Benefits and Drawbacks to Shotgun Speaker Cables


Hello everybody, just wondering what the technical differences are between Shotgun and normal speaker cables. I know there are two cables instead of one. I'd like to know the technical differences, like conductance measurements etc... Also, what experiences have you had with Shotgun speaker cables? What was the biggest change that it brought to your system?
buckingham

Showing 3 responses by costrosk

"I think everybody has a different definition of what Shotgun, Bi-wiring, true Bi-wiring etc..."

Who started this ?! Oh yeah - it WAS you, wasn't it, Bucky!

I look at it this way - I need to make the left/right/+/- on my amp connect to the left/right/+/- on my speakers. That's simply 4 conductors of any design. Using simple zip cord, that'd be your basic single wire setup.

If I bi-amp, then I must bi-wire. Now I have 8 outs from the amp, and I need to provide a conductor (again, of any non-specific configuration) to drive the 8 input posts on the speakers (4 ea x 2 speakers).

I can shotgun from a single amp - split out 4 inputs at a speaker from the 2 outputs of the amp, but that's just a fancier way of doing the same basic thing - make left/right/+/- leaving the amp go left/right/+/- in at the speaker. But with a single amp, you can't actually "bi-wire". If I rip my zip cord in half so each side is a separate strand, I'm not bi-wiring, I'm just separating conductors. Just because zip cord is normally built with two conductors, running a separate zip with the ends twisted together to run from amp left plus to the left plus on the speaker doesn't make this a bi-wire, it just makes the two conductors into a single wire, functionally no different than tearing one zip cord in half. And running one separate conductor to the tweeter in and one to the woofer in won't make this bi-wire either, if they both terminate on the same output post on the amp (it would, however, meet my understanding of "shotgun" wiring).

Gawd this does get ugly, doesn't it?

But the point I was getting to there goes to the issue of "true" bi-wiring. Lets not confuse conductors with cables with wires, rather, lets just count the requisite functions. With a standard two channel amp driving a pair of standard speakers, you need left/right/+/-, and we accomplish this with 4 conductors in typically 2 cables. To do otherwise requires additional outputs, hence the bi-amp issue. Now you have 2 sets of left/right/+/-, ergo, you need twice the wiring. But to do this, you typically need to remove the internal crossover on the speaker, so now you're actually in effect working with 4 speakers, each with it's own left/right/+/-. Same thing, just multiple instances.

Whether any of this really gets us better sound - I dunno. I may shotgun my Silverlines just because I can, and when I do I'll let ya'll know how it works out. Meanwhile, I only listen to music, and I am lucky and happy to have what I have!

chas
Max:

Kindly allow me to quote myself: "I look at it this way..." So of course, I must respond "Yes, yes, yes" (sans the absurdly suggestive phrasing of a current television commercial, if you please :)

It seems to me that all this bi-wiring, shotgun wiring, internal bi-wire, etc is just so much semantics and marketing hype that serves only to SELL WIRE. I see only two meaningful purposes to using something other than zip cord for connecting amp to speaker - increase in gauge of the conductor carrying the signal, and eliminating crosstalk between the conductors. Both of which constitute admirable goals, neither of which, imho, warrant hugely complicated wiring schemes. That's just HYPE, a sufficient amount of which already exists in this field. My car has all wheel drive - I dunno whether its Hydostatic, DynoStatic, or Whackostatic, I just know all four wheels go like I need them to. That was the approach I intended with my post. Nonetheless, I apologise to all I may have left muttering to themselves - assuredly, that wasn't my desire!

chas
Max:

No offense taken, at all, sir, in fact I am grateful for your efforts to steer us all straight. And I fully concur that common terms and definitions would be a wonderful thing. As this thread demonstrates, such a thing is still somewhat out of our grasp, unfortunately, and I suppose I did nothing to advance that cause with my previous posts. I stand by my concepts, but will be happy to agree to anything anyone can post that will establish some common nomenclature.

chas