Bi-wiring vs bi-amping
 

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.

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.

--
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
 

"Glenn Richards" wrote in message
...
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.

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.

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

IT consultancy, hardware and software support, broadband installation

I'm surprised by your experiments as in my experience I have found biamping
to improve the situation, as you can in most cases ditch the Xovers and put
filters at the input end of the amp where it makes more sense. Unlike others
here I have found (partial) biwiring to improve my system marginally -
between mid and high and not involving the LF. I biamp anyway beween bass &
mid/treble as my system cannot work on one stereo amp.
Just my 2p worth.

Mike

Bi-wiring vs bi-amping
 

Glenn Richards wrote:


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.

You were using the freebie links. What do you expect?
You should try a set of these: http://makeashorterlink.com/?Q125324EC

(Or make sure you haven't accidentally disconnected the tweeters.)

--
Eiron

No good deed ever goes unpunished.

Bi-wiring vs bi-amping
 

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

Didn't you only get the cable yesterday? It hasn't been burned-in yet
and you've probably got it the wrong way round. From the Chord website:

" Most cables are directional, they sound better when connected in one direction
than the other. As yet, we have found no way to establish the direction by
measurement. During development of an interconnect or speaker cable, we
establish direction through blind listening tests carried out by ourselves,
retailers and hi-fi manufacturers. The results are remarkably consistent.

New cables used to connect hi-fi or home cinema components need some time to
burn-in and sound at their best. The reasons for this are the subject of much
debate but it is very easy to hear the difference between a new cable and one
that has been connected for a month or so. A new cable tends to sound slightly
bright and can bring an almost mechanical quality to the bass. As a cable burns
in the tonal qualities become more natural and music becomes more coherent and
enjoyable."

I suggest you repeat the test on May 1st instead of April Fools Day when your
friend isn't playing practical jokes.

--
Eiron

No good deed ever goes unpunished.

Bi-wiring vs bi-amping
 

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

Bi-wiring vs bi-amping
 

Eiron wrote:

System: Arcam AVR-250, Mordaunt-Short Avant 908 speakers, Chord Rumour
4 speaker cable
Didn't you only get the cable yesterday? It hasn't been burned-in yet
and you've probably got it the wrong way round. From the Chord website:

Got it on Thursday...

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.

However, I do connect the cables according to the arrows on them for one
simple reason - the arrow is showing the direction of signal flow. So
it's easier to figure out what the hell's going where.

And believe me, when you've got 7 sets of speaker cables coming out the
back of your amplifier, which have tangled themselves into an unholy
mess, it's very useful to know which bit goes to which end of the cable.
Ditto for interconnects.

I suggest you repeat the test on May 1st instead of April Fools Day
when your friend isn't playing practical jokes.

Wasn't a serious test. I was just curious to know whether bi-amping or
bi-wiring made a difference. It would seem that bi-wiring does, but
bi-amping doesn't (at least on this amp/speaker combo at domestic levels).

--
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
 

Eiron wrote:

You were using the freebie links. What do you expect?
You should try a set of these: http://makeashorterlink.com/?Q125324EC

Ummm... ok.

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?

(Or make sure you haven't accidentally disconnected the tweeters.)

Not likely. I discovered on the Avant 908s the top set of binding posts
actually connects to the tweeter and midband drivers, the bottom set
connects to the 10" side-firing bass driver.

Either way, it sounds just as good single-amped and bi-wired as it does
bi-amped, but doesn't sound as good single-wired.

So it seems that bi-wiring makes the difference, not bi-amping.

--
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:

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

Bi-wiring vs bi-amping
 

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

Bi-wiring vs bi-amping
 

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