"So Alan Shaw says it doesn’t matter and Richard Vandersteen says it absolutely matters. Two very respected speaker designers with completely different views of the same subject. Do you just cherry pick one because it supports what you believe or fits your experience? What a logical fallacy. I would not add a set of binding posts to a set of speakers just to try it out. If there are already two sets of binding posts, give it a try for yourself and make your own decision."
There are several problems with your post. First, assuming that you were responding to my post, I didn’t cherry-pick anything. I simply reproduced some posts of Shaw’s that explain his position.
Secondly, can Vandersteen actually demonstrate HOW it matters? Shaw explains why, in his view, it doesn’t, and is typically rigorous in his scientific approach to such matters. That doesn’t mean that he cannot be mistaken about something, but it does mean that he can explain, with a scientific foundation, why he holds a particular position.
With a quick search, I found anecdotal claims by Vandersteen that bi-wiring sounds better on his speakers, and this:
Additional experiments with a Hall Effect probe revealed that high-current bass frequencies created a measurable field around the wires that expanded and collapsed with the signal. We believe that this dynamic field modulates the smaller signals, especially the very low level treble frequencies. With the high-current signal (Bass) separated from the low-current signal (Treble) this small signal modulation was eliminated as long as the cables were separated by at least an inch or two. (To keep the treble cable out of the field surrounding the bass cable.)
Note that he says "We believe...". Not exactly hard science, though perhaps he is on to something.
I found a related article (on "qacoustics" UK) with some experiments appearing to support the ides that bi-wiring confers benefits. Don, a regular and knowledgable contributor to the audiosciencereview.com site had this to say in response:
Because a single wire carries woofer and tweeter current; bi-wiring means the woofer wire carries only woofer current, tweeter wire tweeter current, though voltage is the same for both. A plot of voltage would show the same voltage applied to woofer and tweeter (less changes due to wire loss, insignificant in practice).
Single wire:
Amp -> single cable -> woofer + tweeter = single cable carries all current
Bi-wire:
Amp -> woofer cable -> woofer = woofer cable carries only woofer current; crossover reduces tweeter current to woofer
Amp -> tweeter cable -> tweeter = tweeter cable carries only tweeter current; crossover reduces woofer current to tweeter
The crossover makes the woofer look like a higher impedance to the tweeter cable so tweeter current is reduced in the woofer wire, and likewise the tweeter crossover makes a higher impedance to the woofer cable for tweeter current, so there is less interaction in the wire. The net energy the amp delivers, and that the woofer and tweeter each receive, is the same whether you use a single wire or bi-wire. The wire itself contributes negligibly to distortion and so the bi-wire argument is a red herring (is a false argument). The amplifier and speakers dominate (by orders of magnitude) the distortion.
HTH - Don
And another commenter on a different site:
QAcoustics article cited above shows just how SUBTLE the differences can be between Bi-Wire and Single Wire connected Speakers. Change in IMD Levels are only 1-3 dB, with the IMD voltages being 70 dB below the Fundamental Signal Levels...which is 1 part in 10^7 or 0.00001 %.....probably impossible for even Golden Ears to detect.
If someone has a scientific explanation for why bi-wiring may be superior in practice, please do provide it.
