APR wrote:

Andy, one other point I failed to cover is that if the high frequency
electrons do go down the wrong wire by mistake they then have to fight their
way back up the wire to get to the correct wire.

Bwahahahahahaa !

This can cause serious
harshness in the sound from the speakers and can also muddy the sound
considerably.

LMFAO !

There can also be significant delays in electrons getting to
where they are supposed to go. I understand this sort of thing is the cause
of many phase problems that can arise with improperly implemented speaker
bi-wiring..

You haven't even the tiniset clue I suspect how stupid and just plain ignorant
you are.

Graham

Laurence Payne wrote:

On Mon, 18 Sep 2006 00:42:09 +0100,
(Andy Hewitt) wrote:

Now who do I listen to? A few prominent UK publications, or some geezers
off the newsgroup that just insult me for regurgitating the information.

Unfortunately, you listen to the geezers. They may lack social
graces, but they're right. I don't know why the audiophile community
has such an appetite for pseudo-science and snake oil, but it is so.

It seems to be attractive to the feeble-minded.

Graham

"Eeyore" wrote in
message ...


You haven't even the tiniset clue I suspect how stupid and just plain
ignorant
you are.

Graham, I am suprised you took that seriously.

Wally wrote:

[Snipped Text]

Now who do I listen to? A few prominent UK publications, or some
geezers off the newsgroup that just insult me for regurgitating the
information.

Your argument is predicated on an appeal to authority, and your terminology
('prominent', 'geezers') substantiates this. The fact that a few prominent
UK publications have something to say about something doesn't make it true.

I didn't say it was, but nobody else, apart from you, has actually
offered any evidence in return - other than '********' and 'bull****'.
They're certainly not terms I can remember using in Physics.

If you can't tell the difference between some geezers on a newsgroup
insulting you, and a few prominent UK publications telling you stuff is good
(the same stuff that companies advertise in their mags), then you need to
establish your knowledge of the subject independently, and decide for
yourself who you think is full of crap.

Yes, I realise that, I was trying to make a point.

The basic tenet of all this bi-wiring stuff, fancy cables and all the rest
is that it's all based on physics somewhere along the line. The problem is,
the physics it's based on is often plain false, misapplied, or of such
minimal effect as to be completely disregradable.

Indeed, and I agree. However, there is science to suggest that the
effect does happen, but as you say, to what extent, and is it worth
consideration?

It may or may not affect a particular system, and it may or may not be
heard by the listener. If it is heard, then there's no doubt that the
effect does exist.

You may or may not be right, but right now I don't care if you are.
Just about every single reference to biwiring I could find on a
Google search suggests you're not.

Do you have any knowledge of physics or electricity?

Yes. But this is essentially nothing to do with science. This is to do
with what a listener prefers to hear. If we applied strict physics to a
Hi-Fi, then all the equipment would sound the same anyway. In most cases
components are made to have a 'sound' by each manufacturer. This
colouration of the audio signal is what we all try to correct using daft
ideas like spending £500 on interconnects, biwiring and sticking our
Hi-Fi onto concrete mounts.

There is no doubt that my system sounds extremely good in its current
configuration. I have yet to try it without biwiring the speakers, but
I'm tempted to do so now. However, there won't be anything scientific
about it, as it'll be my own personal preference that decides whether
one is better than the other or not.

--
Andy Hewitt
http://www.thehewitts.eclipse.co.uk/
http://web.mac.com/andrewhewitt1/

APR wrote:

"Eeyore" wrote

You haven't even the tiniset clue I suspect how stupid and just plain
ignorant you are.

Graham, I am suprised you took that seriously.

That's before I saw your later post. It looked scarily like what passes for
science to audiophools.

Maybe we should see if Andy can detect the difference ?

Graham

Eeyore wrote:

[Snipped Text]

or some geezers
off the newsgroup that just insult me for regurgitating the information.

Both Phil and I are professional audio practicioners btw with considerable
education in the 'science of audio'.

I'm sorry to say that you haven't shown much 'professionalism' here
then. You're only contribution has been 'utter drivel', without saying
why you think so.

--
Andy Hewitt
http://www.thehewitts.eclipse.co.uk/
http://web.mac.com/andrewhewitt1/

Andy Hewitt wrote:

Wally wrote:

The basic tenet of all this bi-wiring stuff, fancy cables and all the rest
is that it's all based on physics somewhere along the line. The problem is,
the physics it's based on is often plain false, misapplied, or of such
minimal effect as to be completely disregradable.

Indeed, and I agree. However, there is science to suggest that the
effect does happen, but as you say, to what extent, and is it worth
consideration?

What you should consider is *what effect* rather than simply accept what
advertisers tell you to believe.

Since a length of cable and a louspeaker load form a complex electrical filter to
a small degree, it's inevitable that changing the cable will 'sound different' if
only because the frequency response will differ slightly. That much is assured
although the extend to which it's audible could be debated at some length.

There is additionaly a huge amout of self-deception over what is or isn't audible
no doubt based on these well-distributed myths that the hi-fi fraternity would
have you buy into ( quite literally).

Graham

Eeyore wrote:

APR wrote:

"Eeyore" wrote

You haven't even the tiniset clue I suspect how stupid and just plain
ignorant you are.

Graham, I am suprised you took that seriously.

That's before I saw your later post. It looked scarily like what passes for
science to audiophools.

Maybe we should see if Andy can detect the difference ?

What on earth makes you think I'd even consider mentioning this subject
here again, or even contributing at all. I'll probably do the test, just
to satisfy my own curiosity, but I'll be buggered if I'm going to post
the results here.

--
Andy Hewitt
http://www.thehewitts.eclipse.co.uk/
http://web.mac.com/andrewhewitt1/

Andy Hewitt wrote:

Eeyore wrote:

[Snipped Text]

or some geezers
off the newsgroup that just insult me for regurgitating the information.

Both Phil and I are professional audio practicioners btw with considerable
education in the 'science of audio'.

I'm sorry to say that you haven't shown much 'professionalism' here
then. You're only contribution has been 'utter drivel', without saying
why you think so.

It's utter drivel because it's not only non-scientific it's actually a form of
'anti-science' ! Do I have to explain what's bad about that too ?

Professionals have to put up with twits repeating this drivel day in and day out
so I hope you'll excuse me if we get a bit tired of it.

Graham

"Andy Hewitt ****wit TROLL "


** Insane Groper Alert !

http://www.whathifi.com/newsMainTemp...ewssectionID=3
http://www.home-cinema-guide.co.uk/biwire4.htm



** No science in sight there anywhere.

Just the same old load of pure unadulterated, snake oil ******** !!


It's better than any of the insulting retorts I've had my way.


** YOU are a TOTAL ****ING IDIOT - Andy.

******s like YOU are a dime a dozen all over the world.

You comprehend no science whatever - just like some native living in a
grass shack.

Witchcraft and VooDoo are your idea of "science".

All the planets worst charlatans and snake oil dealing CRIMINAL SCUM just
ADORE fools like you.

Audiophools like YOU line their filthy pockets and keep them in business.

**** the hell off -

before I really get annoyed with you.





........ Phil