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

Bi-wiring vs bi-amping
 

On Sat, 01 Apr 2006 21:18:09 +0100, Glenn Richards
wrote:

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.


That's right - which was why I said you would actually have much more
chance to hear the bi-amped change than the one you "did" hear. Not
too sharp this evening, are you?

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.

Have a cup of cocoa, for goodness sake - this is damaging your brain.

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


Oh and well done putting all those plugs in! Seriously - well done.

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

From the man whose home page advertises a PC for two and a half grand.
I'm flattered.

d

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

Bi-wiring vs bi-amping
 

Don Pearce wrote:

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.
That's right - which was why I said you would actually have much more
chance to hear the bi-amped change than the one you "did" hear. Not
too sharp this evening, are you?

What you actually wrote was "there is a very high probability that
biamping would produce audibly different results". Bi-*amping* didn't.
Bi-*wiring* did.

BTW, did anyone ever teach you how to snip quotes properly? I'm guessing
not... but here's a hint. I *know* what I wrote 25 minutes ago that
you're now replying to. Anyone who really wants to can follow the thread
back and read the original posting. You snip, and leave just enough to
retain the context. That way people don't have to wade through the
entire original post (which is further back in the thread if needed)
just to read whatever snide comments you've decided to post.

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.
Have a cup of cocoa, for goodness sake - this is damaging your brain.

No it's not, it's quite entertaining actually. I'm just visualising you
lot all sitting round listening to Britney Spears on your midi systems,
with speakers hooked up with stuff that I wouldn't even insult my
doorbell with by using it as bell wire, going "ho ho ho, these
audiophile types" and being all self-righteous.

Meanwhile I'm sitting here with some lovely music playing on an Arcam
DVD/CD player and amp, running over Chord Rumour 4 speaker cables to a
set of Avant 908s... and here's the thing - ENJOYING THE MUSIC. The
technology is the means to the end, NOT the end in itself.

BTW... your website... it SUCKS, to put it mildly. I wouldn't
advertise that abomination too proudly.
From the man whose home page advertises a PC for two and a half
grand. I'm flattered.

Yet again, you prove your ignorance. Nowhere on my home page do I
advertise a "PC" for two and a half grand.

Go back and re-read, there's a good boy.

Oh yeah, and the reason your site sucks... firstly it uses frames,
secondly it doesn't work on Firefox, and thirdly... it doesn't work on IE7.

Fix it, then you might redeem some credibility.

--
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 22:50:52 +0100, Glenn Richards
wrote:

Don Pearce wrote:

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.
That's right - which was why I said you would actually have much more
chance to hear the bi-amped change than the one you "did" hear. Not
too sharp this evening, are you?

What you actually wrote was "there is a very high probability that
biamping would produce audibly different results". Bi-*amping* didn't.
Bi-*wiring* did.


So tell me - how did you manage to bi-amp without bi-wiring? That is a
rare talent, you know. Right up there with your extraordinary auditory
abilities.

BTW, did anyone ever teach you how to snip quotes properly? I'm guessing
not... but here's a hint. I *know* what I wrote 25 minutes ago that
you're now replying to. Anyone who really wants to can follow the thread
back and read the original posting. You snip, and leave just enough to
retain the context. That way people don't have to wade through the
entire original post (which is further back in the thread if needed)
just to read whatever snide comments you've decided to post.

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.
Have a cup of cocoa, for goodness sake - this is damaging your brain.

No it's not, it's quite entertaining actually. I'm just visualising you
lot all sitting round listening to Britney Spears on your midi systems,
with speakers hooked up with stuff that I wouldn't even insult my
doorbell with by using it as bell wire, going "ho ho ho, these
audiophile types" and being all self-righteous.


We are already too well acquainted with your febrile imagination,
thank you.

Meanwhile I'm sitting here with some lovely music playing on an Arcam
DVD/CD player and amp, running over Chord Rumour 4 speaker cables to a
set of Avant 908s... and here's the thing - ENJOYING THE MUSIC. The
technology is the means to the end, NOT the end in itself.

BTW... your website... it SUCKS, to put it mildly. I wouldn't
advertise that abomination too proudly.
From the man whose home page advertises a PC for two and a half
grand. I'm flattered.

Yet again, you prove your ignorance. Nowhere on my home page do I
advertise a "PC" for two and a half grand.


Yes you do. And don't try and get round it by pretending it isn't
really a PC. That is exactly what it is.

Go back and re-read, there's a good boy.

Oh yeah, and the reason your site sucks... firstly it uses frames,
secondly it doesn't work on Firefox, and thirdly... it doesn't work on IE7.

Fix it, then you might redeem some credibility.

Works fine on both of those - and Opera, apart from the calculation
pages, which I will translate to Java in due course.

Oh, and by the way, there is absolutely nothing wrong with frames -
they work jolly nicely.

And please feel free to do some more of the snipping you just lectured
me about (thanks awfully, by the way, I feel so enlightened) - that'll
save you having to answer any of the above.

d

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

Bi-wiring vs bi-amping
 

Don Pearce wrote:

What you actually wrote was "there is a very high probability that
biamping would produce audibly different results". Bi-*amping*
didn't. Bi-*wiring* did.
So tell me - how did you manage to bi-amp without bi-wiring? That is
a rare talent, you know. Right up there with your extraordinary
auditory abilities.

Yet again, Mr Self-Righteous Prat displays an uncanny ability to read
something and completely alter the meaning between ear and brain.

You don't work in management do you, by any chance? You display the same
qualities of being told one thing and hearing something completely
different as management types commonly exhibit.

Go and read what I wrote *again*. As you've displayed a particularly
gratuitous amount of stupidity, I'll save you the trouble:

A difference was heard between single- and bi-wiring.

No difference was heard between bi-wiring and bi-amping.

Bi-amping implies bi-wiring. But, as you well know, you can bi-wire
without bi-amping.

I hope this display of cretinous stupidity on your part was just an act,
because if it wasn't I strongly suggest you consider a career change.
Tesco are always looking for people to stack shelves or work on the
till... or perhaps you could go and work in the same bank as Pinkerton
and take turns at sorting the post?

Yet again, you prove your ignorance. Nowhere on my home page do I
advertise a "PC" for two and a half grand.
Yes you do. And don't try and get round it by pretending it isn't
really a PC. That is exactly what it is.

See your car? That's really a horse-drawn carriage, that is. And don't
try to get around it, that's exactly what it is.

The *picture* on the site is of a PC with keyboard and speakers. It's
there purely for management types, who wouldn't know the difference
between a PC, a laptop, a server, or their left testicle. You know, the
types that call the base unit the "hard drive", say "my internet isn't
working" when clearly it is (your email is working, therefore your
internet *connection* is fine... oh, you mean the *web* isn't working?)
- it's called "marketing".

You show a management type a picture of a server and a picture of a PC
and they won't know the difference. Of course, the actual server itself
is built into an actual server enclosure.

And once again, go back and re-read. That two and a half grand isn't for
"a server". It's a package deal consisting of the server, tape backup
system, SNMP managed switch, 12 months on-site support etc.

All I can say is that it's a good job you don't work in the IT business.
Because you show a total lack of understanding, and like so many on this
newsgroup, you think you know everything when in fact you know nothing.

Oh yeah, and the reason your site sucks... firstly it uses frames,
secondly it doesn't work on Firefox, and thirdly... it doesn't
work on IE7.
Fix it, then you might redeem some credibility.

IE7, you cretinous oaf. [1] Not IE6. Go and download the beta of IE7,
and stop using Flash for navigation, it makes you look like a lost
cause. "Oh look at me, trying desperately to be trendy!"

Works fine on both of those - and Opera, apart from the calculation
pages, which I will translate to Java in due course.

News for you... it doesn't work on IE7. The links do nothing.

Oh, and by the way, there is absolutely nothing wrong with frames -
they work jolly nicely.

Oh, and by the way, there is absolutely everything wrong with frames -
they are completely unnecessary. Ever heard of CSS? "position: fixed"?

But then I wouldn't expect a terminally stupid [1] person like you to
know about such things.

And please feel free to do some more of the snipping you just
lectured me about (thanks awfully, by the way, I feel so enlightened)

Really? You didn't take any notice though. You still quoted my entire
original posting "en masse".

[1] This seems typical of the type of language that gets used on here.
No offence intended, I'm merely making an attempt to communicate with
natives in their own language. [2]

[2] And ****ing myself laughing right now, it has to be said.

--
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


No it's not, it's quite entertaining actually. I'm just visualising you
lot all sitting round listening to Britney Spears on your midi systems,
with speakers hooked up with stuff that I wouldn't even insult my doorbell
with by using it as bell wire, going "ho ho ho, these audiophile types"
and being all self-righteous.


:-)



Meanwhile I'm sitting here with some lovely music playing on an Arcam
DVD/CD player and amp, running over Chord Rumour 4 speaker cables to a set
of Avant 908s... and here's the thing - ENJOYING THE MUSIC. The technology
is the means to the end, NOT the end in itself.


You'll be pleased to know that what I'm playing right now - Reubke's 'Sonata
on the 94th Psalm' (L'Oiseau'Lyre SOL 3345) has just driven me out of the
room for a break!! (But it's still damn loud where I'm sitting now - must be
the Black & Decker speaker wires..... ;-)

Is that 'Britney' enough for you??

(Shortly it'll be a start on Kurosawa's Samurai Trilogy - Mooshy Mushy or
whatever it's called...!! ;-)

Now stop bitching and try to settle down for what's left of the evening!!

Bi-wiring vs bi-amping
 

Glenn Richards wrote:

Yet again, Mr Self-Righteous Prat displays an uncanny ability to read
something and completely alter the meaning between ear and brain.

I of course intended to write "eye and brain" there, before anyone makes
a smart comment.

--
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
. 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.

Bi-wiring vs bi-amping
 

"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.

Bi-wiring vs bi-amping
 

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

Bi-wiring vs bi-amping
 

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.

Bi-wiring vs bi-amping
 

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

Bi-wiring vs bi-amping
 

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

Bi-wiring vs bi-amping
 

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

Bi-wiring vs bi-amping
 

On Sat, 01 Apr 2006 23:45:07 +0100, Glenn Richards
wrote:

You show a management type a picture of a server and a picture of a PC
and they won't know the difference. Of course, the actual server itself
is built into an actual server enclosure.

An 'actual server enclosure'? WTF is 'an actual server enclosure'? We
have about twelve servers in our server room, three of which are
housed in perfectly standard PC tower cases. There's no way you can
tell what they are from looking at the case (other than reading the
badge!).

And I sure as heck didn't see any rack-mount cabinets in your 'server
room' picture on your hilarious website, which is what most people
might think of as an 'actual server enclosure'.

And once again, go back and re-read. That two and a half grand isn't for
"a server". It's a package deal consisting of the server, tape backup
system, SNMP managed switch, 12 months on-site support etc.

All I can say is that it's a good job you don't work in the IT business.
Because you show a total lack of understanding, and like so many on this
newsgroup, you think you know everything when in fact you know nothing.

What a wonderful case of projection...............

A Java junkie who thinks he's an IT consultant!
--

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
 

On Sat, 1 Apr 2006 23:46:04 +0100, "Keith G"
wrote:

"Glenn Richards" wrote

No it's not, it's quite entertaining actually. I'm just visualising you
lot all sitting round listening to Britney Spears on your midi systems,
with speakers hooked up with stuff that I wouldn't even insult my doorbell
with by using it as bell wire, going "ho ho ho, these audiophile types"
and being all self-righteous.

:-)

Meanwhile I'm sitting here with some lovely music playing on an Arcam
DVD/CD player and amp, running over Chord Rumour 4 speaker cables to a set
of Avant 908s... and here's the thing - ENJOYING THE MUSIC. The technology
is the means to the end, NOT the end in itself.

You'll be pleased to know that what I'm playing right now - Reubke's 'Sonata
on the 94th Psalm' (L'Oiseau'Lyre SOL 3345) has just driven me out of the
room for a break!! (But it's still damn loud where I'm sitting now - must be
the Black & Decker speaker wires..... ;-)

Well, hey, if they're good enough for B&W to use in their demo room at
a Hi-Fi Show, they should be good enough for you or the nutty
Squirrel! :-)

--

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
 

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

Bi-wiring vs bi-amping
 

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:

You show a management type a picture of a server and a picture of a
PC and they won't know the difference. Of course, the actual server
itself is built into an actual server enclosure.
An 'actual server enclosure'? WTF is 'an actual server enclosure'? We
have about twelve servers in our server room, three of which are
housed in perfectly standard PC tower cases. There's no way you can
tell what they are from looking at the case (other than reading the
badge!).

Generally when building a server I build it into what's known as an
"enterprise case". This usually has twin redundant PSUs, additional
ventilation, and hot-swappable SCSI drive caddies at the front.

So when configured with using RAID disks, in the event of a disk failure
you can swap out a disk without having to take the system down.

Of course if someone's on a tight budget then yes, I'll forego the
enterprise case and build it into a PC case, forego the SCSI and use
non-hotswap SATA RAID (yay RAIDframe kernel driver, no need for hardware
RAID) etc etc.

You've already proved you know even less about computer technology than
you do about audio, so I'd suggest you quit while you're not too far behind.

And I sure as heck didn't see any rack-mount cabinets in your 'server
room' picture on your hilarious website, which is what most people
might think of as an 'actual server enclosure'.

Actually there is a rack enclosure in there. Look carefully, it contains
the switches, patch bay and a few ISDN bits and a couple of fax modems
stuffed in for good measure.

Indeed what's there is overkill for what I use in the office, but it
works well as a testbed for development purposes. Having the web, mail,
PDC and media servers separate also means that I can make configuration
changes to one without taking the entire system down.

Yes, a single server would be able to run everything, but wouldn't give
me any redundancy. When I'm setting things up on a client's site I use a
single server, as they don't need (or want to pay for) this level of
redundancy.

Of course there are exceptions, indeed I've set up sites before now with
multiple redundant failover, so even if one server goes completely tits
up there's at least two redundant spares ready to take over.

A Java junkie who thinks he's an IT consultant!

Well, I never use Java. (Unless you mean the coffee, in which case
guilty as charged, the junkie bit anyway.) And as far as web development
goes, I avoid Javascript wherever possible, as it opens up a whole can
of worms with regards to compatibility.

All I'll say is this. Audio (and photography) are my hobbies and
interests. IT consultancy is how I make a living. And I live well, so I
must be doing something right. I must be, if I'm in a position to buy
Arcam kit, and silver speaker cable etc. Plus I don't know many people
my age that drive a 52-plate A4 Quattro... most 28-year-olds are driving
around in a Focus, Corsa, 1995 Astra, or worse, something Japanese,
cheap, and particularly nasty.

So I must be doing something right. Beats working as a postal clerk in a
bank, that's for sure...

--
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:

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

Bi-wiring vs bi-amping
 

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 1 Apr 2006 23:46:04 +0100, "Keith G"
wrote:

You'll be pleased to know that what I'm playing right now - Reubke's 'Sonata
on the 94th Psalm' (L'Oiseau'Lyre SOL 3345) has just driven me out of the
room for a break!! (But it's still damn loud where I'm sitting now - must be
the Black & Decker speaker wires..... ;-)

Well, hey, if they're good enough for B&W to use in their demo room at
a Hi-Fi Show, they should be good enough for you or the nutty
Squirrel! :-)

Only if they are the orange ones. Gotta be orange - the black or white
ones don't work properly ;-)

Regards,

Glenn.

Bi-wiring vs bi-amping
 

Glenn Richards wrote:

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.

But you with your golden ears must be able to hear that much difference.
Better check the relative gain with your DVM.


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".

Although we would all enjoy reading your obituary in the Wotton Gazette,
your behaviour is likely to kill an innocent family as well so here's some advice:
There's always someone faster than you and today could be the day you meet him
coming the other way on your wet, narrow, twisty country lane.

--
Eiron

No good deed ever goes unpunished.

Bi-wiring vs bi-amping
 

"Glenn Richards" wrote in
message

So I must be doing something right. Beats working as a
postal clerk in a bank, that's for sure...

If you built servers the disregard for the laws of physics we see in your
audio comments, this would truely be a miracle.

Bi-wiring vs bi-amping
 

"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...

Bi-wiring vs bi-amping
 

"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.

Bi-wiring vs bi-amping
 

On Sat, 01 Apr 2006 23:45:07 +0100, Glenn Richards
wrote:

The *picture* on the site is of a PC with keyboard and speakers. It's
there purely for management types, who wouldn't know the difference
between a PC, a laptop, a server, or their left testicle. You know, the
types that call the base unit the "hard drive", say "my internet isn't
working" when clearly it is (your email is working, therefore your
internet *connection* is fine... oh, you mean the *web* isn't working?)
- it's called "marketing".

So you now admit that you lied, and it is in fact a PC. Good, we're
getting somewhere. Now listen carefully, because I am going to explain
something to you. "Server" is an application, to which a PC can be
put. I have one such right here. I bought a PC, and I use it as a
server.

You show a management type a picture of a server and a picture of a PC
and they won't know the difference. Of course, the actual server itself
is built into an actual server enclosure.

Yet again - if I showed you a picture of a stick, would you be able to
tell me if it is a dog-entertaining device, or a door-prop? No you
wouldn't, it is a stick. You are again confusing what a thing is with
what you might do with it.

And once again, go back and re-read. That two and a half grand isn't for
"a server". It's a package deal consisting of the server, tape backup
system, SNMP managed switch, 12 months on-site support etc.

That still leaves us shy of a grand.

All I can say is that it's a good job you don't work in the IT business.
Because you show a total lack of understanding, and like so many on this
newsgroup, you think you know everything when in fact you know nothing.

Oh yeah, and the reason your site sucks... firstly it uses frames,
secondly it doesn't work on Firefox, and thirdly... it doesn't
work on IE7.
Fix it, then you might redeem some credibility.

IE7, you cretinous oaf. [1] Not IE6. Go and download the beta of IE7,
and stop using Flash for navigation, it makes you look like a lost
cause. "Oh look at me, trying desperately to be trendy!"

Sorry, was that last bit about you? You know, with the "I'm using IE7
beta" and all. I don't use beta software, I evaluate it.

Works fine on both of those - and Opera, apart from the calculation
pages, which I will translate to Java in due course.

News for you... it doesn't work on IE7. The links do nothing.

I will find that out in due course, I'm sure. Meanwhile, thank you for
your concern.

Oh, and by the way, there is absolutely nothing wrong with frames -
they work jolly nicely.

Oh, and by the way, there is absolutely everything wrong with frames -
they are completely unnecessary. Ever heard of CSS? "position: fixed"?

You equate unnecessary with evil, do you? Let me put it another way
for you: There is absolutely everything wrong with CCS, position:
fixed - it is completely unnecessary. Ever heard of frames?

But then I wouldn't expect a terminally stupid [1] person like you to
know about such things.

And please feel free to do some more of the snipping you just
lectured me about (thanks awfully, by the way, I feel so enlightened)

Really? You didn't take any notice though. You still quoted my entire
original posting "en masse".

[1] This seems typical of the type of language that gets used on here.
No offence intended, I'm merely making an attempt to communicate with
natives in their own language. [2]

Non sequitur. What on earth have you switched to here?

[2] And ****ing myself laughing right now, it has to be said.

What time does the nice lady come in to clean you up?

d

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

Bi-wiring vs bi-amping
 

On Sun, 02 Apr 2006 12:00:39 +0100, Eiron wrote:

Glenn Richards wrote:

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.

Not you, obviously.

But you with your golden ears must be able to hear that much difference.
Better check the relative gain with your DVM.


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".

Although we would all enjoy reading your obituary in the Wotton Gazette,
your behaviour is likely to kill an innocent family as well so here's some advice:
There's always someone faster than you and today could be the day you meet him
coming the other way on your wet, narrow, twisty country lane.

Perhaps he needs that classic bumper sticker:

Warning! I drive like you do!

--

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
 

On Sun, 02 Apr 2006 11:37:08 +0100, Glenn Richards
wrote:

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.

I'm sure you'd like to meet one.

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.

Neither did the bi-wiring over single wiring, moron.

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.

Actually you don't want to be curing sanity, and fear can be overcome.

--

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:

So you now admit that you lied, and it is in fact a PC. Good, we're
getting somewhere. Now listen carefully, because I am going to
explain something to you. "Server" is an application, to which a PC
can be put. I have one such right here. I bought a PC, and I use it
as a server.

Ok, let me put this in simplistic language for you:

The photograph of a PC, keyboard and speakers on my home page is for
*marketing purposes*.

Do you know what the difference between a server and a PC is?

It's the software it's running.

A new PC typically runs Microsoft Windows XP (although some run Linux
etc). A server will run something like Windows Server (looks similar to
XP, but is completely different underneath) or if you've got a clue will
run Linux or *BSD, or some other form of *nix.

It's desirable, but not necessary, to use SCSI hot-swap disks in caddies
so you don't need to open the machine up if one of the disks in your
RAID array fails.

It's also desirable, but not necessary, to build the system into an
"enterprise" case, with redundant PSUs and additional forced ventilation.

But if you're building down to a budget you can build a perfectly
functional server into a standard ATX case, using SATA (or even ATA-133)
disks and the kernel RAIDframe driver. In fact the only difference these
days between SATA and SCSI disks is the drive electronics, and of course
the price tag. Western Digital for example make a range of SATA 24/7
RAID edition drives, which are a fraction the cost of SCSI disks.

You show a management type a picture of a server and a picture of a
PC and they won't know the difference. Of course, the actual server
itself is built into an actual server enclosure.
Yet again - if I showed you a picture of a stick, would you be able
to tell me if it is a dog-entertaining device, or a door-prop? No you
wouldn't, it is a stick. You are again confusing what a thing is
with what you might do with it.

Out of context, I would tell you it was a stick.

Whereas out of context you're trying to tell me that a "generic x86
hardware platform" is a PC. Which it clearly isn't.

There's a very good reason why those of us in the know use the term
"workstation" rather than "PC". The system that's sat on your desk, with
that lovely 19" monitor and a single 80GB SATA or ATA-133 hard disk...
that's a workstation. The system locked away in the cupboard with no
keyboard or monitor but 4 200GB disks configured as RAID level 5...
that's a server. They both use the same Athlon64 processor, and both use
the same Corsair or Kingston branded DDR memory (although the server
probably has 2GB, the workstation has 512MB or 1GB).

But one of them will run Microsoft Word, or Photoshop. The other one
doesn't.

It's all down to the way it's configured.

And once again, go back and re-read. That two and a half grand
isn't for "a server". It's a package deal consisting of the server,
tape backup system, SNMP managed switch, 12 months on-site support
etc.
That still leaves us shy of a grand.

Have you ever set up a server as domain controller? Do you know how to
configure DHCP? Do you know one end of a subnet mask from the other? Or
the difference between a Class C and a /25?

Yes, I've no doubt that you could probably source all that hardware in
component form for considerably less than £2,500. But then you'd have to
assemble it, install the operating system (and installing *nix isn't a
case of "point and click for dummies" like installing Windoze),
configure the network, set up SNMP monitoring etc etc. Oh, and
reconfigure all the workstations on the client's site to work correctly
with the new system.

You're not paying for just the hardware. You're paying for a complete
service - which for a small business with no IT staff is a damn site
more cost-effective than taking on an IT manager... who will typically
be looking at a salary of around £35-40k.

Sorry, was that last bit about you? You know, with the "I'm using IE7
beta" and all. I don't use beta software, I evaluate it.

I am using IE7 beta on this particular PC for one reason, and one reason
only.

One of the services I offer is web development. And I need to know that
when IE7 is finally released, sites I've created aren't going to break
horribly on it.

I've installed it on one PC only, and for the record it still sucks. Not
as much as IE6, but it's basically a poor man's Firefox. (Which
considering that Firefox is free is somewhat lame.)

You equate unnecessary with evil, do you? Let me put it another way
for you: There is absolutely everything wrong with CCS, position:
fixed - it is completely unnecessary. Ever heard of frames?

Yes, I've heard of frames, and they're evil (as well as unnecessary).

I've seen frames used effectively on perhaps two or three sites, but
most of the time they're just a lame way of getting the navigation bar
to appear on every page. Whereas if you knew anything whatsoever about
web programming you'd have heard of server-side includes, or server-side
scripting (eg PHP or ASP). You might also have some idea why your web
site is so lame.

For the record, I had a look at your site to see what your field of
expertise was. But then I couldn't get past the silly splash page. So,
along comes a potential client that's found you via Google (although
that's unlikely as frames are one of the best ways to scare off search
engines), who then can't get past the intro page. They then think "oh,
this guy's lame, he can't do a web site" - and go straight to one of
your competitors.

It's better to have no web site at all than to have a lame one.

[2] And ****ing myself laughing right now, it has to be said.
What time does the nice lady come in to clean you up?

Ah, that costs extra.

(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!)

--
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 11:32:32 +0100, Glenn Richards
wrote:

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:

You show a management type a picture of a server and a picture of a
PC and they won't know the difference. Of course, the actual server
itself is built into an actual server enclosure.
An 'actual server enclosure'? WTF is 'an actual server enclosure'? We
have about twelve servers in our server room, three of which are
housed in perfectly standard PC tower cases. There's no way you can
tell what they are from looking at the case (other than reading the
badge!).

Generally when building a server I build it into what's known as an
"enterprise case". This usually has twin redundant PSUs, additional
ventilation, and hot-swappable SCSI drive caddies at the front.

Interesting that you show no illustration of such, of course you
wouldn't want the suc - - er, I mean client, to expect something
professional for his mere two and a half grand, would you?

So when configured with using RAID disks, in the event of a disk failure
you can swap out a disk without having to take the system down.

No, really? Wow, imagine that!

Of course if someone's on a tight budget then yes, I'll forego the
enterprise case and build it into a PC case, forego the SCSI and use
non-hotswap SATA RAID (yay RAIDframe kernel driver, no need for hardware
RAID) etc etc.

It's called a PC, moron. What you're talking about is server software.

You've already proved you know even less about computer technology than
you do about audio, so I'd suggest you quit while you're not too far behind.

It seems that I probably know a fair bit more than you do about IT,
and *way* more about audio, Squirrel nutkin.

And I sure as heck didn't see any rack-mount cabinets in your 'server
room' picture on your hilarious website, which is what most people
might think of as an 'actual server enclosure'.

Actually there is a rack enclosure in there. Look carefully, it contains
the switches, patch bay and a few ISDN bits and a couple of fax modems
stuffed in for good measure.

I'm talking about a real one, either one or two metres high, with
multiple resilient inbuilt UPSs and a basic hot-swappable RAID array,
on top of which you build whatever server and routing kit you might
need.

Indeed what's there is overkill for what I use in the office, but it
works well as a testbed for development purposes. Having the web, mail,
PDC and media servers separate also means that I can make configuration
changes to one without taking the entire system down.

Yes, a single server would be able to run everything, but wouldn't give
me any redundancy. When I'm setting things up on a client's site I use a
single server, as they don't need (or want to pay for) this level of
redundancy.

Depends on the client. We use twinned everything for resilience, and
separate buildings for redundancy. You *do* understand the difference
between resilience and redundancy, don't you?

Of course there are exceptions, indeed I've set up sites before now with
multiple redundant failover, so even if one server goes completely tits
up there's at least two redundant spares ready to take over.

For us, that's a basic minimum requirement. Group Technolgy at RBoS
Group are what you might call 'risk averse'......

A Java junkie who thinks he's an IT consultant!

Well, I never use Java. (Unless you mean the coffee, in which case
guilty as charged, the junkie bit anyway.) And as far as web development
goes, I avoid Javascript wherever possible, as it opens up a whole can
of worms with regards to compatibility.

Well, if you're one of the biggest international corporations on the
planet, other people have to be compatible with you.....

All I'll say is this. Audio (and photography) are my hobbies and
interests. IT consultancy is how I make a living. And I live well, so I
must be doing something right. I must be, if I'm in a position to buy
Arcam kit, and silver speaker cable etc. Plus I don't know many people
my age that drive a 52-plate A4 Quattro... most 28-year-olds are driving
around in a Focus, Corsa, 1995 Astra, or worse, something Japanese,
cheap, and particularly nasty.

Ah, but the *good* ones like my Pal Mr Petch are driving CL55s while
waiting for their Astons to be built! You have 4 years to reach that
level.

So I must be doing something right. Beats working as a postal clerk in a
bank, that's for sure...

Perhaps so, would you like me to enquire for you?
--

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
 

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?

Firstly I have no gain to make by proving or disproving any difference.
I'm no longer involved in the audio industry, and haven't been for many
years.

And so far nobody's actually been able to post a sensible and rational
explanation as to why bi-wiring makes a difference when bi-amping doesn't.

We can rule out the "psychological" factor, because I was expecting a
difference when switching from bi-wired to bi-amped, and heard none. Yet
I quite clearly heard a difference (as did my friend who was in the room
with me) between single and bi-wired.

Now, would someone care to post a sensible and rational explanation?

Hint - saying "it's all in your mind" is neither sensible or rational.
I'm now waiting for the sanctimonious crowd to come up with some
scientific background for what I heard.

The floor is open, boys & girls...

--
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 13:53:38 +0100, Glenn Richards
wrote:

Don Pearce wrote:

So you now admit that you lied, and it is in fact a PC. Good, we're
getting somewhere. Now listen carefully, because I am going to
explain something to you. "Server" is an application, to which a PC
can be put. I have one such right here. I bought a PC, and I use it
as a server.

Ok, let me put this in simplistic language for you:

The photograph of a PC, keyboard and speakers on my home page is for
*marketing purposes*.

Do you know what the difference between a server and a PC is?

It's the software it's running.

Yes I do know the difference. Here is a server project I'm currently
involved in. Look at the specs, and you will see it is nothing like a
PC. Your "servers" are just PCs.

http://www.codexdigital.com/

d

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