|   Bi-wiring Pro & Cons | lenbo1450
Jun 29, 2002 9:23 PM | | I'm getting new main speakers next month, with all the talk about wires not making a differance in sound, does that also apply to bi-wiring? |
| re: Bi-wiring Pro & Cons | JoeW
Jun 29, 2002 11:02 PM | | Talk is talk. Lots of 'experts' will tell you bi wiring is great. An equal number will insult your ancestors. The advantage of biwiring for me has been in finding a solution to the things that annoy me about my speakers: What makes the bottom sound rich - what makes the tweeter unannoying?
I'd shy away from a singular 'bi-wire cable' and cable to taste. Certainly, I'd get to know my new speakers before I bi-wired them. |
| re: My testing observations | bobo420
Jun 30, 2002 7:18 AM | | I just ran a bi-wire/single wire test with my B&K Ref 30 pre, B&K 7250 Amp (200wattsx5) and a pair of Klipsch RF3II's. I Bi-wired one with Monster Bi-wire cables and single wired the other with the straight up gold tipped monster cable. Both were banana connectores on the amp end and the u-shaped jobbies on the speaker side. My observation was that the bi-wired speaker had better highs and lows but definitely lacked in the mid range. The non bi-wired speaker had a more punchy mid range and an overall better sound. It had better dynamic range. At least that's what my ears told me. I ended up goin with the non-bi-wired set-up. So far, i think music sounds better but i miss some of the detail that the bi-wire set-up offered in basic tv listening. I ran the bi-wire set-up for a month. Now I'll run the non-bi-wire set-up for a while and then report back. Good audio nerd fun without spending money (I can always return the bi-wires). I recomend everyone go buy some bi-wires at a place that allows a return, and see for yourself what you like better, cause I did find a difference. |
| re: My testing observations | mtrycrafts
Jun 30, 2002 10:47 AM | | b I Bi-wired one with Monster Bi-wire cables and single wired the other with the straight up gold tipped monster cable.
I am not sure I understand your setup. You bi-wired one speaker and single wired the other? Is this correct?
If this is correct, you cannot evaluate anything with this setup. YOu are comparing the left channel to the right channel. Useless.
b My observation was that the bi-wired speaker had better highs and lows but definitely lacked in the mid range.
How did you control for your biases? You have biases, don't you? |
| re: My testing observations | JoeW
Jun 30, 2002 8:43 PM | | >If this is correct, you cannot evaluate anything with this setup. YOu are comparing the left channel to the right channel. Useless
Useless is too strong a word here - strong enough to render your point meaningless. A left/right test is fine if your criteria is which way do you look, when you look up. Human nature is that we will naturally look toward the greater source of information. Is it a prefect, or even recomended test? No. It will favour HF's.
Its certainly no sillier than the psychological baggage of a DBT |
| re: My testing observations | mtrycrafts
Jul 1, 2002 8:04 PM | | b Its certainly no sillier than the psychological baggage of a DBT
There is no baggage. Only in your mind.
b A left/right test is fine if your criteria is which way do you look,
Tha is not what he was testing, is it? |
| re: My testing observations | bobo420
Jul 1, 2002 12:54 PM | | Yes, I bi-wired one and single-wired the other. My original tests cosisted of me doing both speakers bi-wired and then both single wired. I thought I could hear a difference but i wasn't sure how much. That's why I bi-wired one and single wired the other and then tested with several different cds. I understand that there are different sounds comming from the left and right chanels, but i know that I heard very distinct differences between the two that were not just the result of listening to two different chanels. I am not an expert in the audio field, but I know what my ears tell me. So you might consider this "usless," but it wasn't "useless" for me. |
| re: My testing observations | mtrycrafts
Jul 1, 2002 8:09 PM | | b My original tests cosisted of me doing both speakers bi-wired and then both single wired. I thought I could hear a difference but i wasn't sure how much.
That is how you need to do it. And, if you are serious, at least single blind and double being better:)
b I understand that there are different sounds comming from the left and right chanels, but i know that I heard very distinct differences between the two that were not just the result of listening to two different chanels.
Not likely as the signals are different enough not to know what is what and what caused what. Not possible.
b but I know what my ears tell me.
That is a mistake. Your ears can be mislead, just as your eyes can be. Well known. Do you not ever respond to someone when nothing was ever said and their response is 'I didn't say anything."
b So you might consider this "usless," but it wasn't "useless" for me.
OK. But I have no idea what you got out of it. Certainly not audible differences. |
| re: My testing observations | bobo420
Jul 2, 2002 7:11 PM | | let me put this in simpler terms.
i heard a distinct difference between the two.
not a "maybe" or a "i think there's a difference. " |
| re: My testing observations | mtrycrafts
Jul 2, 2002 8:20 PM | | b heard a distinct difference between the two. not a "maybe" or a "i think there's a difference. "
Yes, you did, most likely, but you have zero idea if that is because of bi-wire or not. Your testing method was not capable of determining that aspect as that is not what you compared the way you did it. |
| re: My testing observations | JoeW
Jun 30, 2002 8:21 PM | | You hit a couple nails on the head. It is system dependent, and preference dependent. I'm not bi-wired at the present, but I have been and likely will be again |
| re: My testing observations | mtrycrafts
Jul 2, 2002 8:22 PM | | b You hit a couple nails on the head. It is system dependent, and preference dependent.
Well, he doid hit one nail, preference. The other nail is not even dented yet, let alone hit. |
| re: My testing observations | JoeW
Jul 2, 2002 9:39 PM | | Preference IS the issue. I understand that you cannot hear the difference betwen a CDP and a coffeepot. To those us who can, preference is the ONLY issue. Good enough for you is not a factor when it comes to deciding good enough for me.
No one is going to hold your hand. When presented with measured differences, you insist they are not audible. When presentented with audible differences, you insist they are not measurable. I think there's a bigfoot at your door. |
| re: My testing observations | mtrycrafts
Jul 3, 2002 3:46 PM | | b I understand that you cannot hear the difference betwen a CDP and a coffeepot.
There you go speculating, again.
b To those us who can, preference is the ONLY issue.
Sheer speculation, and more that a preference issue from the claims made.
b When presented with measured differences, you insist they are not audible
That depends on the data.
b When presentented with audible differences, you insist they are not measurable.
Hogwash. Get your facts straight on what I insist about. |
| re: My testing observations | JoeW
Jul 3, 2002 8:35 PM | | I can only go by what I read. I read books, magazines, internet posts, newpapers and sheet music. I do not read minds.
I will be the first to confess that I have no idea what you actually think at any given moment.
Based on your posts, I called it fair and accurately.
Small differences in cables are scoped, while some people not only hear small differences, but actively enjoy them.
I dont want to call you deaf, but has the possility occured to you that you are willfully insulting people who simply hear better than you?
I dont insult people who can run faster than me (I only insult people who have insulted me)
It occurs to me regularly that I could be suffering from wishful thinking. The evidence has not been presented to make that case.
Has it occurred to you that you are comeletely wrong? You have a philosophy and accept agreeing opinions as fact, yet ridicule and reject those you do not want to hear.
The bottom line is this: Cables can help, they might even help alot, but they will not make your stereo sound as if it costs 5x what you paid.
But, you dont even have a friggin stereo - Your opinions are worthless. Why are you even here? |
| re: My testing observations | mtrycrafts
Jul 4, 2002 7:04 PM | | b Small differences in cables are scoped, while some people not only hear small differences, but actively enjoy them.
But that is the crux of the issue, how small and where in the audio band. Very important as small may not be that small when audible, with music in a room. Certainly larger than the published JNDs that were measured in sound booth with head phones and single tones.
b I dont want to call you deaf,
YOu may, why would that be the issue as I didn't make that audible difference claim, right. So, I have nothing to demonstrate, not my burden.
b but has the possility occured to you that you are willfully insulting people who simply hear better than you?
When they have offered zero evidence of their hearing ability, I cannot insult them, I can only doubt and question their claims.
b The evidence has not been presented to make that case.
Actually, you have offered zero evidence that you can hear what you claim, so, it is most likely imagined, especially when no one else has offered such evidence about anyone. YOu are not superman, or Vulcan.
b Has it occurred to you that you are comeletely wrong?
Could be. No evidence has been offered that this is the case. Speculations are not evidence.
b , yet ridicule and reject those you do not want to hear.
You still speculate. As no evidence has been offered, I have solid basis for what I state and what I question. Rather simple.
b The bottom line is this: Cables can help, they might even help alot,
But that is far from the bottom line as it is not based in evidence.
b Why are you even here?
I was going to ask you the same. |
| re: My testing observations | JoeW
Jul 5, 2002 4:47 PM | | >YOu may, why would that be the issue as I didn't make that audible difference claim, right. So, I have nothing to demonstrate, not my burden.
Aside from the obvious horse feathers of this point, you routinely insist that until you have proof to the contrary, all cables sound the same. This is a claim, or you're full of more than horse feathers. Rules that do not apply to you, apply to no one.
Nice try though, I guess.
>YOu may, why would that be the issue as I didn't make that audible difference claim, right. So, I have nothing to demonstrate, not my burden.
Same as above, but where I come from, all opinions carry an equal burden. Perhaps your mistake is that you thought 'all cables sound alike' was an established and verified fact. This has never been a case of fact, only opinion.
Hate to remind you, but your opinions carry the same burdon as those opinions which you reject.
And you dont even have a stereo. Sheesh. |
| re: My testing observations | mtrycrafts
Jul 6, 2002 11:03 PM | | b Aside from the obvious horse feathers of this point, you routinely insist that until you have proof to the contrary, all cables sound the same.
How can they sound different without proof? Imagination is not it.
b This is a claim, or you're full of more than horse feathers.
Based on absent evidence, case closed. Your proof?
b Same as above, but where I come from, all opinions carry an equal burden.
Don't think so, especially when you cannot prove a negative.
b Perhaps your mistake is that you thought 'all cables sound alike' was an established and verified fact.
Never said 'all' did I? Now you are making up stories. And, since there is no evidence that comparable cables sound different, you have no evidence for differences, do you? After all, that is what needs to be proven, LOL.
b And you dont even have a stereo.
I don't need one, shees. Get it through your head. |
| Thank you for making my point. | JoeW
Jul 7, 2002 9:25 PM | | The issue at hand is well beyond your experience. Respond when you aquire a stereo. |
| Youm might try this bi-wiring tweak | Jon
Jul 3, 2002 3:27 PM | | See:
http://www.AudioAsylum.com/audio/cables/messages/13441.html
Jon Risch |
| Youm might try this bi-wiring tweak, or not | mtrycrafts
Jul 4, 2002 7:07 PM | | b I have now heard back from enough guinea pigs regarding an experiment of mine that seemed to be too good to be true.
Yes, unsuspecting, uninformed ones at that. And you base your claims on these subjects of unknown protocols, most likely sighted? Useless bunk. ROTFLMAO |
| You might try this bi-wiring tweak, or not | Jon
Jul 6, 2002 8:53 AM | | I hear some of the effects, other folks whom I have learned to trust their listening judgement have heard such effects, I get e-mails from yet others who tried it and it worked well for them.
Unlike some robotic whitepaper-reading naysayers, I am in touch with real people who enjoy their audio systems, folks with critical listening abilities, some of them professionals like myself. What does mtry have? Heresay from another naysayer pundit, no direct experience, no understanding of what is going on electrically, and no clue about speaker cables in the first place. Is it a mystery that mtry does not get bi-wiring, does not WANT to get it?
Jon Risch |
| You might try this bi-wiring tweak, or not | FLZapped
Jul 6, 2002 5:58 PM | | [I hear some of the effects,]
You should either see a therapist or Doctor for that, Jon.
[Unlike some robotic whitepaper-reading naysayers,]
-and-
[I am in touch with real people who enjoy their audio systems,]
-and-
[no direct experience,]
-and-
[no understanding of what is going on electrically,]
-and-
[no clue about speaker cables in the first place]
Evidence? Or should these just be filed under miscellaneous insults?
[Is it a mystery that mtry does not get bi-wiring, does not WANT to get it?]
Perhaps it should be a mystery as to why anyone WOULD want to get bi-wiring.
-Bruce |
| You might try this bi-wiring tweak, or not | mtrycrafts
Jul 6, 2002 11:11 PM | | b I hear some of the effects,
Unsubstantiated claims, LOL. You have no evidence and you will never sit down to demonstrate your unsubstantiated claims, LOL. So, you have nothing. Keep on imagining.
b , other folks whom I have learned to trust their listening judgement have heard such effects,
More of the same bs, unsubstantiated claims. You call youself a scientist? LOL.
b I am in touch with real people who enjoy their audio systems,
And I am not in touch with people who enjoy theirs? I enjoy my boombox, so what. Enjoy your system, never said not to. Just be careful what testable claims you make.
b folks with critical listening abilities,
Too bad they don't know how to apply it with reliable listening protocols.
b some of them professionals like myself.
LOL. Then the others are not professionals, LOL.
b What does mtry have?
Still irrelevant as it was yesterday. What is relevant is what you can demonstrate to hear, not what you claim to, regardless of what system you have. |
| re: Bi-wiring Pro & Cons | mtrycrafts
Jun 30, 2002 10:43 AM | | b Lots of 'experts' will tell you bi wiring is great.
What kind of experts? Great in what respect, increasing the companies bottom line?
Based on what evidence?
b An equal number will insult your ancestors.
You think? Maybe we are related. |
| re: Bi-wiring Pro & Cons | FLZapped
Jun 30, 2002 5:53 PM | | I think if you do a search of the archives on bi-wiring, you'll get the idea.....
-Bruce |
| re: Bi-wiring Pro & Cons | sam9
Jul 1, 2002 1:43 PM | | My take on bi-wiring is that 95% of the interest stems from folks who saw bi-amping as cool somehow. (And it may well be, the benefits seem to be both measurable and audible in some cases.) Unfortuneatly, bi-amping is expensive and potentially complex to set up. Two amps, by-pass (rip out?) the old XO, build/buy an active XO, get all to work together ... etc. Even then some talented minds have gone to a lot of trouble to design passive XO's that fix most of the problems bi-amping fixes.
Bi-wiring? Notwithstanding the aguments in it's favor by people who know more than me, it just seems way too improbable for me to think it is worth bothering with. |
| There is no real evidence that biwiring will affect the sound. | A
Jul 1, 2002 5:16 PM | | Many people claim to hear things, but unless they listen 'blind', such claims are useless. (A long time ago, someone claimed at this site that by doing yoga with their CDs close to their body, the CDs sounded better when played later.) For more on listening 'blind', see:
<a href="/crforum?14@@.ef875dd">A "Explanation of Double Blind Test" 3/30/02 2:46pm</a>
No one has EVER demonstrated that they could hear a difference between biwiring and a single wire (of a gauge comparable to the combined gauge of the biwires) in a properly conducted test. If anyone thinks they know of such a test, they should tell us about it, either with a link or with a reference to an appropriate publication. Anyone can claim anything, but what we need is evidence. |
| Balderdash, this is VERY misleading! | Jon
Jul 3, 2002 3:24 PM | | When you say: "There is no evidence", what you should be saying is that: "There is no DBT based evidence that naysayers will accept, that indicates that bi-wiring sounds different than single-wioring, when total gauges are equivalent."
What this even overlooks is any sort of OTHER evidence, such as electrical reasons that bi-wiring can have a sonic effect.
Rather one-sided kind of presentation, isn't this A?
However, it is consistent with the way many of the cable naysayers present 'information', by only telling part of the story, rather than both sides of the situation, or even alluding to other views.
Perhaps Naysayers should be changed to Deceivers?
Jon Risch |
| If you would have bothered to read the body of text: | FLZapped
Jul 4, 2002 10:18 AM | | The VERY FIRST sentance reads as follows:
[Many people claim to hear things, but unless they listen 'blind', such claims are useless. ]
So what's there to mislead?
[What this even overlooks is any sort of OTHER evidence, such as electrical reasons that bi-wiring can have a sonic effect.]
Jon, I never thought you would make such a stupid statement. You know that measured differences must be benchmarked against whether or not they actualy yield anything audible. Almost every cable will measure differently in some respect, even two from the same factory. It doesn't mean there are any audible differences between them.
[Perhaps Naysayers should be changed to Deceivers?]
Perhaps you should go look in the mirror.
-Bruce |
| Apparently, you can't read the titles real well. | Jon
Jul 6, 2002 9:03 AM | | It was: "There is no real evidence that biwiring will affect the sound."
I think that any rational and intelligent man would agree, that evidence could easily include electrical parameters or measurements that would tend to indicate a change or difference between bi-wiring and single wiring.
Such evidence has been presented, YOU YOURSELF HAVE POSTED ABOUT A 3 GENERATOR SYSTEM, and the many variables, WITH THE IMPLIED POTENTIAL FOR AN ELECTRICAL DIFFERENCE.
You are now going to ignore your own posts, decide to pretend that they don't exist, just to try and toe the naysayer party line? Who is deceiving whom? Sounds like you are deceiving yourself!
Apparently, naysayers will do anything, say anything, to present a united front, a consistent denial. Soon, you will be right down there with Arny Krueger, master of lies, and twister of the truth. Been taking lessons?
Jon Risch |
| Apparently, you can't read the titles real well. | FLZapped
Jul 6, 2002 4:41 PM | | [Apparently, you can't read the titles real well.
It was: "There is no real evidence that biwiring will affect the sound."
I think that any rational and intelligent man would agree, that evidence could easily include electrical parameters or measurements that would tend to indicate a change or difference between bi-wiring and single wiring.]
Once again, Jon, you choose to leave out information when presenting an argument, this is now twice in a row. Just admit that you didn't bother to read the body text which clearly defined the meaning and limits of the title. Or is it that you are just deliberatle ignoring it, although I'm giving you the benifit of the doubt for the second time.
[Such evidence has been presented, YOU YOURSELF HAVE POSTED ABOUT A 3 GENERATOR SYSTEM, and the many variables, WITH THE IMPLIED POTENTIAL FOR AN ELECTRICAL DIFFERENCE.]
Uhm, Jon, this has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with what "A" posted in his remarks. Can't you stick to the topic at hand?
[Apparently, naysayers will do anything, say anything, to present a united front, a consistent denial. Soon, you will be right down there with Arny Krueger, master of lies, and twister of the truth. Been taking lessons?]
Jon, your woefully pitiful attempts at ad hominem attacks have absolutely no affect on me. So go ahead, keep it up, it makes a great case for your character.
-Bruce |
| Jon never seems to bother with reading my posts carefully. | A
Jul 8, 2002 11:12 AM | | If the very old posts had not been eliminated a while back, I would even give you a link to a post in which Jon admitted that he hadn't bothered to read my post carefully before replying. And notice he does nothing to show that there is any real reason to believe that the wires actually sound different; he instead attempts to muddy the waters with an attack on me. IF he had any real evidence that humans could hear a difference, that would be quite welcome. In fact, I even requested it in my original post, but he does not seem to have anything of value to say on the subject.
It is also interesting how people often confuse "measurable" with "audible", as if being able to measure 10 MHz meant it was audible! Jon <i>should</i> know that "measurable" means something quite different from "audible", but he does not always post as though he knew this. Note to Jon: I did <b>NOT</b> claim that there were no <i>measurable</i> differences that have been properly demonstrated; I claimed that there were no <i>audible</i> differences that were properly demonstrated. For more on what I claimed, try actually reading my original post for a change.
FLZapped, I am glad that someone can actually read what I posted. Thank you. |
| Jon never seems to bother with reading my posts carefully. | FLZapped
Jul 8, 2002 2:37 PM | | You're welcome. If you poke around, you'll see that Jon and I have gone quite a few rounds. It is a primary tactic of his to rearrange, omit, or invent statements others have supposedly said in order to make his point/counter-point valid. That is, when he doesn't try and introduce spurious arguments to muddy up the main topic.
Of course he will furiously try to deny this, but the record is here for anyone to go and review for themselves.
I have come to the conclusion that his behavior is no different than any of the other trolls who happen along from time to time.
-Bruce |
| Well enough | Jon
Jul 11, 2002 7:43 PM | | See my reply to Bruce, aka FLZapped.
Jon Risch |
| Well enough | FLZapped
Jul 12, 2002 8:40 AM | | I have a feeling he's read all the responses already and made up his mind, Jon.
-Bruce |
| Balderdash, this is VERY misleading!...Indeed... | MonstrousMike
Jul 4, 2002 12:24 PM | | <<<< What this even overlooks is any sort of OTHER evidence, such as electrical reasons that bi-wiring can have a sonic effect. >>>>
Yes, there are all sorts of electrical parameters to analyze: LCR, skin effect, jitter, dielectric properties, lengths of cables, conductor material, shielding, characteristic impedence and so on.
So what?
Take two digital audio cables:
Cable A
length-3 feet
characteristic impedence-74.5 ohms
capacitance- 20 pF/foot
dielectric-teflon
shielding-double copper braid
core guage-18AWG
connector-75.1 ohms RCA
price:unreasonable
Cable B
length-3 feet
characteristic impedence-71.0 ohms
capacitance- 35 pF/foot
dielectric-PVC
shielding-foil
core guage-20AWG
connector-72 ohms RCA
price: $10
Are going to tell me that because cable A has all around better electrical properties than cable B, it is going to sound better? (note well: 3 foot length)
No, you cannot because at some point somebody has to listen to both of them and be able to consitently identify one as better than the other.
And since everyone in the world would expect A to be better than B, you must assess them without knowing which one you are listening to. Just ask Dr. Floyd Toole about this. It's called human bias and it can't be turned off like a faucet and everyone has it.
So when you spout physical and electrical properties as evidence, you are the one who is misleading. Your process isn't scientific, it's emotional. |
| Straw Army? | Jon
Jul 6, 2002 8:47 AM | | Because straw man is just too subtle for what you have posted.
First, no one I know of makes coaxial cable (or twisted pairs) with PVC insulation anymore, it hasn' been done for 15-20 years, as PE has become cheap enough in huge quantities. They certainly don't make RF type coaxial cables with PVC, they would melt down under transmitter use, assuming the transmitter didn't blow up before the cable melted.
Second, Since RF grade cables are often used for cheap digital IC's, it would probably not have just a foil shield either.
Third, it is likely that a smaller center conductor diameter would have less digital signal smear, and thus, less jitter. You have the teflon cable with the large diameter center wire, and the PVC cable with the smaller one.
Fourth, a double copper braid will probably NOT work better than a good single braid, or a single braid with foil.
Fifth, you state an "unreasonable" cost for the teflon cable. This is a huge straw man, as if one really wants to they can get one of the recommended DIY digital coax part numbers from Belden FOR FREE. Both cables will need RCA plugs, etc, so the "cost" of the teflon cable is not that great.
Call 765-983-5200, and ask for your free 3 foot sample of Belden 1695A (or 1506A, some folks like it better.)
Even at full "by-the-foot" prices, we are talking about a grand total of approx. $4.80 for 3 feet of some 89259 coax.
Some folks, the ones who DO listen, have found a rough correlation to what measure of objective quality to apply to attain a given subjective result. This didn't happen by having their heads buried in the sand, naysaying all the way.
As for one sounding better than the other, even given your widely varying parameters, I would judge that as long as nothing was done improperly, or sub-par materials or assembly techinques used, the teflon cable WILL sound better. Less waveform smear and consequent jitter. Of course, some systems may not be able to pick up on that, they may have lamp cords for speaker cable, and el cheapo freebie interconnects, a $100 CD player, and a mid-fi receiver hooked up to Home Theater In A Box speakers. And of course, if you don't hear a difference on such a system, then it CAN NOT exist, for anyone else, anywhere, according to the naysayer creed.
Jon Risch |
| Claims, claims, go away, come again some other day.... | FLZapped
Jul 6, 2002 5:52 PM | | [First, no one I know of makes coaxial cable (or twisted pairs) with PVC insulation anymore,]
Gee, better check again:
See Belden numbers:
1000A
1023A
1030-1055A
1063A-1074A
1077-1078A
1087-1090A
Should I keep going?
[Third, it is likely that a smaller center conductor diameter would have less digital signal smear,]
-and-
[the teflon cable WILL sound better]
-and-
[Some folks, the ones who DO listen, have found a rough correlation to what measure of objective quality to apply to attain a given subjective result.]
Evidence?
-and-
[Fourth, a double copper braid will probably NOT work better than a good single braid,]
Depends upon what your measuring. Evidence?
-Bruce |
| Claims, claims, go away, come again some other day.... | Jon
Jul 7, 2002 11:36 AM | | I was speaking of retail aftermarket interconnect cables, and OEM freebie IC's re the PVC insulation.
Yes, there are special application cables that use PVC, but are any of these intended for audio use?
Instrumentation and Trat Cable, or Themocouple wires hardly qualify as line level audio interconnects.
Why is it that when you try, apparently as hard as you can, to try and "show me up", you fail miserably?
Could be that you don't know what high performance audio is about, and don't have the proper techincal background or ecperience.
Jon Risch |
| Claims, claims, go away, come again some other day.... | FLZapped
Jul 7, 2002 11:40 AM | | No Jon, no one is showing you up, just showing you that you make incomplete and incorrect statements all too often.
-Bruce |
| Claims, claims, go away, come again some other day.... | mtrycrafts
Jul 7, 2002 2:48 PM | | b "show me up",
That is not possible, JOn, you claimed to be the expert, no one can show you up, LOL.
b Could be that you don't know what high performance audio is about, and don't have the proper techincal background or ecperience.
Only Jon is qualified. LOL. |
| Claims, claims, go away, come again some other day.... | FLZapped
Jul 7, 2002 4:42 PM | | [Could be that you don't know what high performance audio is about, and don't have the proper techincal background or ecperience.]
Yeah, Jon, that's it, I don't have the ecperience.....
Go ahead, Jon, keep the mud slinging up. Again, doesn't bother me in the least, whilst painting a rather pitiful picture of yourself.
-Bruce |
| Claims, claims, go away, come again some other day.... | mtrycrafts
Jul 7, 2002 8:02 PM | | b whilst painting a rather pitiful picture of yourself.
He is great at self portraits:) |
| Balderdash, JON | mtrycrafts
Jul 4, 2002 7:17 PM | | b When you say: "There is no evidence", what you should be saying is that: "There is no DBT based evidence that naysayers will accept, that indicates that bi-wiring sounds different than single-wioring, when total gauges are equivalent."
Jon, you have yet to offer anything to be scrutinized. You have nothing to offer.
b What this even overlooks is any sort of OTHER evidence, such as electrical reasons that bi-wiring can have a sonic effect.
Balderdash, JON. Electrical differences are not necessarily audible. YOu have offered zero listening tests that can stand even the least rudementary scrutiny. YOU HAVE NOTHIG.
b Rather one-sided kind of presentation, isn't this A?
LOL.
b However, it is consistent with the way many of the cable naysayers present 'information', by only telling part of the story, rather than both sides of the situation, or even alluding to other views.
No need as you offer the other point, feeble as it is.
b Perhaps Naysayers should be changed to Deceivers?
LOL, JOn the deceiver, thousands of satisfied users is your evidence, LOL |
| re: Bi-wiring Pro & Cons | sofsoldier
Jul 2, 2002 8:44 AM | | I do not think bi-wire makes any bit of difference. I actually have my home speakers bi-wired, but honestly I cannot tell you if it makes a difference on way or another.
If one has to go back and forth to figure out if bi-wire actually works, its probably not worth the cost or effort. Just get a regular single speaker cable. Save the money. |
| re: Bi-wiring Pro & Cons | wanderingbob
Jul 2, 2002 10:42 AM | | I use Klipsch RF-7's as the main speakers in my home theater / music system, driven with a B&K Reference 2220 amplifier (220 WPC RMS X 2). When I first installed the RF-7's, they were single-wired using Monster Cable XP 16 gauge speaker wire and Monster banana connectors (both the speakers and the amplifier feature five-way binding posts). After listening to my reference CD's using this setup for a month or more, I bi-wired the RF-7's using the same type of cables and connectors. Subjectively, there has been an improvement in sound quality with the bi-wired setup. I understand that a blind or double-blind test would be more conclusive, but I don't have the resources to perform these tests. Using the cables and connectors that I did, the cost of bi-wiring is not a major consideration compared to the cost of the system components.
I'm not an engineer, but an enthusiast, but as I understand it bi-wiring essentially separates the high and low frequency signals into the two speaker cables. This happens because the cable(s) connected to the low frequency driver(s) "see" a higher impedance for high frequency information, while the cable(s) connected to the high frequency driver(s) "see" a higher impedance for low frequency information. This is only true, of course, with a speaker designed for bi-wiring.
Analysis of the dynamic signal tranmission characteristics in a speaker cable is a complex subject, but apparently the signals are degraded less in a bi-wired setup because the high and low frequency signals don't interfere with each other in the same speaker cable.
Bob Gardner
wanderingbob@yahoo.com |
| Umm, Bob.... | MonstrousMike
Jul 2, 2002 2:29 PM | | When you bi-wire, do you essentially connect two sets of speaker wires to your output terminals and then have one wire go to one speaker terminal set and another wire go to another speaker terminal set?
If this is the case, then you essentially have a "Y" configuration since the signal is on the same wire inside the amp for a short distance before getting to the terminal posts and being split in two.
And as I understand it, the two sets of speaker terminals come with metal bars across them in case you don't want to do bi-wiring. So in this configuration, you would still have a "Y" but the tail of the "Y" would be much longer than if you bi-wired.
Can you logically decide if changing the length of the tail of the "Y" is going to have any affect on high and low frequencies travelling through these wires?
And as a followup, do you think wires are like roads where a split from one into two will allow some signals to go one way and some other signals to go the other way? |
| Umm, Bob.... | wanderingbob
Jul 3, 2002 4:22 AM | | "When you bi-wire, do you essentially connect two sets of speaker wires to your output terminals and then have one wire go to one speaker terminal set and another wire go to another speaker terminal set?"
Yes, this statement is an accurate description of the physical connections necessary for bi-wiring.
"If this is the case, then you essentially have a "Y" configuration since the signal is on the same wire inside the amp for a short distance before getting to the terminal posts and being split in two."
If you were to consider only the speaker cables connected to one of the two output terminals for that channel on the amplifier (for example, the positive terminal), then it's true that the speakers cables would appear to form a "Y." However, since a complete electrical circuit is formed by the speaker cables connected to the positive terminal, the speaker system acting as an electrical load, and the speaker cables connected to the negative terminal, it more correct to think of the low and high frequency driver(s) as two loads connected to the amplifier in parallel. These two loads present different impedance values to the high and low frequency signals conducted by the speaker cable.
An extremely common electrical instrument - the ammeter - employs the same fundamental circuit topology as a bi-wired speaker (two loads connected in parallel). In an ammeter, a shunt resistor is connected in parallel with the ammeter movement. Because the resistance of the shunt is so much less than the resistance of the movement, a much higher current flows through the shunt resistor than through the movement. If both the shunt resistor and the movement were encased in an enclosure, as drivers are inside a speaker enclosure, an observer examining only one of the two leads going to the ammeter might conclude that it's connected in a "Y" configuration.
"And as I understand it, the two sets of speaker terminals come with metal bars across them in case you don't want to do bi-wiring."
This is correct.
"...So in this configuration, you would still have a "Y" but the tail of the "Y" would be much longer than if you bi-wired."
Again, a crude description of the physical configuration of the speaker wires attached to one terminal of the amplifier. The important point here is that the high and low frequency drivers are loads connected in parallel.
Can you logically decide if changing the length of the tail of the "Y" is going to have any affect on high and low frequencies travelling through these wires?
In speakers designed for bi-wiring, _depending on the design_, bi-wiring is much more than "changing the length of the tail of the 'Y'" because the speaker terminal leads may use different connections to the crossover network in the speaker, use different crossover networks, or one speaker terminal may bypass the crossover completely.
"And as a followup, do you think wires are like roads where a split from one into two will allow some signals to go one way and some other signals to go the other way?"
In the example of the ammeter above, the parellel loads allow a much higher current to flow through the shunt than through the movement, even though each ammeter lead appears to be "Y'ed." If this is "allowing some signals to go one way and some other signals to go the other way", then draw your own conclusions.
Bob Gardner
wanderingbob@yahoo.com |
| Umm, Bob.... | FLZapped
Jul 3, 2002 5:09 AM | | [ it more correct to think of the low and high frequency driver(s) as two loads connected to the amplifier in parallel. These two loads present different impedance values to the high and low frequency signals conducted by the speaker cable.]
However, in the final analysis, the amplifier still deals with the whole load in any configuration you wish to imagine.
-Bruce |
| Do you really believe that .... | Jon
Jul 3, 2002 3:17 PM | | ....there are not different currents flowing in the HF and LF cables of a bi-wired system?
I would like to think that you have more engineering understanding than this, but this post sure does raise the issue!
Or perhaps you were just trying to be confusing, and confrontational, so as to further obscure the issues?
Either way, it deosn't look good: sheer ignorance, or deliberate and classic naysayer tactics. If the latter, then you have sunk pretty low.
Jon Risch |
| Do you really believe that .... | mtrycrafts
Jul 3, 2002 3:53 PM | | Get a grip, Jon. Where is he talking about current?
Besides, you still don't have the data that the different frequency current cannot exist properly oin one wire, especially since superposition does allow for it very nicely, doesn't it?
But, if you have different data, please present it. And, forget your conference paper on it, flawed. |
| Do you really believe that .... | Jon
Jul 3, 2002 6:14 PM | | mrty,
When it comes to technical matters, you are sadly way behind.
Years back you were one of those who questioned whether or not there was a different signal in the HF and LF cables of a bi-wiring situation. Now, you at least seem to know better enough to not immediately insert foot in mouth, and leave no doubt as to who is the fool. It only makes it harder to tell, takes longer to find out, but the result is the same in the end.
MM posted:
"Can you logically decide if changing the length of the tail of the "Y" is going to have any affect on high and low frequencies travelling through these wires? ]
Indeed, as I have shown, and anyone else can readily verify, there are different signals within each wire of a bi-wire set of cables, due to the differing currents.
[ Besides, you still don't have the data that the different frequency current cannot exist properly oin one wire, especially since superposition does allow for it very nicely, doesn't it? ]
Nope, superposition would show that a single wire does not carry the exact sum of the two bi-wire cables, this is precisely what my AES paper has shown.
BTW, your prior ridiculous attmpt to try and enumerate the "flaws" in my AES paper, indicated quite clearly that you just do not understand a great deal of what was presented, or what the implications are. You certainly do not have the technical qualifications to comprehend or fully understand the paper's content's, much less offer a critique on it.
No one else of any substance (only hard core naysayer's of no repute have tried) has been able to make any negative comments stick regarding that paper. No one has "refutted" or rebutted it, no one has been able to call out any significant flaws or mistakes in the paper.
Steve Eddy posted a diatribe about the various graphics as shown at my web site, and then choose to erase the post, rather than face any real scrutiny over his mistaken interpretation. He is rapidly painting himself into a corner with regard to the other issues he is attempting to argue about, digging his hole deeper and deeper into the muck.
Jon Risch |
| Do you really believe that .... | FLZapped
Jul 4, 2002 10:39 AM | | [No one else of any substance (only hard core naysayer's of no repute have tried) has been able to make any negative comments stick regarding that paper. No one has "refutted" or rebutted it, no one has been able to call out any significant flaws or mistakes in the paper.]
Perhaps not yet, but your webpage has information that was apparently taken in the same memthod as your paper, which you drew erroneous conclusions from, and those HAVE been refuted. Therefore, I don't doubt your paper has the same erroneous conclusions:
<a href="/crforum?13@@.ef4649b/21">FLZapped "how do i biwire?" 1/14/02 4:20pm</a>
<a href="/crforum?13@@.ef4649b/16">FLZapped "how do i biwire?" 1/14/02 7:21am</a>
<a href="/crforum?13@@.ef4649b/17">FLZapped "how do i biwire?" 1/14/02 7:22am</a>
-Bruce |
| Do you really believe that .... | Jon
Jul 6, 2002 7:51 AM | | Bruce,
Yes, let everyone go and read the thread, and find out that you didn't "get it" then RE what the operative action was with the motor/generator effect.
You try to liken the situation with speaker cables to that of an RF trunk line, however, the two situations are not equivalent with regard to the relevant issue, as I pointed out in some posts over at AA.
In fact, when challenged about whether or not an RF signal could be modulated by antenna motion, you really put the old foot in it, and exposed your ignorance of basic physics.
This is but one of the many technical erros and mistakes you posted in arguing with me, all the while, claiming I was the one who was in error. Your idea of showing that I am in error is to post some gobbledegook, and claim that it shows something, while I provide citations, references, and backup for my postings.
So far, you have not shown how audio cables all sound the same (given the usual caveats), or even attmpted to do so, yet you make these claims all the time. You have not refuted or rebutted any of the physcis, science or data I have presented, yet you act as if you have via the mere posting that you say so.
RE the graphs at my web site, to this day, only a handful of people have fully understood what they represent, and you, Steve Eddy, and a host of others have consistently missed the boat and failed to grasp the full implications.
In light of your total lack of real experimentation regarding cables, not even bothering to build one of my widely heralded DIY designs, not even bothering to try and duplicate my measurements, not even trying to listen using my (easy) methods, you only have empty words, and no substance to try and deny my points.
Your audio experience is sadly lacking, your RF chops in question, and you don't have a clue about high performance audio, why should anyone with half a brain (mtry?) listen to you about audio?
Jon Risch |
| Do you really believe that .... | FLZapped
Jul 6, 2002 5:31 PM | | [In fact, when challenged about whether or not an RF signal could be modulated by antenna motion, you really put the old foot in it, and exposed your ignorance of basic physics.]
You made no such challenge. However an antenna in motion will impart carrier doppler shift, the amount depends on the vector to the other antenna in the system. This is a reciprocal property. Big deal, rather common knowledge. Of course, this has nothing to do, AGAIN, with the topic at hand. So will you stay on topic, already? Or are you just too happy to throw out ad hominem attacks to try and bolster your own self-indulging ego? Just ain't working jon, ol' boy!
[So far, you have not shown how audio cables all sound the same (given the usual caveats), or even attmpted to do so]
Because I never made that claim. As always, you keep attemptimg to rearrange the wording to give a different meaning. Jon, give it up, I've been wise to your tactic.
Since you've forgotten what I have stated, many, many times, here it is again: There is no reliable evidence that points to like cables sounding different. This is far different from what you are trying to finger me for.
[RE the graphs at my web site, to this day, only a handful of people have fully understood what they represent, and you, Steve Eddy, and a host of others have consistently missed the boat and failed to grasp the full implications.]
No, Jon, I recognise slight of hand when I see it. There is data missing, pure and simple.
[In light of your total lack of real experimentation regarding cables, not even bothering to build one of my widely heralded DIY designs, not even bothering to try and duplicate my measurements, not even trying to listen using my (easy) methods, you only have empty words, and no substance to try and deny my points.]
Brother, talk about an egomaniac. Why should I, I need speaker cables, not rf transformers.
[Your audio experience is sadly lacking, your RF chops in question, and you don't have a clue about high performance audio, why should anyone with half a brain (mtry?) listen to you about audio?]
Another one of your lame ad hominem attacks, Jon, keep it up, it reflects so well on your character as do your continued distortions of what other people actually say.
-Bruce |
| Do you really believe that .... | mtrycrafts
Jul 4, 2002 7:29 PM | | b Years back you were one of those who questioned whether or not there was a different signal in the HF and LF cables of a bi-wiring situation.
Get another grip, Jon. For years you didn't separate the signals inot the current component and the voltage component, right. So, th evoltage component is the same, and to some extent so is the currebt which is reduced as the slope of the cross over network. So you are deceiving here.
b due to the differing currents.
Oh, the voltage is the same and the current is only reduced as the cross over roll off.
b Nope, superposition would show that a single wire does not carry the exact sum of the two bi-wire cables, this is precisely what my AES paper has shown.
Get a further grip, Jon. I didn't claim this, you assume too much. After all, you do claim all sorts of problems when all the frequency is in one wire, that is where the superposition come in, LOL.
b BTW, your prior ridiculous attmpt to try and enumerate the "flaws" in my AES paper,
Oh, JOn, you have two papers that has been criticized as flawed. Keep it separate. Your bi wire section is flawed as your measurements and comparisons are grossly flawed, LOL. You measure at two different points and try to come to some conclusion about IM? LOL
b No one else of any substance (only hard core naysayer's of no repute have tried) has been able to make any negative comments stick regarding that paper. No one has "refutted" or rebutted it, no one has been able to call out any significant flaws or mistakes in the paper.
JON, no one else considers your paper worth the time to read that mush, let alone refute that joke.
Besides why bother with only a conference presentation. What a joke. |
| Sure.... | MonstrousMike
Jul 4, 2002 5:33 AM | | I believe that currents can be split on two segments of a circuits if they have different impedences.
But do you really believe that the spectral content can also split? I thought you had some engineering knowledge. Only circuitry like filters can change the frequency content of a signal, not a physical junction.
The arguement that high frequencies take the right road and low frequencies take the left road is false. The signal contains the exact same spectral information on both segments of a bi-wire configuration. The frequency content is only changed after going through the crossovers.
And on top of all that, where is there proof that IM distortion is even a problem in the first place? If this were the case, wouldn't IM distortion be a problem in interconnects as well? |
| Sure.... | mtrycrafts
Jul 4, 2002 7:32 PM | | b And on top of all that, where is there proof that IM distortion is even a problem in the first place? If this were the case, wouldn't IM distortion be a problem in interconnects as well?
You are asking the wrong person. He has zero clue. |
| Sure.... | Jon
Jul 6, 2002 7:16 AM | | The signal in the speaker cables is not just a voltage, but is the sum total of the voltage and current, hence, the signal in each of a bi-wire cable IS a different signal. Any competent engineer will know this.
Interconnects may very well be subject to the same motor/generator type problems, only driven by the loudspeaker vibrations instead of the self motor cause as with loudspeaker cables.
Jon Risch |
| Sure.... | FLZapped
Jul 7, 2002 5:00 PM | | [Interconnects may very well be subject to the same motor/generator type problems, only driven by the loudspeaker vibrations instead of the self motor cause as with loudspeaker cables.]
You haven't even proven the first, how are you possibly going to prove the latter.
-Bruce |
| Sure.... | mtrycrafts
Jul 7, 2002 8:04 PM | | Proof? He doesn't need no stinkin proof:) |
| OH! Sorry, I forgot. (nt) | FLZapped
Jul 8, 2002 6:25 AM | | |
| Sure....AND | Jon
Jul 11, 2002 7:59 PM | | Proof?
My 'proof' is the entire universe!
If you believe that electrical motors actually work, that they run off of electricity, and not majic mojo, and if you believe that generators work, well then, motor/generator action in speaker cables occurs. The wires move due to the presence of a signal through them, and this motion will generate a distorted replica of the original signal. Nothing to "prove", as it should be self-evidentto any one with a real background in physics.
Once again, it is not a matter of whether or not these things occur, it is strictly a matter of at what level, and whether or not it is relevant to what we hear. Since my outlook on how far down we might hear something is much greater than most confirmed naysayers, this is the real argument, not whether these things take place or not.
It is a similar situation to the presence of Dielectric Absorption in a capacitor dielectric, it is not a matter of whether or not this is a real effect, or whether or not it can cause signal distortion, it is strictly a matter of at what level.
I have been taken to task time and again, for audio and cable effects that are real, that do exist, and that can very much be a potential problem in terms of signal distortion. Most of the naysayer denial starts out saying that it isn't even real, or does not exist at all, when in point of fact, it is usually not really an issue whether or not such things exist or take place, but again, at what level. Of course, the naysayers are usually just blatantly stating that there are NO mechanisms at all for audio cable problems, and so in this, they are completetely and unequivocally wrong, and misleading.
I can not be held responsible for those few who do not get it, or like mtry, don't even have the technical chops to understand or judge what is going on with the situation.
Jon Risch |
| BWAHHAHAHAHHAHHAHA... | FLZapped
Jul 12, 2002 8:42 AM | | [My 'proof' is the entire universe!]
Thanks, I needed a good laugh on a Friday.
-Bruce |
| Sure....AND | FLZapped
Jul 12, 2002 8:54 AM | | After yawning through the BS rant....
[Once again, it is not a matter of whether or not these things occur, it is strictly a matter of at what level,]
Yet you haven't demonstrated that this occurs in any amount that one would even consider measuring, much less than you doing it yourself, and then there's the whole question about audibility. You're just playing guessing games, Jon, pure and simple, there is none of the required rigor needed in any of your work to satify anything that would consitute validation of your ideas.
[It is a similar situation to the presence of Dielectric Absorption in a capacitor dielectric, it is not a matter of whether or not this is a real effect, or whether or not it can cause signal distortion, it is strictly a matter of at what level.]
Same problem, you have no measurements to even suggest "what level" - much less than even being able to consider audibility. Again, no rigor, just wild-assed assumptions.
Why must you always put the cart before the horse? You continually try to convince people that this stuff is audible without the work required to establish that it is even measureable, much less audible.
[I can not be held responsible for those few who do not get it,]
No, but you most certainly can be held accountable for piss-poor engineering practice.
-Bruce |
| Sure....AND | mtrycrafts
Jul 12, 2002 9:40 PM | | b there is none of the required rigor needed in any of your work to satify anything that would consitute validation of your ideas.
You just burst his bubble :)
b just wild-assed assumptions.
That's Jon for you :)
b Why must you always put the cart before the horse?
Because he doesn't have anything otherwise:)
b You continually try to convince people that this stuff is audible without the work required to establish that it is even measureable, much less audible.
Less informed peole don't know this and that is what he counts on, and gets it. |
| Stop misrepresenting my side of the arguement.... | MonstrousMike
Jul 12, 2002 9:03 AM | | <<<< Most of the naysayer denial starts out saying that it isn't even real, or does not exist at all, when in point of fact, it is usually not really an issue whether or not such things exist or take place, but again, at what level. >>>>
I am well aware of the electrical effects within cabling over a great range of freqencies and I have said such on numberous occasions.
<<<< Of course, the naysayers are usually just blatantly stating that there are NO mechanisms at all for audio cable problems, and so in this, they are completetely and unequivocally wrong, and misleading. >>>>
You are the one who is misleading. I am also aware of which cable mechanisms (or properties) are important when given the nature of the signal, the distance it has to travel and the envronment the cable is subjected to. |
| Better reading comprehension | Jon
Jul 14, 2002 5:20 PM | | Note the words"most" and "usual".
If the shoe fits, wear, it; if it doesn't apply, then why are you hot over it?
Jon Risch |
| As usual, the pot calls the kettle black(nt) | FLZapped
Jul 15, 2002 9:05 AM | | |
| re: Bi-wiring Pro & Cons | FLZapped
Jul 2, 2002 4:30 PM | | Bob, all you're really doing is moving the oint at which you must drive both halves of the cossover from inside the speaker to the back of your amp. It's an attempt to play around with where the amp and speaker impedances fall to gain more signal isolation.
Well, to figure it out, your problem will contain 6 or so variables. And even if you get some positive numbers, there is no guarantee that they'll result in something audible.
-Bruce |
| re: Bi-wiring Pro & Cons | wanderingbob
Jul 3, 2002 6:04 AM | | "moving the point at which you must drive both halves of the crossover from inside the speaker to the back of your amp...." "...to gain more signal isolation"
I do agree with this statement, which essentially confirms the technical basis for the effects of bi-wiring (signal isolation). I also absolutely agree that there's no guarantee that bi-wiring will result in an audible difference in sound quality. Whether the result is audibly different to any particular listener depends on many complex factors, including:
The quality of the source material itself
The availability of noise-free electrical power
The "transparency" of each component in the signal path
The length of the speaker cables
The impedance curve of the speaker cables
The impedance curve of the low and high frequency drivers
Design differences between the low and high freq. drivers
The freq. response curve of the low and high freq. drivers
Room acoustics
The listener's experience, preferences, and mental state
As an example, I am absolutely sure that I can hear the difference when I play a High Definition Digital Compatible (HDCD) encoded CD on my Denon DVD-2800, which includes an HDCD decoder, compared to playing the same CD on my Denon DCD-1650AR CD player, which does not include said HDCD decoder and handles an HDCD-encoded disc as a standard CD. Regardless of the situation, I can _instantly_ detect the lower noise floor, greater transparency, and greater dynamic transient response of HDCD. My wife, on the other hand, doesn't hear the difference using the same source material, equipment, and environment. Another individual of my acquaintance, if playing the same CD on his equipment, which does include an HDCD decoder, can definitely detect some of these differences, but not all of them.
I certainly don't recommend bi-wiring for everyone. However, if your audio system, source material, and environment allow the resolution of enough detail to make such incremental improvements audible, bi-wiring can be one of the least expensive ways to improve your listening experience.
If you make your own speaker cables, as I did, the cost is minimal and you can even reuse the parts if you decide that the bi-wiring isn't beneficial. If you have a good relationship with an audio dealer, you may be able to audition premanufactured bi-wiring cables and return them free of charge if they don't result in an audible difference.
Bob Gardner
wanderingbob@yahoo.com |
| re: Bi-wiring Pro & Cons | FLZapped
Jul 3, 2002 8:54 AM | | Bob,
I certainly don't mind experimenting. Like you say, it can(and should, in my opinion) be done inexpensively.
I have a problem when someone is trying to convince another that this will cure all the ills of their system.
I am not a fan of the esoteric cable inducstry either....especially when you have a situation where you do want to return a product, they then try and tell you it needs to be "burned in" - horse dookie. It's more likely you'll keep the thing the longer you have it initially.
-Bruce |
| re: Bi-wiring Pro & Cons | wanderingbob
Jul 3, 2002 9:38 AM | | I think we're really in agreement.
Bi-wiring, like any new componment or connection methodology, will never cure all the ills of any audio system.
If one or more components in an audio system are unable to reproduce the source signal accurately because of limited frequency response, resolution of detail, output power, or dynamic range, that's bad (defect by omission).
If one or more components introduces any artifacts into the signal, such as harmonic distortion, intermodulation distortion, phase shift, etc., that's much worse (defect by ).
In either case, replacement of the offending component is the only way to resolve the problem without introducing new ones. Adding another component with an "offsetting" distortion is a mistake.
As far as "esoteric" cables, I'm sure you noticed that I made my speaker cables from a $15 roll of 16 gauge speaker wire (20')and a $20 set of (4) banana connectors.
Bob Gardner
wanderingbob@yahoo.com |
| re: Bi-wiring Pro & Cons | mtrycrafts
Jul 3, 2002 3:55 PM | | b As an example, I am absolutely sure that I can hear the difference
Under DBT listening? Really? It would be astounding and worth publishing. |
| |
