In article , Arny
Krueger
wrote:
"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message

In article , Bob Latham
wrote:

[snip]

Where have you seen any figures to support the assertion that the
"majority" would say this? And would it mean more than, "The magazines
keep saying it does"? :-)

I'd like to see a reference to an article in an audio ragazine with
meaninful circultation about an actual high end product that bi-amps
without an active product. For example, has Stereophile or HFN ever
reviewed a biamped speaker with no active crossover?

I have a vague feeling that HFN may have once reviewed the 'systems' that
some people put together. In general, of course, that won't be anything
that was intended by either the speaker manufacturer or the amp
manufacturer.

However IIRC back in the 1980's there was a UK fad for using multiple Naim
power amps to 'bi amp' the Linn Isobarik. Not sure if Naim or Linn pushed
the idea, but some dealers and 'subjective reviewers' did at the time.

Personally, I disliked both the Isobarik, and the Naim amps. So for me the
main benefit was that it piled the items I didn't want somewhere away from
where I had to encounter them. :-)

FWIW The Isobarik had an impedance that went south at LF, and the Naim
amps of the period had an output 0.22 Ohm series resistor and limited
current capability. So the Naim/Isobarik system did have a different
response to using an amp with low output impedance and decent current
capability. However I tended to make the choice here that wasn't the one
touted in magazines at the time. :-)

At the time Linn dealers used to insist that 'stereo image' was a myth.
Perhaps because you couldn't get one when using Isobariks. ;-

The most dramatic change I ever heard was in a shop when the removed the
Isobariks and tried Quad 63's. From awful to excellent. They shop droids
hated the Quads. But then they were unable to hear that one of the tweeters
in one of the Isobariks was busted... :-)

[snip]

Ironically, there's an argument that says that putting a normal woofer
in parallel with a highly reactive tweeter through a passive crossover
makes the reactive tweeter an easier load to drive. The signal through
the woofer drives the power amp output stage up its load line where the
out-of-phase current for the tweeters is coming from output transistors
that are already partially saturated from driving the woofer. The
voltage across the output transistors and the power dissipation in the
output stage is therefore reduced.

A few months ago there was someone putting a flawed argument forwards on
the 'audioholics' website in a thread about bi-wiring.

The wording of the claims 'evolved' as it was challenged. However it tended
to be based on saying there was a form of 'intermodulation' occurring in
conventional wiring that biwiring removed.

Mysterious consequences were described such as components in the spectrum
that an FFT could not show. Doubters were treated as being unable to grasp
the reality as they lacked the scientific insight of the idea's presenter.
;-

The argument used was incorrect, or at least inappropriate, and thus lead
to an wrong conclusion. I did an analysis and it was another example of how
a simple misconception can mislead, but a detailed analysis takes ages to
show what a good engineer would have thought in the first place. i.e. No
such problem, so no need for biwiring as a 'solution'. No real problem
with the FFT, either. Nor indeed with mudane ideas like linear
superposition, etc. :-)

Shame if anyone though they were hearing what was claimed since the claimed
theory didn't stand up to either measurement or careful analysis based on
the physics involved according to the claimant's own descriptions.

None of which stopped the claimant from continuing to push his idea.

I wonder if any of that appeared in any USA printed mags?... Didn't appear
here in print so far as I know.

[snip]

Interesting how many people pooh-pooh equalizers, but rush to accept an
badly-designed "Bi-amp" equalizer implmented by what might be the most
expensive and non-adjustable means possible.

IIRC the use of biamping, biwiring, etc, all tended to only come into vogue
*after* the gurus decided that 'tone controls are baaaad' and makers saved
cash by stopped including them. No problem for them if the result was that
people bought more amplifiers. :-)

Personally I still like tone controls and balance controls to be avilable.
Although I appreciate them being designed to work well, and to be bypassed
if preferred. Much cheaper and more flexible than biamping IMHO.

Slainte,

Jim

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