On Sat, 01 Apr 2006 14:04:13 +0100, Glenn Richards
wrote:

Ok, here's an interesting one for you...

(Ok, first up, I'll admit I was bored.)

System: Arcam AVR-250, Mordaunt-Short Avant 908 speakers, Chord Rumour 4
speaker cable

Ever since I've had the Arcam amp, I've had the speakers bi-amped, as in
the current location I don't have space to run 7.1. So I did a little
experiment this morning.

Step 1: Disconnect the speaker cables from channels 6 and 7 (the EX or
bi-amp channels) at both the amp and speaker ends, and replace the
bridging straps on the speakers.

The sound suddenly went flat and lifeless, almost as if it had been
compressed.

The only thing that was 'compressed' here was your IQ......

Step 2: Reconnect the cables at the speaker end and remove the bridging
straps. Connect the cables into channels 1 and 2 at the amplifier end -
speakers are now bi-wired, but not bi-amped.

The depth and dynamics now returned immediately.

Step 3: Move the bi-wire cables back to channels 6 and 7, returning the
system to bi-amped configuration.

No difference audible between bi-wired and bi-amped.

Surely bi-amping should give more of a difference than bi-wiring?

Any ideas?

PS Please do not bother posting with "it's all in your mind", two of us
were in the room, both of us heard the same thing. And it goes against
what the assumption should be - bi-amping *should* produce an
improvement, yet it doesn't.

As usual, you haven't the foggiest Idea what you're talking about.
Assuming that your amps are capable of driving the speakers without
clipping at your preferred listening level, why should bi-amping be
better than bi-wiring? Electrically, they are *identical*.

BTW, as usual, it's all in your mind, so spare us your guff until you
have the guts to take a blind test. If you *really* believed your own
bull****, you'd be only yo happy to take a grand off me for proving
that you're not just full of hot air.

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:

The sound suddenly went flat and lifeless, almost as if it had been
compressed.
The only thing that was 'compressed' here was your IQ......

Some basic maths for you. Compression at 1:1 means that my IQ would
still be in the mid 130's, same as it's always been.

Yours on the other hand is clearly sub-optimal, as you seem to have
missed a basic point in my post:

PS Please do not bother posting with "it's all in your mind"...

To which you replied:

BTW, as usual, it's all in your mind [snip]

Mind you, following that logic, perhaps this will work...

Stewart, please do not go and jump off a cliff.

Assuming that your amps are capable of driving the speakers without
clipping at your preferred listening level, why should bi-amping be
better than bi-wiring? Electrically, they are *identical*.

LOL!

Now your true lack of knowledge comes into play.

Bi-amping means you have a separate amplifier driving the top (HF) and
bottom (LF) half of each speaker. So for a stereo pair, you have *four*
amplifiers. Count them. Left HF/LF, right HF/LF. Four.

So how is that "electrically identical" to a bi-wired setup, where you
have *two* amplifiers driving the stereo pair? The HF/LF is split at the
amplifier, either by using two sets of speaker outputs, or by using a 2
to 4 configuration speaker cable. This may consist of either soldering
two cores into a banana plug, or attaching two cores into the binding post.

This is clearly not "electrically identical" to a bi-amped setup. With
bi-amping, the HF and LF are split at *line level* (technically between
the pre and power amp), with bi-wiring they are split at *speaker level*.

Now if you'd said that single and bi-wired setups were electrically
identical, you may have a point, at least from a certain point of view.
The fact is though that bi-wiring does make a difference over
single-wiring, but (at least on the equipment I have) bi-amping doesn't.

If, as you suggest, it was "all in the mind", surely I would have
"heard" a difference between bi-wired and bi-amped? Yet I didn't, and
neither did the friend who was in the room with me at the time. Both of
us heard a difference between single and bi-wiring though.

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

IT consultancy, hardware and software support, broadband installation

"Glenn Richards" wrote in
message
. uk
Stewart Pinkerton wrote:

The sound suddenly went flat and lifeless, almost as if
it had been compressed.
The only thing that was 'compressed' here was your
IQ......

Some basic maths for you. Compression at 1:1 means that
my IQ would still be in the mid 130's, same as it's always been.

Basic math for you - compression at 1:1 isn't compression.

Compression always implies a ratio of less than one.

Based on your inability to reason correctly, I'd put your IQ at more like
less than 120.

On Sat, 01 Apr 2006 18:47:23 +0100, Glenn Richards
wrote:

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:

The sound suddenly went flat and lifeless, almost as if it had been
compressed.
The only thing that was 'compressed' here was your IQ......

Some basic maths for you. Compression at 1:1 means that my IQ would
still be in the mid 130's, same as it's always been.

Yours on the other hand is clearly sub-optimal, as you seem to have
missed a basic point in my post:

It may be suboptimal, but you're admitting that it's about 20 points
ahead of yours, sunshine! :-)

PS Please do not bother posting with "it's all in your mind"...

To which you replied:

BTW, as usual, it's all in your mind [snip]

Perhaps you have missed the basic point that no one gives a flying
fart about your 'instructions'?

BTW, it's all in your mind, as usual.

Mind you, following that logic, perhaps this will work...

Stewart, please do not go and jump off a cliff.

Spoilsport! I love abseiling!

If at first you don't succeed, skydiving is not for you.

Assuming that your amps are capable of driving the speakers without
clipping at your preferred listening level, why should bi-amping be
better than bi-wiring? Electrically, they are *identical*.

LOL!

Now your true lack of knowledge comes into play.

Bi-amping means you have a separate amplifier driving the top (HF) and
bottom (LF) half of each speaker. So for a stereo pair, you have *four*
amplifiers. Count them. Left HF/LF, right HF/LF. Four.

So how is that "electrically identical" to a bi-wired setup, where you
have *two* amplifiers driving the stereo pair?

Pretty obvious to anyone with minimal knowledge of electronics.

The HF/LF is split at the
amplifier, either by using two sets of speaker outputs, or by using a 2
to 4 configuration speaker cable. This may consist of either soldering
two cores into a banana plug, or attaching two cores into the binding post.

This is clearly not "electrically identical" to a bi-amped setup. With
bi-amping, the HF and LF are split at *line level* (technically between
the pre and power amp), with bi-wiring they are split at *speaker level*.

That depends what you mean by 'bi-amping'. In your case, you were
*not* using an active x-over, so the line-level signals going into the
four amps were identical, hence the speaker-level signals coming *out*
of the four amps were identical (assume a central image for the
moment), given only that the amps weren't clipping when only two were
driving the speakers. Therefoire, there is *no* electricval difference
between bi-wiring and your style of what is commonly called 'passive'
bi-amping.

Warning!!!! Do *not* consult 'Squirrel Solutions' if you have a
technical problem!!

Now if you'd said that single and bi-wired setups were electrically
identical, you may have a point, at least from a certain point of view.

No, they *are* electrically different, but only in the region
immediately surrounding the crossover, and only at the -40dB or below
level, depending on the relative impedances of speaker and wire.

Warning!!!! Do *not* consult 'Squirrel Solutions' if you have a
technical problem!!

The fact is though that bi-wiring does make a difference over
single-wiring, but (at least on the equipment I have) bi-amping doesn't.

No, it doesn't. Try it again, when you don't *know* when the bi-wiring
is in place.

If, as you suggest, it was "all in the mind", surely I would have
"heard" a difference between bi-wired and bi-amped? Yet I didn't, and
neither did the friend who was in the room with me at the time. Both of
us heard a difference between single and bi-wiring though.

No, you wouldn't, because they are electrically identical. Of course,
so are single and bi-wiring for all practical purposes (one reason why
several top speaker makers don't even offer the option), but we all
know that you're obsessed with these imaginary cable differences you
keep bleating about - but refuse to put to the test.

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com

In article , Glenn
Richards wrote:
Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
[snip]

Assuming that your amps are capable of driving the speakers without
clipping at your preferred listening level, why should bi-amping be
better than bi-wiring? Electrically, they are *identical*.

LOL!

Now your true lack of knowledge comes into play.

ahem I would be inclined to recommend that you use that line of argument
with some care... :-)

Bi-amping means you have a separate amplifier driving the top (HF) and
bottom (LF) half of each speaker. So for a stereo pair, you have *four*
amplifiers. Count them. Left HF/LF, right HF/LF. Four.

So how is that "electrically identical" to a bi-wired setup, where you
have *two* amplifiers driving the stereo pair?

Well *if* the amplifiers in question have essentially identical
characteristics, and were not current limiting, then the voltages applies
at the amplifier ends of the leads would have been essentially identical in
each case. This may be what Stewart means.

OTOH if the amp had been current limiting when you were not 'bi-amping',
then that might make a significant difference. Also, if the gains of the
two amps were not essentially identical, that also might have made a
difference.


The HF/LF is split at the amplifier, either by using two sets of speaker
outputs, or by using a 2 to 4 configuration speaker cable. This may
consist of either soldering two cores into a banana plug, or attaching
two cores into the binding post.

This is clearly not "electrically identical" to a bi-amped setup. With
bi-amping, the HF and LF are split at *line level* (technically between
the pre and power amp), with bi-wiring they are split at *speaker level*.

You will need to distinguish between 'physically different' - i.e.
different wiring arrangement and 'electrically different' - i,e, supplying
a different voltage level and supplying a different current. I have not
seen you give any explanation, or measurements on your system, that
supports your belief that "This is clearly not "electrically identical"..."
However this may be because you aren't defining what you claim.

[snip]

If, as you suggest, it was "all in the mind", surely I would have
"heard" a difference between bi-wired and bi-amped? Yet I didn't, and
neither did the friend who was in the room with me at the time. Both of
us heard a difference between single and bi-wiring though.

Alas, the real problem with what you report isn't its 'subjective' nature.
It is that you simply fail to employ any experimental methods or
proceedures that would allow anyone else to assess what you report. Thus
what you say is virtually useless as 'evidence' for your claims. This seems
to be a common thread in the reports you post.

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.

This seems a shame, as you clearly have the enthusiasm and determination to
keep carrying out such (flawed) tests, and reporting them here, clearly
believing that they have some value. I can't help feeling that you would
find arguing your case rather more productive if you used a more
appropriate method/proceedure. Would save you and others wasting a lot of
time and effort, and might provide some useful results.

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

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.

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

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

It's too easy, especially for us techies, to get caught up in technical
specs and feeping creaturitis. And when that happens, one starts to
overlook the real reason we went out and spent £4,500 on a hi-fi in the
first place - because we love music.

And while Pinkerton-baiting can be entertaining, putting on a CD of your
favourite music, dimming the lights and just enjoying it is far better.

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

IT consultancy, hardware and software support, broadband installation

Glenn Richards wrote:
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.

Actually they tell 0.5245 of the story :-)

But, Jim's phrase was "The scientific method", the fact you have not
read that as a well known trio of words and replaced the last one with
background makes me suspect you don't understand or know there is such a
thing.

--
Nick

"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.

On Sat, 01 Apr 2006 18:27:53 +0100, Stewart Pinkerton
wrote:

On Sat, 01 Apr 2006 14:04:13 +0100, Glenn Richards
wrote:

Ok, here's an interesting one for you...

(Ok, first up, I'll admit I was bored.)

System: Arcam AVR-250, Mordaunt-Short Avant 908 speakers, Chord Rumour 4
speaker cable

Ever since I've had the Arcam amp, I've had the speakers bi-amped, as in
the current location I don't have space to run 7.1. So I did a little
experiment this morning.

Step 1: Disconnect the speaker cables from channels 6 and 7 (the EX or
bi-amp channels) at both the amp and speaker ends, and replace the
bridging straps on the speakers.

The sound suddenly went flat and lifeless, almost as if it had been
compressed.

The only thing that was 'compressed' here was your IQ......

Step 2: Reconnect the cables at the speaker end and remove the bridging
straps. Connect the cables into channels 1 and 2 at the amplifier end -
speakers are now bi-wired, but not bi-amped.

The depth and dynamics now returned immediately.

Step 3: Move the bi-wire cables back to channels 6 and 7, returning the
system to bi-amped configuration.

No difference audible between bi-wired and bi-amped.

Surely bi-amping should give more of a difference than bi-wiring?

Any ideas?

PS Please do not bother posting with "it's all in your mind", two of us
were in the room, both of us heard the same thing. And it goes against
what the assumption should be - bi-amping *should* produce an
improvement, yet it doesn't.

As usual, you haven't the foggiest Idea what you're talking about.
Assuming that your amps are capable of driving the speakers without
clipping at your preferred listening level, why should bi-amping be
better than bi-wiring? Electrically, they are *identical*.

BTW, as usual, it's all in your mind, so spare us your guff until you
have the guts to take a blind test. If you *really* believed your own
bull****, you'd be only yo happy to take a grand off me for proving
that you're not just full of hot air.

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. 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.

d

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

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. 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.

Well, you're a little more eloquent than Pinkerton, but still just as
much of an inflamed a-hole...

(Now, where did I put those Preparation H bullets?)

"Equalizing gain"... allow me to point something out here. This test was
carried out on an Arcam AVR-250. Now, whether or not you're familiar
with this bit of kit or not, I don't know. But let me explain how this
works.

This unit has 7 channels of amplification. Channels 6 and 7 have three
possible settings.

1. EX - for use in a 7.1 surround configuration.

2. Zone 2 - a pair of speakers can be installed in a second room.

3. Bi-amp L+R - I shouldn't have to explain this, but for the benefit of
the terminally stupid, this setting allows you to bi-amp the front left
& right speakers.

For the purposes of the test, the mode was set to bi-amp when bi-amping,
and Zone 2 when single-amped and bi-wired. This was so that channels 6
and 7 weren't trying to amplify anything when no speaker was connected
to them.

Gain adjustment wouldn't come into it. The amplifier is designed to
bi-amp, and the gain is matched.

"Getting the phase wrong"... well let's see, there's a red plug goes
into the red socket, and a black plug that goes into a black socket. The
HF and LF pairs are twisted together at the speaker end, the HF pair has
a red band down the + side, the LF pair a black band.

Somewhere near a zero chance of getting it right, in fact.

Maybe for a ****wit like you, who clearly didn't read my original posting.

What I actually wrote was that I'd heard a clear difference between
single and bi-wiring, but no difference between bi-wiring and bi-amping.

But of course, the likes of you and Pinkerton wouldn't bother to read
the posting, would you? Nope... you'd just read the words "bi-wire",
"single wired" and "bi-amp" and let your tiny little mind fill in the
blanks - incorrectly.

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

BTW... your website... it SUCKS, to put it mildly. I wouldn't advertise
that abomination too proudly.

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

IT consultancy, hardware and software support, broadband installation