Bi-wiring vs bi-amping
 

"Glenn Richards" wrote in
message

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.

Strictly speaking, a test can only prove a hypothesis or fail to support it.
Absolute disproof is difficult.

A number of good test methodologies for supporting biamping and biwiring
are well-known, and are well-known to fail to support positive claims for
their effectiveness.

People like you almost always find that good audio testing methodologies
require excessive effort. The fact that these methodologies doen't support
their beliefs doesn't *help*.

The world is full of people who have had some sucess in IT and think that
that means they know more about audio than the old experienced hands. Don
and Jim are old experienced hands with audio.

Bi-wiring vs bi-amping
 

In article , Arny Krueger
wrote:
"Glenn Richards" wrote in message


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.

Strictly speaking, a test can only prove a hypothesis or fail to support
it. Absolute disproof is difficult.

To nit-pick a bit. (A tendency of aged rambling ex-academics. :-) )

I tend to be wary of saying that the results of any expermental test
either 'prove' or 'disprove' a hypothesis. I prefer to leave such terms
to mathematicians, lawyers, and other sorts of theologians. ;-

I prefer to consider this as follows:

The results of a test would either be 'consistent with' or 'conflict with'
a hypothesis with some given level of 'confidence'. The level of
'confidence' is based on being able to assess the results in the usual ways
applied to experimental data. e.g. via suitable statistical analysis of a
set of results. The details of all this would vary from one idea and test
method/results to another. Also with the level of risk that an outcome
arose due to an error of some kind.

However if we have a number of well run trials/tests that deliver results
people have examined with due caution and find consistent and convincing,
then we'd tend to accept the idea that 'passed the tests' as being 'valid'
as a model which has shown worth. The more such, the more confident we
can be in accepting what was a hypothesis as a reliable idea.

Whereas, if tests which seem to stand up to critical scrutiny show results
that conflict with, or contradict, a hypothesis, then we'd tend to decide
to treat the idea with some caution, and perhaps discard it as being
unreliable, and hence of no real worth as a model.

I tend to approach 'science' from the viewpoint that any theory may
eventually have to be discarded or modified **given suitable evidence**
which would justify this. Hence I regard ideas and theories as all being
potentially 'provisional' until we find evidence that allows us to
discard/alter a previous idea and move to a more reliable one, or one
that covers a wider range of circumstances, or gives more accuracy, etc.

Thus my view is more utilitarian and provisional than terms like 'prove'
or 'disprove' are often taken to imply. There always tends to be a
non-zero risk that we are mistaken, but we can hope to reduce this to
the level where we can neglect it with some safety *if* we use
proper methods. :-)


Ignoring the above nit-picking, however, we can use test results to form a
view as to if a given idea shows any real merit, and so decide if
it should be accepted or if it should be discarded as unreliable. The
strength of this decision would depend on the quality and care of the
test(s), and the extent and detail of their results.

However, by the same token, 'tests' which do not employ an appropriate
protocol, and/or do not give results which can be assessed, are essentially
worthless since we can't really use them to decide if their 'results' are
determined by the proposed idea or not. Thus their outcomes aren't really
'evidence' in terms of the scientific approach. This does not auomatically
mean the ideas behind them are 'wrong' - just that the test gives us no way
to tell, one way or the other.

As such, the above has nothing to do with 'subjective' versus 'objective'.
It is simply a matter of arranging to get results which can be assessed
for their level of reliability, etc.

[snip]

The world is full of people who have had some sucess in IT and think
that that means they know more about audio than the old experienced
hands. Don and Jim are old experienced hands with audio.

Alas, in my case the 'old' part probably now dominates. :-)

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
 

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Glenn Richards" wrote in
message

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.

Strictly speaking, a test can only prove a hypothesis or fail to support
it. Absolute disproof is difficult.

A number of good test methodologies for supporting biamping and biwiring
are well-known, and are well-known to fail to support positive claims for
their effectiveness.

People like you almost always find that good audio testing methodologies
require excessive effort. The fact that these methodologies doen't
support their beliefs doesn't *help*.

The world is full of people who have had some sucess in IT and think that
that means they know more about audio than the old experienced hands. Don
and Jim are old experienced hands with audio.


You *are* Ralph Watts and I claim my five pounds!! :-)

Bi-wiring vs bi-amping
 

On Mon, 3 Apr 2006 16:10:59 +0100, "Keith G"
wrote:



You *are* Ralph Watts and I claim my five pounds!! :-)



So what happened to Lobby Ludd?

d

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

Bi-wiring vs bi-amping
 

"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 3 Apr 2006 16:10:59 +0100, "Keith G"
wrote:



You *are* Ralph Watts and I claim my five pounds!! :-)



So what happened to Lobby Ludd?


Dunno. I suspect Lobby Ludd wasn't a Clever Dick 'old hand' garage mechanic
working on his own Mk 2 Jag one Saturday afternoon (where I use to work
weekends as a schoolkid) and didn't tell a certain young chap in his early
20s to FO with a 'WTF do you know?' when he had suggested summat on the
Jag.

Ralph Watts was - the young feller was a Jaguar R&D engineering type on
'secondment' from Jaguar (to get his hands dirty for a while) - I shudder to
think what tweaks he might have been able to put smartarse Wattsy Boy's way,
if he hadn't been fecked off by him....

Bi-wiring vs bi-amping
 

On Mon, 3 Apr 2006 16:56:55 +0100, "Keith G"
wrote:


"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 3 Apr 2006 16:10:59 +0100, "Keith G"
wrote:



You *are* Ralph Watts and I claim my five pounds!! :-)



So what happened to Lobby Ludd?


Dunno. I suspect Lobby Ludd wasn't a Clever Dick 'old hand' garage mechanic
working on his own Mk 2 Jag one Saturday afternoon (where I use to work
weekends as a schoolkid) and didn't tell a certain young chap in his early
20s to FO with a 'WTF do you know?' when he had suggested summat on the
Jag.

Ralph Watts was - the young feller was a Jaguar R&D engineering type on
'secondment' from Jaguar (to get his hands dirty for a while) - I shudder to
think what tweaks he might have been able to put smartarse Wattsy Boy's way,
if he hadn't been fecked off by him....



Reminds me of Nobby Gray - an old boy (sadly dead now) who used to run
a small engineering shop below my local Merc Dealers - he was actually
good mates with the dealer, so no problems there. But he was a total
wizard at making stuff right for people with little money. He had a
special crank shaft room, where he would take bent shafts - Bentleys
had a habit of doing this. There would be ten minutes of silence, then
a colossal thump. Out he would come with the crank shaft, and put it
on the vee-block measuring bench. If the run-out wasn't less than half
a thou, he wouldn't charge. But nobody ever got to see how he did it.

d

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

Bi-wiring vs bi-amping
 

On Mon, 03 Apr 2006 08:35:58 +0100, Glenn Richards
wrote:

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,

Not at all, I have little expertise in pure IT. All I said was, that I
probably have more than you. Different thing entirely......

--

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 in message
...
On Mon, 3 Apr 2006 16:56:55 +0100, "Keith G"
wrote:


Ralph Watts was - the young feller was a Jaguar R&D engineering type on
'secondment' from Jaguar (to get his hands dirty for a while) - I shudder
to
think what tweaks he might have been able to put smartarse Wattsy Boy's
way,
if he hadn't been fecked off by him....



Reminds me of Nobby Gray - an old boy (sadly dead now) who used to run
a small engineering shop below my local Merc Dealers - he was actually
good mates with the dealer, so no problems there. But he was a total
wizard at making stuff right for people with little money. He had a
special crank shaft room, where he would take bent shafts - Bentleys
had a habit of doing this. There would be ten minutes of silence, then
a colossal thump. Out he would come with the crank shaft, and put it
on the vee-block measuring bench. If the run-out wasn't less than half
a thou, he wouldn't charge. But nobody ever got to see how he did it.


I bet they didn't - a proper *trade secret*!!

Similar thing - I believe (apocryphal tale?) there was a bloke at Triumph
Motorcycles who forged all the cranks for the triples pretty much by eye and
was the only one who could do it..!!

Bi-wiring vs bi-amping
 

"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message

In article , Arny
Krueger wrote:
"Glenn Richards" wrote
in message

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.

Strictly speaking, a test can only prove a hypothesis or
fail to support it. Absolute disproof is difficult.

To nit-pick a bit. (A tendency of aged rambling
ex-academics. :-) )

I tend to be wary of saying that the results of any
expermental test either 'prove' or 'disprove' a
hypothesis. I prefer to leave such terms
to mathematicians, lawyers, and other sorts of
theologians. ;-

I prefer to consider this as follows:

The results of a test would either be 'consistent with'
or 'conflict with' a hypothesis with some given level of
'confidence'. The level of 'confidence' is based on being
able to assess the results in the usual ways applied to
experimental data. e.g. via suitable statistical analysis
of a set of results. The details of all this would vary
from one idea and test method/results to another. Also
with the level of risk that an outcome arose due to an
error of some kind.

However if we have a number of well run trials/tests that
deliver results people have examined with due caution and
find consistent and convincing, then we'd tend to accept
the idea that 'passed the tests' as being 'valid' as a
model which has shown worth. The more such, the more
confident we
can be in accepting what was a hypothesis as a reliable
idea.

Whereas, if tests which seem to stand up to critical
scrutiny show results that conflict with, or contradict,
a hypothesis, then we'd tend to decide to treat the idea
with some caution, and perhaps discard it as being
unreliable, and hence of no real worth as a model.

I tend to approach 'science' from the viewpoint that any
theory may eventually have to be discarded or modified
**given suitable evidence** which would justify this.
Hence I regard ideas and theories as all being
potentially 'provisional' until we find evidence that
allows us to discard/alter a previous idea and move to a
more reliable one, or one
that covers a wider range of circumstances, or gives more
accuracy, etc.

Thus my view is more utilitarian and provisional than
terms like 'prove' or 'disprove' are often taken to
imply. There always tends to be a non-zero risk that we
are mistaken, but we can hope to reduce this to
the level where we can neglect it with some safety *if*
we use
proper methods. :-)


Ignoring the above nit-picking, however, we can use test
results to form a view as to if a given idea shows any
real merit, and so decide if
it should be accepted or if it should be discarded as
unreliable. The strength of this decision would depend on
the quality and care of the test(s), and the extent and
detail of their results.

However, by the same token, 'tests' which do not employ
an appropriate protocol, and/or do not give results which
can be assessed, are essentially worthless since we can't
really use them to decide if their 'results' are
determined by the proposed idea or not. Thus their
outcomes aren't really 'evidence' in terms of the
scientific approach. This does not auomatically mean the
ideas behind them are 'wrong' - just that the test gives
us no way to tell, one way or the other.

As such, the above has nothing to do with 'subjective'
versus 'objective'. It is simply a matter of arranging to
get results which can be assessed for their level of
reliability, etc.

[snip]

I totally agree with above - as usual I was just trying to keep things short
and sweet.

The world is full of people who have had some sucess in
IT and think that that means they know more about audio
than the old experienced hands. Don and Jim are old
experienced hands with audio.

Alas, in my case the 'old' part probably now dominates.
:-)

That what they say about me, too. ;-)

Bi-wiring vs bi-amping
 

Glenn Richards wrote:

If you're gonna post links to Russ Andrews... at least post links to
Russ Andrews! That way we can all have a good laugh.

What's the point of those links anyway? Why not just bi-wire?

They're bull**** connectors for mugs that don't believe the bull**** about
bi-wring.


--
Wally
www.wally.myby.co.uk