Bi-wiring vs bi-amping
 

"Glenn Richards" wrote in
message

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

If you built servers the disregard for the laws of physics we see in your
audio comments, this would truely be a miracle.

Bi-wiring vs bi-amping
 

"Glenn Richards" wrote in
message
. uk
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.

That's not a proper description of an experimental procedure. It's
extremely incomplete.

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

Given your lack of ability to properly describe an experiment...

Bi-wiring vs bi-amping
 

"Eiron" wrote in message

Arny Krueger wrote:

"Don Pearce" wrote in message


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.

Good points.

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

If Glenn can't provide an effective procedure, then
we've got additional support that Glenn couldn't
possibly get it right.

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.

There is a difference between insane and stupid.

There's a difference between equipment specs and a proper description of an
experiment.

Bi-wiring vs bi-amping
 

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

The *picture* on the site is of a PC with keyboard and speakers. It's
there purely for management types, who wouldn't know the difference
between a PC, a laptop, a server, or their left testicle. You know, the
types that call the base unit the "hard drive", say "my internet isn't
working" when clearly it is (your email is working, therefore your
internet *connection* is fine... oh, you mean the *web* isn't working?)
- it's called "marketing".

So you now admit that you lied, and it is in fact a PC. Good, we're
getting somewhere. Now listen carefully, because I am going to explain
something to you. "Server" is an application, to which a PC can be
put. I have one such right here. I bought a PC, and I use it as a
server.

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.

Yet again - if I showed you a picture of a stick, would you be able to
tell me if it is a dog-entertaining device, or a door-prop? No you
wouldn't, it is a stick. You are again confusing what a thing is with
what you might do with it.

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.

That still leaves us shy of a grand.

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.

Oh yeah, and the reason your site sucks... firstly it uses frames,
secondly it doesn't work on Firefox, and thirdly... it doesn't
work on IE7.
Fix it, then you might redeem some credibility.

IE7, you cretinous oaf. [1] Not IE6. Go and download the beta of IE7,
and stop using Flash for navigation, it makes you look like a lost
cause. "Oh look at me, trying desperately to be trendy!"

Sorry, was that last bit about you? You know, with the "I'm using IE7
beta" and all. I don't use beta software, I evaluate it.

Works fine on both of those - and Opera, apart from the calculation
pages, which I will translate to Java in due course.

News for you... it doesn't work on IE7. The links do nothing.

I will find that out in due course, I'm sure. Meanwhile, thank you for
your concern.

Oh, and by the way, there is absolutely nothing wrong with frames -
they work jolly nicely.

Oh, and by the way, there is absolutely everything wrong with frames -
they are completely unnecessary. Ever heard of CSS? "position: fixed"?

You equate unnecessary with evil, do you? Let me put it another way
for you: There is absolutely everything wrong with CCS, position:
fixed - it is completely unnecessary. Ever heard of frames?

But then I wouldn't expect a terminally stupid [1] person like you to
know about such things.

And please feel free to do some more of the snipping you just
lectured me about (thanks awfully, by the way, I feel so enlightened)

Really? You didn't take any notice though. You still quoted my entire
original posting "en masse".

[1] This seems typical of the type of language that gets used on here.
No offence intended, I'm merely making an attempt to communicate with
natives in their own language. [2]

Non sequitur. What on earth have you switched to here?

[2] And ****ing myself laughing right now, it has to be said.

What time does the nice lady come in to clean you up?

d

Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

Bi-wiring vs bi-amping
 

On Sun, 02 Apr 2006 12:00:39 +0100, Eiron wrote:

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.

Not you, obviously.

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.

Perhaps he needs that classic bumper sticker:

Warning! I drive like you do!

--

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 11:37:08 +0100, 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.

I'm sure you'd like to meet one.

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.

Neither did the bi-wiring over single wiring, moron.

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.

Actually you don't want to be curing sanity, and fear can be overcome.

--

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
 

Don Pearce wrote:

So you now admit that you lied, and it is in fact a PC. Good, we're
getting somewhere. Now listen carefully, because I am going to
explain something to you. "Server" is an application, to which a PC
can be put. I have one such right here. I bought a PC, and I use it
as a server.

Ok, let me put this in simplistic language for you:

The photograph of a PC, keyboard and speakers on my home page is for
*marketing purposes*.

Do you know what the difference between a server and a PC is?

It's the software it's running.

A new PC typically runs Microsoft Windows XP (although some run Linux
etc). A server will run something like Windows Server (looks similar to
XP, but is completely different underneath) or if you've got a clue will
run Linux or *BSD, or some other form of *nix.

It's desirable, but not necessary, to use SCSI hot-swap disks in caddies
so you don't need to open the machine up if one of the disks in your
RAID array fails.

It's also desirable, but not necessary, to build the system into an
"enterprise" case, with redundant PSUs and additional forced ventilation.

But if you're building down to a budget you can build a perfectly
functional server into a standard ATX case, using SATA (or even ATA-133)
disks and the kernel RAIDframe driver. In fact the only difference these
days between SATA and SCSI disks is the drive electronics, and of course
the price tag. Western Digital for example make a range of SATA 24/7
RAID edition drives, which are a fraction the cost of SCSI disks.

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.
Yet again - if I showed you a picture of a stick, would you be able
to tell me if it is a dog-entertaining device, or a door-prop? No you
wouldn't, it is a stick. You are again confusing what a thing is
with what you might do with it.

Out of context, I would tell you it was a stick.

Whereas out of context you're trying to tell me that a "generic x86
hardware platform" is a PC. Which it clearly isn't.

There's a very good reason why those of us in the know use the term
"workstation" rather than "PC". The system that's sat on your desk, with
that lovely 19" monitor and a single 80GB SATA or ATA-133 hard disk...
that's a workstation. The system locked away in the cupboard with no
keyboard or monitor but 4 200GB disks configured as RAID level 5...
that's a server. They both use the same Athlon64 processor, and both use
the same Corsair or Kingston branded DDR memory (although the server
probably has 2GB, the workstation has 512MB or 1GB).

But one of them will run Microsoft Word, or Photoshop. The other one
doesn't.

It's all down to the way it's configured.

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.
That still leaves us shy of a grand.

Have you ever set up a server as domain controller? Do you know how to
configure DHCP? Do you know one end of a subnet mask from the other? Or
the difference between a Class C and a /25?

Yes, I've no doubt that you could probably source all that hardware in
component form for considerably less than £2,500. But then you'd have to
assemble it, install the operating system (and installing *nix isn't a
case of "point and click for dummies" like installing Windoze),
configure the network, set up SNMP monitoring etc etc. Oh, and
reconfigure all the workstations on the client's site to work correctly
with the new system.

You're not paying for just the hardware. You're paying for a complete
service - which for a small business with no IT staff is a damn site
more cost-effective than taking on an IT manager... who will typically
be looking at a salary of around £35-40k.

Sorry, was that last bit about you? You know, with the "I'm using IE7
beta" and all. I don't use beta software, I evaluate it.

I am using IE7 beta on this particular PC for one reason, and one reason
only.

One of the services I offer is web development. And I need to know that
when IE7 is finally released, sites I've created aren't going to break
horribly on it.

I've installed it on one PC only, and for the record it still sucks. Not
as much as IE6, but it's basically a poor man's Firefox. (Which
considering that Firefox is free is somewhat lame.)

You equate unnecessary with evil, do you? Let me put it another way
for you: There is absolutely everything wrong with CCS, position:
fixed - it is completely unnecessary. Ever heard of frames?

Yes, I've heard of frames, and they're evil (as well as unnecessary).

I've seen frames used effectively on perhaps two or three sites, but
most of the time they're just a lame way of getting the navigation bar
to appear on every page. Whereas if you knew anything whatsoever about
web programming you'd have heard of server-side includes, or server-side
scripting (eg PHP or ASP). You might also have some idea why your web
site is so lame.

For the record, I had a look at your site to see what your field of
expertise was. But then I couldn't get past the silly splash page. So,
along comes a potential client that's found you via Google (although
that's unlikely as frames are one of the best ways to scare off search
engines), who then can't get past the intro page. They then think "oh,
this guy's lame, he can't do a web site" - and go straight to one of
your competitors.

It's better to have no web site at all than to have a lame one.

[2] And ****ing myself laughing right now, it has to be said.
What time does the nice lady come in to clean you up?

Ah, that costs extra.

(Ok, maybe Usenet on the wrong end of 6 bottles of Bud on an empty
stomach isn't the best idea, but it sure is fun!)

--
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
 

On Sun, 02 Apr 2006 11:32:32 +0100, Glenn Richards
wrote:

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.

Interesting that you show no illustration of such, of course you
wouldn't want the suc - - er, I mean client, to expect something
professional for his mere two and a half grand, would you?

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.

No, really? Wow, imagine that!

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.

It's called a PC, moron. What you're talking about is server software.

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.

It seems that I probably know a fair bit more than you do about IT,
and *way* more about audio, Squirrel nutkin.

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.

I'm talking about a real one, either one or two metres high, with
multiple resilient inbuilt UPSs and a basic hot-swappable RAID array,
on top of which you build whatever server and routing kit you might
need.

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.

Depends on the client. We use twinned everything for resilience, and
separate buildings for redundancy. You *do* understand the difference
between resilience and redundancy, don't you?

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.

For us, that's a basic minimum requirement. Group Technolgy at RBoS
Group are what you might call 'risk averse'......

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.

Well, if you're one of the biggest international corporations on the
planet, other people have to be compatible with you.....

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.

Ah, but the *good* ones like my Pal Mr Petch are driving CL55s while
waiting for their Astons to be built! You have 4 years to reach that
level.

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

Perhaps so, would you like me to enquire for you?
--

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
 

Arny Krueger wrote:

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.
That's not a proper description of an experimental procedure. It's
extremely incomplete.

Does anyone actually care though?

Firstly I have no gain to make by proving or disproving any difference.
I'm no longer involved in the audio industry, and haven't been for many
years.

And so far nobody's actually been able to post a sensible and rational
explanation as to why bi-wiring makes a difference when bi-amping doesn't.

We can rule out the "psychological" factor, because I was expecting a
difference when switching from bi-wired to bi-amped, and heard none. Yet
I quite clearly heard a difference (as did my friend who was in the room
with me) between single and bi-wired.

Now, would someone care to post a sensible and rational explanation?

Hint - saying "it's all in your mind" is neither sensible or rational.
I'm now waiting for the sanctimonious crowd to come up with some
scientific background for what I heard.

The floor is open, boys & girls...

--
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
 

On Sun, 02 Apr 2006 13:53:38 +0100, Glenn Richards
wrote:

Don Pearce wrote:

So you now admit that you lied, and it is in fact a PC. Good, we're
getting somewhere. Now listen carefully, because I am going to
explain something to you. "Server" is an application, to which a PC
can be put. I have one such right here. I bought a PC, and I use it
as a server.

Ok, let me put this in simplistic language for you:

The photograph of a PC, keyboard and speakers on my home page is for
*marketing purposes*.

Do you know what the difference between a server and a PC is?

It's the software it's running.

Yes I do know the difference. Here is a server project I'm currently
involved in. Look at the specs, and you will see it is nothing like a
PC. Your "servers" are just PCs.

http://www.codexdigital.com/

d

Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com