feedback was simply an oscillator. A straight wire is not going to provide any input into low impedance load unless the wire is miles long. I'm sure your not using mile long wires are you?

This happened with me too. JBL Studio 590’s running off a Rogue Cronus Magnum. Used some cheap biwiring cables and was shocked at the difference in bass response. I’m usually a doubter and I was really surprised

Yes, that is not bi-amping. You are just using more cable.

That's just another version of bi-wiring. That's what Vandersteen recommends. I'm doing that now but I'll probably just go with Danny's method.

That would not be ideal for the sake of sound quality.

You have to make them.

Yes, depending where you set the crossover on the amplifier.

We have 8 gauge cable running through tube connectors. No issues there at all and much less of bottleneck than using binding posts.

Placebo effect much?

@@DescartesRenegade Not at all.

@The Internetwanderer And if one morning there was a mountain view instead, you wouldn't notice a difference.

Why don't they just design the speakers the right way?

I can relate to your positive experience. On my british 2-ways with 2nd order x-overs I went quickly to biwiring, and went back only briefly as clarity was reduced with single wiring, and a strange dependency of SQ on the jumper cable used was noticed, some jumper cables had terrible emphasis on sibilance. I wouldn’t generalize though to say ALL speakers positively respond to biwiring but i disagree if someone suggest the exact opposite was true.

Here you go: www.learningaboutelectronics.com/Articles/High-pass-filter-calculator.php#answer1

Yes, there are some gains to be had that way.

We use our external supper tweeter on a long 'hookup' in the garden for al fresco dining!

I'm glad you put "obvious fact" in inverted commas! There are sound technical reasons why bi-wiring could make a difference in certain circumstances, and as you say there's no certainty that any audible difference will subjectively be "better". Bi-wiring has the potential to give the amplifier output impedance (seen as damping factor) slightly better capacity to control undesired interaction between drivers. If your combo had an amp with a modest damping factor and a speaker design that benefited from better damping to tame an interaction between drivers or crossover sections, bi-wiring could offer such a benefit.

Placebo effect much?

@@DescartesRenegade Possibly, but from a technical standpoint we can't discount the other possibility that one or more of the small changes that bi-wiring makes may have been audible with the equipment pairing in question.

@@PlatypusPerspective biwiring is electrically identical to the jumpers. It's placebo.

The real test isn't whether you bi-wired or not. You are doubling your cable from one to two. That's what you are really comparing. Try this now. Listen to it as is with both cables coming from you amp to the speaker and only being commonly connected at the amp. Then add a little jumper at the speaker so that the cables are now connected together at the amp and at the speaker. Now what do you hear? I think you will note that there is no sonic difference with or without the jumper. Now what do you conclude?

I don’t think that would come into play at such a nominal distance . Electric current runs at about 90% of the speed of light so our ears will not hear a difference. Weaved speaker wire will be shielded better yes but that’s about it .

That would be a valid reason to bi-amp, if someone liked the top end sound of a tube/valve amplifier, and the low frequency benefit of an amp with a high damping factor.

Robert, The preference for spades is due to the general occurrence of the spade being a higher quality, or more specifically made with a much higher copper content. The spring function of a banana connector is made possible by manufacturing it from brass alloy. That brass connection point retains a spring memory. If the banana plug was made from copper than the first time you inserted it into the binding post, the copper would deform to match the binding post and then never return to its original shape. In contrast because spades are not required to provide a spring function they can be manufactured more easily from higher purity copper. In the last several years the market has become more diverse, and there are of course exceptions to those rules. High-end banana posts can now be manufactured with higher copper content by using manually adjusted pressure (manual locking types) or static pressure (copper banana tube surrounding a compressible polymer type of material). Those types of bananas don't guarantee high copper content but they can allow for it. If it's budget priced, counterfeit, imported, it's likely still not copper. The good ones are very expensive. The spades in comparison are more easily manufactured with higher copper content. There are other discussions that occur regarding amount of surface contact, overall mass of the connector in signal path, but the easiest line to draw is regarding copper composition. GR-Research tube connectors are kind of a tube connector variation but because the male post does not have a mechanical spring component, it can more easily be manufactured with high copper content, and it is low mass.

Try the single wire going to the top binding posts instead. It'll sound much different than bottom posts.

You have to make them.

Huh?

@@DescartesRenegade In the words of Bob Carver who designed the Sunfire amp: "Now, back to the Sunfire amplifier. There are two sets of output terminals on the back. One is a voltage source output, with a very low impedance (about 0.01 Ohm). The other is a current source output with a higher impedance (1 Ohm) current source output characteristic. The choice of which to use is up to the listener. If you want a solid state kind of sound, use the voltage source output terminals. If you want the vacuum tube sound, use the current source output terminals. Or - and this is the best part - you can bi-wire your speakers. Use the voltage source to the woofer, and wire the current source to the upper range of the system. That way you have the tight slam impact bass that a solid state amplifier can deliver, and you have the glow to the mid-range, the sumptuous sound stage, and soft, delicately detailed highs that current source amplifiers, i.e., vacuum tube amplifiers, typically deliver. This is the best of both worlds."

Yes, but any miniscule increase in resistance is going to limit current and reduce bass output. Apparently.

@@ProffAndy Hmm. A pair of speakers using about 50w power - generally agreed to be about as much as any home setup would use - would pull around 3A. Roughly the same as a USB charger that works fine with wire as thin as a hair. With moderate speaker cable the resistance would be so low given the low amps it simply has no practical effect.

@@markchisholm2657 Hence the "Apparently". 😉

@@markchisholm2657 Have you ever heard about such thing as a damping factor? Even if your cable impedance would be as low as the amp's output impedance the damping factor at speaker's terminals would be already twice lower than at amp's output terminals.

While the speed of sound in air is about 343 meters per second, 767 miles per hour, 1,125 feet per second, electrical signals on wire travel near the speed of light 300,000,000 meters per second, 186,000 miles per second. The delay of an 8 foot length of speaker wire is an insignificant and inaudilble 8e-9 seconds or 8 nanoseconds. One wavelength of the audio signal on wire is 9,300 miles at 20Hz and 9.3 miles at 20kHz.

Danny has some videos about this. Check out his Tech Talk 15, 16 & 17. I believe the answer to your question is in 16 and/or 17.

Bi-amping, tri-amping, all good... My mains are active three way DSP contoured ... all in digital domain, then D-to-A then feeding amplifiers. Mine are all internally executed in the LCR's I purchased. Multi-way DSP performed by the user is great, but only as good as one's skill to measure, balance, and blend the elements together. Even if you have the chops, the dsp gear needs absolute transparency, you've got to gain stage adequately to assure an ideal s/n ratio.

in my experience bi amping on passive xovers have a good effect as well

I can agree with you. I did biwire my vandersteen model 2 ce as per Richard Vandersteen.. I used 12 gauge ofc and 14 ofc for the upper. Braided them sleeved them used silver banana plugs. They are powered by a Phase Lin 400 amp and a hitachiha610 int amp.. Big difference on bass less muddy more punch and clearer mid and high. Soundstage improved as well. Now I a/b it by just using the 12 gauge pair and jumpers. Then back to biwire.. Big difference. Worth the cost of the extra cable.. I agree with Danny in most cases but I also listen to the designer of these magnificent speakers..ps I will try the jumper when I can with the biwire.

Yeah I swear there is a noticeable difference. Not about to rewire for single wiring to A/B back and forth though. It's true that doubling wires will double your signal noise, but the noise is minimal on my amp.

The sub amp only filters the highs from the sub. The inline filter filters the lows from your main speakers. If you subwoofer plate amp has a high pass filter then it is just an electrolytic capacitor added to the signal path of your entire signal. That's bad. That's really bad.

Re: >I agree, especially the point on picking up RF.< Well, it's kind of baloney. If we're talking about RF then those frequencies are not even in the range of human hearing. Second, decent amp can easily put tens of amperes while inducted RF goes in mA or less. How can it be audible?

If dual binding posts connected to the same internal crossover input, when you bi-amp, the outputs of two amps would be connected together and the amps would be driving each other, resulting in distortion, shutdown or damage to the amplifiers. The separate frequency band inputs have to be completely separate electrically in order to be able to bi-amp the speaker.