Bi-wires or Shotgun with Jumpers

joe1515 · Feb 15, 2011

Hello,

I currently have B&W CM9's and the CMC2 center channel. I am currently running nordost bi-wire cables. My dealer and Nordost both recommended re terminating the bi-wires to shotgun and use the Nordost Bi-wire Jumpers. They believe it will improve the detail and imaging.

Has any one ever tried this? What are your thoughts? I know the best option is to run separate speaker cables for each but I already have cables and do not have the funds to buy twice the speaker cables.

Thanks
Joe

vinylphilemag · Feb 15, 2011

joe1515 said:
Hello,

I currently have B&W CM9's and the CMC2 center channel. I am currently running nordost bi-wire cables. My dealer and Nordost both recommended re terminating the bi-wires to shotgun and use the Nordost Bi-wire Jumpers. They believe it will improve the detail and imaging.

Funny you should ask: I have a set of Nordost Norse Jumpers in for review. I currently bi-wire my Spires with Nordost Frey, and I am really looking forward to experimenting with the Jumpers. I asked at CES why the Jumpers should sound better vs a set of bi-wired cables. The answer I got sounded plausible enough: although they can be configured for bi-wire operation, Nordost's cables are designed to be used as is. If you want to bi-wire, you should really run TWO lengths of cable--but that is (of course) significantly more expensive than using one cable and a set of Jumpers.

What speaker cables are you currently using?

joe1515 · Feb 15, 2011

Hi Rich,

I am currently using Baldur for my 2 channel set up and Blue Heavens for home theater.

I will be really interested to hear your thoughts. Nordost is adamant that it will sound better with the jumpers. Have you read the pdf Nordost has on their website about the subject?

Joe

vinylphilemag · Feb 15, 2011

joe1515 said:
Hi Rich,

I am currently using Baldur for my 2 channel set up and Blue Heavens for home theater.

Nice to see you have your speaker cable priorities right!

I will be really interested to hear your thoughts. Nordost is adamant that it will sound better with the jumpers. Have you read the pdf Nordost has on their website about the subject?

Joe

I think I have read the PDF, several months ago, but apart from what I said above, I can't recall any of the details. I want to listen to the Jumpers before I read it again, to avoid colouring my judgement. In other words, I want to, umm, see what I hear before I read what I'm supposed to hear.

My review will hopefully be in Issue 6 (I'm currently working on Issue 5), which should be out some time in April.

DaveyF · Feb 15, 2011

I currently run two cables per channel and it is IMO a better solution than a bi-wired single cable. However, I wonder what your dealer would say to running two pairs of Blue Heaven per speaker vs. your current set up. The cost of the cabling would be appx. the same or maybe less for the Blue Heaven. Or maybe, two runs of Red Dawn vs your single Baldur run. Just a thought

naturephoto1 · Feb 15, 2011

I run two cables per channel of my system using Kevin's TimePortal (also available as the VALAB/King name) speaker cables with the exception of my mains. I only run a single pair to my these cables to my OMA New Yorker speakers only because they are made and designed with a single pair of terminals; I will not install a 2nd pair and change the crossover which all encased in Epoxy. For my 3 Nolas all are run as I have mentioned with 2 sets of cables. for my Dahlquist rear speakers I run a single set of bi-wire cables.

Rich

Kal Rubinson · Feb 16, 2011

DaveyF said:
I currently run two cables per channel and it is IMO a better solution than a bi-wired single cable.

Why?

DaveyF · Feb 16, 2011

Kal, that's a good question

My dual cable run set up allows me to hear the bottom end with more precision, there is slightly (very slightly)
more air and instruments are better defined in space than with the same single run pair. The reasons for this....here I would be postulating

, But I suspect that the extra cable possibly allows more current to flow

Now I do have bi-wire capable speakers and a bi-wire capable amp...in other words the amp is fitted with two extra output connections per channel running in parallel.
OTOH, when I run my tube set up, wherein the amp only allows for one set of cables per channel, then I run a bi-wire set up of Nordost to the speakers, which is most common...thereby one set of connectors at the amp end and two at the speaker end. Which is what I think Joe is using and which if he can connect two cables at the amp end leads to my suggestion. Since he said that he would consider two cables per ch. except for the cost, this is why I suggested a lower end Nordost cable in a TRUE bi-wire configuration

Assuming, obviously, that Joe has two(2) sets of connectors per channel at the amp end.

vinylphilemag · Feb 16, 2011

A TRUE (to use your term!) bi-wire configuration doesn't necessitate the use of two pairs of speaker sockets on the amp, just two sets of cables. If your amp has two pairs of speaker sockets, what you're doing might actually be bi-amping, rather than bi-wiring.

DaveyF · Feb 16, 2011

I don't think so Rich

, I would need two amps to bi-amp ( along with x-over etc.). I also think that it would be a little difficult to connect two cables at the amp end without the amp set-up I described. You would have four connectors on the cabling going to two connectors on the amp....

Just to clarify..I use two different set-ups.. 1) A Rowland ss amp fed by a tube preamp..it is the Rowland that allows true bi-wiring and 2) An ARC tube amp fed by a tube preamp. I do not have these two amps set up at the same time.

Kal Rubinson · Feb 16, 2011

DaveyF said:
Kal, that's a good question
My dual cable run set up allows me to hear the bottom end with more precision, there is slightly (very slightly)
more air and instruments are better defined in space than with the same single run pair. The reasons for this....here I would be postulating, But I suspect that the extra cable possibly allows more current to flow
Now I do have bi-wire capable speakers and a bi-wire capable amp...in other words the amp is fitted with two extra output connections per channel running in parallel.
OTOH, when I run my tube set up, wherein the amp only allows for one set of cables per channel, then I run a bi-wire set up of Nordost to the speakers, which is most common...thereby one set of connectors at the amp end and two at the speaker end. Which is what I think Joe is using and which if he can connect two cables at the amp end leads to my suggestion. Since he said that he would consider two cables per ch. except for the cost, this is why I suggested a lower end Nordost cable in a TRUE bi-wire configuration Assuming, obviously, that Joe has two(2) sets of connectors per channel at the amp end.

Well, that only tells us that you find it a better solution but, as ever, there is no reason "why."

bertdw · Feb 16, 2011

From Richard Vandersteen:

http://www.vandersteen.com/pages/Answr7.htm

"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.)"

vinylphilemag · Feb 16, 2011

DaveyF said:
I don't think so Rich, I would need two amps to bi-amp ( along with x-over etc.). I also think that it would be a little difficult to connect two cables at the amp end without the amp set-up I described. You would have four connectors on the cabling going to two connectors on the amp....

That's what I get for typing too quickly (and for spending too much time in AV fora where it isn't uncommon to find more than 2 channels of amplification in one chassis)! Two sets of cables into one set of amp terminals is doable, if the terminals are big enough (and banana plugs aren't being used).

Also, one can bi-amp speakers without using an external crossover (passive bi-amping).

But getting back to the topic in hand, yeah, having two pairs of speaker terminals on one's amp makes bi-wiring much easier to do correctly.

Kal Rubinson · Feb 16, 2011

bertdw said:
From Richard Vandersteen:

http://www.vandersteen.com/pages/Answr7.htm

"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.)"

I bolded the sentence in which he makes the presumption but the next sentence does not explicitly indicate that the premise was tested. I would think that the underlying data would be promoted, if it exists.

joe1515 · Feb 16, 2011

DaveyF said:
I currently run two cables per channel and it is IMO a better solution than a bi-wired single cable. However, I wonder what your dealer would say to running two pairs of Blue Heaven per speaker vs. your current set up. The cost of the cabling would be appx. the same or maybe less for the Blue Heaven. Or maybe, two runs of Red Dawn vs your single Baldur run. Just a thought

That is a very good point I should clarify that I have spoken several times to Nordost about this subject and Nordost is suggesting using a single run and the jumpers. I have not inquired about whether blue heavens or red dawns would sound better than one single run of the Baldur's.

My dealer inquired to Nordost about the subject and they got same response.

Joe

DaveyF · Feb 16, 2011

Kal Rubinson said:
Well, that only tells us that you find it a better solution but, as ever, there is no reason "why."

Kal, If I were to look at all of the reviews that you have written, wherein you heard a marked improvement; would it be reasonable for me to ask you what are the scientific reasons (why) behind all your impressions?

Kal Rubinson · Feb 16, 2011

DaveyF said:
Kal, If I were to look at all of the reviews that you have written, wherein you heard a marked improvement; would it be reasonable for me to ask you what are the scientific reasons (why) behind all your impressions?

Yes although I may not be able to. Most of the devices I review (and I no longer review cables) are complex devices and, although I may not understand all the technology sufficient to analyze the cause of differences, it is not difficult to imagine that amps which differ in circuitry might differ sonically. OTOH, the functions of a cable conveying audio frequencies are relatively simple and the circuit changes involved in going from a single wire to bi-wire is relatively simple to analyze. Still, there is no scientific evidence of any difference which would be audible. It has been decades since this matter first arose and, despite intense interest, no satisfactory proof. Just think what a marketing coup it would be to actually prove that bi-wiring is advantageous.

BTW, I usually try, if I can, to figure out why I hear a difference and I have invested time and effort in acoustical measurements towards this end.

DaveyF · Feb 16, 2011

Kal Rubinson said:
Yes and no. Most of the devices I review (and I no longer review cables) are complex devices and, although I may not understand all the technology sufficient to analyze the cause of differences, it is not difficult to imagine that amps which differ in circuitry might differ sonically. OTOH, the functions of a cable conveying audio frequencies are relatively simple and the circuit changes involved in going from a single wire to bi-wire is relatively simple to analyze. Still, there is no scientific evidence of any difference which would be audible. It has been decades since this matter first arose and, despite intense interest, no satisfactory proof. Just think what a marketing coup it would be to actually prove that bi-wiring is advantageous.

BTW, I usually try, if I can, to figure out why I hear a difference and I have invested time and effort in acoustical measurements towards this end.

So Kal, why ask me-- why

I told you what improvements I heard. They were repeatable and confirmed by other a'phile friends.
BTW, I suspect that the likes of Ted Denney would differ with you in regards to cable functioning.

Kal Rubinson · Feb 16, 2011

DaveyF said:
So Kal, why as me-- why
BTW, I suspect that the likes of Ted Denney would differ with you in regards to cable functioning.

Sure and that's the point: Why has no one in the industry ever proven this?

You can put two amps or two speakers on the test bench and measure/demonstrate performance differences. You may even be able to demonstrate a difference between two differently constructed cables.

DaveyF · Feb 16, 2011

Kal Rubinson said:
Sure and that's the point: Why has no one in the industry ever proven this?

You mean proven scientifically?

How many aspects of reproduced sound have you heard in your career that are absolutely proven scientifically? Most maybe, BUT not all. People listen to different cabling and hear differences, why? People listen to all kinds of tweaks and hear differences, why? Possibly because there are differences to be heard that are not yet fully understood from a scientific point of view.. That doesn't mean that those differences don't exist.
IMO, it means that we haven't figured out what is the scientific cause yet; unless of course you feel that all speaker cables and ic cables sound the same

Bi-wires or Shotgun with Jumpers

New Member

WBF Founding Member

New Member

WBF Founding Member

Well-Known Member

Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

WBF Founding Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

WBF Founding Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads