Bi-wiring vs bi-amping
 

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

Bi-wiring vs bi-amping
 

In article , Don Pearce
wrote:


Actually of course, particularly for somebody like Glenn, with no
technical expertise, there is a very high probability that biamping
would produce audibly different results, given that his chances of
equalizing the gain between the high and low channels is vanishingly
small.

The problem is, alas, more general than that. The reported
proceedure/method gives no real way to assess anything about either the
reliability of the results, or to exclude a wide range of possible
'alternative' causes for the 'resullts'.


Then of course there is a good chance that he would accidentally
inject mains hum into a tweeter and fry it. And of course he would have
eight opportunities to get the phase wrong.

Somewhere near a zero chance of getting it right, in fact.

The problem is that we can't make any estimate whatsoever on the basis of
normal experimental analysis since the test proceedure makes this
impossible. Alas, results which could mean anything end up meaning
nothing...

The shame, here, is that I can think of at least one theoretical mechanism
by which bi-amping and bi-wiring might sound the same, but differ from
using one amp/wire. So the claims Glenn makes are consistent with one
physical model. But the way he carries out the 'test' means his report is
virtually useless for assessing if his results actually support *any*
specific hypothesis. :-/

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

Bi-wiring vs bi-amping
 

On Sat, 01 Apr 2006 18:47:23 +0100, Glenn Richards
wrote:

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:

The sound suddenly went flat and lifeless, almost as if it had been
compressed.
The only thing that was 'compressed' here was your IQ......

Some basic maths for you. Compression at 1:1 means that my IQ would
still be in the mid 130's, same as it's always been.

Yours on the other hand is clearly sub-optimal, as you seem to have
missed a basic point in my post:

It may be suboptimal, but you're admitting that it's about 20 points
ahead of yours, sunshine! :-)

PS Please do not bother posting with "it's all in your mind"...

To which you replied:

BTW, as usual, it's all in your mind [snip]

Perhaps you have missed the basic point that no one gives a flying
fart about your 'instructions'?

BTW, it's all in your mind, as usual.

Mind you, following that logic, perhaps this will work...

Stewart, please do not go and jump off a cliff.

Spoilsport! I love abseiling!

If at first you don't succeed, skydiving is not for you.

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.

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?

Pretty obvious to anyone with minimal knowledge of electronics.

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*.

That depends what you mean by 'bi-amping'. In your case, you were
*not* using an active x-over, so the line-level signals going into the
four amps were identical, hence the speaker-level signals coming *out*
of the four amps were identical (assume a central image for the
moment), given only that the amps weren't clipping when only two were
driving the speakers. Therefoire, there is *no* electricval difference
between bi-wiring and your style of what is commonly called 'passive'
bi-amping.

Warning!!!! Do *not* consult 'Squirrel Solutions' if you have a
technical problem!!

Now if you'd said that single and bi-wired setups were electrically
identical, you may have a point, at least from a certain point of view.

No, they *are* electrically different, but only in the region
immediately surrounding the crossover, and only at the -40dB or below
level, depending on the relative impedances of speaker and wire.

Warning!!!! Do *not* consult 'Squirrel Solutions' if you have a
technical problem!!

The fact is though that bi-wiring does make a difference over
single-wiring, but (at least on the equipment I have) bi-amping doesn't.

No, it doesn't. Try it again, when you don't *know* when the bi-wiring
is in place.

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.

No, you wouldn't, because they are electrically identical. Of course,
so are single and bi-wiring for all practical purposes (one reason why
several top speaker makers don't even offer the option), but we all
know that you're obsessed with these imaginary cable differences you
keep bleating about - but refuse to put to the test.

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com

Bi-wiring vs bi-amping
 

On Sat, 01 Apr 2006 23:45:07 +0100, Glenn Richards
wrote:

You show a management type a picture of a server and a picture of a PC
and they won't know the difference. Of course, the actual server itself
is built into an actual server enclosure.

An 'actual server enclosure'? WTF is 'an actual server enclosure'? We
have about twelve servers in our server room, three of which are
housed in perfectly standard PC tower cases. There's no way you can
tell what they are from looking at the case (other than reading the
badge!).

And I sure as heck didn't see any rack-mount cabinets in your 'server
room' picture on your hilarious website, which is what most people
might think of as an 'actual server enclosure'.

And once again, go back and re-read. That two and a half grand isn't for
"a server". It's a package deal consisting of the server, tape backup
system, SNMP managed switch, 12 months on-site support etc.

All I can say is that it's a good job you don't work in the IT business.
Because you show a total lack of understanding, and like so many on this
newsgroup, you think you know everything when in fact you know nothing.

What a wonderful case of projection...............

A Java junkie who thinks he's an IT consultant!
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com

Bi-wiring vs bi-amping
 

On Sat, 1 Apr 2006 23:46:04 +0100, "Keith G"
wrote:

"Glenn Richards" wrote

No it's not, it's quite entertaining actually. I'm just visualising you
lot all sitting round listening to Britney Spears on your midi systems,
with speakers hooked up with stuff that I wouldn't even insult my doorbell
with by using it as bell wire, going "ho ho ho, these audiophile types"
and being all self-righteous.

:-)

Meanwhile I'm sitting here with some lovely music playing on an Arcam
DVD/CD player and amp, running over Chord Rumour 4 speaker cables to a set
of Avant 908s... and here's the thing - ENJOYING THE MUSIC. The technology
is the means to the end, NOT the end in itself.

You'll be pleased to know that what I'm playing right now - Reubke's 'Sonata
on the 94th Psalm' (L'Oiseau'Lyre SOL 3345) has just driven me out of the
room for a break!! (But it's still damn loud where I'm sitting now - must be
the Black & Decker speaker wires..... ;-)

Well, hey, if they're good enough for B&W to use in their demo room at
a Hi-Fi Show, they should be good enough for you or the nutty
Squirrel! :-)

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com

Bi-wiring vs bi-amping
 

On Sun, 02 Apr 2006 08:56:34 +0100, Glenn Richards
wrote:

Arny Krueger wrote:

Let Glenn provide us with his bulletproof procedure for ensure that
this common problem does not arise.

By using channels 6 and 7 on a 7.1 amp, which is *designed* to be
bi-amped when installed in a 5.1 configuration.

I repeat - I heard no difference between bi-wiring and bi-amping. I did
however hear a difference between single and bi-wiring.

Repeat it all you like - it's still bull****! Especially since this
'bi-wiring' only splits the (sub) woofer from the main bass/mid and
tweeter drivers which carry 95% of the music.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com

Bi-wiring vs bi-amping
 

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:

You show a management type a picture of a server and a picture of a
PC and they won't know the difference. Of course, the actual server
itself is built into an actual server enclosure.
An 'actual server enclosure'? WTF is 'an actual server enclosure'? We
have about twelve servers in our server room, three of which are
housed in perfectly standard PC tower cases. There's no way you can
tell what they are from looking at the case (other than reading the
badge!).

Generally when building a server I build it into what's known as an
"enterprise case". This usually has twin redundant PSUs, additional
ventilation, and hot-swappable SCSI drive caddies at the front.

So when configured with using RAID disks, in the event of a disk failure
you can swap out a disk without having to take the system down.

Of course if someone's on a tight budget then yes, I'll forego the
enterprise case and build it into a PC case, forego the SCSI and use
non-hotswap SATA RAID (yay RAIDframe kernel driver, no need for hardware
RAID) etc etc.

You've already proved you know even less about computer technology than
you do about audio, so I'd suggest you quit while you're not too far behind.

And I sure as heck didn't see any rack-mount cabinets in your 'server
room' picture on your hilarious website, which is what most people
might think of as an 'actual server enclosure'.

Actually there is a rack enclosure in there. Look carefully, it contains
the switches, patch bay and a few ISDN bits and a couple of fax modems
stuffed in for good measure.

Indeed what's there is overkill for what I use in the office, but it
works well as a testbed for development purposes. Having the web, mail,
PDC and media servers separate also means that I can make configuration
changes to one without taking the entire system down.

Yes, a single server would be able to run everything, but wouldn't give
me any redundancy. When I'm setting things up on a client's site I use a
single server, as they don't need (or want to pay for) this level of
redundancy.

Of course there are exceptions, indeed I've set up sites before now with
multiple redundant failover, so even if one server goes completely tits
up there's at least two redundant spares ready to take over.

A Java junkie who thinks he's an IT consultant!

Well, I never use Java. (Unless you mean the coffee, in which case
guilty as charged, the junkie bit anyway.) And as far as web development
goes, I avoid Javascript wherever possible, as it opens up a whole can
of worms with regards to compatibility.

All I'll say is this. Audio (and photography) are my hobbies and
interests. IT consultancy is how I make a living. And I live well, so I
must be doing something right. I must be, if I'm in a position to buy
Arcam kit, and silver speaker cable etc. Plus I don't know many people
my age that drive a 52-plate A4 Quattro... most 28-year-olds are driving
around in a Focus, Corsa, 1995 Astra, or worse, something Japanese,
cheap, and particularly nasty.

So I must be doing something right. Beats working as a postal clerk in a
bank, that's for sure...

--
Glenn Richards Tel: (01453) 845735
Squirrel Solutions http://www.squirrelsolutions.co.uk/

IT consultancy, hardware and software support, broadband installation

Bi-wiring vs bi-amping
 

Eiron wrote:

Actually, it would be difficult for him to get it wrong. Switch the
Arcam into bi-amp mode and the two outputs are gain-matched to the
accuracy of the feedback resistors, so with 1% resistors the worst
case would be 0.3dB difference.

Finally, someone with a clue.

However, everyone seems to have conveniently overlooked the fact that I
heard no difference between bi-wired and bi-amped. Which completely
negates so far all of the retorts I've heard from people on here.

I repeat - the difference was between single and bi-wiring. Bi-amping
made no audible difference over bi-wiring.

There is a difference between insane and stupid.

Oh, I'm certainly insane, or at least borderline. Just ask anyone who's
ever been a passenger in my car when I've been feeling "playful"!

"Insane" is driving down a country lane at over 100mph in the pouring rain.

"Stupid" is doing the above whilst being chased by a police car.

I've done the "insane", but not the "stupid".

Sanity can be cured though, fear not.

--
Glenn Richards Tel: (01453) 845735
Squirrel Solutions http://www.squirrelsolutions.co.uk/

IT consultancy, hardware and software support, broadband installation

Bi-wiring vs bi-amping
 

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 1 Apr 2006 23:46:04 +0100, "Keith G"
wrote:

You'll be pleased to know that what I'm playing right now - Reubke's 'Sonata
on the 94th Psalm' (L'Oiseau'Lyre SOL 3345) has just driven me out of the
room for a break!! (But it's still damn loud where I'm sitting now - must be
the Black & Decker speaker wires..... ;-)

Well, hey, if they're good enough for B&W to use in their demo room at
a Hi-Fi Show, they should be good enough for you or the nutty
Squirrel! :-)

Only if they are the orange ones. Gotta be orange - the black or white
ones don't work properly ;-)

Regards,

Glenn.

Bi-wiring vs bi-amping
 

Glenn Richards wrote:

Eiron wrote:

Actually, it would be difficult for him to get it wrong. Switch the
Arcam into bi-amp mode and the two outputs are gain-matched to the
accuracy of the feedback resistors, so with 1% resistors the worst
case would be 0.3dB difference.


Finally, someone with a clue.

But you with your golden ears must be able to hear that much difference.
Better check the relative gain with your DVM.


Oh, I'm certainly insane, or at least borderline. Just ask anyone who's
ever been a passenger in my car when I've been feeling "playful"!

"Insane" is driving down a country lane at over 100mph in the pouring rain.

"Stupid" is doing the above whilst being chased by a police car.

I've done the "insane", but not the "stupid".

Although we would all enjoy reading your obituary in the Wotton Gazette,
your behaviour is likely to kill an innocent family as well so here's some advice:
There's always someone faster than you and today could be the day you meet him
coming the other way on your wet, narrow, twisty country lane.

--
Eiron

No good deed ever goes unpunished.