Serge Auckland wrote:

I agree that bi-wiring is a total gimmick

Actually, it's not.

In experiments a while back I determined that there was a difference
between single and bi-wiring, but I couldn't hear a difference between
bi-wiring and bi-amping. (Which, for the benefit of the "it's all in
your mind" crowd, *implies* bi-wiring as well.)

Mind you, with the setup the original poster is describing, it may well
be a gimmick...

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

IT consultancy, hardware and software support, broadband installation

"Glenn Richards" wrote in message
...
Serge Auckland wrote:

I agree that bi-wiring is a total gimmick

Actually, it's not.

In experiments a while back I determined that there was a difference
between single and bi-wiring, but I couldn't hear a difference between
bi-wiring and bi-amping. (Which, for the benefit of the "it's all in your
mind" crowd, *implies* bi-wiring as well.)

Mind you, with the setup the original poster is describing, it may well be
a gimmick...

By using bi-amping or tri-amping in conjunction with frequency and phase
correction crossover equipment available now you have the ability to have
very flat frequency response, very accurate phasing of the drivers to each
other, and up to 300db/octave crossover slope to minimise driver dispersion
interaction. Drivers can be used within their optimum frequency range. The
equipment has the ability to self calibrate to correct for phase and
frequency response due to different driver sensitivity, etc. This technology
is being taken up by many of the worlds speaker manufactuers and is already
in common use in modern sound studios. Bi or Tri-amping using this
technology has proven to be a major step foward in speaker technology.

Have a look at www.deqx.com

Glenn Richards wrote:
Serge Auckland wrote:

I agree that bi-wiring is a total gimmick

Actually, it's not.

In experiments a while back I determined that there was a difference
between single and bi-wiring, but I couldn't hear a difference between
bi-wiring and bi-amping. (Which, for the benefit of the "it's all in
your mind" crowd, *implies* bi-wiring as well.)

Mind you, with the setup the original poster is describing, it may well
be a gimmick...

Actually it is!

Just do the sums. All you are doing when bi-wiring is reducing the
resistance of the 'speaker leads and increasing the capacitance. These
are already pretty low unless you're using a very weird speaker cable.
Inductance here is hardly relevant.

Similarly bi-amping whilst still using the passive crossover in the
'speakers is equally pointless. All you're doing in this case is to
reduce the amount of current taken by each power amp as each is only
driving a limited frequency range. If that really does make a difference
the power amps in question are seriously flawed. Bi-amping with
electronic crossovers makes a great deal of difference for all the
reasons APR commented.

I would very much like to see a DBT on bi-wiring or bi-amping that shows
that the difference can be heard. The sums just don't point to that
possibility.

S.

"Glenn Richards" wrote in message
...
Serge Auckland wrote:

I agree that bi-wiring is a total gimmick

Actually, it's not.

In experiments a while back I determined that there was a difference
between single and bi-wiring, but I couldn't hear a difference between
bi-wiring and bi-amping. (Which, for the benefit of the "it's all in your
mind" crowd, *implies* bi-wiring as well.)

No doubt the so-called differences were artifacts of the
incompetently-designed and executed procedures that were used.

Arny Krueger wrote:

No doubt the so-called differences were artifacts of the
incompetently-designed and executed procedures that were used.

yawn

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

IT consultancy, hardware and software support, broadband installation