"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.

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.

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

IT consultancy, hardware and software support, broadband installation

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

"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...

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.

--
Eiron

No good deed ever goes unpunished.

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

"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.

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

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

"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.