Buchardt E50

[Lars Risbo]

a single amp will do if it has very low output impedance (reduce the common impedance). this is where damping factor actually matters (it does not matter as much for the bass as folks believe because the dominant resistance is the voice coil anyway)

 

[BlueMeanie]

That would be enough for me to cross the speaker off my list. I won't pay for snake-oil parts. I won't even pay for dual binding posts on speakers with passive crossovers and no active crossover option sold by the manufactruer (so goodbye Revel and KEF, among many others).

Yeah, the dual binding posts annoy me to. I'm not gonna take part in the discussion above about whether bi-wiring can be useful in theory, but I'm pretty sure I wouldn't hear the difference if there is one and dual posts found on rather affordable speakers which surely have some compromises in their design which will make a difference are IMO definitely a waste of money.

That said, dual binding posts or magic wires definitely annoy me and can be a point against the product for me, they don't necessarily mean I will completely disregard it.

Main point against the E50 for me personally would be that the Ascilab A6B is cheaper and measures somewhat better. And C/F6B are much cheaper and measure pretty damn good!

And Ascilab speakers are snake oil free!

 

[kharan]

That would be enough for me to cross the speaker off my list. I won't pay for snake-oil parts. I won't even pay for dual binding posts on speakers with passive crossovers and no active crossover option sold by the manufactruer (so goodbye Revel and KEF, among many others).

I'm fine either way. Often enough, features you don't want are what allow the product to be sold to a customer base that is large enough so that developing and manufacturing a product to make sense. And also a larger customer base means greater economies of scale, so the product might not even end up more expensive.

 

[MarkS]

And Ascilab speakers are snake oil free!

That's a big reason why I own a pair

 

[MarkS]

dual binding posts makes some technical sense since it bi wiring reduces cross talk between the drivers. not saying it’s necessarily audible though

I never heard this claim before. It does not make any sense to me. Got a link to a technical explanation?

 

[Lars Risbo]

it follows from Ohms law: when you drive two circuits via a common impedance then voltage arising in one circuit leaks to the other in proportion with the common impedance.

 

[Matt_Holland]

it follows from Ohms law: when you drive two circuits via a common impedance then voltage arising in one circuit leaks to the other in proportion with the common impedance.

Isn't bi-wiring the same electrical circuit as single wiring? In both cases the tweeter and woofer including their accompanying HPF and LPF are in parallel, the only difference being the length of wire between the drivers and the point they are connected in parallel?

 

[Lars Risbo]

its the cable impedance and amplifier output impedance that is common. Yes, in parallel but with a little bit of common impedance

 

[Matt_Holland]

its the cable impedance and amplifier output impedance that is common. Yes, in parallel but with a little bit of common impedance

So the difference is the impedance of one run of speaker cable versus the combination of two runs of cable in parallel?

 

[Lars Risbo]

no. in bi wiring the cables are not common anymore. then it’s only the amp output impedance.

 

[Matt_Holland]

no. in bi wiring the cables are not common anymore. then it’s only the amp output impedance.

Appreciate the clarification.

 

[Fledermaus]

Yeah, the dual binding posts annoy me to.

Their main merit, as I see it, is to allow for active bi-amping without butchering the back panel: you can just set a clean by-pass of the passive Xover through reversible internal wiring mods, plug each driver direct to its amp channel and experiment to your heart's content.

 

[Matt_Holland]

Their main merit, as I see it, is to allow for active bi-amping without butchering the back panel: you can just set a clean by-pass of the passive Xover through reversible internal wiring mods, plug each driver direct to its amp channel and experiment to your heart's content.

From a technical point of view I agree, but that’s a very niche benefit use-case. The main reason for bi-wire terminals is to appease those that want it, thereby catering for more customers. I suspect many manufacturers don’t believe in there being any audible/technical benefit, but include it as a feature to attract as wide a range of customers as possible.

 

[Fledermaus]

I'm gladly willing to admit that I'm, somehow, a bit of a niche person

 

[MarkS]

no. in bi wiring the cables are not common anymore. then it’s only the amp output impedance.

This is not correct. The cable impedance still contributes.

Electrically, bi-wiring is exactly the same as single wiring using both sets of cables (to the single terminals). Therefore there can be no difference in sound.

 

[bmc0]

Electrically, bi-wiring is exactly the same as single wiring using both sets of cables (to the single terminals).

I think it'd be difficult to measure any difference acoustically (let alone hear a difference), but no, it is not electrically identical:

Z1-Z4 represent the impedances of the individual conductors in the cable(s). Think about the current flow and you will see that the two cases are not the same.

 

[Ktacos]

Certainly looks different on paper but utterly meaningless when the actual results are identical. Surprised to see bi-wiring met with more than a eyeroll.

 

[MarkS]

I think it'd be difficult to measure any difference acoustically (let alone hear a difference), but no, it is not electrically identical:

View attachment 492672

View attachment 492673

Z1-Z4 represent the impedances of the individual conductors in the cable(s). Think about the current flow and you will see that the two cases are not the same.

Your 2nd diagram is bypassing the internal crossover. That is indeed different, but then you need an external crossover to send a different signal to each driver. That would be bi-amping, not bi-wiring. For bi-wiring, the internal crossover is not bypassed, and then the 1st diagram still applies (with additional crossover components not shown).

 

[bmc0]

Your 2nd diagram is bypassing the internal crossover.

Adding crossover components would make no difference; the two circuits would be still be independent from the binding posts to the drivers. There may be some speakers where the negative ("ground") terminals are tied together internally, but there's no reason to do this and it could cause major problems (e.g. if one were to try biamping).

Certainly looks different on paper but utterly meaningless when the actual results are identical. Surprised to see bi-wiring met with more than a eyeroll.

Audibly identical and electrically identical are not equivalent. I would roll my eyes if someone were to claim (without real evidence) that biwiring makes an audible difference, but the claim that the two configurations are electrically identical is false.

 

[Ktacos]

Audibly

Only thing that really matters in this use case.