correct bi-wiring per Richard Vandersteen


What do you guys think of this?
Did you guys see this interview with Richard Vandersteen?
http://www.vandersteen.com/pages/Pdffiles/rvintrvw.pdf

He talks about a lot of topics, but one of them was about bi-wiring. He said that the two sets of wires need to be at least 1 to 2 inches apart, and that if you use what is sold as a bi-wire you are losing a great deal of the benefit of bi-wiring. I also inferred that he thinks that the benefit only materializes in large cones played at high volumes.
Do guys you agree/disagree on this?
marie_s

Showing 1 response by sdcampbell

Vandersteen has both written and talked for many years about the merits of bi-wiring. I attended a seminar last year with Richard where he stated his conclusion that the primary benefit of bi-wiring comes from keeping the electrical fields of the low-frequency signal separated from the electrical fields of the mid and high-frequency signals. Vandersteen says his research indicates that the improved performance gained from bi-wiring is more attributable to this aspect of electrical field interaction than to any inherent advantage from having separate crossovers for the various frequency ranges.

Richard also recommends that the two "legs" of each biwire pair be physically separated by at least several inches, and if the two wires must cross over each other, it should be at right angles.

On the biwire sets I use with my Vandy 3A Sig's, I used several wooden "pegs" that are V-shaped at each end to keep the biwire pairs about 4" apart throughout their entire length, up to where they connect to the speaker (where they obviously must be close to allow connection to the binder posts).