Bi-wiring vs bi-amping
 

"Glenn Richards" wrote in
message
. uk
Jim Lesurf wrote:

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.

Of course I understand the scientific background.
However, numbers and measurements only tell half the
story.

I remember a few years back at the Bristol hi-fi show
looking at all the specs and measurements on the Tag
McLaren Audio stand. The figures certainly looked
impressive enough. But - when they put some music on, it
sounded awful.

No doubt those measurements related to only the electronic parts of the
system.

Yet a system 3 rooms up that cost a fraction the price
(Sonneteer) sounded fantastic.

What you listen to includes the acoustic peformance of the system.

You can make all the measurements you like, but that
doesn't answer the question "does it sound good?".

It takes a real novice to be distracted by just a partial system spec.

Bi-wiring vs bi-amping
 

"Glenn Richards" wrote in
message
. uk
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?

So that's your defense for your egregiously sloppy work?

LOL!

Bi-wiring vs bi-amping
 

"Don Pearce" wrote in message

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.

Glenn is just another one of those golden eared maroons that seem to infest
Usenet.

Bi-wiring vs bi-amping
 

On Sun, 02 Apr 2006 21:59:23 +0100, Glenn Richards
wrote:

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:

Serious question - approximately how old are you? To the nearest 5
years.
Me? 53, to the nearest 5 years. However, it's not *my* hearing that
is at issue here, it's yours.

Nothing wrong with my hearing. I'm actually trying to get some cold data
here.

If you're in your 50s, you'll probably find your upper limit of hearing
has dropped to around 12-15kHz. Which means you genuinely may not be
able to hear differences that do indeed exist - because those
differences may well exist in this frequency range.

Which part of "it's not *my* hearing that is at issue here, it's
yours" was unclear to you? I have offered £1,000 to *anyone* who can
demonstrate that they really can hear cable differences. That offer
has been on the table for more than six years now, and not one single
one of you loudmouthed bull****ters has even *tried* to collect it.

Says a lot for your *real* belief in 'cable sound'.

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.

Indeed, so you *claim* amid your many unlikely claims, but it's not
*my* hearing that's at issue here.

As I've said before, I have nothing to gain by making false claims about
my hearing. I haven't worked in the audio industry for several years,
and have nothing to gain or lose. Whether you choose to believe the
figures I'm quoting or not is up to you, but those were the results of
the hearing tests I did.

So what? You're still bull****ting. My own upper limit is around
18kHz, but that's irrelevant - the point is that *you* don't really
hear the things you claim, as is obvious by your refusal to
*demonstrate* that you can really do it.

And it really makes no odds to me if you claim not to be able to hear a
difference between single or bi-wiring, or between different types of
interconnect. The fact is, I *can* hear a difference. You obviously
can't, well, good for you, go and spend the 30 quid a decent
interconnect would have cost you on a couple of CDs instead.

No Richards, the point is that *you* can't hear them, you just make up
more fairy tales every week. You're a liar, just digging a deeper hole
all the time.

Glenn's continued personal attacks and his consistent refusal to put
his own 'exceptional' hearing to the test, do give one something of a
clue as to the reality of the situation, don't they? :-)

As I recall it was you that started with the personal attacks. And in
this thread I've given you a taste of your own medicine - and clearly
you don't like it.

Richards, you're a lying bull****ter, it's as simple as that,

I haven't refused to take part in anything, I've merely stated that I do
not wish to take part in your silly games to prove what I already know.
The so-called "prize money" wouldn't compensate for the inconvenience of
taking a day off work, lost earnings etc, and although it would be
somewhat satisfying to prove you wrong, there's a time and a place to
act like a 5-year-old. And guess what - this isn't it.

Yeah yeah, very convincing. You're a chicken**** liar, and even the
ever-polite Jim Lesurf knows that.

I'm also led to believe that someone already has taken your "test",
proved you wrong, and you in turn declared the test invalid on a
technicality and refused to pay up...

That's just another flat lie - not one single one of you loudmouthed
bull****ters has *ever* attempted to collect, even though the total
pool is in excess of $5,000 when you add in the guys from r.a.h-e
where all this started.

I simply put up my own local contribution, but it's actually an
international challenge. One which has also been avoided by other
lying bull****ters such as Randall Bradley of BEAR Labs, who actually
*sells* silver cables. The clown who runs Ecosse Cables in this
country also blew in here a couple of years ago, and rapidly scurried
off with his tail between his legs when asked to *prove* his claims.

You're just the latest in a long line of gutless bull****ters,
Richards, but then, that's pretty much what I'd expect of an 'IT
consultant' of your background..............

But I still haven't ruled out doing this test at some point - especially
considering I've done single-blind tests before and the person listening
determined 100% correctly which cable was in use.

So what's your problem? Just another of your fairy tales, Squirrel
nutkin.
--

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
 

"Glenn Richards" wrote in message
...


I'm not sure what to make about this "directional" lark. I've tried
connecting cables both ways (speaker and interconnect) and not heard a
difference. It's an AC signal after all.


Some time ago, I went with the technical engineer from our recording
crew to buy some speaker cable, on a 100metre drum. We told the
shop assistant that for stage use it had to be "substantial" He offered
us a cable with a printed arrow (which he said must point towards the
loudspeaker) on it every 25cms. We smiled. The assistant then
produced a drum of identical cable, minus the arrow, at roughly
half the price.

Expensive arrow:-)

The assistant told us that the cable with the arrow "sells much better,
as people don't have to experiment for themselves which way round the
cable sounds better" We nodded, thanked him for courteous service,
and left the shop with our reel of arrowless wire.

Iain

Bi-wiring vs bi-amping
 

Glenn Booth wrote:

I'm not trivialising what you do, but those aren't difficult examples.

That was the whole point. Pinkerton now claims to be an expert on IT,
and yet he's quite conveniently ducked out of answering those simple and
basic questions.

(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!)
I recommend Barolo on an empty stomach. It's a higher class of
heartburn :-)

My party piece was about 3 years ago when I downed about half a bottle
of Jamaican white rum... neat.

Was staying at a friend's in Liverpool at the time. I left the following
day at around 6pm - and I think I may have been marginally over the
limit. Put it this way, I'm glad I didn't get breathalysed... it would
probably have gone amber!

I don't make a habit of that though (getting that hammered *or* driving
24 hours after going off on a bender).

--
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
 

Jim Lesurf wrote:

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. :-/

Feel free to send me some more information on this mechanism, either on
here, by email, or as a URL. If there's a test method you can suggest
that will prove or disprove this, which doesn't involve excessive effort
on my part, I'll follow it up and let you know the results.

--
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 15:54:21 +0100, Jim Lesurf
wrote:

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

I think it has been shown. He drops the line in anew every few weeks
with yet another audible cable claim - he actually has nothing else to
offer here. I'm happy to bite as there is not a great deal else
happening round here right now.

You may have noticed how quiet he suddenly went on the subject of
servers when I provided the link to codex digital - a project I am
currently involved in. It kind of rained on his parade. He thought he
had finally found a subject where he could actually claim greater
expertise, and it all rather fell apart around his ears.

d

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

Bi-wiring vs bi-amping
 

In article , Stewart Pinkerton
wrote:
On Sun, 02 Apr 2006 21:59:23 +0100, Glenn Richards
wrote:

[big snip]

I haven't refused to take part in anything, I've merely stated that I
do not wish to take part in your silly games to prove what I already
know. The so-called "prize money" wouldn't compensate for the
inconvenience of taking a day off work, lost earnings etc, and
although it would be somewhat satisfying to prove you wrong, there's a
time and a place to act like a 5-year-old. And guess what - this isn't
it.

Yeah yeah, very convincing. You're a chicken**** liar, and even the
ever-polite Jim Lesurf knows that.

I am not sure of that. From the 'test reports' he gives, and his reply so
far, my suspiscion is that Glenn simply does not actually understand the
scientific method, and hence does not understand why the reports he makes
are essentially of null value. However as with his reports, it is hard to
tell, as we lack any reliable evidence (so far at least!).

He may well believe all he says. Alas, sincerity isn't enough, and people
believe all kinds of things. Hence the scientific method...

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:
Jim Lesurf wrote:

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. :-/

Feel free to send me some more information on this mechanism, either on
here, by email, or as a URL.

Go to the 'Scots Guide' (URL in my sig). Click on the 'Analog and Audio'
link. Scroll down that page and you'll find links to a few pages that
discuss this and explain a mechanism which *might* mean that bi-wired (and
bi-amped) systems could differ from conventional ones.

However this is simply a model of what can arise, in principle. There is no
experimental evidence I am aware of that shows this *does* cause audible
changes in any particular practical cases. (This is why it seems a shame to
me that your reports, and those other make, are done using 'tests' which
give results that have no real value in deciding such questions.)

The point here is that the effect I described can be expected to occur, but
at such a low level with most amps, etc, that it seems doubtful that the
difference would be large enough to be audible.


If there's a test method you can suggest that will prove or disprove
this, which doesn't involve excessive effort on my part, I'll follow it
up and let you know the results.

The 'test method' would be one designed to satisfy the requirements of the
scientific method. This could be done in various ways, so there is no
'unique' approach or protocol. In order to discuss and explain this, you
need to understand the actual scientific method, as that then allows you to
critically assess the proposed experimental protocol. The aim is to have a
'test' which can satisfy various requirements, including the following:

1) The test should be 'critical' in that its outcome may be able to clearly
be inconsistent a given or hypothesis or to be clearly consistent with it.
In effect, the intent is to try and 'catch out' and idea and find out if it
is flawed or incorrect, but using a test which can also show it is correct
if that happens to be the case.

2) The test should provide results in a form that both test method and
results can be assessed by others. The scientific method does not proceed
on the basis that 'Joe did a test and he's clever so I agree with him'. It
works on the basis that others can also examine the test, look for flaws,
and do their own assessment of the results.

3) It should be arranged to take into account the possible presence of some
'randomising' effects which may affect the result of an individual
obervation for reasons which those participating may not be aware at the
time.

4) It should be arranged to make 'common mode' any systematic alternative
factors that might otherwise give a result which is then misinterpreted. Or
at least as many of these as possible.

So, for example, in a 'listening' test we may have some variation in the
location of the head of the listener in the room acoustic. This may give
'random' changes from one 'trial' to another. Hence you'd have to repeat a
comparison a number of times to check if this was occurring. The number of
times involved would then set a probable limit on any such effect or show
it was ocurring and could be taken into account. (this is for '3' above.)
Similarly, for something like a change of wiring having the 'new' wires in
a different location to the 'old' ones and hence altering something like
the coupling to other cables, perhaps altering the hum level or something
else. Thus producing a change for reasons that were not the purpose of the
test.

Another example. If you use the same piece of music for comparing two
arrangements, then the physiology of human hearing needs to be taken into
account. e.g. hearing a loud section alters the sensitivity of the ears, so
if you play it again soon, your ears are physically different the second
time around. To deal with this, tests should be trialled a number of times,
swapping the order of the chosen arrangements, and see if this affects the
results.

The results can then be analysed by anyone who has access to the data
produced and knows the details of the test protocol.

The problem is that if you don't do the 'test' using such suitable methods,
the 'results' could mean anything. You might think they were due to the use
of two wires instead of one, but might just as easily have been due to some
other effect which did not occur to you at the time.

In practice, if you are not really familiar with this, and with the
scientific method, the best bet is to discuss the protocol arrangements
with other *in advance* to determine what makes sense, and for people to
point out the flaws/omissions in a given test protocol. If you really
understand the method, you will already know the basics of this, and be
able to suggest some of the other things that would be required. The
requirements will depend on the specific ideas being tested.

People tend to recommend protocols based on ABX or 'double blind' in part
to try and avoid results being affected by the expectations of the
participants, but also partly to try and remove 'external' factors, and to
give a protocol where repeated trials can provide data that can be analysed
to assess any 'random' or 'systematic' factors that might otherwise lead to
misleading or incorrect conclusions. However the point here is not the
specific choice of protocol, it is that the experiments are arranged in
order to deal with such issues.

It is up to you to decide if the effort is "excessive". Alas, the reality
is that unless you *do* employ suitable methods, the tests you report will
be essentially void of any value. The above does not require any particular
expense. But it takes some time and understanding to be able to do a useful
test which can provide valid results.

In practice, therefore the choice is between 'easy' tests whose results
have no real value (hence a waste of time for all concerned) or 'serious'
ones which may take time and effort, but might then deliver useful evidence
and *not* be a waste of time.

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