"Serge Auckland" wrote in message
...
Jim Lesurf wrote:
In article , aid
wrote:
I have a Musical Fidelity A5 cd player and A5 intergrated amp, I have it
bi-wired to a pair of Acoustic Energy AE120 speakers (tri-wireable), my
question is this:- My speakers are three way, so at the moment I have
the MF and HF bridged together & the LF is seperate, is this correct?

TBH I'm not sure what meaning "correct" would have in this context. :-)

Or I should I have the MF AND LF bridged together & the HF seperate?

Or simply link the MF + LF + HF together.

You can approach this in three ways:

1) Try different arrangements and if you think they sound different,
choose
the one you prefer. If there are audible differences, it will be your
preference that determines what is "correct" for you, not the opinions of
others who may use different systems in a different room acoustic, etc.

2) Note that controlled listening tests have never (so far as I know)
shown
any reliably audible differences due to bi-wiring, and engineering
analysis
implies that any differences will be in the range from slight to
imaginary.
[1] Thus simply use what you have and save bother.


Totally agree. I think Jim is being kind, I would put the differences as
somewhere between imaginary and non-existent, once you do the sums.

Number 1 is correct, as only you with your equipment, cables, room and
furniture can LISTEN to the results. Plenty of sums are done by speaker
manufacturers, to make sure their product is technically brilliant, yet get
them into a room and they will sound anything from horrible to superb.

Same with interconnects and cables - use whatever sounds right to you. Some
people prefer the sums, some prefer the sound - it's a personal thing.

Cessna172.

Cessna172 wrote:
"Serge Auckland" wrote in message
...
Jim Lesurf wrote:
In article , aid
wrote:
I have a Musical Fidelity A5 cd player and A5 intergrated amp, I have it
bi-wired to a pair of Acoustic Energy AE120 speakers (tri-wireable), my
question is this:- My speakers are three way, so at the moment I have
the MF and HF bridged together & the LF is seperate, is this correct?
TBH I'm not sure what meaning "correct" would have in this context. :-)

Or I should I have the MF AND LF bridged together & the HF seperate?
Or simply link the MF + LF + HF together.

You can approach this in three ways:

1) Try different arrangements and if you think they sound different,
choose
the one you prefer. If there are audible differences, it will be your
preference that determines what is "correct" for you, not the opinions of
others who may use different systems in a different room acoustic, etc.

2) Note that controlled listening tests have never (so far as I know)
shown
any reliably audible differences due to bi-wiring, and engineering
analysis
implies that any differences will be in the range from slight to
imaginary.
[1] Thus simply use what you have and save bother.

Totally agree. I think Jim is being kind, I would put the differences as
somewhere between imaginary and non-existent, once you do the sums.

Number 1 is correct, as only you with your equipment, cables, room and
furniture can LISTEN to the results. Plenty of sums are done by speaker
manufacturers, to make sure their product is technically brilliant, yet get
them into a room and they will sound anything from horrible to superb.

I've yet to see a product that didn't work properly when the sums were
done correctly, rigorously, and applying the rules. That's not to say
that an intuitive designer can't get a good sound without doing the
sums, what I'm saying is if you then analyse such a design, you will
find that the sums come out right as well.


S.

Serge Auckland wrote:
Cessna172 wrote:

speaker manufacturers, to make sure their product is technically
brilliant, yet get them into a room and they will sound anything from
horrible to superb.


I've yet to see a product that didn't work properly when the sums were
done correctly, rigorously, and applying the rules. That's not to say
that an intuitive designer can't get a good sound without doing the
sums, what I'm saying is if you then analyse such a design, you will
find that the sums come out right as well.

What about the perfect speaker - a point source with a flat frequency response?
It will sound perfect if your room has no walls or floor.
If you design the perfect speaker for your room, it may not work well in mine.

--
Eiron

No good deed ever goes unpunished.

Eiron wrote:
Serge Auckland wrote:
Cessna172 wrote:

speaker manufacturers, to make sure their product is technically
brilliant, yet get them into a room and they will sound anything from
horrible to superb.


I've yet to see a product that didn't work properly when the sums were
done correctly, rigorously, and applying the rules. That's not to say
that an intuitive designer can't get a good sound without doing the
sums, what I'm saying is if you then analyse such a design, you will
find that the sums come out right as well.

What about the perfect speaker - a point source with a flat frequency
response?
It will sound perfect if your room has no walls or floor.
If you design the perfect speaker for your room, it may not work well in
mine.

Two points from the above:-

Firstly, there is no practical way of producing a point source with a
flat frequency response and sufficient audio output for music
reproduction. Quad has come the closest, I suppose, with a sound-field
synthesis for a point source, but this is a long way from a real point
source. Consequently, there are no "sums" to be done with this example,
as it is not realisable.

Secondly, if you were to design the "perfect" 'speaker for my room, that
is exactly what it would be, the "perfect" 'speaker for *my* room, not
yours or anyone else's. You would have to design a different "perfect"
'speaker for every different room. This is clearly not a practical
commercial proposition, but theoretically of course, it could be done.
Incidentally, you would need to define carefully what "perfect" meant,
but let's accept, for the sake of this argument that we both understand
what we mean by "perfect".

In pursuit of the above "perfect" for every room, several manufacturers
are now including DSP control with measuring microphones so that their
'speakers can be better matched to the room. Whilst an improvement, you
cannot DSP away the floor and walls which cause echoes, nasty
resonances, frequency response anomalies caused by frequency-variable
absorptions in furniture, (although this last is probably the easiest
for DSP to make a difference) and a whole host of other stuff that we
all live with.

Many years ago, I did some 'speaker measurements in an anechoic chamber,
and as a working environment it wasn't very pleasant. I suspect this was
because the acoustic space ( effectively no walls, floor or ceiling)
didn't match one's visual space, which was that of a small room.
However, listening with eyes closed and the room darkened, did actually
sound very good. More recently, I visited a Scandinavian Broadcaster
who had a number of IEC standard listening rooms of different sizes in
their centre. They were using B&W 807s, and the sound was quite
extraordinarily good. If you ever get a chance to visit any UK
commercial radio station that still has studios made during the old IBA
Code of Practice days, you will again hear what a really good room can
sounds like.

S.

On Tue, 13 Jun 2006 13:08:21 +0100, Serge Auckland
wrote:

Secondly, if you were to design the "perfect" 'speaker for my room, that
is exactly what it would be, the "perfect" 'speaker for *my* room, not
yours or anyone else's. You would have to design a different "perfect"
'speaker for every different room.

Can a good violin (and player) sound good (though different) in
different acoustics? Why not a speaker?

On Tue, 13 Jun 2006 13:51:28 +0100, Laurence Payne
lpayne1NOSPAM@dslDOTpipexDOTcom wrote:

On Tue, 13 Jun 2006 13:08:21 +0100, Serge Auckland
wrote:

Secondly, if you were to design the "perfect" 'speaker for my room, that
is exactly what it would be, the "perfect" 'speaker for *my* room, not
yours or anyone else's. You would have to design a different "perfect"
'speaker for every different room.

Can a good violin (and player) sound good (though different) in
different acoustics? Why not a speaker?

Yes, but for totally different reasons. The violinist will actually
change the way he performs in response to the different acoustics. The
speaker won't do that - the combination will simply sound different.
In some circumstances it will sound good, in others it won't. There
are plenty of acoustic spaces in which no speaker will ever sound
good.

d

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

Laurence Payne wrote:
On Tue, 13 Jun 2006 13:08:21 +0100, Serge Auckland
wrote:


Secondly, if you were to design the "perfect" 'speaker for my room, that
is exactly what it would be, the "perfect" 'speaker for *my* room, not
yours or anyone else's. You would have to design a different "perfect"
'speaker for every different room.


Can a good violin (and player) sound good (though different) in
different acoustics? Why not a speaker?

Because the purpose of the speaker is to give the illusion that you are in the
concert hall, not that the orchestra is in your lounge (Bose excepted).

--
Eiron

No good deed ever goes unpunished.

"Eiron" wrote in message
...
Laurence Payne wrote:
On Tue, 13 Jun 2006 13:08:21 +0100, Serge Auckland
wrote:


Secondly, if you were to design the "perfect" 'speaker for my room, that
is exactly what it would be, the "perfect" 'speaker for *my* room, not
yours or anyone else's. You would have to design a different "perfect"
'speaker for every different room.


Can a good violin (and player) sound good (though different) in
different acoustics? Why not a speaker?

Because the purpose of the speaker is to give the illusion that you are in
the
concert hall, not that the orchestra is in your lounge (Bose excepted).



Nicely put.

You will be pleased to know I'm having serious trouble choosing between the
Pinkies and the 609s!!

(Different in minor ways, but *sooo* similar overall....!!)

In article ,
Cessna172 wrote:
Totally agree. I think Jim is being kind, I would put the differences
as somewhere between imaginary and non-existent, once you do the sums.

Number 1 is correct, as only you with your equipment, cables, room and
furniture can LISTEN to the results. Plenty of sums are done by speaker
manufacturers, to make sure their product is technically brilliant, yet
get them into a room and they will sound anything from horrible to
superb.

I doubt you'll find anyone who would argue with that. Room/speaker
interface is very important and easily demonstrated.

Same with interconnects and cables - use whatever sounds right to you.
Some people prefer the sums, some prefer the sound - it's a personal
thing.

I doubt you'll find anyone who can demonstrate this effect. ;-)

--
*There's two theories to arguing with a woman. Neither one works *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article , Dave Plowman (News)
wrote:
In article , Cessna172
wrote:
Totally agree. I think Jim is being kind, I would put the
differences as somewhere between imaginary and non-existent, once
you do the sums.

Number 1 is correct, as only you with your equipment, cables, room and
furniture can LISTEN to the results. Plenty of sums are done by
speaker manufacturers, to make sure their product is technically
brilliant, yet get them into a room and they will sound anything from
horrible to superb.

I doubt you'll find anyone who would argue with that. Room/speaker
interface is very important and easily demonstrated.

Alas, the snag in this context is that if there is a problem with the room
acoustics and its interaction with the speaker radiation patterns, then the
sensible way to deal with this is to alter the room acoustics, and/or
speaker radiation pattern - or the speaker/listening positions. Changing
the cabling is unlikely to have any effect - unless some of the cable
involved have extraordinarily inappropriate characteristics.

Same with interconnects and cables - use whatever sounds right to you.
Some people prefer the sums, some prefer the sound - it's a personal
thing.

I doubt you'll find anyone who can demonstrate this effect. ;-)

For me the situation here is, alas, as in so many other areas of audio.
That people say things in reviews, etc, but none of them seem to have ever
been able to show any reliable basis for what they say. I know of no test
on 'bi wiring' that:

1) Ensured those listening had only the sounds produced to go on.

2) Repeated the test enough times, and with a protocol, that allows anyone
to assess the reliability of the reported results.

3) Used a protocol to exclude obvious uncontrolled factors like differences
in volume level.

...and which then gave results that supported the idea that anyone could
tell bi wiring from just using single wiring.

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