Cables for biwiring

Why should we disagree that a specific approach to the wires may also be reasonable.

From a technical standpoint, I see nothing unreasonable about this approach. However, I also see nothing unreasonable about a great many other possible approaches. Many of which I would expect to produce somewhat different results, but in ways that are speaker and amplifier dependent, and that have little predictability.

The reason is the different way the signal moves through the wires depending on its specifications.

In technical terms, I have no idea what this means. Not sure that the person who made the statement does either.

Regards,
-- Al

Many designers subscribe to this also when they use heavier gauge internal hook up wires from the LF posts to the woofers and lighter gauge wire to the MF/HF drivers.

I use DIY wire (6N copper in cotton) and I do the same thing using two runs of wire with 6 individually isolated 26awg wires (16awg aggregate) to each of the MF/HF posts, and a pair of 14 awg wires (11awg aggregate) to each of the LF posts. The LF driver will draw more current than the MF/HF driver. Whether any of this is audible depends on many things such as the length of your cable run and the characteristics of your speakers and amps.

I would not use a different type of cable for the LF than I use for the MF/HF, simply a different size.

"Put 10 audiophiles in a room to talk about cables and they will emerge with 11 different opinions." - The only clear cut conclusion coming to my mind as well. Perhaps in some setups the different cables may sound better. But there's one more important question for me. If the ultimate goal could be described as "fidelity to the original recording", how does the use of different gear for treatment of LF (on the one hand) and MF/HF (on the other) affect the original balance?

@ Almarg
Almarg quoted: "The reason is the different way the signal moves through the wires depending on its specifications."
And made a comment:
"In technical terms, I have no idea what this means. Not sure that the person who made the statement does either."
My response:
Me too. However I read on the site of Aural Thrills Audio that "I am always amazed by the "oh wow" reaction of audiophiles upon seeing a very fat cable. In true American fashion, the belief that if a little is good, more is always better comes to mind. NOTHING COULD BE FURTHER FROM THE TRUTH! The major portion of an audio signal actually travels as a wave on top of the wire, much like a train travels on top of the tracks. A very small part of this wave travels inside the wire. Since the wire actually slows the signal down a time distortion is created between the signal on top of the wire and the part of the signal in the wire. The best way to minimize this effect is to use a small diameter wire so that very little signal is traveling through the wire itself."

Nik, thanks for providing the additional background. Pet theories abound for the claimed superiority of different approaches to cable design and configuration. Most of them lack one basic thing: Analysis and/or experimental evidence establishing that the effect(s) that are emphasized as being important are QUANTITATIVELY significant.

In this case, given that the signal frequencies being conducted through the mid/hi connections of a biwire arrangement propagate through wires at speeds that, roughly speaking, are on the order of 100,000 miles per second (and even relatively slow propagating deep bass frequencies propagate at thousands of miles per second), I am doubtful (to say the least) that the audible significance of the claimed effect can be established in a quantitative manner.

Regards,
-- Al