In article , Glenn
Richards wrote:
Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
[snip]

Assuming that your amps are capable of driving the speakers without
clipping at your preferred listening level, why should bi-amping be
better than bi-wiring? Electrically, they are *identical*.

LOL!

Now your true lack of knowledge comes into play.

ahem I would be inclined to recommend that you use that line of argument
with some care... :-)

Bi-amping means you have a separate amplifier driving the top (HF) and
bottom (LF) half of each speaker. So for a stereo pair, you have *four*
amplifiers. Count them. Left HF/LF, right HF/LF. Four.

So how is that "electrically identical" to a bi-wired setup, where you
have *two* amplifiers driving the stereo pair?

Well *if* the amplifiers in question have essentially identical
characteristics, and were not current limiting, then the voltages applies
at the amplifier ends of the leads would have been essentially identical in
each case. This may be what Stewart means.

OTOH if the amp had been current limiting when you were not 'bi-amping',
then that might make a significant difference. Also, if the gains of the
two amps were not essentially identical, that also might have made a
difference.


The HF/LF is split at the amplifier, either by using two sets of speaker
outputs, or by using a 2 to 4 configuration speaker cable. This may
consist of either soldering two cores into a banana plug, or attaching
two cores into the binding post.

This is clearly not "electrically identical" to a bi-amped setup. With
bi-amping, the HF and LF are split at *line level* (technically between
the pre and power amp), with bi-wiring they are split at *speaker level*.

You will need to distinguish between 'physically different' - i.e.
different wiring arrangement and 'electrically different' - i,e, supplying
a different voltage level and supplying a different current. I have not
seen you give any explanation, or measurements on your system, that
supports your belief that "This is clearly not "electrically identical"..."
However this may be because you aren't defining what you claim.

[snip]

If, as you suggest, it was "all in the mind", surely I would have
"heard" a difference between bi-wired and bi-amped? Yet I didn't, and
neither did the friend who was in the room with me at the time. Both of
us heard a difference between single and bi-wiring though.

Alas, the real problem with what you report isn't its 'subjective' nature.
It is that you simply fail to employ any experimental methods or
proceedures that would allow anyone else to assess what you report. Thus
what you say is virtually useless as 'evidence' for your claims. This seems
to be a common thread in the reports you post.

Given that you have said you have an 'IQ' of 130, and seem to have some
technical background, pardon me for asking, but: Do you understand the
scientific method? If so, do you understand the flaws in the 'test methods'
you have described and why they essentially render what you report
worthless as evidence? The problem is that these flaws mean that we have no
way from what you say to determine if your 'results' mean what you believe
or not.

This seems a shame, as you clearly have the enthusiasm and determination to
keep carrying out such (flawed) tests, and reporting them here, clearly
believing that they have some value. I can't help feeling that you would
find arguing your case rather more productive if you used a more
appropriate method/proceedure. Would save you and others wasting a lot of
time and effort, and might provide some useful results.

Slainte,

Jim

--
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Audio Misc http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/AudioMisc/index.html
Armstrong Audio http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/Audio/armstrong.html
Barbirolli Soc. http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/JBSoc/JBSoc.html