I am stunned


After reading these forums for awhile I can finally say that I am a skeptic no longer with respect to biwiring. I recently purchased a demo pair of Martin Logans from a local dealer and found that I did not have enough money to purchase a decent set of speaker cables. As I was getting ready to take the speakers home the dealer stopped me and offered to loan me a set of cables until I had enough cash (Great Dealer!!!) to purchase some cables. Well, when I got home I discovered that the Logans were easily biwirable and that the cables he lent me were biwire cables. When I auditioned the Logans the dealer must have connected the jumpers when I told him I was not interested in biwiring a set of speakers. I figured what the hell, lets give it a try. I connected everything up, popped in a CD and my mouth fell to the floor. Unbelievable. So from one ex-skeptic to anyone who has a doubt. Biwiring works, I am an EE and frankly do not care why anymore.
liguy

Showing 2 responses by jhunter

There are too many points being raised to address properly, but here goes. Upfront, I’ll proudly admit to being an EE. I’m also a musician (amateur, but get paid fairly often), and while some of you wouldn’t consider my system high end, it’s not too bad: Dunlavy SM-1s driven by a Plinius 8150, with a Marantz CD/Pioneer DVD feeding an MSB Link DAC III.

First, Liguy, if you like the setup, great! No need to go to single cables, just enjoy. That’s the most important message. But Liguy is no empiricist, at least not as indicated in his message. As others have noted, he just set up new speakers, for crying out loud! This would be like me upgrading to Dunlavy SC-VIs while changing the Plinius’ power cord and then talking about how the power cord added so much bass!

Second, Sugarbie's Pavarotti example is absurd. The differences between voices are so gross as to be orders of magnitude greater than any effect cables (or most other equipment) can have. This is why you can tell your mom’s voice from a telemarketer immediately (other than the fact your mom probably doesn’t call during dinner . . .), even though it has traveled over miles of cable (not even silver) and passed through non-linear speech coders which have limited both the bandwidth as well as dynamic range.

Third, what are these “phenomena occuring outside of the mainstream of official thinking.”? Science has a VERY solid understanding of electrical signal propagation, especially at audio frequencies. If you know of any truly new effects that are significant at audio frequencies, you’re well on your way to a PhD in physics.

Last, there certainly are measurable differences between some audio cables. Except in extreme cases, though, I’d be willing to be that most of the differences have no audible effect. Solid empirical evidence that cables with similar electrical properties have audible differences is pretty hard to come by, to say the least.

Cheers,
JHunter
Wow - don't think I've ever seen a thread grow so fast.

Christ (Chstob) - point well taken. I'd used empirical to mean experimental (not pure math at all, just the opposite). In a real sense I don't feel that Liguy performed any kind of experiment, at least not pertaining to biwiring.

Dekay - what can I say? I'm a gambling man ;-). My relative certainty is based on a lack of any solid objective evidence that similarly measuring cables sound audibly different while the converse does hold (IIRC). I'm certainly willing to change my mind, though am personally disinclined to spend time swapping cables at home in an experimentally invalid environment.

Sugarbie - now I see what you were getting at w/Pavarotti. It's an interesting approach, but I suspect that there are substantial and meaningful physical differences between most of us and Pavorotti (make of that what you will . . .). The cable differences are easily quantified and most fall "in the noise" as far a effect on sound.

Redkiwi - if Liguy did as you said, I'd be in wholehearted agreement with you. But he didn't try anything whatsoever meaningful re: biwiring, yet claimed that as the cause of the wonderful new sound. It's like the Dunlavy SM-1 vs. SM-VI example I gave previously.

Oh, dear - looks like I'm setting myself up to be the next objectivist-in-the-barrel!

Jhunter