[ST]

More observations to report.

I did try bi-wiring and found that the system tend to sound bit
bright. Ok, maybe it is all in my head. But then I was thinking is it
possible why my system sounded bright because of the followings:-


1) Let's say speaker's impedance is 6 ohm.

2) However, my tweeter is said to be 4 ohm and my woofer is 8 ohm.

3) My Amp is capable of 250W per channel.

Q1) Will driving with X amount of power into 6 ohm speaker be the same
as driving with the same amp but individually, i.e bi-wiring the 4ohm
tweeter and 8 ohm woofer with non whatsoever changes in the volume?

Regards,
ST

[Sonnova]

On Thu, 5 Mar 2009 15:07:36 -0800, codifus wrote
(in article ):

On Mar 5, 3:17*pm, "Serge Auckland"
wrote:
"codifus" wrote in message

...

On Mar 4, 10:14 pm, Sonnova wrote:

I've tried it on a number of different speakers, heard no difference.

Did you try it with different types of music? Like I pointed out
earlier, it's the types of music that will more likely bring out bi-
wiring's advantages. I've seen your posts and noticed that your taste
in music tend to be classical and that you aren't keen on studio
recordings.

Well, IMO a studio recording has the tendency to more fully test the
instantaneous dynamic capability of an audio system than a classical
recording ever will. Classical music doesn't invoke the short term
dynamic that bi-wiring brings out.

I like all types of music; live, studio, classical, hip-hop, reggae
etc. Different types of music can make certain capabilities of a
system more readily apparent than other types.

CD.

But bi-wiring can't make a difference as the laws of physics don't allow it.
So, any ideas that different types of music will show up different
capabilities is pure fantasy.

Really? OK. So, every capacitor, inductor, resistor etc in an
electrical circuit behaves perfectly, as defined by the laws of
physics? No, of course not. Capacitors have resistance, inductors have
capicatance and so forth. It goes to follow that circuits built from
these imperfect components won't behave perfectly, just more or less
perfectly. ------Quite oxymoronic, that last statement, don't you
think?

You resort to the laws of physics which is fine for a textbook case,
which this isn't.

Ever heard the phrase " a difference which makes no difference is no
difference at all"? It applies here. You know, until fairly recently, the
math used to determine resistor, capacitor and inductor sizes for ALL
electronic circuits was calculated using a slide rule. Answers were
approximates to say the least, yet the circuits worked and worked well. That
says that there is a lot of room for error in electronics design and things
aren't that critical - certainly not in audio, anyway.

If you really believe that you can hear bi-wiring making a difference, can
you please suggest a mechanism by which this could be? Please suggest a
hypothesis that can be tested. Please suggest some tests by which we can
verify independently what you suggest is the case. Otherwise, it's just
opinion, with no basis in reality.

I don't recall ever saying it was fact. Just that I observed it, and
believe it. As for tests, I did suggests types of music which would
make the effects of bi-wiring more apparent.

If it was real, it would make itself known in ALL types of music.

I can't give you everything you want EXACTLY as you want it, but I
sure did try.

You did, unfortunately, your observations are of a phenomenon that is highly
unlikely.



S.
--http://audiopages.googlepages.com


CD

[Sonnova]

On Thu, 5 Mar 2009 16:44:49 -0800, dave a wrote
(in article ):

wrote:

So when we connect the tweeter and subwoofer or woofer won't
this little current affect the tweeter?

No. Why would it There are a several reasons why it
won't:


[ snipped out basic EE101 stuff, nicely done by the way ]

Can you show that the level difference at the tweeter
of a 50 Hz signal that's 100 dB vs 103 dB down is
discernable?



So you're saying that the 50 Hz signal is twice as loud and you can't
tell the difference? :-)


Not at -100 dB and more.

[[email protected]]

On Mar 6, 10:53*am, ST wrote:

I did try bi-wiring and found that the system tend to sound bit
bright. Ok, maybe it is all in my head. But then I was thinking is it
possible why my system sounded bright because of the followings:-

1) Let's say speaker's impedance is *6 ohm.

2) However, my tweeter is said to be 4 ohm and my woofer is 8 ohm.

3) My Amp is capable of 250W per channel.

Q1) Will driving with X amount of power into 6 ohm speaker be the same
as driving with the same amp but individually, i.e bi-wiring the 4ohm
tweeter and 8 ohm woofer with non whatsoever changes in the volume?

YIKES!

OK... Follow closely, please.

a) "Mono" wiring means a single pair from the amp output to the
speaker, with the jumper(s) at the speaker remaining in place.
b) "Bi-Wiring" means two pairs from the *SAME* amp output to the
speaker and the jumper(s) at the speaker removed.

So: It is the precise, same, identical output to the precise, same,
identical speaker excepting the jumper is now a little bit longer.
THEY ARE CONNECTED AT THE AMP TERMINALS RATHER THAN AT THE SPEAKER
TERMINALS - but they ARE STILL CONNECTED.

i) the amp sees the same speaker either way.
ii) the amp therefore reacts to the same load either way.
iii) if you were to draw an electrical block diagram of the
connections they would be identical.

No matter how it is sliced and diced there will be no discernable
difference between "bi" or "hetero" wiring as far as either the
speaker or the amp is concerned assuming proper gauge wire and secure
connections in the first place. In other words, the laws of physics as
detailed already still obtain.

Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA

[[email protected]]

On Mar 6, 10:53*am, ST wrote:
More observations to report.

I did try bi-wiring and found that the system tend to sound bit
bright. Ok, maybe it is all in my head. But then I was thinking is it
possible why my system sounded bright because of the followings:-

1) Let's say speaker's impedance is *6 ohm.

2) However, my tweeter is said to be 4 ohm and my woofer is 8 ohm.

3) My Amp is capable of 250W per channel.

Q1) Will driving with X amount of power into 6 ohm
speaker be the same as driving with the same amp
but individually, i.e bi-wiring the 4ohm tweeter and
8 ohm woofer with non whatsoever changes in the
volume?

Please, THINK about how bi-wiring works, more
importantly, how it does NOT work.

Unless you are using VERY tiny speaker wire,
it has no substantive effect. With biwiring, you
are moving the common connection points
between the woofer and tweeter to a different
point in the speaker lead. The amplifier STILL
sees the woofer and its crossover in parallel with
the tweeter and its crossover. The load to the
amplifier doesn't change AT ALL.

And, unless you are using very tiny speaker wire,
in BOTH the non-biwire and the biwire case, the
signal seen by the woofer and its crossover
is the ENTIRE signal, and the signal seen by the
tweeter is the ENTIRE signal.

Biwiring is simply NOT capable of separating the
two signals: that job is handled by the crossover.
And the crossover is connected THE SAME in
both the non-biwire and the biwire cases.

[Sonnova]

On Fri, 6 Mar 2009 07:53:54 -0800, ST wrote
(in article ):

More observations to report.

I did try bi-wiring and found that the system tend to sound bit
bright. Ok, maybe it is all in my head. But then I was thinking is it
possible why my system sounded bright because of the followings:-


1) Let's say speaker's impedance is 6 ohm.

2) However, my tweeter is said to be 4 ohm and my woofer is 8 ohm.

3) My Amp is capable of 250W per channel.

Q1) Will driving with X amount of power into 6 ohm speaker be the same
as driving with the same amp but individually, i.e bi-wiring the 4ohm
tweeter and 8 ohm woofer with non whatsoever changes in the volume?

Regards,
ST


Doubtful. If the speaker system was designed by the manufacturer as complete
system and all of the drivers are original, then the manufacturer has already
taken care of any differences in loudness between the various drivers by
including resistive pads in cross-over to match the levels. What you
postulate could only occur if bi-wiring somehow circumvented the
manufacturer's built-in cross-over, which, of course, it does not.

[ST]

On Mar 7, 12:47*am, wrote:
On Mar 6, 10:53*am, ST wrote:



More observations to report.

I did try bi-wiring and found that the system tend to sound bit
bright. Ok, maybe it is all in my head. But then I was *****ing is it
possible why my system sounded bright because of the followings:-

1) Let's say speaker's impedance is *6 ohm.

2) However, my tweeter is said to be 4 ohm and my woofer is 8 ohm.

3) My Amp is capable of 250W per channel.

Q1) Will driving with X amount of power into 6 ohm
speaker be the same as driving with the same amp
but individually, i.e bi-wiring the 4ohm tweeter and
8 ohm woofer with non whatsoever changes in the
volume?

Please, ***** about how bi-wiring works, more
importantly, how it does NOT work.

Unless you are using VERY tiny speaker wire,
it has no substantive effect. With biwiring, you
are moving the common connection points
between the woofer and tweeter to a different
point in the speaker lead. The amplifier STILL
sees the woofer and its crossover in parallel with
the tweeter and its crossover. The load to the
amplifier doesn't change AT ALL.

And, unless you are using very tiny speaker wire,
in BOTH the non-biwire and the biwire case, the
signal seen by the woofer and its crossover
is the ENTIRE signal, and the signal seen by the
tweeter is the ENTIRE signal.

Biwiring is simply NOT capable of separating the
two signals: that job is handled by the crossover.
And the crossover is connected THE SAME in
both the non-biwire and the biwire cases.

I just need to clarify the part on after bi-wiring my system sounded a
little bright. It was NOT due to bi-wiring but I changed the speaker
position by pulling them closer by about 40cm which resulted in being
bit bright. Now, back to square one ,I report I can't tell any
difference between bi-wiring or not. Nor I could tell any difference
between two "audiophile" cable or a 6N OFC cable.

[Greg Wormald]

In article ,
ST wrote:

I just need to clarify the part on after bi-wiring my system sounded a
little bright. It was NOT due to bi-wiring but I changed the speaker
position by pulling them closer by about 40cm which resulted in being
bit bright. Now, back to square one ,I report I can't tell any
difference between bi-wiring or not. Nor I could tell any difference
between two "audiophile" cable or a 6N OFC cable.

If you can't tell any difference, then it's a change not worth
having--especially if it costs money.

Greg

[Sonnova]

On Fri, 6 Mar 2009 21:23:50 -0800, Greg Wormald wrote
(in article ):

In article ,
ST wrote:

I just need to clarify the part on after bi-wiring my system sounded a
little bright. It was NOT due to bi-wiring but I changed the speaker
position by pulling them closer by about 40cm which resulted in being
bit bright. Now, back to square one ,I report I can't tell any
difference between bi-wiring or not. Nor I could tell any difference
between two "audiophile" cable or a 6N OFC cable.

If you can't tell any difference, then it's a change not worth
having--especially if it costs money.

Greg


No speaker cable, no matter how fancy or how costly sounds any different than
a similar length of adequately sized copper lamp cord.

[Walt]

Bob Myers wrote:


In other words - exactly what is it that bi-wiring is believed
to do, and how?

Increase profits by selling the gullible twice as much speaker cable as
they need. If you can get them to buy the expensive cable, even better.

//Walt

[Arny Krueger]

"Walt" wrote in message
...
Bob Myers wrote:


In other words - exactly what is it that bi-wiring is believed
to do, and how?

Increase profits by selling the gullible twice as much speaker cable as
they need. If you can get them to buy the expensive cable, even better.

Agreed.

And then there's the pile-on. The dealer says: "Well, if you want to really
hear a benefit from bi-wiring, you have to use more expensive wire."


Tom Nousaine often calls that bi wire = buy wire! ;-)

[Serge Auckland[_2_]]

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Walt" wrote in message
...
Bob Myers wrote:


In other words - exactly what is it that bi-wiring is believed
to do, and how?

Increase profits by selling the gullible twice as much speaker cable as
they need. If you can get them to buy the expensive cable, even better.

Agreed.

And then there's the pile-on. The dealer says: "Well, if you want to
really
hear a benefit from bi-wiring, you have to use more expensive wire."


Tom Nousaine often calls that bi wire = buy wire! ;-)


And then the even further totally pointless sell...if you really want to go
the extra, bi-amping is the way...we can sell you another pair of totally
useless power amps, but think of the profit we make....

S.

--
http://audiopages.googlepages.com

[Bob Myers]

Walt wrote:
Bob Myers wrote:


In other words - exactly what is it that bi-wiring is believed
to do, and how?

Increase profits by selling the gullible twice as much speaker cable
as they need. If you can get them to buy the expensive cable, even
better.

Well, yes, of course - I was rather hoping, though, that
someone who was a biwiring proponent could describe
just how THEY think it works, and why.

And if the answer comes back "we don't know how it works,
it just does..." - well, there are some really, really interesting
implications there, too.

Bob M.

[Serge Auckland[_2_]]

"Bob Myers" wrote in message
...
Walt wrote:
Bob Myers wrote:


In other words - exactly what is it that bi-wiring is believed
to do, and how?

Increase profits by selling the gullible twice as much speaker cable
as they need. If you can get them to buy the expensive cable, even
better.

Well, yes, of course - I was rather hoping, though, that
someone who was a biwiring proponent could describe
just how THEY think it works, and why.

And if the answer comes back "we don't know how it works,
it just does..." - well, there are some really, really interesting
implications there, too.

Bob M.

Not really, unless you think that it all being in the mind of the listener
is interesting. Bi-wiring can't work, unless the laws of physics are somehow
suspended, so any suggestion that it does work is pure fantasy. For those
who believes it does work, it is just that, a belief, as valid as the
tooth-fairy, Easter Bunny or God. No proof, and what's more, not a single
suggestion as to how it could possibly work that have any scientific
validity.

If anyone has any theory or hypothesis to propose, lets hear it and test it,
but so far, all we've heard is comments along the lines of " I've heard it,
and it works for me".

S.
--
http://audiopages.googlepages.com

[Walt]

Serge Auckland wrote:
"Bob Myers" wrote in message
...
Walt wrote:
Bob Myers wrote:

In other words - exactly what is it that bi-wiring is believed
to do, and how?

... Bi-wiring can't work, unless the laws of physics are somehow
suspended...

If anyone has any theory or hypothesis to propose, lets hear it and test it,


There's a fairly simple scientific explanation that's been around since
the 50's and has stood up to rigorous hypothesis testing. At this point
the principle is as valid a scientific theory as circuit theory,
although not as readily quantifiable.

Solomon Asche did the early work in this field. You can read about it he
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asch_co...ty_experiments



//Walt

[Serge Auckland[_2_]]

"Walt" wrote in message
...
Serge Auckland wrote:
"Bob Myers" wrote in message
...
Walt wrote:
Bob Myers wrote:

In other words - exactly what is it that bi-wiring is believed
to do, and how?

... Bi-wiring can't work, unless the laws of physics are somehow
suspended...

If anyone has any theory or hypothesis to propose, lets hear it and test
it,


There's a fairly simple scientific explanation that's been around since
the 50's and has stood up to rigorous hypothesis testing. At this point
the principle is as valid a scientific theory as circuit theory,
although not as readily quantifiable.

Solomon Asche did the early work in this field. You can read about it
he
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asch_co...ty_experiments



//Walt

In other words, it's all in the mind, together with peer pressure to
conform. If everyone tells you it's better, then you too believe it's
better.

Nothing to do with audio, or circuit theory or anything else physical.

S.
--
http://audiopages.googlepages.com

[Arny Krueger]

"Walt" wrote in message

Serge Auckland wrote:
"Bob Myers" wrote in
message ...
Walt wrote:
Bob Myers wrote:

In other words - exactly what is it that bi-wiring is
believed to do, and how?

It has been widely espoused that bi-wiring makes speakers sound better.

I can name a number of audio forums where bi-wring has been or is currently
"accepted truth".

... Bi-wiring can't work, unless the laws of physics
are somehow suspended...

Agreed.

If anyone has any theory or hypothesis to propose, lets
hear it and test it,

There's a fairly simple scientific explanation that's been around since
the 50's and has stood up to rigorous hypothesis testing.
At this point the principle is as valid a scientific theory as circuit
theory,
although not as readily quantifiable.

Over a decade of practical observations suggest to me that there is some
common, fundamental property of humans that is behind all this.

Solomon Asche did the early work in this field. You can
read about it he
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asch_co...ty_experiments

Very interesting. Somehow I was never taught this in my sociology classes.
:-(

[Codifus]

On Mar 13, 2:10*pm, "Serge Auckland"
wrote:
"Walt" wrote in message

...

Serge Auckland wrote:
"Bob Myers" wrote in message
...
Walt wrote:
Bob Myers wrote:

In other words - exactly what is it that bi-wiring is believed
to do, and how?

... *Bi-wiring can't work, unless the laws of physics are somehow
suspended...

If anyone has any theory or hypothesis to propose, lets hear it and test
it,

There's a fairly simple scientific explanation that's been around since
the 50's and has stood up to rigorous hypothesis testing. *At this point
the principle is as valid a scientific theory as circuit theory,
although not as readily quantifiable.

Solomon Asche did the early work in this field. *You can read about it
he
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asch_co...ty_experiments

//Walt

In other words, it's all in the mind, together with peer pressure to
conform. If everyone tells you it's better, then you too believe it's
better.

Nothing to do with audio, or circuit theory or anything else physical.

S.
--http://audiopages.googlepages.com

That is one way to look at it. Another? Everyone in this thread says
that bi-wiring doesn't work. Does that mean that you and all the
others are conforming?

Far be it for me to side with everyone else.



CD

[Sonnova]

On Tue, 17 Mar 2009 11:39:49 -0700, codifus wrote
(in article ):

On Mar 13, 2:10*pm, "Serge Auckland"
wrote:
"Walt" wrote in message

...

Serge Auckland wrote:
"Bob Myers" wrote in message
...
Walt wrote:
Bob Myers wrote:

In other words - exactly what is it that bi-wiring is believed
to do, and how?

... *Bi-wiring can't work, unless the laws of physics are somehow
suspended...

If anyone has any theory or hypothesis to propose, lets hear it and test
it,

There's a fairly simple scientific explanation that's been around since
the 50's and has stood up to rigorous hypothesis testing. *At this point
the principle is as valid a scientific theory as circuit theory,
although not as readily quantifiable.

Solomon Asche did the early work in this field. *You can read about it
he
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asch_co...ty_experiments

//Walt

In other words, it's all in the mind, together with peer pressure to
conform. If everyone tells you it's better, then you too believe it's
better.

Nothing to do with audio, or circuit theory or anything else physical.

S.
--http://audiopages.googlepages.com

That is one way to look at it. Another? Everyone in this thread says
that bi-wiring doesn't work. Does that mean that you and all the
others are conforming?

Far be it for me to side with everyone else.

"Siding" is irrelevant. Look at bi-wiring the way you would look at a claim
that someone could flap their arms and fly like a bird. It can't happen.
Believing that it can happen won't suddenly make it happen, no matter how
fervently one believes it. Bi-wiring is simply connecting the two sets of
speaker binding posts on the back of the speaker together. Whether one does
that with the supplied shorting straps at the speaker terminals, or with a
couple of runs of speaker cable at the amplifier, the result is electrically
the same.

[Greg Wormald]

In article ,
codifus wrote:

That is one way to look at it. Another? Everyone in this thread says
that bi-wiring doesn't work. Does that mean that you and all the
others are conforming?

Far be it for me to side with everyone else.



CD

Hi CD,

I've already stated that IMO the only way to see if bi-wiring works is
to try it on your system. Some speaker manufacturers say to use it,
others say no.

Some people find no physical basis for it, others do. Some use simple
electrical engineering explanations for what appears to be a complex
process, especially given the sophisticated hearing/interpretation
mechanisms that humans have. Some use what appears to be fantasy to
explain how it works.

Most scientists I know talk in terms of 'suggests', 'indicates', and
'theory', rather than black and white certainties, and this makes me
want to try many things for myself.

I have tri-wired my Linn Kabers and am very pleased with the result. So
pleased I will not go back to single wires. I've tried single wires with
3 times the copper and still prefer the tri-wires.

I'm just not willing to argue with people. If they can't/won't hear any
difference then I feel like I'm arguing colour with the blind, and I've
got music to appreciate.

Greg

[Sonnova]

On Tue, 17 Mar 2009 20:20:09 -0700, Greg Wormald wrote
(in article ):

In article ,
codifus wrote:

That is one way to look at it. Another? Everyone in this thread says
that bi-wiring doesn't work. Does that mean that you and all the
others are conforming?

Far be it for me to side with everyone else.



CD

Hi CD,

I've already stated that IMO the only way to see if bi-wiring works is
to try it on your system. Some speaker manufacturers say to use it,
others say no.

Some people find no physical basis for it, others do.

Those two groups break-down into those who understand electronics and
electrical theory, and those who don't. It's like other great myths. The
difference between believing them and not believing them is knowledge.

Some use simple
electrical engineering explanations for what appears to be a complex
process, especially given the sophisticated hearing/interpretation
mechanisms that humans have. Some use what appears to be fantasy to
explain how it works.

It is not a complex process. Either the two sets of speaker binding posts are
connected together at the posts themselves or at the amplifier. Given a
reasonable speaker cable run of adequately sized cable of 25 ft or less,
there is NO electrical difference.

Most scientists I know talk in terms of 'suggests', 'indicates', and
'theory', rather than black and white certainties, and this makes me
want to try many things for myself.

Tell you what. Climb up on the roof of your house, start flapping your arms
as fast as you can, jump off and try to fly. Let us know how that works out
for you. Because it's just as impossible as bi-wiring and for the same basic
reason - the laws of physics say NO.

I have tri-wired my Linn Kabers and am very pleased with the result. So
pleased I will not go back to single wires. I've tried single wires with
3 times the copper and still prefer the tri-wires.

Isn't imagination a wonderful thing? And that's fine as long as you realize
that its just YOUR imagination that prefers tri-wiring. Your speakers don't
care, or perform any differently one way or another, and neither does your
amplifier.

I'm just not willing to argue with people. If they can't/won't hear any
difference then I feel like I'm arguing colour with the blind, and I've
got music to appreciate.

Greg. Nobody's arguing with you. Its your money and if you like what you
think you hear, do it. We're just telling you that wire, especially at audio
frequencies presents no mysteries. Its well understood, well characterized
and well tested. There is no magic "something" that we just haven't learned
to measure yet that will, when finally revealed, explain why bi-wiring works.
We can measure everything and we know the effects of current through wires
from DC all the way to microwaves and anywhere in between. Bi-wiring is
electrically just the same as connecting the two sets of binding posts
together at the back of the speakers using the provided straps. There is an
old saying that goes "A difference which makes no difference, is no
difference at all." That is an ultimate truth.

[Steven Sullivan]

Greg Wormald wrote:

Most scientists I know talk in terms of 'suggests', 'indicates', and
'theory', rather than black and white certainties, and this makes me
want to try many things for myself.

All scientists would say that to demonstrate that your effect is real,
you have to use a controlled experiment. 'Just listening for yourself'
doesn't suffice.

Absent a firm technical basis for the effect, there's a very good chance
that any difference you are hearing with your bi- and tri-wiring, is
imaginary. A scientist would insist that you rule out that possibility
first.


--
-S
We have it in our power to begin the world over again - Thomas Paine

[Codifus]

On Mar 18, 11:08*am, Steven Sullivan wrote:
Greg Wormald wrote:
Most scientists I know talk in terms of 'suggests', 'indicates', and
'theory', rather than black and white certainties, and this makes me
want to try many things for myself.

All scientists would say that to demonstrate that your effect is real,
you have to use a controlled experiment. *'Just listening for yourself'
doesn't suffice.

Absent a firm technical basis for the effect, there's a very good chance
that any difference you are hearing with your bi- and tri-wiring, is
imaginary. *A scientist would insist that you rule out that possibility
first.

--
-S
We have it in our power to begin the world over again - Thomas Paine

That is true, and I completely agree. No one here is stating anything
as fact. An observation was made in not so controlled conditions and
the confirmation was stated as an opinion. You know, IMO?

The way that some posters strongly react with such statements as
absurd, imaginary, etc suggests that these people only accept others
whose opinions agree with them.

Here's a simple fact for you; all facts start out as observations.

Of course not all observations become facts....I'll give you that one.


CD

[[email protected]]

On Mar 18, 2:33*pm, codifus wrote:

Here's a simple fact for you; all facts start out as observations.

Of course not all observations become facts....I'll give you that one.

Wrong. All observations are facts. The conclusions we draw from our
observations may be true or false, however. In the case of bi-wiring
(and much else on the voodoo side of audio), we know which it is.

bob

[Steven Sullivan]

codifus wrote:
On Mar 18, 11:08?am, Steven Sullivan wrote:
Greg Wormald wrote:
Most scientists I know talk in terms of 'suggests', 'indicates', and
'theory', rather than black and white certainties, and this makes me
want to try many things for myself.

All scientists would say that to demonstrate that your effect is real,
you have to use a controlled experiment. ?'Just listening for yourself'
doesn't suffice.

Absent a firm technical basis for the effect, there's a very good chance
that any difference you are hearing with your bi- and tri-wiring, is
imaginary. ?A scientist would insist that you rule out that possibility
first.

--
-S
We have it in our power to begin the world over again - Thomas Paine

That is true, and I completely agree. No one here is stating anything
as fact. An observation was made in not so controlled conditions and
the confirmation was stated as an opinion. You know, IMO?

If I reported that I observed perpetual motion, would it really matter whether
it was phrased as an opinion or not?

Here's a simple fact for you; all facts start out as observations.

Of course not all observations become facts....I'll give you that one.

Most don't.

--
-S
We have it in our power to begin the world over again - Thomas Paine

[Sonnova]

On Wed, 18 Mar 2009 11:33:53 -0700, codifus wrote
(in article ):

On Mar 18, 11:08*am, Steven Sullivan wrote:
Greg Wormald wrote:
Most scientists I know talk in terms of 'suggests', 'indicates', and
'theory', rather than black and white certainties, and this makes me
want to try many things for myself.

All scientists would say that to demonstrate that your effect is real,
you have to use a controlled experiment. *'Just listening for yourself'
doesn't suffice.

Absent a firm technical basis for the effect, there's a very good chance
that any difference you are hearing with your bi- and tri-wiring, is
imaginary. *A scientist would insist that you rule out that possibility
first.

--
-S
We have it in our power to begin the world over again - Thomas Paine

That is true, and I completely agree. No one here is stating anything
as fact. An observation was made in not so controlled conditions and
the confirmation was stated as an opinion. You know, IMO?

The way that some posters strongly react with such statements as
absurd, imaginary, etc suggests that these people only accept others
whose opinions agree with them.

I can't speak for others, but I can and will speak for myself on this matter.
I know that any audible effects from bi-wiring are as impossible as trolls
under the bridge, Santa Claus and his flying sleigh, the Easter Bunny and
being abducted by space aliens. If I heard any such phenomenon, I would doubt
the results, and chalk it up to imagination or other factors having nothing
to do with bi-wiring. OTOH, if I heard such a phenomenon in a properly
conducted double-blind test, I would believe that something was happening and
would suggest that, since all current electrical knowledge tells me that such
a result is not possible, that perhaps, just perhaps, that there is still
something about the conduction of electrical signals that we do not yet know
or understand. Unfortunately, I have been privy to several such double-blind
tests involving not only bi-wiring, but speaker cables of varying price
ranges from the very cheap (lamp cord) to the very expensive (nylon jacketed,
as big as fire hoses, and "active"), Nobody could tell the difference between
the lamp cord and the very expensive, or anything in between in either single
runs or double blind which is exactly what the laws of electricity say should
be the result. The results of the tests were no better than blind chance for
any of those experiments. Since the amplifiers were the same and the speakers
were the same for all the tests, each time, the conclusion was and remains
that speaker wire contributes no sound of its own to the reproduction of
music, either in single runs or bi-wired or even, I suspect, tripple-wired.

[[email protected]]

On Mar 17, 11:20*pm, Greg Wormald wrote:
In article ,

*codifus wrote:
That is one way to look at it. Another? Everyone in this thread says
that bi-wiring doesn't work. Does that mean that you and all the
others are conforming?

Far be it for me to side with everyone else.


snip

Some people find no physical basis for it, others do. Some use simple
electrical engineering explanations for what appears to be a complex
process, especially given the sophisticated hearing/interpretation
mechanisms that humans have. Some use what appears to be fantasy to
explain how it works.

The fact of the matter is that electrical conduction in a wire is
pretty straightforward and well understood at audio frequencies..
Hearing and room acoustics are certainly more complex but that has
nothing to do with typical good-quality speaker cables.


Most scientists I know talk in terms of 'suggests', 'indicates', and
'theory', rather than black and white certainties, and this makes me
want to try many things for myself.


Physicists create theories to describe the real world and correct them
when measurements indicate that the results are not compatible with
careful unbiased measurements. Electrical engineers create models
based on physical theories and change the models if they are not
compatible with careful unbiased measurements. However, you would be
hard pressed to find any significant issues regarding modern
electrical theory or related shortcomings with respect to speaker
cables. You are certainly free to propose modifications to existing
electrical theory with respect to speaker cables but to have
credibility you will need careful unbiased measurements.

[Sonnova]

On Thu, 19 Mar 2009 11:26:19 -0700, wrote
(in article ):

On Mar 17, 11:20*pm, Greg Wormald wrote:
In article ,

*codifus wrote:
That is one way to look at it. Another? Everyone in this thread says
that bi-wiring doesn't work. Does that mean that you and all the
others are conforming?

Far be it for me to side with everyone else.


snip

Some people find no physical basis for it, others do. Some use simple
electrical engineering explanations for what appears to be a complex
process, especially given the sophisticated hearing/interpretation
mechanisms that humans have. Some use what appears to be fantasy to
explain how it works.

The fact of the matter is that electrical conduction in a wire is
pretty straightforward and well understood at audio frequencies..
Hearing and room acoustics are certainly more complex but that has
nothing to do with typical good-quality speaker cables.


Most scientists I know talk in terms of 'suggests', 'indicates', and
'theory', rather than black and white certainties, and this makes me
want to try many things for myself.


Physicists create theories to describe the real world and correct them
when measurements indicate that the results are not compatible with
careful unbiased measurements. Electrical engineers create models
based on physical theories and change the models if they are not
compatible with careful unbiased measurements. However, you would be
hard pressed to find any significant issues regarding modern
electrical theory or related shortcomings with respect to speaker
cables. You are certainly free to propose modifications to existing
electrical theory with respect to speaker cables but to have
credibility you will need careful unbiased measurements.


the problem is, there are no careful, unbiased measurements, because there is
nothing to measure. The things that affect an AC signal traveling over a
distance on wi overall DC resistance, capacitive reactance, inductive
reactance (which are components of impedance), are simply not significant at
audio frequencies. Speaker runs would have to be hundreds of feet before any
of these had even the slightest effect on an audio signal and even then, it
would be merely a slight attenuation of the very highest frequencies.

[C. Leeds]

wrote
(in ):

Wrong. All observations are facts. The conclusions we draw from our
observations may be true or false, however.

No, this is mistaken. Any observation is subject to error. For example,
the eye is easily fooled by optical illusion, and eyewitness testimony
is notoriously unreliable.

[[email protected]]

On Mar 22, 11:39*am, "C. Leeds" wrote:
wrote
(in ):

Wrong. All observations are facts. The conclusions we draw from our
observations may be true or false, however.

No, this is mistaken. Any observation is subject to error. For example,
the eye is easily fooled by optical illusion, and eyewitness testimony
is notoriously unreliable.

If someone says, "I tried biwring, and it sounded better," I can't
come back and say, "No, you're wrong. Biwiring really didn't sound
better to you." Of course it sounded better to him, whether it was an
illusion or not. His error would be to then say, "There must be some
physical reason that the scientists don't understand yet that causes
biwiring to sound better."

This two-stage process—first you observe, then you conclude—isn't so
obvious in cases like eyewitness identification. And it would be a
little weird to argue that the statement, "That's the guy I saw
robbing the bank" can't be wrong. But what the eyewitness is really
saying—and what we must hear him to be saying, if we don't want to
convict the wrong guy—is, "He looks like the guy I saw robbing the
bank." And that observation wouldn't be wrong.

bob

[Sonnova]

On Sun, 22 Mar 2009 08:39:34 -0700, C. Leeds wrote
(in article ):

wrote
(in ):

Wrong. All observations are facts. The conclusions we draw from our
observations may be true or false, however.

No, this is mistaken. Any observation is subject to error. For example,
the eye is easily fooled by optical illusion, and eyewitness testimony
is notoriously unreliable.


The ear is easily fooled too. Look at the number of people who truly think
that different speaker cables alter the sound of their speakers or that a
$4000 pair of Nordost 1-meter interconnects makes their stereos sound better.

[Andrew Barss[_2_]]

C. Leeds wrote:
: wrote
: (in ):

: Wrong. All observations are facts. The conclusions we draw from our
: observations may be true or false, however.

: No, this is mistaken. Any observation is subject to error. For example,
: the eye is easily fooled by optical illusion, and eyewitness testimony
: is notoriously unreliable.


Very true. But observations themselves are facts -- you seen X, you hear Y -- but
it requires an inferential leap to conclue that X and Y correspond to
something outside your own mind and perceptual systems. So, in a sense,
you're both correct.

-- Andy Barss

[ Moderator's note: let's get the conversation back to
more directly audio-related matters, please? -- dsr ]

[Claudio Menegoz]

Originally Posted by Andrew Barss

I have a pair of B&W DM602 S3 speakers, and just got an Onkyo
TX-SR706 receiver. Thr msnual for the latter suggests bi-wiring
(specifically, connecting the front L/R terminals to one set of
terminals on the speakers, and connecting the rear L/R receiver
terminals to the other set of speaker terminals). So does the B&W website
(in general, not specifically for these speakers).

Is there any real advantage to doing this?

-- Andy Barss

Some Onkyo receivers (ex:TX-NR809), alows you to connect the speakers on a simulated Bi amp function by using Zone 1(main) & zone 2 speaker connections.

In my experience, I moved a pair of B&W DM603 with many diferent amplifiers and getting diferent results. first It was a Yamaha M65 power amplifier (CX2 pre amp), monster wires, in general good results. Then it was a Yamaha 5.1 RXV 795a. This was in terms of audio, my biggest mistake, but movies sounds pretty well. At the end, recently I recovered and old Panasonic stereo from the 90's (SC-CH9) that was abandon and fully of dust. At the moment I was cleaning the equipment i saw the legend "bi amp, bi wiring" and decided that it worthed to connect my B&W to the small thing...... I cannot tell you how surpirse I was when I hear the sound from this conbination. At the end, bi amp & bi wiring makes the diferent to me and I re discovered the sound of my B&W that never sounded so well before. It's incredible how this aparently small amplifier can support these big speakers.