Bi-wiring vs bi-amping
 

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:

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?

You have just proved that you *are* as stupid as you appear. Go to the
"Hardware" page. You'll quite clearly see a photo of a datacentre with
an AMD Opteron CPU in the foreground.

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.

Pinkerton Usenet Rule #1: When losing an argument, resort to personal
insults.

Here's a little surprise for you. Workstations and servers use THE SAME
CPU, and very similar components. Hardware designed specifically for
servers may be built to a slightly higher standard, but these days
workstation-grade components are of sufficiently high quality that you
can build a server suitable for SMEs (up to about 15-20 users) using
off-the-shelf bits. Lower BOM == higher profits. Simple really.

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.

Actually you know sod all about IT. You've copied and pasted some bits
from your employer's website or intranet.

And you've also proved you know sod all about audio as well.

(And about cars and driving, on another thread.)

In fact, the only thing that you probably do know more than me about is
how to be an irritating annoying tosser.

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.

Yup, have installed a few of those. But - I don't need anything that
expensive in the office. No point paying for stuff you're not gonna use.

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?

Yes, of course:

Resilience: Me in a battle of wits (present opponent appears to be
unarmed though).

Redundancy: What you'll be suffering from if your employer saw the ****
you post in here.

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.....

Except you're not one of the biggest international corporations on the
planet. You're a post monkey in a bank, who has never worked in the
audio (or IT) industry.

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.

Oh, yes, the thrill of driving a Merc. For 30 seconds after driving it
away from the dealer, everything's perfect. Then a vital bit drops off.

I think the words "thanks but no thanks" spring to mind. And for the
record I'd far rather have an RS4.

But then, what would be the point? The car I've got does me fine, and
I'm paying Mr Blair a lot less of my hard earned cash than I would be if
I had, say, a 4.2 V8 under the hood. The 1.9TDI goes more than fast
enough to get you banned, that's for sure - have had it to 137mph
downhill with a tail wind according to sat-nav (got the FWD version to
143mph on the dial, over-read was about 4mph on that, so probably about
139). It'll cruise at 100mph quite happily - and that's quite fast
enough for me on the motorway 90% of the time. In fact, I usually sit on
about 80-90mph doing around 42mpg, engine ticking over at about 3,000rpm.

If you've got money *and* sense, you buy something that appreciates in
value, like a house. Rather than something that depreciates like a car.

--
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:

Finally, someone with a clue.
I'm sure you'd like to meet one.

If you had a clue you'd actually be dangerous.

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.

So you've suddenly developed a telepathic connection to my ears, and you
know what I'm hearing now, do you?

In your own words... "you arrogant tosser".

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

Sanity is boring. And fear isn't something I suffer from. At least, not
behind the wheel!

As an example, take wrapping the speedo round the end stop on a 3.2 A3
Quattro over new year:

Normal person fear: "What if I'd crashed at that speed?"

My thoughts afterwards: "Hmmm... if I'd got caught doing that speed I'd
probably be picking up the soap for Bubba right now..."

--
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 10:20:50 +0100, Jim Lesurf
wrote:

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

JIm, Glenn is only here for the abuse, and you aren't giving it to
him. He will be very disappointed.

d

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

Bi-wiring vs bi-amping
 

In article , 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.

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 am not sure what "on here" may mean. However if you look at the relevant
part of one of my own websites you will find pages that explain a mechanism
by which 'bi-wiring' *might* give different results to using common wiring.
The same mechanism would *not* give a difference due to 'bi-amping'. Thus
it would actually be consistent with your claims.

Alas, as I have indicated in previous postings, the problem is that your
report isn't very useful as evidence, so the above consistency may not
actually mean anything.

This is why I feel it is a pity that you don't employ proceedures/methods
for your 'tests' that might help to give any 'results' some value as
evidence.

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 , Glenn
Richards wrote:
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?

Yes.

Indeed, I think *you* should also 'care' if you wish your postings to be
regarded as anything more than a troll or a waste of time by others.

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.

Then why spend time carrying out 'tests' using methods which give no worth
to the 'results' and then spend more time reporting them? I would assume
you would want what you write to be useful as evidence regarding the points
you are making. Alas, for that to be so, the 'tests' have to be carried out
in a suitable manner...

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.

cf my previous postings, but noting that an assertion that the above the
case isn't evidence that this *is* so.

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?

cf my previous postings. The problem here is that there are a variety of
ways in which you might have formed your conclusions, but which did *not*
stem from the causes you assume. But we can't tell, as your test and its
report give no way to assess this.

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.

First you would need to provide evidence that could be assessed on a
'scientific' basis... :-)

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 Sun, 02 Apr 2006 14:58:39 +0100, Glenn Richards
wrote:

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:

Finally, someone with a clue.
I'm sure you'd like to meet one.

If you had a clue you'd actually be dangerous.

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.

So you've suddenly developed a telepathic connection to my ears, and you
know what I'm hearing now, do you?

No, but I know what you're *not* hearing.

In your own words... "you arrogant tosser".

Unlike you however, I can back up my arrogance. And I'm not a tosser,
I have domestic staff for that function.

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

Sanity is boring. And fear isn't something I suffer from. At least, not
behind the wheel!

More confirmation that you lack intelligence and imagination.

As an example, take wrapping the speedo round the end stop on a 3.2 A3
Quattro over new year:

Actually, that would just be a lie. As previously noted, even if
you'd been going down the face of a cliff with a following gale, the
rev limiter would have prevented your claimed 170mph true speed. BTW,
dumbo, there *is* no 'end stop' on that speedo - I just checked.

Normal person fear: "What if I'd crashed at that speed?"

My thoughts afterwards: "Hmmm... if I'd got caught doing that speed I'd
probably be picking up the soap for Bubba right now..."

On a straight dual carriageway, where was the fear factor?
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

Bi-wiring vs bi-amping
 

In article , Don Pearce
wrote:
On Sun, 02 Apr 2006 10:20:50 +0100, Jim Lesurf
wrote:

[snip]


Jim

JIm, Glenn is only here for the abuse, and you aren't giving it to him.
He will be very disappointed.

Should that be the case, then I would expect it to become plain from the
way he would then either ignore, or dismiss what I say. FWIW though I am
quite willing to accept that he believes what he writes. However if he is
simply trolling or time-wasting, I'd expect that to show in due course.

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 Sun, 02 Apr 2006 14:52:28 +0100, Glenn Richards
wrote:

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:

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?

You have just proved that you *are* as stupid as you appear. Go to the
"Hardware" page. You'll quite clearly see a photo of a datacentre with
an AMD Opteron CPU in the foreground.

In my world (the real one) a data centre contains two mainframes,
several dozen servers and lots of *real* IT people. And almost
certainly no AMD processors.

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.

Pinkerton Usenet Rule #1: When losing an argument, resort to personal
insults.

Actually, it appears that I've only ever offered you compliments. :-)

Here's a little surprise for you. Workstations and servers use THE SAME
CPU, and very similar components. Hardware designed specifically for
servers may be built to a slightly higher standard, but these days
workstation-grade components are of sufficiently high quality that you
can build a server suitable for SMEs (up to about 15-20 users) using
off-the-shelf bits. Lower BOM == higher profits. Simple really.

Oh right, so you agree that what you're talking about is server
software running on a PC, thereby confirming that you are indeed a
moron. We have 65,000 users, slightly different rules apply.

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.

Actually you know sod all about IT. You've copied and pasted some bits
from your employer's website or intranet.

Not me dude, I'm far too ignorant to understand what 'cut and paste'
means..... :-)

And you've also proved you know sod all about audio as well.

How would *you* be able to judge?

(And about cars and driving, on another thread.)

How would *you* be able to judge?

In fact, the only thing that you probably do know more than me about is
how to be an irritating annoying tosser.

Oh no, that's the one area where you do have some talent!

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

Except you're not one of the biggest international corporations on the
planet. You're a post monkey in a bank, who has never worked in the
audio (or IT) industry.

I've been essentially in IT all my working life, but my beasties also
had external functions - computer controlled automatic test equipment,
to be precise. Frequently for submarine kit, which has audio gear
*way* more sensitive than domestic hi-fi will ever need.

Your childish whine cuts no ice with me, as I don't work in a bank and
I have nothing to do with 'posting' (we have our very own Royal Mail
sorting office on site, these guys handle all the actual 'bag and tag'
stuff).

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.

Oh, yes, the thrill of driving a Merc. For 30 seconds after driving it
away from the dealer, everything's perfect. Then a vital bit drops off.

Typical of your childish whining, and as usual for you, untrue. Plus
of course, it's only a stopgap until the Aston arrives, and it's an
AMG, not a Merc.

I think the words "thanks but no thanks" spring to mind. And for the
record I'd far rather have an RS4.

The seats are too narrow for your fat arse, but I agree it has a
superb engine. Personally, I'm waiting to drive the new S6 with the
Lambo V10. I'm also considering the upcoming R8, which should be
better than the AM V8, just to annoy Petchie! :-)

But then, what would be the point? The car I've got does me fine, and
I'm paying Mr Blair a lot less of my hard earned cash than I would be if
I had, say, a 4.2 V8 under the hood.

Just the kind of comment I'd expect from a clown like you, who has no
real interest in driving.

The 1.9TDI goes more than fast
enough to get you banned, that's for sure - have had it to 137mph
downhill with a tail wind according to sat-nav (got the FWD version to
143mph on the dial, over-read was about 4mph on that, so probably about
139). It'll cruise at 100mph quite happily - and that's quite fast
enough for me on the motorway 90% of the time. In fact, I usually sit on
about 80-90mph doing around 42mpg, engine ticking over at about 3,000rpm.

Yawn..................

I avoid motorways wherever possible, but then I don't have to scramble
around the country hunting down suck - - - er, valued clients.

If you've got money *and* sense, you buy something that appreciates in
value, like a house. Rather than something that depreciates like a car.

But if you have *real* money and sense, you do whatever gives you the
most fun, because your future is already secured. Bye bye, sonny.

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

Bi-wiring vs bi-amping
 

Glenn Richards wrote:

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.


Odd, last time I looked (which was on Friday), XP, 2000 Server, 2003
Server, and for that matter, are far from "completely different
underneath" they still use the WIN32 API, and it all looks very similar
to me, want to describe some of those "complete" diferences?


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).


Ahh, my lost youth, I think you will find that normally (before
marketing idiots got hold of the language) a workstation will normally
be running a Unix variant, normally used to be Solaris, but could often
be HPUX or IRIX, and will use X for the interface, often used for eng
stuff. Whereas most Servers will use a text based console, if they have
a graphics card at all, most servers I have seen don't normally bother
with any form of graphics, why would they need it, a serial console is
normally more than enough to boot, telnet will take over from there. And
we all know that a PC is something that follows the format laid down by
IBM all those years ago. So by that definition everything you have
described is just a PC in a different guise.

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.


Look inside a mid range IBM or Sun, you will see a bit more than just a
extension of the original one processor, one buss, one dma controller
that IBM started with. Look inside a top of the range PC, and thats just
about all you will see. PCI isn't that different from ISA. If you want
real interesting layout look inside a SGI (if you can still find one).


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?


And your point is? Why would he need to, he isn't a network tech, you
are so I would expect that as a bare minimum. I didn't notice any sign
of anything like a CNE sticker on your site, how have you managed to not
have to learn Cisco IOS in your line of work?

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.


Actually the *nix's you mention *are* just that simple, Try installing
one of the original Slackware Linux distros for a more interesting
comparison. Or try installing AIX 5.2 and configuring its LVM storage,
thats much more fun.


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 may come as a shock, but not everyone uses the web as their main form
of advertising.

--
Nick

Bi-wiring vs bi-amping
 

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:

So you've suddenly developed a telepathic connection to my ears,
and you know what I'm hearing now, do you?
No, but I know what you're *not* hearing.

No, you know what *you* wouldn't hear under the same conditions.

Serious question - approximately how old are you? To the nearest 5 years.

The reason I ask... last time I tested the top end of my hearing I could
hear up to about 22kHz. When I was about 15 I could hear up to somewhere
in the region of 25kHz. So it may simply be that if you're of "more
mature years" you will indeed be unable to hear differences, as you may
not be able to hear anything above around 16kHz.


Actually, that would just be a lie. As previously noted, even if
you'd been going down the face of a cliff with a following gale, the
rev limiter would have prevented your claimed 170mph true speed.

The rev limiter on your slushbox may have done. This was a 6-speed manual.

And I'm only going on what the sat-nav was telling me. 17-something over
the last few yards. And I wasn't going to try and take my eyes off the
road for long enough to parse the final digit whilst travelling at
"some" miles per hour.

BTW, dumbo, there *is* no 'end stop' on that speedo - I just checked.

It's a metaphor, idiot.

On a straight dual carriageway, where was the fear factor?

3-lane motorway, yes. Downhill, yes. Straight... nope. There's a
sweeping left-hander as you come north from the Almondsbury interchange
before you get to J14. Which at those speeds is more of a hairpin than a
fast sweeper, especially in a comparatively light car like an A3.

Ok, it may have a V6 anvil sitting in front of the headlights, but the
rest of it is still fairly light, and less stable than, say, an A4.

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

IT consultancy, hardware and software support, broadband installation