single vs biwire ?
Gary Thompson
If you had the choice of a high end single cable for your stereo
speakers in the range of say $800 for a 8'lengths and you also could
choose from the same manufacture a cable in the $400 range (not as high
up in the line) for the same length but could biwire your speaker, which
one is going to give you the best sound (in theory,I know mileage will
vary)?
I don't know which is best.
Best Regards,
Gary
Stewart Pinkerton
Gary Thompson <orbi...@ix.netcom.com> writes:
>If you had the choice of a high end single cable for your stereo
>speakers in the range of say $800 for a 8'lengths and you also could
>choose from the same manufacture a cable in the $400 range (not as high
>up in the line) for the same length but could biwire your speaker, which
>one is going to give you the best sound (in theory,I know mileage will
>vary)?
12AWG zipcord and $800 more expensive speakers! Otherwise, it will
depend on what the actual differences are between the two cables and
also how well the speakers respond to bi-wiring. Remember, the Wilson
X-1 Grand Slamm and several other top-class speakers have no provision
for bi-wiring, not everyone believes in it.
L. Tittaferrante
Kimber 8TC and we could hardly tell the Kimber from the 12g but we could
not tell the single from the bi-wire. Put the money into better speakers
as previously suggested and buy some 12g and twist it about 3 turns per
foot.
Doug Bora
: not tell the single from the bi-wire. Put the money into better speakers
: foot.
What's this bit about twisting it about 3 turns per foot? I've never
heard that mentioned before.
--
Doug Bora
stig...@wwa.com
joe
Gary Thompson <orbi...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>If you had the choice of a high end single cable for your stereo
>speakers in the range of say $800 for a 8'lengths and you also could
>choose from the same manufacture a cable in the $400 range (not as high
>up in the line) for the same length but could biwire your speaker, which
>one is going to give you the best sound (in theory,I know mileage will
>vary)?
>I don't know which is best.
>Best Regards,
> Gary
More black magic, this stuff is total BS. To think that the high
freqs want their own seperate wire is ludicrous. The only time to
biwire is when you biamp.
Hey everyone, I've got a new product, it's an Indian dream catcher
for speakers. You put it over your speakers and it catches all the bad
sound. The physics are of course beyond the scope of mere mortals,
but if you spend the $1000 for this unique and highly precise
technology, I guarranty you'll hear the difference.
What do think guys?
Steve Zipser (Sunshine Stereo, Inc)
I think you are acting like a jerk - there are valid scientific reasons
why bi-wiring works. If you bothered to listen to a comparison of mono
vs bi-wired, on most bi-wireable speakers, you'd here a significant
differences.
Zip
Steve Zipser (Sunshine Stereo, Inc)
That's how many times JOLY told him to wrap it around his brain nerve!
Zip
Marc Yun
> Gary Thompson <orbi...@ix.netcom.com> writes:
>
> >If you had the choice of a high end single cable for your stereo
> >speakers in the range of say $800 for a 8'lengths and you also could
> >choose from the same manufacture a cable in the $400 range (not as high
> >up in the line) for the same length but could biwire your speaker, which
> >one is going to give you the best sound (in theory,I know mileage will
> >vary)?
>
> 12AWG zipcord and $800 more expensive speakers!
12AWG zip cord??? 12AWG ZIP CORD???!!! ZIP CORD IS CRAP!!! I've compared
Monster Cable (glorified zip cord) to cheap twisted-pair telephone station
cable, twisted-pair Radio Shack 18AWG solid core, and real speakers cables
like Tara RSC and Silver Sonic T-14, and all I can say is ZIP CORD
SUCKS!!!
Its sound is bright, grainy, hashy, unmusical, etc. etc. Sure, the
dynamics are good because it's so damn thick, but who cares if it sounds
like horse crap?
Get a pair of Silver Sonic, only about $85/10ft or $170 biwire, and enjoy
smooth, musical, coherent, and involving sound that's a hell of a lot
better than any zip cord crap and in many ways is preferrably to much more
expensive stuff like the Audioquest and Tara RSC. At that price you can
biwire or even shotgun (4 runs per speaker) for the same price as the
"Holy Grail of Audio" brands; and the sound of this particular cable
really does improve if you biwire or shotgun, even if you don't have
biwire speakers (the lower resistance helps).
If you don't want to pay more than $10 for cable, get some Rat Shack 18 ga
or 20 ga. SOLID CORE (never stranded, strands sometimes mess up the sound
though the silver sonic seems to make good use of strands), take 4
conductors and spiral them together. It's a pain in the ass to twist, but
the sound is great and about 75% or so of the Silver Sonic for 1/8 or less
the price.
Regards,
Marc Yun
my...@sas.upenn.edu
Daniel C. Wiggins
In article <myun-10079...@comserv2-dialup9.princeton.edu> Marc Yun
wrote:
>If you don't want to pay more than $10 for cable, get some Rat Shack 18 ga
>or 20 ga. SOLID CORE (never stranded, strands sometimes mess up the sound
>though the silver sonic seems to make good use of strands), take 4
>conductors and spiral them together. It's a pain in the ass to twist, but
>the sound is great and about 75% or so of the Silver Sonic for 1/8 or less
>the price.
>
>Regards,
>Marc Yun
And the physics behind the strands messing up the sound would be...?
Daniel C. Wiggins | DanWi...@gnn.com OR BioSon...@delphi.com
Engineering Manager | Employer bears no responsibility for any
BioSonics, Inc. | comment I make.
Daniel C. Wiggins
In article <iLsHfKAk...@freereed.demon.co.uk> Anahata wrote:
>Much as I hate to appear to support the 'fancy cables sound better'
>argument, the anwer to your question might be: some of the current
>crosses from one strand to another across a junction that may be non-
>linear due to oxidation of the copper surface.
I have heard this, too. BUT, why would the current DO that? It follows the
path of least resistance, which would be to continue on its own wire, rather
than jump to an "insulated" one.
>I still don't believe it would make an audible difference, and a simple
>signal subtraction test would determine this.
>
>Has anyone ever *measured* the difference between two cables, by
>amplifying the voltage difference at the speaker end of the cable? With
>identical speakers attached, of course.
Good idea! I'll grab a 16 g. solid core wire, 16 g. stranded, and from the
same source drive both sides of a speaker. Any differences will cause the
speaker to move. Sound good? Or is there a better way to check this?
Anahata
Daniel C <?@?.?.com> writes
>And the physics behind the strands messing up the sound would be...?
Much as I hate to appear to support the 'fancy cables sound better'
argument, the anwer to your question might be: some of the current
crosses from one strand to another across a junction that may be non-
linear due to oxidation of the copper surface.
I still don't believe it would make an audible difference, and a simple
signal subtraction test would determine this.
Has anyone ever *measured* the difference between two cables, by
amplifying the voltage difference at the speaker end of the cable? With
identical speakers attached, of course.
--
Anahata -----------------------------------------------------------------
* Ana...@freereed.demon.co.uk * ana...@cix.compulink.co.uk *
* 0976 263827 (Orange) * http://webzone.ccacyber.com/www/anahata *
----- "Momentum: what you give a person when they are going away" -------
Gordon Gunn
In article <myun-10079...@comserv2-dialup9.princeton.edu> Marc
Yun, my...@sas.upenn.edu writes:
>Get a pair of Silver Sonic, only about $85/10ft or $170 biwire, and enjoy
>smooth, musical, coherent, and involving sound that's a hell of a lot
Heh heh heh... You guys crack me up.
Gordon in Austin
Establishing solid interconnectivity between components
ensures that when you throw the computer out the window,
the printer goes with it.
Marc Yun
In article <4s3604$18...@newsgate.sps.mot.com>, Gordon Gunn
<gg...@aton.sps.mot.com> wrote:
Am I alone in here? I though most of the people around here actually have
open ears and minds.... sigh... oh well...
Regards,
Marc Yun
my...@sas.upenn.edu
Gordon Gunn
In article <myun-11079...@comserv-dialup59.princeton.edu> Marc
Maybe.
>I though most of the people around here actually have
>open ears and minds.... sigh... oh well...
I do, I don't know about you... sigh... oh well...
Stewart Pinkerton
my...@sas.upenn.edu (Marc Yun) writes:
>In article <4s3604$18...@newsgate.sps.mot.com>, Gordon Gunn
><gg...@aton.sps.mot.com> wrote:
>> In article <myun-10079...@comserv2-dialup9.princeton.edu> Marc
>> Yun, my...@sas.upenn.edu writes:
>> >Get a pair of Silver Sonic, only about $85/10ft or $170 biwire, and enjoy
>> >smooth, musical, coherent, and involving sound that's a hell of a lot
>> >better than any zip cord crap...
>>
>> Heh heh heh... You guys crack me up.
>>
>> Gordon in Austin
>>
>> Establishing solid interconnectivity between components
>> ensures that when you throw the computer out the window,
>> the printer goes with it.
>Am I alone in here? I though most of the people around here actually have
>open ears and minds.... sigh... oh well...
Many do, that's why they crack up when they read posts such as your
original, with its wonderful lack of internal consistency. Rat Shack
zipcord is crap because it's stranded but Sonic Silver stranded is OK
and you can get 75% of Sonic Silver sound by using Rat Shack solid-core.
Hmmmmmmm.
Gary Noack
In article <iLsHfKAk...@freereed.demon.co.uk>
Anahata <Ana...@freereed.demon.co.uk> said:-
>Has anyone ever *measured* the difference between two cables, by
>amplifying the voltage difference at the speaker end of the cable? With
>identical speakers attached, of course.
Yes, Ben Duncan has, amoungst others:
See Electronics World July/August 1996.
Gaz.
__
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I M M O R T A L C O I L S
Huntingdon, England.
e-mail to: ga...@imco.demon.co.uk or phone +44 (0)1480 497730
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Lee Meador
Daniel C. Wiggins wrote:
> > ... some of the current
> >crosses from one strand to another across a junction that may be non-
> >linear due to oxidation of the copper surface.
>
> path of least resistance, which would be to continue on its own wire, rather
> than jump to an "insulated" one.
If current followed the path of least resistance you could put a 4 ohm speaker
in parallel with an 8 ohm speaker and no sound would come from the eight ohm
speaker. All of the sound would come from the 4 ohm speaker since it is the
path of least resistance. The current divides among the various paths, the
most current flows along the path of least resistance. Paths with more
resistance get less current. For a simple parallel path the current is
inversely proportional to the resistance. (The formula for current is I = E/R
where I is the current, E is the voltage across that path and R is the
resistance through the path. Two paths with different resistence would have the
same voltage and thus inversely related amounts of current.)
> >Has anyone ever *measured* ...
>
> Good idea! I'll grab a 16 g. solid core wire, 16 g. stranded, and from the
> same source drive both sides of a speaker. Any differences will cause the
> speaker to move. Sound good? Or is there a better way to check this?
If it sounded at all it would sound bad and any sound would indicate that the
cables were different and that's bad too. I suspect that any difference would
be so small in magnitude that the sound coming from the speaker would be so
small as to never be heard. Perhaps not even enough difference to overcome the
inertia in the cone et.al.
-- Lee Meador
Michael Nobilio
>If you had the choice of a high end single cable for your stereo
>speakers in the range of say $800 for a 8'lengths and you also could
>choose from the same manufacture a cable in the $400 range (not as high
>up in the line) for the same length but could biwire your speaker, which
>one is going to give you the best sound (in theory,I know mileage will
>vary)?
>I don't know which is best.
>Best Regards,
> Gary
You could achieve more of a sonic difference by moving your speaker 6
inches, than you could from wasting $800 on wire.
I would say go with the bi-wiring, but with 12GA $1/foot wire.
-Mike
Netscape to: http://www.monmouth.com/~mnobilio
joe
"Steve Zipser (Sunshine Stereo, Inc)" <z...@netrunner.net> wrote:
>joe wrote:
>>
>> Gary Thompson <orbi...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>
>> >If you had the choice of a high end single cable for your stereo
>> >speakers in the range of say $800 for a 8'lengths and you also could
>> >choose from the same manufacture a cable in the $400 range (not as high
>> >up in the line) for the same length but could biwire your speaker, which
>> >one is going to give you the best sound (in theory,I know mileage will
>> >vary)?
>> >I don't know which is best.
>> >Best Regards,
>> > Gary
>>
>> More black magic, this stuff is total BS. To think that the high
>> freqs want their own seperate wire is ludicrous. The only time to
>> biwire is when you biamp.
>> Hey everyone, I've got a new product, it's an Indian dream catcher
>> for speakers. You put it over your speakers and it catches all the bad
>> sound. The physics are of course beyond the scope of mere mortals,
>> but if you spend the $1000 for this unique and highly precise
>> technology, I guarranty you'll hear the difference.
>>
>> What do think guys?
>I think you are acting like a jerk - there are valid scientific reasons
>why bi-wiring works. If you bothered to listen to a comparison of mono
>vs bi-wired, on most bi-wireable speakers, you'd here a significant
>differences.
>Zip
Sorry, don't mean to sound like a jerk, but I would love to see your
"valid scientific reasons", until then I'll keep selling my acoustic
dream catchers ;) and recommending that people stop wasting their
money. Remember this is audio.tech. Unless you can prove your
assertions, your the jerk for supporting black magic.
Aaron Dial
: freqs want their own seperate wire is ludicrous. The only time to
: biwire is when you biamp.
Speaking of which, if you _are_ biamping, how important is the
speaker cable for the low end? I'm using pretty splashy
speaker cable right now (but am thinking of bi-amping for
a couple of reasons), and it sure would be nice not to have
to go spend _more_ money on emulating what I'm using in the
highs.
--
********************************************************
*** ***
*** AARON DIAL is bism...@uniblab.ocis.temple.edu ***
*** ***
********************************************************
Daniel C. Wiggins
In article <31E5CF...@onramp.net> Lee Meador wrote:
>If current followed the path of least resistance you could put a 4 ohm
>speaker in parallel with an 8 ohm speaker and no sound would come from the
>eight ohm speaker. All of the sound would come from the 4 ohm speaker since
>it is the path of least resistance. The current divides among the various
>paths, the most current flows along the path of least resistance. Paths
>with more resistance get less current. For a simple parallel path the
>current is inversely proportional to the resistance. (The formula for
>current is I = E/R where I is the current, E is the voltage across that
>path and R is the resistance through the path. Two paths with different
>resistence would have the same voltage and thus inversely related amounts
> of current.)
No, we're talking about the electricity ARCING from one to the other. Not a
simple power-of-two difference, but orders of magnitude. Sure, some of the
current WILL be carried by the oxide covered conductor. BUT! Both the
oxide and clean conductors have THE SAME POTENTIAL! How do we get arcing
(or ANY current flow) if we have equal potential?
Let's assume that the oxide covered conductors ARE of a lower potential.
Now we have (poorly) insulated conductors. Nevertheless, the oxide is
thousands of times greater resistance than the copper.
Redo your analogy, but make one speaker a 16,000 ohm unit, and the other a 4
ohm unit. Which is gonna work the hardest? Will you even be able to tell
that the 16,000 ohm unit is even working? Probably not.
>>Good idea! I'll grab a 16 g. solid core wire, 16 g. stranded, and from
>>the same source drive both sides of a speaker. Any differences will cause
>>the speaker to move. Sound good? Or is there a better way to check this?
>
>If it sounded at all it would sound bad and any sound would indicate that
>the cables were different and that's bad too. I suspect that any difference
>would be so small in magnitude that the sound coming from the speaker would
>be so small as to never be heard. Perhaps not even enough difference to
>overcome the inertia in the cone et.al.
So the effect of conductor oxidation, when given its "best" chance of
showing itself, may be so small as to never be heard, and is well below the
effects of the physical driver. The oxidation will not cause an audible
effect.
So why even worry about it!
>-- Lee Meador
John Busenitz
On 11 Jul 1996, Marc Yun wrote:
> Am I alone in here? I though most of the people around here actually have
> open ears and minds.... sigh... oh well...
Unfortunately not. Some people insist that their subjective
opinions are absolutely true, even when contradicted not
only by the opinions of others, but physics and reality!
For example, some of these narrow-minded uebermensch have
managed to persuade themselves that negligible differences
in CONDUCTORS (the things that connect the components that
process sound) lead to significant differences sonically,
and then try to explain it with technobabble that clearly
shows that they have skipped far too many physics classes
to justify participating in a technical forum.
They seem to think that merely the fact that they *think*
they hear something undeniably proves its existance and
truth, never mind reality and what other people hear.
They conveniently ignore the very real effects of bias
and subconscious prejudice which tarnishes subjective
evaluation.
I agree, Marc. There are far too many closed minds and
colored ears here.... sigh... oh well...
_____________________________________________________________
John Busenitz buse...@ecn.purdue.edu
P.U. ECE http://cernan.ecn.purdue.edu/~busenitz
Disclaimer: My statements do not represent Purdue University.
Marc Yun
In article
<Pine.SOL.3.91.96071...@kennedy.ecn.purdue.edu>, John
Busenitz <buse...@ecn.purdue.edu> wrote:
> On 11 Jul 1996, Marc Yun wrote:
>
> > Am I alone in here? I though most of the people around here actually have
> > open ears and minds.... sigh... oh well...
>
> Unfortunately not. Some people insist that their subjective
> opinions are absolutely true, even when contradicted not
> only by the opinions of others, but physics and reality!
>
> For example, some of these narrow-minded uebermensch have
> managed to persuade themselves that negligible differences
> in CONDUCTORS (the things that connect the components that
> process sound) lead to significant differences sonically,
> and then try to explain it with technobabble that clearly
> shows that they have skipped far too many physics classes
> to justify participating in a technical forum.
>
> They seem to think that merely the fact that they *think*
> they hear something undeniably proves its existance and
> truth, never mind reality and what other people hear.
> They conveniently ignore the very real effects of bias
> and subconscious prejudice which tarnishes subjective
> evaluation.
>
> I agree, Marc. There are far too many closed minds and
> colored ears here.... sigh... oh well...
John,
You are more than entitled to your opinion, and you have some good points.
I agree with you that the majority of "hi-end" cables are overpriced or
even simply rip-offs... but why are must you be so vehement? Why is it
that you have to slam people's beliefs, intelligence, or judgement (or
lack of it) in such a negative manner? I admit that I could have been more
courteous to others at times, and I apologize if I have ever insulted
anyone, but I find your rudeness quite unappropriate and offensive.
I know that audiophiles can be pretty illogical or unreasonable, but it
seems that too many like you who hold similar views are much too
condescending in their responses. They seem to be quite smug and
self-assurred in their knowledge and are extremely dismissive of anyone
who might disagree. Yes, science does provide valuable insights on the
nature of things, but is the science behind your claims so strong and
irrefutable that you can proclaim absolute truth? Do you truly understand
electrial conductivity and psychoacoustics so well that you can deny any
validity to every single argument that differs from yours? Even if you are
right, does that give you the right to freely bash anyone and everyone who
doesn't agree? Are you that immune to human error?
Look at what you have said. Are you saying that absolutely everyone who
hears differences is deceiving themselves? Are they all crazy or just
stupid? Is every person in the audiophile wire business a crook and
ripping off the public? Those are very strong claims. You say <<Some
people insist that their subjective opinions are absolutely true, even
when contradicted not only by the opinions of others, but physics and
reality!...>> Can you insist that your "objective" opinions are
absoulutely true? What is "reality"? Are YOUR observations or a bunch of
curves and numbers from an Audio Precision test setup "reality"?
Why must you be so arrogant in your statements? My problem is not so much
that you disagree with me but the MANNER in which you and many others
disagree.
I don't feel this way with everyone who disagrees with me... take Chris
Caudle for instance. He is extremely knowledgeable, much more so than I
am... he really knows his stuff. He has disagreed with or corrected me on
several occasions, including with wire, but he always does so in an
direct, factual, and enlightening manner. Never has he been rude or
condescending to me even when he criticized my more egregious errors. He
has been most helpful to me in many technical matters.
I have always thought these forums to be a place for the constructive
exchange of ideas... alas complacent attitudes (mine often included) tend
to make the proceedings much too difficult and unpleasant...
Regards,
Marc Yun
my...@sas.upenn.edu
Anthony Genovese
>
> Sorry, don't mean to sound like a jerk, but I would love to see your
> "valid scientific reasons", until then I'll keep selling my acoustic
> dream catchers ;) and recommending that people stop wasting their
> money. Remember this is audio.tech. Unless you can prove your
> assertions, your the jerk for supporting black magic.
Actually, this is audio.opinion, where any jerk can support whatever black
magic s/he wants!
Tony
Mike Nicholson
John Busenitz wrote:
>
> On 11 Jul 1996, Marc Yun wrote:
>
> > Am I alone in here? I though most of the people around here actually have
> > open ears and minds.... sigh... oh well...
>
> Unfortunately not. Some people insist that their subjective
> opinions are absolutely true, even when contradicted not
> only by the opinions of others, but physics and reality!
>
> For example, some of these narrow-minded uebermensch have
> managed to persuade themselves that negligible differences
> in CONDUCTORS (the things that connect the components that
> process sound) lead to significant differences sonically,
> and then try to explain it with technobabble that clearly
> shows that they have skipped far too many physics classes
> to justify participating in a technical forum.
>
> They seem to think that merely the fact that they *think*
> they hear something undeniably proves its existance and
> truth, never mind reality and what other people hear.
> They conveniently ignore the very real effects of bias
> and subconscious prejudice which tarnishes subjective
> evaluation.
>
> I agree, Marc. There are far too many closed minds and
> colored ears here.... sigh... oh well...
>
> John Busenitz buse...@ecn.purdue.edu
> P.U. ECE http://cernan.ecn.purdue.edu/~busenitz
> Disclaimer: My statements do not represent Purdue University.
Surely, it doesn't matter to what psysics laws applies to what 'tweek'
or connection or speaker cable - music is about individual taste &
opinions.
If Joe Bloggs, 'thinks' the sound is fantastic by inserting vaseline in
his cd player or John Doe hears deeper bass by sticking his speakers on
cold porridge, so be it.
I'm no technofreak or audiophile by any means, but I KNOW what I like &
what i don't like & I'm sure most people are the same.
So the less insults the better - don't you agree!
Thanks,
Mike
Stewart Pinkerton
to...@zipnet.net (Anthony Genovese) writes:
But the jerk or jerkette also has to accept the brickbats if 'proofs'
are offered which will not withstand rigorous scrutiny!
Stewart Pinkerton
John Busenitz <buse...@ecn.purdue.edu> writes:
>For example, some of these narrow-minded uebermensch have
>managed to persuade themselves that negligible differences
>in CONDUCTORS (the things that connect the components that
>process sound) lead to significant differences sonically,
>and then try to explain it with technobabble that clearly
>shows that they have skipped far too many physics classes
>to justify participating in a technical forum.
I think you probably mean Untermensch but let's not get too heavily into
that particular philosophy, huh?
Armand
>On Tue, 09 Jul 1996 20:50:13 -0700, Gary Thompson
><orbi...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>If you had the choice of a high end single cable for your stereo
>>speakers in the range of say $800 for a 8'lengths and you also could
>>choose from the same manufacture a cable in the $400 range (not as high
>>up in the line) for the same length but could biwire your speaker, which
>>one is going to give you the best sound (in theory,I know mileage will
>>vary)?
>>I don't know which is best.
>>Best Regards,
>> Gary
>You could achieve more of a sonic difference by moving your speaker 6
>inches, than you could from wasting $800 on wire.
Possibly. But once you've moved your speaks into the best position in your
room, then experiment with wire.
>I would say go with the bi-wiring, but with 12GA $1/foot
wire.>-Mike
Try a handful of cables lent to you by a reputable dealer with a liberal
return policy. Then decide on your own. Less stressful than you think.
Armand
Steve Zipser (Sunshine Stereo, Inc)
1st: There is a halving of resistance. This is always good.
2nd: All drivers create a back emf. The higher the damping factor of an
amp, the easier it is to overcome the back emf. The damping factor is
highest right at the amplifiers terminals. When you bi-wire, you are
bridging the path to the highs & lows at the amps output effectively
preventing the drivers from 'talking' to each other. Instead of
nay-saying & back biting, Stewert, why don't you and other doubting
Thomas's here just try it. Your Apogee Stages sound much much better
bi-wired.
Instead of being buttheads, why don't some of you post useful stuff -
like my recommended recordings posts.
Zip
sNACKS
Gary Thompson <orbi...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>If you had the choice of a high end single cable for your stereo
(not as high up in the line) for the same length but could biwire >your speaker, which one is going to give you the best sound
What kind of speakers? I my case Richard Vandersteen reccommends
bi-wire on the way up to bi-amping, but my cable guy, George Cardas
doesn't like bi-wire. So, because I could only afford one pair of
the twinlinks I listened single wired for a year and then
auditioned another pair of twinlinks and I was impressed with the
difference. The mid and highs were cleaner, more detailed. The bass
seemed a little faster, but not much. I have been listening
bi-wired ever since...3 years and have been satisfied. Better
cables are not on my upgrade list, so I would be interested to hear
what you find.
shawn
Richard D Pierce
In article <31E712...@netrunner.net>,
>> are offered which will not withstand rigorous scrutiny!
>
>1st: There is a halving of resistance. This is always good.
>2nd: All drivers create a back emf. The higher the damping factor of an
>amp, the easier it is to overcome the back emf. The damping factor is
>highest right at the amplifiers terminals.
Please, not this again.
The "damping factor" as a method of controlling the cone has relevance,
yes, but those advocating the reduction of series losses as a means of
upping the damping factor once again ignore the fact that these losses
are tiny compared to the losses in the DC resistance of the voice coil.
Further, the notion that bi-wiring halves the resistance is utter bunk.
Simply analyze the circuit thus created.
Assume the woofer and tweeter have 6 ohms of DC resistance. Assume one
run of the wire has a total resistance of 0.2 ohms. Assume the amplifier
output resistance is 0.
In a normal wiring, the motional impedance for the woofer has to look
through the following series losses to damp itself: 6 ohm DC resistance
of the voice coil, 0.2 ohms cable resistance, 0 ohms amplifier. We'll
assume that the parallel tweeter load is not significant because of the
isolation provide by the crossover. So the woofer has to see a total
series loass of 6.2 ohms.
Now, let's bi-wire. The motional impedance of the woofer has to look
through that same 6 ohm DC resistance and then has to look through the
same 0.2 ohm cable resistance back at the amplifier. Since the tweeter is
still isolated by the crossover, it doesn't play a role, we are STILL
looking at a total series loss to the woofer or 6.2 ohms. Biwiring has
NOT changed the resistance one wit.
If, on the other hand, we assume that the DC resistance of the other
driver DOES play a role, then we see the following: in single wiring the 6
ohm resistance of the voice coil is in series with the parallel
combination of the tweeter's DC resistance (6 ohms) and the wire (0.2
ohms) for a total series loss of 6+0.194 or 6.194 ohms.
Using the same analysis for a bi-wired situation, we now have the DC
resistance of the voice coil, 6 ohms, in series with the 0.2 ohms of the
cable, in parallel with the series combination of the wteeters 6 ohm
voice coil resistance and its 0,2 ohm cable, all of that in parallel with
the amplifier's 0 ohms, making the total 6.2 ohms.
So, in a bi-wired situation, the total losses contributing to the damping
of the woofer coe MIGHT be as high as 6.2 ohms, compared to 6.194 ohms in
single wired, so your assertion that it halves the total series
resistance seems not to be correct.
>When you bi-wire, you are bridging the path to the highs & lows at the
>amps output effectively preventing the drivers from 'talking' to each other.
Nope, seems not to be the case. That's completely the job of the
crossover. Simply look at the voltage across the terminals at the ends of
the wires: you will find that the voltage at the two are identical.
>Instead of nay-saying & back biting, Stewert, why don't you and other
>doubting Thomas's here just try it.
Instead of advancing technical assertions that make specific predictions
about how it performs, Steve, why don't YOU try it and see if, in fact,
biwiring prevents the drivers from "talking to one another." It doesn't
prevent it in the least: that is specifically the function of the
crossover network. If the cable performed the way you describe, it would
be trivial to measure difference as you suggest, yet no such differences
are to be found. Try it yourself.
>Your Apogee Stages sound much much better bi-wired.
Maybe they do, steve, maybe they don't. If they do (and simply stating so
does not make it so), it can't be because pof the explanation you profer
above.
>Instead of being buttheads, why don't some of you post useful stuff -
>like my recommended recordings posts.
Gee, Steve, why would Stewart, myself or any other "butthead" want to
post YOUR recommended recordings? Didn't you already do that? And aren't
my posts about AES/EBU and S/P-dif protocols, and harpsichord history,
and relatively complete analysis of the role of ALL the losses in
loudspeakers and their contributions to controlling the motional
impedance of systems (what mere mortals call "back emf") and all that,
useful stuff. I'm saddened! (but not much).
--
| Dick Pierce |
| Loudspeaker and Software Consulting |
| 17 Sartelle Street Pepperell, MA 01463 |
| (508) 433-9183 (Voice and FAX) |
Curtis Leeds
Richard D Pierce wrote:
> And aren't
> my posts about AES/EBU and S/P-dif protocols, and harpsichord history,
> and relatively complete analysis of the role of ALL the losses in
> loudspeakers and their contributions to controlling the motional
> impedance of systems (what mere mortals call "back emf") and all that,
> useful stuff. I'm saddened! (but not much).
Wow, Dick. You've analyzed "ALL the losses in loudspeakers"? Really?
Every single one? That's a terrific feat, I guess you must now be
building the perfect speaker, too!
Steve Zipser (Sunshine Stereo, Inc)
Dick:
Biwiring works. I have no doubt that at least part why that is so stems
from the two reasons I gave. Since you are a knowlegeable & open minded
engineer & designer, why don't you take the time to find out why
biwiring does make virtually all speakers with this capability sound
better. Like I said, I am able to tell the difference on my reference
speaker systems with 100% accuracy. Why is that so, Dick?
By the way, I do enjoy most of your posts - thought you tend towards
being sarcastic (I know, I should talk). I did enjoy your harpsichord
articles & your 'discussions' with Siggy!
Why don't you post your lown list of recommended recordings - obviously
there was a typo there. You knew that!
Cheers & happy listening!
Zip
Richard D Pierce
In article <31E7F5...@mail.idt.net>,
Curtis Leeds <cle...@mail.idt.net> wrote:
>Richard D Pierce wrote:
> > And aren't
>> my posts about AES/EBU and S/P-dif protocols, and harpsichord history,
>> and relatively complete analysis of the role of ALL the losses in
>> loudspeakers and their contributions to controlling the motional
>> impedance of systems (what mere mortals call "back emf") and all that,
>> useful stuff. I'm saddened! (but not much).
>
>Every single one? That's a terrific feat, I guess you must now be
>building the perfect speaker, too!
Wow, Curtis. You've made the leap of faith that knowing about the losses
automatically makes a perfect loudspeaker? That's a terrific feat,
considering that the losses are but one part of the total operation! I
guess you must now have constructed a perfect logic system, too!
Curtis Leeds
Richard D Pierce wrote:
>
> In article <31E7F5...@mail.idt.net>,
> Curtis Leeds <cle...@mail.idt.net> wrote:
> >Richard D Pierce wrote:
> >> my posts about AES/EBU and S/P-dif protocols, and harpsichord history,
> >> and relatively complete analysis of the role of ALL the losses in
> >> loudspeakers and their contributions to controlling the motional
> >> impedance of systems (what mere mortals call "back emf") and all that,
> >> useful stuff. I'm saddened! (but not much).
> >
> >Every single one? That's a terrific feat, I guess you must now be
> >building the perfect speaker, too!
>
> Wow, Curtis. You've made the leap of faith that knowing about the losses
> automatically makes a perfect loudspeaker? That's a terrific feat,
> considering that the losses are but one part of the total operation! I
> guess you must now have constructed a perfect logic system, too!
Well, I just figured that if you were smart enough to indentify ALL of
those losses, you'd be smart enough to compensate for them in a speaker
design. Since evidently this is not the case, perhaps you'd care to
explain which of ALL those losses you've identified you have also been
unable to correct. Perhaps some of the other minds on this board might be
able to help you.
Richard D Pierce
In article <31E820...@mail.idt.net>,
>> >Wow, Dick. You've analyzed "ALL the losses in loudspeakers"? Really?
>> >Every single one? That's a terrific feat, I guess you must now be
>> >building the perfect speaker, too!
>> Wow, Curtis. You've made the leap of faith that knowing about the losses
>> automatically makes a perfect loudspeaker? That's a terrific feat,
>> considering that the losses are but one part of the total operation! I
>> guess you must now have constructed a perfect logic system, too!
>Well, I just figured that if you were smart enough to indentify ALL of
>those losses, you'd be smart enough to compensate for them in a speaker
>design.
And Mr. Leeds makes further leaps of illogic.
Where has it been said that compensating for all losses leads to any
improvement? Where is it stated that one even WANTS to compensate for
all losses or, for that matter, ANY losses?
>Perhaps some of the other minds on this board might be
>able to help you.
Well, since YOUR are the one who has now focused on losses as being
necessary to correct, it seems apparent that YOU have totally new
information on loudspeaker theory to bring to the table. Why don't YOU
help, then? It's essentially YOUR assertion that "compensating" for these
losses leads to perfect loudspeakers (I have NEVER seen the slightest bit
of evidence that that is true, nor is there ANY supporting evidence to be
found in the relevant literature). Since this seems to be YOUR theory,
YOU tell us, eh?
Nowhere did I or anyone else, with the exception of Mr. Leeds, ever say
that these losses, whether you know about them or not, require
compensation. No one, with the exception of Mr. Leeds, ever suggested that
doing so leads to a perfect loudspeaker.
In fact, there's pretty solid data and theory that says that the speaker
requires a specific amount of these losses to work properly. As a trivial
case, if we were to remove ALL the losses, the speaker would cease to work
altogether, since it is the resistive acoustical losses that are required
to produce sound. No power dissipation acoustically, no acoustical work is
done, and no sound.
Yes, Mr. Leeds, I HAVE identified all these losses. Yes, Mr. Leeds, I
HAVE analyzed them. So, Mr. Leeds, have at least two generations of worker
before me. And they, like myself, have also discovered that there's a LOT
more to loudspeakers than losses. And, Mr. Leeds, not a single one of
them have suggested, as you have:
"I just figured that if you were smart enough to indentify ALL of
those losses, you'd be smart enough to compensate for them in a
speaker design."
and
"Since evidently this is not the case, perhaps you'd care to
explain which of ALL those losses you've identified you have
also been unable to correct."
that is is REQUIRED to compensate or correct for ANY of them in designing
a speaker. This is YOUR preposterous suggestion, not mine or anyone
else's, YOU explain to us why it's even necessary.
In figuring that I was smart enough to "indentify" all of these losses and
that I'd be smart enough to compensate for them all, you figured quite
incorrectly, which is not surprising given that your assertion that these
losses must be compensated or corrected for is completely unsupported by
ANY evidence or theory and is quite wrong.
Thomas Nulla
pat...@popmail.dircon.co.uk (Stewart Pinkerton) wrote:
>John Busenitz <buse...@ecn.purdue.edu> writes:
>>For example, some of these narrow-minded uebermensch have
>>managed to persuade themselves that negligible differences
>>in CONDUCTORS (the things that connect the components that
>>process sound) lead to significant differences sonically,
>>and then try to explain it with technobabble that clearly
>>shows that they have skipped far too many physics classes
>>to justify participating in a technical forum.
Is he saying that, say, Dutoit and Schwarz have negligible
differences? ;-)
>I think you probably mean Untermensch but let's not get too heavily into
>that particular philosophy, huh?
Should 'Untermensch' perhaps be in a plural form? ;-)
Thomas (attempting to inject a bit of levity into this tired old
horse...and probably failing. Anyone else? :-)
http://www.io.com/~nulla (CNC, high fidelity, science fiction, etc.)
*** The humor-impaired should avoid this page. ***
"Men are from Mars, bigots are from Uranus."
Steve Zipser (Sunshine Stereo)
Bob Myers wrote:
>
> Steve Zipser (Sunshine Stereo, Inc) (z...@netrunner.net) wrote:
> > Biwiring works. I have no doubt that at least part why that is so stems
> > from the two reasons I gave. Since you are a knowlegeable & open minded
> > engineer & designer, why don't you take the time to find out why
> > biwiring does make virtually all speakers with this capability sound
> > better. Like I said, I am able to tell the difference on my reference
> > speaker systems with 100% accuracy. Why is that so, Dick?
>
> Why, though, do you jump to the conclusion that it has something to
> do with two wires being there, as opposed to something which could just
> as easily be duplicated with a single set of conductors?
>
> Bob Myers KC0EW Hewlett-Packard Co. |Opinions expressed here are not
> Workstations Systems Div.|those of my employer or any other
> my...@fc.hp.com Fort Collins, Colorado |sentient life-form on this planet.
Bob
Because I have taken the same two pair of cables, and hooked them up
paralleled using jumpers at the speaker inputs & in this case, the
differences were almost nil. See, Bob - we already thought of that.
Since you have no doubt that I hear something & even I have no doubt,
what then is causing these changes (which I consider to be
improvwements)????? The differences are only heard when true bi-wiring
is used.
Zip
Gary Noack
In article <DuHMy...@world.std.com>
DPi...@world.std.com (Richard D Pierce) said:-
>So, in a bi-wired situation, the total losses contributing to the damping
>of the woofer coe MIGHT be as high as 6.2 ohms, compared to 6.194 ohms in
>single wired, so your assertion that it halves the total series
>resistance seems not to be correct.
Not half, but the figures are not the same.
>
>>When you bi-wire, you are bridging the path to the highs & lows at the
>>amps output effectively preventing the drivers from 'talking' to each other.
>
>Nope, seems not to be the case. That's completely the job of the
>crossover. Simply look at the voltage across the terminals at the ends of
>the wires: you will find that the voltage at the two are identical.
>
Seems to be the case to me. The same approarch is taken within the amplifier
itself. It's called star earthing. the voltages at the speaker terminals will
not be the same due to the impedance of the wiring.
>Instead of advancing technical assertions that make specific predictions
>about how it performs, Steve, why don't YOU try it and see if, in fact,
>biwiring prevents the drivers from "talking to one another." It doesn't
>prevent it in the least: that is specifically the function of the
>crossover network. If the cable performed the way you describe, it would
>be trivial to measure difference as you suggest, yet no such differences
>are to be found. Try it yourself.
A lot of us have tried it and found the differences, thank you.
>
>>Your Apogee Stages sound much much better bi-wired.
>
>Maybe they do, steve, maybe they don't. If they do (and simply stating so
>does not make it so), it can't be because pof the explanation you profer
>above.
Why then? huh Dick. If the speakers sound better bi-wired there MUST be a
reason.
>
>>Instead of being buttheads, why don't some of you post useful stuff -
>>like my recommended recordings posts.
>
>Gee, Steve, why would Stewart, myself or any other "butthead" want to
>post YOUR recommended recordings? Didn't you already do that? And aren't
>my posts about AES/EBU and S/P-dif protocols, and harpsichord history,
>and relatively complete analysis of the role of ALL the losses in
>loudspeakers and their contributions to controlling the motional
>impedance of systems (what mere mortals call "back emf") and all that,
>
I must agree with Dick. Rec.audio.tech is hardly the place for recommended
recording lists.
Bob Myers
Steve Zipser (Sunshine Stereo, Inc) (z...@netrunner.net) wrote:
> 1st: There is a halving of resistance. This is always good.
True, but let's see how much that "halving of resistance" really means
in terms of a percentage change in the overall path - including the
resistance of the speaker itself. Let's also think about why this
couldn't be acheived more simply by just using a larger single cable.
> 2nd: All drivers create a back emf. The higher the damping factor of an
> amp, the easier it is to overcome the back emf. The damping factor is
> highest right at the amplifiers terminals. When you bi-wire, you are
> bridging the path to the highs & lows at the amps output effectively
> preventing the drivers from 'talking' to each other. Instead of
I think Dick Pierce has already dealt with the "damping factor" notions
quite well, but maybe it's time he covered it again. Dick?
Bob Myers
Steve Zipser (Sunshine Stereo, Inc) (z...@netrunner.net) wrote:
> Biwiring works. I have no doubt that at least part why that is so stems
> from the two reasons I gave. Since you are a knowlegeable & open minded
> engineer & designer, why don't you take the time to find out why
> biwiring does make virtually all speakers with this capability sound
> better. Like I said, I am able to tell the difference on my reference
> speaker systems with 100% accuracy. Why is that so, Dick?
I have no doubt that you hear something different when you biwire.
Why, though, do you jump to the conclusion that it has something to
do with two wires being there, as opposed to something which could just
as easily be duplicated with a single set of conductors?
Curtis Leeds
Richard D Pierce wrote:
> Where has it been said that compensating for all losses leads to any
> improvement? Where is it stated that one even WANTS to compensate for
> all losses or, for that matter, ANY losses?
Dick, you must have gone to a lot of effort to identify, as you said,
"ALL of the losses" involved in a loudspeaker. What was the point of the
effort if not to translate it to improved design? As to the compendsation
of those losses: obviously it would be advantageous to correct for them
in design. By definition, Dick, those "losses" prevent complete fidelity,
if fidelity is defined as faithfulness to the original.
> Well, since YOUR are the one who has now focused on losses as being
> necessary to correct, it seems apparent that YOU have totally new
> information on loudspeaker theory to bring to the table. Why don't YOU
> help, then? It's essentially YOUR assertion that "compensating" for these
> losses leads to perfect loudspeakers (I have NEVER seen the slightest bit
> of evidence that that is true, nor is there ANY supporting evidence to be
> found in the relevant literature). Since this seems to be YOUR theory,
> YOU tell us, eh?
This isn't my theory at all, Dick. I've made no claim at akll regarding
my authority on loudspeaker. You, on the other hand, made a quite plain
and proud statement that, again, you've "identified ALL losses" in
loudspeakers. Since you have now flip-flopped and seem to indicate that
these losses are not necessary to correct, perhaps you can explain why
that is so.
As a trivial
> case, if we were to remove ALL the losses, the speaker would cease to work
> altogether, since it is the resistive acoustical losses that are required
> to produce sound. No power dissipation acoustically, no acoustical work is
> done, and no sound.
>
> Yes, Mr. Leeds, I HAVE identified all these losses. Yes, Mr. Leeds, I
> HAVE analyzed them.
Okay, Dick, I'll bite once more: why did you identify the losses? What
was the point, if not to correct for them in the design? Remember- you're
the guy who claims to be the speaker expert. I'm only the guy asking the
questions.
Stewart Pinkerton
"Steve Zipser (Sunshine Stereo, Inc)" <z...@netrunner.net> writes:
>Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
>>
>> to...@zipnet.net (Anthony Genovese) writes:
>>
>> >In article <4s4chj$l...@optional.cts.com>, j...@jojo.com (joe) wrote:
>>
>> >>
>> >> Sorry, don't mean to sound like a jerk, but I would love to see your
>> >> "valid scientific reasons", until then I'll keep selling my acoustic
>> >> dream catchers ;) and recommending that people stop wasting their
>> >> money. Remember this is audio.tech. Unless you can prove your
>> >> assertions, your the jerk for supporting black magic.
>>
>> >Actually, this is audio.opinion, where any jerk can support whatever black
>> >magic s/he wants!
>>
>> But the jerk or jerkette also has to accept the brickbats if 'proofs'
>> are offered which will not withstand rigorous scrutiny!
>1st: There is a halving of resistance. This is always good.
No there isn't. The crossover/driver sees exactly the same resistance
from the amp whether single or bi-wiring is used (with the same gauge
cabling, obviously).
>2nd: All drivers create a back emf. The higher the damping factor of an
>amp, the easier it is to overcome the back emf. The damping factor is
>highest right at the amplifiers terminals. When you bi-wire, you are
>bridging the path to the highs & lows at the amps output effectively
>preventing the drivers from 'talking' to each other.
Dick Pierce doesn't appear to agree with this and I tend to take his
word for that kind of thing.
>Instead of nay-saying & back biting, Stewert,
'Scuse me? All I say is that if you come up with some kind of technical
assertion, you back it up with numbers. Prefer anything you like, LPs,
triodes, biamping, whatever, but don't insist there are "valid
scientific reasons" for your preference without being prepared for your
bluff to be called. BACK OFF, rabbit!!!
>why don't you and other doubting Thomas's here just try it.
>Your Apogee Stages sound much much better bi-wired.
1st: I use Duetta Signatures.
2nd: I do biwire them! I use Naim NAC-5 for the bass and solid-core
silver-plated Teflon-insulated twisted pair for the mid/treble,
balancing the added resistance by using the 'high' setting on the
crossover. Tweaky enough for you?
OTOH, that's just the way I like them set up and I'm not going to jump
up and down saying that this 'completely blows away any crappy stranded
wires with their skin effect and surface diodes' etc etc.
>Instead of being buttheads, why don't some of you post useful stuff -
>like my recommended recordings?
That would depend on our having similar musical tastes, wouldn't it?
Duh, happy listening, Beavis!
Richard D Pierce
In article <31E8FD...@mail.idt.net>,
Curtis Leeds <cle...@mail.idt.net> wrote:
>Richard D Pierce wrote:
>
>> Where has it been said that compensating for all losses leads to any
>> improvement? Where is it stated that one even WANTS to compensate for
>> all losses or, for that matter, ANY losses?
Let's look at a statement that Mr. Leeds says later on:
>This isn't my theory at all, Dick. I've made no claim at akll regarding
>my authority on loudspeaker.
But then, he says:
>As to the compendsation of those losses: obviously it would be advantageous
>to correct for them in design. By definition, Dick, those "losses" prevent
>complete fidelity, if fidelity is defined as faithfulness to the original.
Mr. Leeds, you are making a SPECIFC assertion here:
"By definition, ..., those 'losses' prevent complete fidelity."
By WHOSE definition?
Since, again, contrary to your denial, this is YOUR assertion, would you
care to tell us on what data or theory you base this assertion? Do you
know what the term "loss" means in this context?
Let me explain. By losses, it is meant, very simply, linear energy
dissipation mechanisms. They are components which remove energy from the
system and prevent its "participation" in a specific process. As a trivial
example, a simple resistor is a loss element.
Now, it is YOU that is asserting that "'losses' prevent complete
fidelity." Thus, YOU, by logical extension, have now asserted that ALL
resistors prevent complete fidelity. So, substituting here
(algebraically), you are saying, "Resistors prevent complete fidelity." I
would doubt that you would find much support for this position.
Let's look at a couple of cases where, in fact, removing losses is
disasterous to "fidelity". The suspension at the periphery of the cone
provides a lossy termination for energy traveling up the cone from the
voice coil. At high frequencies, where there is significant flexing
around the periphery of the cone, these losses convert this spurious
motion into heat, and remove it from the system, preventing its
participation in the support of these resonances. The result is that, all
other things being equal, a cone with a more lossy surround has smoother
high-end frequency response than one that has a less lossy surround (one
can go to far, of course). The point here is that there is an OPTIMUM
amouint of loss, and it is NEVER 0.
Another trivial point: it's FAR more difficult to build a high-efficiency
woofer than a high-efficiency tweeter, for a variety of reasons. Thus, in
most cases, the available set of tweeters is almost always more
efficienct than the woofers you have chosen from. Thus, SOMETHING must be
done to reduce the level of the tweeter. In a passive network, this can
be done with an attenuator. An attenuator is simply a carefully designed
electrical loss introduced to balance the efficiencies of the drivers.
The point here is that there is an OPTIMUM amount of loss, and it is
NEVER 0.
A third are: the moving mass of the woofer cone and the combined stiffness
of the suspension and the air in the enclosure together form a second
order mechanical resonance. The product of the mass reactance and stffness
reactance determine the resonant frequency of the system and, ultimately,
the cutoff frequency as well. However, a resonant system like this stores
energy. A loss is NECESSARY to control that energy, and it is the
combination of acoustical losses (very minor in direct radiators),
mechanical losses (frictional losses in the suspension elements,
absorbtion and leakage losses, viscous losses in the air), and electrical
losses (DC resistance in the voice coil, effective series parasitics in
the crossover, wire and amplifier) that prvides that control, called,
"damping."
If it is YOUR desire to eliminate ALL these losses, as YOU assert:
"By definition, ..., those 'losses' prevent complete fidelity."
the result will be disasterous to fidelity. If we were to eliminate ALL
energy-dissipative mechanisms from the system, those eveil 'losses' you
are tilting against, the result would be a resonant system with NO
control at resonance whatsoever. ANY energy put into the system would
start it moving at the resonant frequency and it would NEVER stop. The
result would be that your speaker is now a single-note oscillator, hardly
the pillar of fidelity YOU claim it would be. Further, by removing one of
the least significant losses (numerically, accounting for only about 1%
of the total losses), the acoustic loss, the speaker could NEVER make any
sound AT ALL to begin with.
The poiunt here is that there is an OPTIMUM combination of loss in
controlling the fundamental operation of a loudspeaker, and that optimum
value is NEVER 0.
So, YOUR position, one that I have NEVER seen stated elsewhere but in
YOUR post:
"By definition, ..., those 'losses' prevent complete fidelity."
Leads to a disasterous impact on fidelity.
>You, on the other hand, made a quite plain
>and proud statement that, again, you've "identified ALL losses" in
>loudspeakers. Since you have now flip-flopped and seem to indicate that
>these losses are not necessary to correct, perhaps you can explain why
>that is so.
Let's see what I said: I did, indeed, say I identified all these losses.
I did NOT say these losses are necessary to correct. Identification and
correction are two different matters altogether. Where is there a
flip-flop, other than in YOUR mind? Identification IS NOT correction.
Identification is identification, analysis is analysis, neither of them
mean or even imply correction, and my other statement that correcting
them is unnecessary or even undesirable is in no way contradictory to
identifying them. I have, (as MANY other researchers have), identified
and analyzed the acoustic radiation loss. Now, if I were to "correct" it,
the speaker would simply stop radiating sound. Why do YOU insist that
identification is tantamount to correction? This is YOUR insistance, and
it is simply wrong.
>Okay, Dick, I'll bite once more: why did you identify the losses?
Because unless you identify AND quantify them accurately, you are unable
to predict how the speaker will operate. If I, for example, want to
design a system that has a low frequency rolloff characteristic of a 2nd
order Butterworth high-pass, that requirement SPECIFICALLY demand a
certain ratio of total losses to motional impedance at cutoff, and that
ratio IS NOT 0! If I IGNORE the mechanical suspension losses (which can
account for as much as 40% of the total losses in some systems), if I fail
to "identify" and quantify them, I will apply TOO MUCH electrical losses
and end up with a system where the TOTAL losses are too great, and the
system will not have achieved the B2 alignment I desired.
>What was the point, if not to correct for them in the design?
The point was to ACCOUNT for them, NOT correct for them. A VERY large
differences. These losses ARE NOT evil, they ARE NOT undesirable, they
are NECESSARY AND IMPORTANT.
>Remember- you're the guy who claims to be the speaker expert.
Remember, YOU'RE the guy that wrote:
"By definition, ..., those 'losses' prevent complete fidelity."
>I'm only the guy asking the questions.
I see no indication that the following sentence:
"By definition, ..., those 'losses' prevent complete fidelity."
is a question. It looks all the world to me like a declaratory sentence,
an 'assertion' if you will.
And it is YOUR assertion. YOU have been insisting that the losses must be
corrected, not I. And YOU have been insisting so in complete contradiction
of a century of electroacoustical knowledge.
joe
DPi...@world.std.com (Richard D Pierce) wrote:
>In article <31E712...@netrunner.net>,
>Steve Zipser (Sunshine Stereo, Inc) <z...@netrunner.net> wrote:
>>> But the jerk or jerkette also has to accept the brickbats if 'proofs'
>>> are offered which will not withstand rigorous scrutiny!
>>
>>1st: There is a halving of resistance. This is always good.
>>2nd: All drivers create a back emf. The higher the damping factor of an
>>amp, the easier it is to overcome the back emf. The damping factor is
>>highest right at the amplifiers terminals.
>The "damping factor" as a method of controlling the cone has relevance,
>yes, but those advocating the reduction of series losses as a means of
>upping the damping factor once again ignore the fact that these losses
>are tiny compared to the losses in the DC resistance of the voice coil.
>Further, the notion that bi-wiring halves the resistance is utter bunk.
>Simply analyze the circuit thus created.
>Assume the woofer and tweeter have 6 ohms of DC resistance. Assume one
>run of the wire has a total resistance of 0.2 ohms. Assume the amplifier
>output resistance is 0.
>In a normal wiring, the motional impedance for the woofer has to look
>through the following series losses to damp itself: 6 ohm DC resistance
>of the voice coil, 0.2 ohms cable resistance, 0 ohms amplifier. We'll
>assume that the parallel tweeter load is not significant because of the
>isolation provide by the crossover. So the woofer has to see a total
>series loass of 6.2 ohms.
Richard, I feel like we're talking to a wall. All of what you say
here is correct, and when you add the crossover resistance ( inductor
DC res and padding networks) and the output resistance of the amp,
this damping argument is unbelievable.
>Now, let's bi-wire. The motional impedance of the woofer has to look
>through that same 6 ohm DC resistance and then has to look through the
>same 0.2 ohm cable resistance back at the amplifier. Since the tweeter is
>still isolated by the crossover, it doesn't play a role, we are STILL
>looking at a total series loss to the woofer or 6.2 ohms. Biwiring has
>NOT changed the resistance one wit.
>>When you bi-wire, you are bridging the path to the highs & lows at the
>>amps output effectively preventing the drivers from 'talking' to each other.
>Nope, seems not to be the case. That's completely the job of the
>crossover. Simply look at the voltage across the terminals at the ends of
>the wires: you will find that the voltage at the two are identical.
The man obviously thinks wire makes a great AM mixer at audio freq.s
>>Instead of nay-saying & back biting, Stewert, why don't you and other
>>doubting Thomas's here just try it.
That's what education is for, so you don't have to try every stupid
idea out.
Sorry folks for the flame, but encouraging people to spend money on
perpetual motion, 200 MPG carbs, turning lead into gold, or bi-wiring
with gold plated 4 gauge (golden rule cross sectional) krypton gas
filled wire is a terrible thing to do in a group concerned with
technology. I don't think you would hear this in space.tech. or
physics.tech.
joe
bism...@uniblab.ocis.temple.edu (Aaron Dial) wrote:
>: freqs want their own seperate wire is ludicrous. The only time to
>: biwire is when you biamp.
>Speaking of which, if you _are_ biamping, how important is the
>speaker cable for the low end? I'm using pretty splashy
>speaker cable right now (but am thinking of bi-amping for
>a couple of reasons), and it sure would be nice not to have
>to go spend _more_ money on emulating what I'm using in the
>highs.
More important than it is for the highs because that's where the
current is.
joe
my...@sas.upenn.edu (Marc Yun) wrote:
>In article <4s3604$18...@newsgate.sps.mot.com>, Gordon Gunn
><gg...@aton.sps.mot.com> wrote:
>> In article <myun-10079...@comserv2-dialup9.princeton.edu> Marc
>> Yun, my...@sas.upenn.edu writes:
>> >Get a pair of Silver Sonic, only about $85/10ft or $170 biwire, and enjoy
>> >smooth, musical, coherent, and involving sound that's a hell of a lot
>> >better than any zip cord crap...
>>
>> Heh heh heh... You guys crack me up.
>>
>> Gordon in Austin
>>
>> Establishing solid interconnectivity between components
>> ensures that when you throw the computer out the window,
>> the printer goes with it.
>Am I alone in here? I though most of the people around here actually have
>open ears and minds.... sigh... oh well...
Open ears and minds is one thing,
a hole in the head is another.
Steve Zipser (Sunshine Stereo)
joe wrote:
>
Zip wrote:
> >>1st: There is a halving of resistance. This is always good.
> >>2nd: All drivers create a back emf. The higher the damping factor of an
> >>amp, the easier it is to overcome the back emf. The damping factor is
> >>highest right at the amplifiers terminals.
> DPi...@world.std.com (Richard D Pierce) wrote:
> >The "damping factor" as a method of controlling the cone has relevance,
> >yes, but those advocating the reduction of series losses as a means of
> >upping the damping factor once again ignore the fact that these losses
> >are tiny compared to the losses in the DC resistance of the voice coil.
> >Further, the notion that bi-wiring halves the resistance is utter bunk.
> >Simply analyze the circuit thus created.
Joe wrote an obnoxious diatribe.
Joe:
You are obviously an intelligent person. I have no doubt that your
knowlege of audio is expert. I've no doubt that you have designed some
of the all time classic audio gear from the tone of your post. I'm sure
you have a wall full of engineering & music degrees.
So please explain to us why bi-wiring works.
Please explain why when I did a comparison between biwiring my Duntechs
& monwiring, I was able to tell the difference 20 times out of 20 - in a
blind comparison, with random repeats. Please explain why my wife also
scored 19 out of 20, in the same situatiom, and we both preferred the
biwiring sound by a large margin.
Since you are attempting to debunk my hypothesis on what I was hearing,
why don't you know act like a real scientist & audio engineer, and
figure out why we are hearing these differences, and furthermore, why we
invariably prefer the bi-wiring configuration. I think this suggested
line of investigation would be much more constructive than posting
obnoxious flames with no positive content & no redeaming qualities.
Surely you wouldn't intimate that the several hundred manufacturers who
make bi-wirable speakers are selling snake oil, or are in collusion with
the cable companies :) Surely not all these engineers are stupid with
regards to cable theory. Surely you aren't suggesting to me that you
know more than each and every one of them.
Cheers & happy listening
Zip
PS: to both you & Pierce - if I double the cables, I have halved the
resistance of the wire. 1 & 1 makes 2. I am not talking about any
reactance, the amps output impedence, or the speakers nominal average
input impedence. I am simply referring to the resistance in the fucking
wire :)
Gary Noack
In article <31E7DE...@netrunner.net>
"Steve Zipser (Sunshine Stereo, Inc)" <z...@netrunner.net> said:-
>Dick:
>Why don't you post your lown list of recommended recordings - obviously
>there was a typo there. You knew that!
I bet the list would include stuff by Guns n Roses and Bare Naked Ladies.
(ha ..ha...)
Stewart Pinkerton
j...@jojo.com (joe) writes:
>bism...@uniblab.ocis.temple.edu (Aaron Dial) wrote:
No it isn't. Look at the power distribution of the amps in any active
speaker, like the ATC models.
Curtis Leeds
I'm quickly growing tired, Dick, of your verbal tussling, but... after I
wrote:
> >As to the compendsation of those losses: obviously it would be advantageous
> >to correct for them in design. By definition, Dick, those "losses" prevent
> >complete fidelity, if fidelity is defined as faithfulness to the original.
>
> Mr. Leeds, you are making a SPECIFC assertion here:
>
> "By definition, ..., those 'losses' prevent complete fidelity."
>
> By WHOSE definition?
>
Well, I have a particular fondeness for the current incarnation of the
American Heritage, which has quickly found its way to the desk of editors
and writers everywhere. However, since you are the loudspeaker expert,
you are free to set any definition you desire. (Rememeber, though, that
your original assertion about having identified ALL the losses in
loudspeakers systems addressed the topic of distortion.)
> Let me explain. By losses, it is meant, very simply, linear energy
> dissipation mechanisms. They are components which remove energy from the
> system and prevent its "participation" in a specific process. As a trivial
> example, a simple resistor is a loss element.
>
> Now, it is YOU that is asserting that "'losses' prevent complete
> fidelity." Thus, YOU, by logical extension, have now asserted that ALL
> resistors prevent complete fidelity. So, substituting here
> (algebraically), you are saying, "Resistors prevent complete fidelity."
Of course, that is not at all what I said. Your sophistic evasion when
confronted by your own words has reduced this discussion to the point of
absurdity and uselessness.
Tim Brown
In article <4s5j4a$1...@cronkite.ocis.temple.edu>,
bism...@uniblab.ocis.temple.edu (Aaron Dial) wrote:
>Speaking of which, if you _are_ biamping, how important is the
>speaker cable for the low end? I'm using pretty splashy
Anything of heavy enough gauge eg. 16 guage power cord.
Tim
Tim Brown
In article <tonyg-12079...@news.zipnet.net>,
to...@zipnet.net (Anthony Genovese) wrote:
>In article <4s4chj$l...@optional.cts.com>, j...@jojo.com (joe) wrote:
>
>>
>> Sorry, don't mean to sound like a jerk, but I would love to see your
>> "valid scientific reasons", until then I'll keep selling my acoustic
>> dream catchers ;) and recommending that people stop wasting their
>> money. Remember this is audio.tech. Unless you can prove your
>> assertions, your the jerk for supporting black magic.
>
>Actually, this is audio.opinion, where any jerk can support whatever black
>magic s/he wants!
Actually this is being crossposted to opinion, misc and tech.
Tim
Tim Brown
In article <31E712...@netrunner.net>,
"Steve Zipser (Sunshine Stereo, Inc)" <z...@netrunner.net> wrote:
>1st: There is a halving of resistance. This is always good.
This can be accomplished with a heavier gauge of wire.
>2nd: All drivers create a back emf. The higher the damping factor of an
>amp, the easier it is to overcome the back emf. The damping factor is
>highest right at the amplifiers terminals. When you bi-wire, you are
>bridging the path to the highs & lows at the amps output effectively
>preventing the drivers from 'talking' to each other. Instead of
Back emf would only affect frequency response, not generate distortion.
If the damping factor at the speaker end were just 20 then the maximum
frequency response variation would be 0.42dB, nearly insignificant. The
crossover would greatly reduce this "talking" effect anyway. This certainly
wouldn't affect imaging, etc.
>nay-saying & back biting, Stewert, why don't you and other doubting
>Thomas's here just try it. Your Apogee Stages sound much much better
>bi-wired.
I've heard bi wiring on a couple of high $$ systems (other than my own,
which you assume "sucks") and heard what I expected: no difference.
>Instead of being buttheads, why don't some of you post useful stuff -
>like my recommended recordings posts.
>Zip
Instead of calling names why don't you learn to make measurements yourself
before you parrot someone else's flawed theories.
Tim
Stewart Pinkerton
"Steve Zipser (Sunshine Stereo)" <z...@netrunner.net> writes:
>Surely you wouldn't intimate that the several hundred manufacturers who
>make bi-wirable speakers are selling snake oil, or are in collusion with
>the cable companies :)
Heaven forfend! OTOH, perhaps these manufacturers, surely a dozen or so,
not hundreds, have effective marketing departments :-). There are those
who'd suggest that Robin Marshall (Epos, Monitor Audio etc) is
personally responsible for the bi-wire trend.
>Surely not all these engineers are stupid with
>regards to cable theory. Surely you aren't suggesting to me that you
>know more than each and every one of them.
Of course they're not, but they design to specs supplied by the
marketing department....................
>PS: to both you & Pierce - if I double the cables, I have halved the
>resistance of the wire. 1 & 1 makes 2.
No you haven't. The crossover splits the power spectrum. Check the
voltage drops on single wired as opposed to bi-wired with the same
cable. Apart from a slight drop around the crossover frequency (ies)
when the cable will share current, there is NO difference.
>I am not talking about any
>reactance, the amps output impedence, or the speakers nominal average
>input impedence. I am simply referring to the resistance in the fucking
>wire :)
Is fucking wire somehow different in its impedance characteristics to
conventional copper wire? Enquiring minds want to know :-)
John Nunes
In message <4sdj1d$9...@newsgate.dircon.co.uk> -
pat...@popmail.dircon.co.uk (Stewart Pinkerton)Mon, 15 Jul 1996 13:57:12
GMT writes:
>Is fucking wire somehow different in its impedance characteristics to
>conventional copper wire? Enquiring minds want to know :-)
Isn't the difference between fucking wire and conventional copper wire
simply that the sharp edges in fucking wire are filed smooth so that there
is less tissue damage? I'm sure somebody (not me) will find an
characteristic impedance difference. Maybe it's all wet...
- John Nunes
Richard D Pierce
In article <31EA46...@mail.idt.net>,
Takes two to tussle, Mr.Leeds.
>but... after I wrote:
>> >As to the compendsation of those losses: obviously it would be advantageous
>> >to correct for them in design. By definition, Dick, those "losses" prevent
>> >complete fidelity, if fidelity is defined as faithfulness to the original.
>>
>> Mr. Leeds, you are making a SPECIFC assertion here:
>>
>> "By definition, ..., those 'losses' prevent complete fidelity."
>>
>> By WHOSE definition?
>
>Well, I have a particular fondeness for the current incarnation of the
>American Heritage, which has quickly found its way to the desk of editors
>and writers everywhere.
Well, I don't have my American Heritage handy, but the Websters New
Collegiate on my desk provides the following:
loss n [ME fr. los, prob. back-formation fr. lost, pp. of losen
to lose] . . .
2b: the power diminution of a circuit element corresponding to
conversion of electrical power into heat by resistance . . .
4: decrease in amount, magnitude, or degree
lossy adj : causing attenuation or dissipation of electrical
energy.
>However, since you are the loudspeaker expert, you are free to set
>any definition you desire.
Yes, I am, Mr.Leeds. But I am NOT free to set any definition I desire, and
neither are you. I have just quoted Webster's definition, and it would
seem that it quite nicely supports my use of the term. I use the term as a
few others do, as well. I might suggest you investigate the specific use
of the term "loss" as defined and used by Beranek (Acoustics, 1984 Am.
Inst. of Physics, pp308-311, 345-346), Thiele ("Loudspeakers in Vented
Boxes," JAES, 1971 May/June), Small ("Direct Radiator Loudspeaker System
Analysis," JAES 1972 June, "Closed-Box Loudspeaker Systems," JAES 1972
Dec/1973 Jan, "Vented-Box Loudspeaker System," JAES 1973 June/July/
Aug/Sept/Oct.), Bradbury ("The Use of Fibrous Materials in Loudspeaker
Enclosures," JAES 1976 April), and so forth.
Yes, Mr.Leeds, I am the loudspeaker expert in this discussion, and one
reason I am is because I use the definitions and analysis of terms such as
'loss' that is in common usage in loudspeaker analysis, as defined by, at
a minimum, the subset of previous authors such as those listed above, AND,
it should be pointed out, Websters as well. No text on loudspeakers
defines "loss" the way you have. If you believe to the contrary, you are
more than welcome to advance evidence to that end.
I said:
>> Let me explain. By losses, it is meant, very simply, linear energy
>> dissipation mechanisms. They are components which remove energy from the
>> system and prevent its "participation" in a specific process. As a trivial
>> example, a simple resistor is a loss element.
and you said:
>Your sophistic evasion when confronted by your own words...
Where is the confrontation of my words, sir? I believe my descriptiuon of
the term "loss" in the context of loudspeaker is fully supported by your
decision to haul out and quote the dictionary. The contradiction exists
not between my own words, but between those of Beranek, Thiele, Small,
Bradbury, MacClachlin, Kinsley, Frey, Webster and YOU. Sorry, Mr. Leeds,
no one but you has equated "loss" in the context of loudspeakers with
"distortion."
Now, I challenge you to similarily quote your source that describes
"loss" specifically as distortion, for you further state:
>(Rememeber, though, that your original assertion about having
>identified ALL the losses in loudspeakers systems addressed the
>topic of distortion.)
Sir, you fabricate, plain and simple. Quote me where I was talking of
"distortion." I never mentioned the word at all. You have now made a
specific and very false accusation.
I was NOT adressing distortion at all. The original statement, which you
seem to have great trouble in recalling accurately, was in the context of
responding to Steve Zipser who made a sarcastic and (I found) somewhat
humorous comment regarding posts of limited utility, to which I responded
in kind, mentioning the posts I have made over the last 11 years on first
net.audio, then rec.audio, followed by rec.audio.tech on the sources of
loss mechanisms in loudspeakers. No mention of "distortion" in that
context was ever made, until now, by you.
And, it would seem, since you failed to forward any commentary on the
technical ontent of my previous post, are we to assume that you have no
specific issue with it?
Armand
>> Let me explain. By losses, it is meant, very simply, linear energy
>> dissipation mechanisms. They are components which remove energy from the
>> system and prevent its "participation" in a specific process. As a trivial
>> example, a simple resistor is a loss element.
>>
>> Now, it is YOU that is asserting that "'losses' prevent complete
>> fidelity." Thus, YOU, by logical extension, have now asserted that ALL
>> resistors prevent complete fidelity. So, substituting here
>> (algebraically), you are saying, "Resistors prevent complete fidelity."
>Of course, that is not at all what I said. Your sophistic evasion when
>confronted by your own words has reduced this discussion to the point of
>absurdity and uselessness.
Do we all agree that caps affect the sound more than resistors? According to
a respected designer(I'll research and find his name) resistor quality relates
more to reliability than sound quality. But sez that everything else,
especially caps, affect sound quality. My cheap 2cents.
Steve Zipser (Sunshine Stereo)
Tim Brown wrote:
> >nay-saying & back biting, Stewert, why don't you and other doubting
> >Thomas's here just try it. Your Apogee Stages sound much much better
> >bi-wired.
>
> I've heard bi wiring on a couple of high $$ systems (other than my own,
> which you assume "sucks") and heard what I expected: no difference.
>
> >Instead of being buttheads, why don't some of you post useful stuff -
> >like my recommended recordings posts.
> >Zip
>
> Instead of calling names why don't you learn to make measurements yourself
> before you parrot someone else's flawed theories.
>
> Tim
Tim:
You proved you can count, now try listening - come on down here to
Florida - visit our store where I can pick out monowiring vs biwiring
with 100% effectiveness on our Duntechs & Gallos, even under blind
listening conditions.
I would then ask of you, Tim, instead of being another
number-crunching, bean-counting nay-sayer, that you put your mind to
real use & tell us why we hear these differences - even under blind
listening conditions.
My opinions come from empirical listening - methodically listening to
some of my reference discs, under both sighted & blind listening
conditions. There are obviously some complex reactive problems in
X-overs, that bi-wiring eliminates, otherwise we wouldn't be able to
pick them out so effectively. The fact that you didn't hear a
difference is neither surprising nor meaningful. You wanted to hear no
difference so you heard no difference. This merely means that:
(a) Your attitude prevented you from hearing the differences
(b) You can't hear your way out of a paper bag
(c) Your system sucks
Why don't you do something positive instead of being negative
Stewart Pinkerton
"Steve Zipser (Sunshine Stereo)" <z...@netrunner.net> writes:
>> Instead of calling names why don't you learn to make measurements yourself
>> before you parrot someone else's flawed theories.
>>
>> Tim
>Tim:
>You proved you can count, now try listening - come on down here to
>Florida - visit our store where I can pick out monowiring vs biwiring
>with 100% effectiveness on our Duntechs & Gallos, even under blind
>listening conditions.
>I would then ask of you, Tim, instead of being another
>number-crunching, bean-counting nay-sayer, that you put your mind to
>real use & tell us why we hear these differences - even under blind
>listening conditions.
Easy, if you couldn't persuade people there were differences, how would
you make a living?
>My opinions come from empirical listening - methodically listening to
>some of my reference discs, under both sighted & blind listening
>conditions. There are obviously some complex reactive problems in
>X-overs, that bi-wiring eliminates, otherwise we wouldn't be able to
>pick them out so effectively.
Really? What a shame none of the REAL high-end manufacturers like Wilson
and ATC seem to have caught on to this..............
>The fact that you didn't hear a
>difference is neither surprising nor meaningful. You wanted to hear no
>difference so you heard no difference. This merely means that:
>(a) Your attitude prevented you from hearing the differences
Or that there IS no audible difference.
>(b) You can't hear your way out of a paper bag
Or that you can't be flim-flammed into hearing differences that aren't
really there.
>(c) Your system sucks
Or your system is just fine and not easily improved.
>Why don't you do something positive instead of being negative
You mean like upgrade his entire system at your store?
>Cheers & happy listening
Stop parroting other people and get your own salutation!
Happy listening!
Stewart
Steve Zipser (Sunshine Stereo)
Richard D Pierce wrote:
> You have stated, without question, that the phenomenon MUST exists
> because you hear it. You have stated that you conducted "blind" tests,
> yet you have never once given ANY details as to the exact test protocol.
> Without such details, the only person who claims your tests are blind,
> fair and unbiased is you. We cannot depend upon simply your claims. Give
> us the details.
It was simple. I listened. I left the room. The person I was with
made the changes (or not) decided by random rolling of a die! When he
completed the 'change'. He walked out of the room & I walked back in,
sat down & listened again. No words were exchanged till the end of the
test. As far as we are concerned this was a very valid test. So, if
you cannot depend upon my claims, why should we depend on yours? I am
sorry to have taken up your time, I mistakenly thought you were
interested in scientific truth.
> >> Of the "number-crunchers" (of which YOU are one, since you made specific
> >> numerical claims), which are the "nay-sayers?" Have I, for example,
> >> completely discounted your experiences? No.
YOU JUST DID in the above paragraph!!!!!
> >But most others have in this thread.
>
> MOST others? Are you willing, via a comprehensive ste of quotes of actual
> statements, to statistically support your claim? Or is this merely your
> perception.
My perception. But I admit, I didn't do a double blind abx test of posts
:)
> >But when I asked you to come up
> >with a better explanation of why bi-wiring might work, I got no answer.
>
> Let's be honest here, Steve, you did NOT get "no answer." You got quite a
> different response from me in your private e-mail communications.
No, I got a no answer. You told me you needed more details of my test -
you questioned the validity of my test. I e-mailed you back the same
details as I provided above - and I got no response.
> Now, since you have decided to start revealing the contents of those messages
> in support of your assertion that you got "no answer," why don't we go
> ALL the way and make the entire exchange public: that would revela that
> your claim of "no answer" is something of a hyperbole.
Now you are a liar. I made nothing public Dick. I am surprised at
you.
> >> What has been denied is bogus technical explanations for what you believe
> >> your hear, not WHAT you believe you hear. Big difference, one which I
> >> would dearly wish you would recognize.
> >
> >You're a smart guy, Richard - what is the story?
> You tell me, Steve. YOU'RE the one making the claim. Show us all that
> your results can be duplicated. No, I'm not going to fly to Florida to
> listen. I have other things to do (unless you want to pay me $75/hr plus
> expenses) that take substantial amounts of my time. Why do you insist
> your tests are "blind" and not provide any supporting details?
Hey Pierce, get a grip. You said my hypthesis was wrong & I am asking
you to come up with a reason for what we do hear. Instead of doing that
you knock my listening tests. Instead of helping, you now turn hostile.
Instead of applying that intelect & engineering experience, you stick
your head in the sand. You are now, NAY SAYING.
> You may well be doing things right and may well have real, substantive
> evidence of your claim, but without the details, your claims can't be
> evaluated.
I have now given you the simple methodology, which is valid. Now come
up with some alternative answers.
Zip
Sebastien P. McIntyre
In article <4seiuh$n...@newsgate.dircon.co.uk>
pat...@popmail.dircon.co.uk (Stewart Pinkerton) writes:
>
>>Isn't the difference between fucking wire and conventional copper wire
>>simply that the sharp edges in fucking wire are filed smooth so that there
>>is less tissue damage? I'm sure somebody (not me) will find an
>>characteristic impedance difference. Maybe it's all wet...
>
>
>Would silver be even better, or is this a misconception?
But a missed conception?
--
,
Sebastien
Richard D Pierce
In article <4seiuh$n...@newsgate.dircon.co.uk>,
Stewart Pinkerton <a...@borealis.com> wrote:
>>>Is fucking wire somehow different in its impedance characteristics to
>>>conventional copper wire? Enquiring minds want to know :-)
>>simply that the sharp edges in fucking wire are filed smooth so that there
>>is less tissue damage? I'm sure somebody (not me) will find an
>>characteristic impedance difference. Maybe it's all wet...
>
>Actually, I've just remembered what goes into an IUD coil - copper!!!!!!
>
>Would silver be even better, or is this a misconception?
This discussion has become a bloody abortion, if you ask me.
Dave
Hello there,
I just thought I'd add my 2 cents worth because this does seem like a
rather heated debate and I do have some experience on both sides of
this dilema.
I do not own any high priced testing equipment or have a lot of money
to go out and buy $800 speaker wire so my experience is with standard
stranded or some home brew solid core wire and I really belive that if
YOU think your system sounds better Bi-Wired then you should at least
try to go that way.
I had a roomie in college who went out an bought a pair of Mission
speaks. I'm not sure of the model number but they were floor standing
and bi-wireable. We listened to them in the shop where he bought them
and I noticed a very hollow, sound with strong bass and decent highs.
The mid-range was very subdued (to much, actually). I guess we had
this competition to see who's main speakers had the best low end so he
bought these to my disaproval. When he got them home we experimented
with bi-wiring and bi-amping (though the dual amps were borrowed so it
was just to see how they sounded). We had an in-expensive BSR
equalizer/anyliser and even was able to record a very big difference
in that mid-range dip.
There was a dip in the x-over region when the upper and lower drivers
were jumped. a dip that was nearly 6 db at 3khz. When we did the same
test when bi-wired, the dip was only approx1-2db at that same
frequency. The speakers sounded much more full and a bit more forward.
Now I have a pair of small Compact Monitors (R) from Audio Concepts
and have done the same tests and found no difference what so ever.
even listening tests don't show a difference but I still bi-wire
because I had the extra lengths to waste.
I guess what I'm getting at is that no matter what anyone says, do
what makes a difference to YOU and don't waste money where the
improvement isn't worth it. Most shops I know will let you "try out"
wires before you buy so do this and form your own opinions. Listen
attentively for any improvements then weigh the cost to see if paying
that kind of dough is worth it...
I hope I helped in some way...
Dave
Richard D Pierce
In article <31EBAA...@netrunner.net>,
Steve Zipser (Sunshine Stereo) <z...@netrunner.net> wrote:
>I would then ask of you, Tim, instead of being another
>number-crunching, bean-counting nay-sayer,
But, Steve, YOU were the one that crunched the numbers and claimed that
bi-wiring halfs the resistance. And it doesn't: you crunched the numbers
wrong (or not enough).
>There are obviously some complex reactive problems in
>X-overs, that bi-wiring eliminates,
Obviously? Why obviously? Steve, "complex reactance" is one of them
number-crunching things that you poo-poo. Why do you say it is "obvious?"
When one crunches the numbers correctly, it's not so obvious.
>The fact that you didn't hear a difference is neither surprising nor
>meaningful. You wanted to hear no difference so you heard no
>difference. This merely means that:
>(a) Your attitude prevented you from hearing the differences
>(b) You can't hear your way out of a paper bag
>(c) Your system sucks
Common, Steve, this is pure rhetoric. Let's simply change a couple of
words in your statement and see how it reads:
The fact that you heard a difference is neither surprising nor
meaningful. You wanted to hear a difference so you heard a
difference. This merely means that:
(a) Your attitude makes you hear a differences
(b) You can't hear your way out of a paper bag
(c) Your system sucks
Now, by only changing 6 words out of about 50, we've completely changed
it around, and still it contributes ABSOLUTELY nothing to the discussion.
I'm sure it now pisses you off.
So, if we take your content above, the technique, especially as
ellucidated in points "b" and "c" is, "if you don't agree with me, then
you're deaf and your system is lousy, BY DEFINITION." Sorry, doesn't wash.
Unless you're willing to recognize that you are subject to precisely the
same criteria and criticism you impose on others, and unless you are
willing to recognize that you could suffer from the same effects of
preconceptions and expectations you are accusing others of, then you have
contributed nothing positive yourself to the discussion
Of the "number-crunchers" (of which YOU are one, since you made specific
numerical claims), which are the "nay-sayers?" Have I, for example,
completely discounted your experiences? No. And few others have, as well.
What has been denied is bogus technical explanations for what you believe
your hear, not WHAT you believe you hear. Big difference, one which I
would dearly wish you would recognize.
--
Richard D Pierce
In article <31EBE1...@netrunner.net>,>I have done these comparison under both blind conditions & sighted
>conditions. I have scored 20 out of 20 on both my Duntechs & Gallos, in
>comparing monowiring & biwiring under blind conditions. You have stated
>that my hypothesis about why I hear what I hear is wrong.
That's right, I have stated that YOUR number crunching is incorrect, the
very number crunching that you, yourself, have complained about.
I have NEVER stated that you did not hear what you heard. Please be
careful to recognize the difference.
> Dick, the only
>thing that pisses me off is some engineer who ONLY listens with his
>slide rule yelling IMPOSSIBLE - you do not fall into this category, but
>others here do.
Name them, I suspect that, whne you examine their words, they, in fact,
do not listen only with their slide rules. I would ask that you please
stop constructing this strawman.
>I asked you to try & speculate, or actually figure out
>why bi-wiring works in many situation. You have not done this.
You have stated, without question, that the phenomenon MUST exists
because you hear it. You have stated that you conducted "blind" tests,
yet you have never once given ANY details as to the exact test protocol.
Without such details, the only person who claims your tests are blind,
fair and unbiased is you. We cannot depend upon simply your claims. Give
us the details.
>> Of the "number-crunchers" (of which YOU are one, since you made specific
>> numerical claims), which are the "nay-sayers?" Have I, for example,
>> completely discounted your experiences? No.
>
>But most others have in this thread.
MOST others? Are you willing, via a comprehensive ste of quotes of actual
statements, to statistically support your claim? Or is this merely your
perception.
>But when I asked you to come up
>with a better explanation of why bi-wiring might work, I got no answer.
Let's be honest here, Steve, you did NOT get "no answer." You got quite a
different response from me in your private e-mail communications. Now,
since you have decided to start revealing the contents of those messages
in support of your assertion that you got "no answer," why don't we go
ALL the way and make the entire exchange public: that would revela that
your claim of "no answer" is something of a hyperbole.
>> What has been denied is bogus technical explanations for what you believe
>> your hear, not WHAT you believe you hear. Big difference, one which I
>> would dearly wish you would recognize.
>
>You're a smart guy, Richard - what is the story?
You tell me, Steve. YOU'RE the one making the claim. Show us all that
your results can be duplicated. No, I'm not going to fly to Florida to
listen. I have other things to do (unless you want to pay me $75/hr plus
expenses) that take substantial amounts of my time. Why do you insist
your tests are "blind" and not provide any supporting details?
You may well be doing things right and may well have real, substantive
evidence of your claim, but without the details, your claims can't be
evaluated.
But, you also claimed that "biwiring halves the resistance" and it's
provable, either by theory or by measurments that it does not.
Alas, what are we to do with these seeming contradictions?
Steve Zipser (Sunshine Stereo)
Pierce writes:
> Unless you're willing to recognize that you are subject to precisely the
> same criteria and criticism you impose on others, and unless you are
> willing to recognize that you could suffer from the same effects of
> preconceptions and expectations you are accusing others of, then you have
> contributed nothing positive yourself to the discussion
I have done these comparison under both blind conditions & sighted
conditions. I have scored 20 out of 20 on both my Duntechs & Gallos, in
comparing monowiring & biwiring under blind conditions. You have stated
that my hypothesis about why I hear what I hear is wrong. Dick, the only
thing that pisses me off is some engineer who ONLY listens with his
slide rule yelling IMPOSSIBLE - you do not fall into this category, but
others here do. I asked you to try & speculate, or actually figure out
why bi-wiring works in many situation. You have not done this.
> Of the "number-crunchers" (of which YOU are one, since you made specific
> numerical claims), which are the "nay-sayers?" Have I, for example,
> completely discounted your experiences? No.
But most others have in this thread. But when I asked you to come up
with a better explanation of why bi-wiring might work, I got no answer.
> And few others have, as well.
Not true.
> What has been denied is bogus technical explanations for what you believe
> your hear, not WHAT you believe you hear. Big difference, one which I
> would dearly wish you would recognize.
You're a smart guy, Richard - what is the story?
Zip
D,A, Sclap
In article <4sh4dk$2...@newsgate.dircon.co.uk>, pat...@popmail.dircon.co.uk
says...
>"Steve Zipser (Sunshine Stereo)" <z...@netrunner.net> writes:
>>Tim:
>>You proved you can count, now try listening - come on down here to
>>Florida - visit our store where I can pick out monowiring vs biwiring
>>with 100% effectiveness on our Duntechs & Gallos, even under blind
>>listening conditions.
>
>>I would then ask of you, Tim, instead of being another
>>number-crunching, bean-counting nay-sayer, that you put your mind to
>>real use & tell us why we hear these differences - even under blind
>>listening conditions.
>Easy, if you couldn't persuade people there were differences, how would
>you make a living?
I think you sell Mr. Zipser short. I once called him to make a purchase, and
he talked me out of that purchase. I think that the candor was rather
refreshing.
>>My opinions come from empirical listening - methodically listening to
>>some of my reference discs, under both sighted & blind listening
>>conditions. There are obviously some complex reactive problems in
>>X-overs, that bi-wiring eliminates, otherwise we wouldn't be able to
>>pick them out so effectively.
>Really? What a shame none of the REAL high-end manufacturers like Wilson
>and ATC seem to have caught on to this..............
I believe you have mentioned once or twice that you own apogee Duetta or Stages
with a Krell amp. I think Apogees come ready for bi-wiring and I furthermore
believe the manufacturer recommends it. I know that all Krell amps come with
two sets of outputs to facilitate bi-wiring. I think that the vast majority of
high end speakers are biwireable. Wilson is an exception. I am pretty sure
that ATF is based on the ancient Webb Transmission Line, and is not an example
that is very relevent, since it is a twent or thirty year old design. I also
think that you are saying that Apogee and B&W and Genesis are not high end
companies? Albert Von Schweikert and John Dunlavy are not high end speaker
designers?
>>The fact that you didn't hear a
>>difference is neither surprising nor meaningful. You wanted to hear no
>>difference so you heard no difference. This merely means that:
>
>>(a) Your attitude prevented you from hearing the differences
>
>Or that there IS no audible difference.
This is also plausible. I have heard some systems where multi-wiring led to no
audible effect (that I could hear). I heve also heard systems where the effect
was, in my opinion, immediate and dramatic.
>>(b) You can't hear your way out of a paper bag
This is a distinct possibility.
>Or that you can't be flim-flammed into hearing differences that aren't
>really there.
I doubt that most customers could be flim-flammed. And this derrogatory term
would indicate that the retailer (Zipser in this case) was knowingly selling
something that is patently false. This is most certainly not the case here.
>>(c) Your system sucks
I surmise that this last statement is the most applicable.
>Or your system is just fine and not easily improved.
Certainly, this is a possibility, but not a probable one. Anyone with a system
this good would be listening to it & not typing posts on a newsgroup.
>>Why don't you do something positive instead of being negative
>
>You mean like upgrade his entire system at your store?
Here is a viscious, petty, obnoxious comment. I think Zipser was suggesting
that this person do some research into the possibile cause of audible
differences caused by multi-wiring. This is precisely what is wrong with this
newsgroup. Both you and Zipser & Gene & Armando & Pierce & Morley et al are
guilty of tremendous negativity here.
>>Cheers & happy listening
>
>Stop parroting other people and get your own salutation!
I believe that no one owns that salutation.
Sincerely
D.A.S.
>
>
Craig Patterson
Boy, I almost hate to get in the middle of this, but:
>>It was simple. I listened. I left the room. The person I was with
>>made the changes (or not) decided by random rolling of a die! When he
>>completed the 'change'. He walked out of the room & I walked back in,
>>sat down & listened again. No words were exchanged till the end of the
>>test. As far as we are concerned this was a very valid test. So, if
>>you cannot depend upon my claims, why should we depend on yours? I am
>>sorry to have taken up your time, I mistakenly thought you were
>>interested in scientific truth.
The mistake here is in thinking that this statement tells us the
conditions of the test. Far from it - we do not know, based on this
statement, whether there were speaker switches, solder joints, twists,
banana plugs, or other, whether the same type of cable was used in both
scenarios, or even the same cable period, whether the two cables in the
biwire setup were both of equal size and makeup of the single setup, or
if the cables were the same in *total*, whether all cables were the same
length, whether the amp in question behaves differently in a biwire setup
(over a multitude of nonsubjective and subjective measurements, all
identified and documented), or even whether the volume was the same for
each test! Was the volume measured for each test? It has been known to
happen that an amp's gain structure behaves differently (see above) under
varying loads and other conditions (like phase).
No, this is hardly the criteria for an objective test, so far. But I'm
anxious to hear more!
-Craig
--
Craig Patterson is responsible for all credit or blame regarding this
message.
Visit PME Studios' Web Site at http://members.aol.com/midigod
Steve Zipser (Sunshine Stereo)
Craig Patterson wrote:
>
> Boy, I almost hate to get in the middle of this, but:
>
> >>It was simple. I listened. I left the room. The person I was with
> >>made the changes (or not) decided by random rolling of a die! When he
> >>completed the 'change'. He walked out of the room & I walked back in,
> >>sat down & listened again. No words were exchanged till the end of the
> >>test. As far as we are concerned this was a very valid test. So, if
> >>you cannot depend upon my claims, why should we depend on yours? I am
> >>sorry to have taken up your time, I mistakenly thought you were
> >>interested in scientific truth.
>
> The mistake here is in thinking that this statement tells us the
> conditions of the test. Far from it - we do not know, based on this
> statement, whether there were speaker switches, solder joints, twists,
> banana plugs, or other, whether the same type of cable was used in both
> scenarios, or even the same cable period, whether the two cables in the
> biwire setup were both of equal size and makeup of the single setup, or
> if the cables were the same in *total*, whether all cables were the same
> length, whether the amp in question behaves differently in a biwire setup
> (over a multitude of nonsubjective and subjective measurements, all
> identified and documented), or even whether the volume was the same for
> each test!
OK, Craig, duh, we're not comparing apples & oranges!
We used either 1 pr, or 2 pr of 5ft Straightwire Virtuoso Platinum.
This is a very good quality cable. No terminator boxes, no majic
bricks, just a solidly designed & built cable. Both sets had Spades at
both ends. The PASS Aleph Two & Carver Lightstar amps we used both have
2 sets of binding posts so all the connections were identical.
> Was the volume measured for each test? It has been known to
> happen that an amp's gain structure behaves differently (see above) under
> varying loads and other conditions (like phase).
Craig, wouldn't an alteration of the volume control change what we
hear? Isn't that what we're testing? That is why we used two different
amplifiers. The Carver Lightstar is claimed to be virtually impervious
to load. I find both amps are stable.
> No, this is hardly the criteria for an objective test, so far. But I'm
> anxious to hear more!
Bullshit, Craig - this was very objective , but the results were simply
not consistent with your predisposed notions. Too bad!
I do tests like this all the time.
Zip
Krell52041
It is not the conductor that changes the sound. It is the cables overall
impedance that is resposible for change.
Sincerely,
Ralph D.
Thomas Nulla
co...@mier.de.com (D,A, Sclap) wrote:
(snip)
>I believe you have mentioned once or twice that you own apogee Duetta or Stages
>with a Krell amp. I think Apogees come ready for bi-wiring and I furthermore
>believe the manufacturer recommends it. I know that all Krell amps come with
>two sets of outputs to facilitate bi-wiring. I think that the vast majority of
>high end speakers are biwireable. Wilson is an exception. I am pretty sure
>that ATF is based on the ancient Webb Transmission Line, and is not an example
>that is very relevent, since it is a twent or thirty year old design. I also
>think that you are saying that Apogee and B&W and Genesis are not high end
>companies? Albert Von Schweikert and John Dunlavy are not high end speaker
>designers?
I am astonished to see John Dunlavy's name used in this context. His
SC series speakers are biwireable, since some buyers want it.
However, he explicitly recommends against it in his 'white paper'
"Bi-Wiring Loudspeakers; Fact versus Fiction".
To quote briefly,
"Bi-wiring by means of two identical cables, connected in parallel at
the output of the power-amplifier, but connected separately to the two
separate inputs of a loudspeaker having isolated inputs for bass and
treble drivers is usually not a desirable approach for the following
reasons:"
(to save typing/bandwidth I include only the reasons; detailed
explanations are in the actual white paper and much other excellent
info on speakers can be obtained from Dunlavy Audio Labs)
1. The total loss resistance is not effectively halved as in the case
of parallel-connected cables.
2. The "characteristic impedance" is not halved but remains that of a
single cable.
3. Potentially excessive levels of "ringing" and or "blurring" of fast
musical transients.
(end of quotes from white paper)
>>>(c) Your system sucks
Boys, boys! Be nice...:-)
Dunlavy Audio Labs has done research into some of these matters. I
would encourage anyone interested to call them and ask for their
speaker-related white papers.
I have no association with DAL except customer.
Thomas
http://www.io.com/~nulla (CNC, high fidelity, science fiction, etc.)
*** The humor-impaired should avoid this page. ***
"Men are from Mars, bigots are from Uranus."
Craig Patterson
>> Was the volume measured for each test? It has been known to
>> happen that an amp's gain structure behaves differently (see above) >>under
>> varying loads and other conditions (like phase).
>>Craig, wouldn't an alteration of the volume control change what we
>>hear?
An alteration of the volume is precisely what I was speaking of, but
I was not speaking about a deliberate changing of the volume
control. I was talking about a change in gain characteristics based on
load.
>>The Carver Lightstar is claimed to be virtually impervious
>>to load. I find both amps are stable.
Under what measurement? I saw a little car stereo amp that was "claimed"
to be 600 watts.
>> No, this is hardly the criteria for an objective test, so far. But >>I'm
>> anxious to hear more!
>>Bullshit, Craig - this was very objective , but the results were >>simply
>>not consistent with your predisposed notions. Too bad!
>>I do tests like this all the time.
Sorry, but bullshit all over you. I have no predisposed notion of what
the results should or shouldn't have been. And I also don't care how
many tests like this you run, or even if you run them in your sleep. I'm
not contradicting your results. Let me say that again for the record
- I'M NOT CONTRADICTING YOUR RESULTS!!!!!!!!!!!! I'm saying that you
haven't given enough information for us to know if your results were
valid. Jeez, and I thbought *I* was sensitive!
Stewart Pinkerton
With reference to an earlier post of mine on the single vs. bi-wire
debate, let me make it clear that while Steve Zipser clearly has a
vested interest in these matters, I did not intend to impugn his honesty
as a dealer or his integrity as a person. General opinion on the Net
would indicate that he is an enthusiastic but square guy who will give
you his honest opinion on audio matters and will not sell you anything
he does not believe will improve your system. I unreservedly apologise
for any suggestion of impropriety which may have been implied in my
text.
I still think the benefits of bi-wiring are marginal/illusory and that
such crossover wiring arrangements have become ubiquitous for marketing
rather than technical reasons. For example, John Dunlavy has published a
paper showing good reasons why he does NOT recommend bi-wiring, but
since he wants to sell as many of his excellent speakers as possible, he
includes the option so that his customers may try it for themselves.
Stewart Pinkerton
"Steve Zipser (Sunshine Stereo)" <z...@netrunner.net> writes:
>Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
>>
>> With reference to an earlier post of mine on the single vs. bi-wire
>> debate, let me make it clear that while Steve Zipser clearly has a
>> vested interest in these matters, I did not intend to impugn his honesty
>> as a dealer or his integrity as a person. General opinion on the Net
>> would indicate that he is an enthusiastic but square guy who will give
>> you his honest opinion on audio matters and will not sell you anything
>> he does not believe will improve your system. I unreservedly apologise
>> for any suggestion of impropriety which may have been implied in my
>> text.
>Stewart:
>You are a true gentleman. Around these parts we say you're a real
>mensch!
Well, I don't know about that. I was just dragged up so that when I know
I've stepped over a line, I apologise. No big deal. Shalom (as we Scots
say).
>> I still think the benefits of bi-wiring are marginal/illusory and that
>> such crossover wiring arrangements have become ubiquitous for marketing
>> rather than technical reasons.
>Yet both your amp & speakers are bi-wireable. Your manufacturers (who
>are certainly more knowlegeable than we) recommend bi-wiring. And, you,
>yourself, bi-wire your own system!!!!!
True. Where does it say I'm not as susceptible as anyone else to
audiophilia nervosa? I use $3 a foot Naim NAC-5 for the bass and
home-brewed $2 a foot silver-plated Teflon-insulated solid-core for the
treble, all eutectic-soldered to gold-clad solid copper spades. The
whole deal cost less than $150 and makes me feel all warm and cosy that
I've got the best I can out of the Duettas - even if it doesn't actually
sound any better than single wiring :-).
>> For example, John Dunlavy has published a
>> paper showing good reasons why he does NOT recommend bi-wiring, but
>> since he wants to sell as many of his excellent speakers as possible, he
>> includes the option so that his customers may try it for themselves.
>Stewart:
>This statement floors me, since it shows that Dunlavy has no faith in
>his speakers to make it on their own merits AND he plays both sides
>against the middle!
Or maybe that he just wants to maximise his sales potential and will let
his customers try anything they want to. No harm in that. He does sell
cables, too :-)
Stewart Pinkerton
Stewart Pinkerton
stig...@wwa.com (Doug Bora) writes:
>: I still think the benefits of bi-wiring are marginal/illusory and that
>: such crossover wiring arrangements have become ubiquitous for marketing
>: rather than technical reasons. For example, John Dunlavy has published a
>: paper showing good reasons why he does NOT recommend bi-wiring, but
>: since he wants to sell as many of his excellent speakers as possible, he
>: includes the option so that his customers may try it for themselves.
>Could you post a quick summary of what exactly those reasons are? I'm not
>on either side of this debate (I don't know enough about it to have a
>side), and I'd like to see everything either side has to say on the
>matter.
Hah! Ruddy typical, I've just deleted the post that had all that stuff -
I believe it was essentially as follows :-
1) Bi-wiring does NOT halve the cable resistance - the crossover divides
the power spectrum so the amp and each driver still sees the same cable
resistance.
2) The designer assumes that the voltage at both inputs to the crossover
will be the same, highly reactive cables can cause 'splashy' effects to
occur in the mid and treble due to phase shifts, especially if different
cables are used for bass and treble connections.
Having said this, JD has apparently said rather different things on
other occasions when describing a design of his which had a crossover
specifically designed for bi-wiring, but I have no solid information on
this.
John Busenitz
On Wed, 17 Jul 1996, Steve Zipser (Sunshine Stereo) wrote:
> Craig, wouldn't an alteration of the volume control change what we
> hear? Isn't that what we're testing? That is why we used two different
> amplifiers. The Carver Lightstar is claimed to be virtually impervious
> to load. I find both amps are stable.
I'm not going to comment on the actual topic at hand, but I would
like to make a small point.
Something that is louder (ie has more gain) will sound subjectively
"better", whether it is or not. That is why one must match levels
when comparing amplifiers, preamps, and speakers subjectively.
It's a psychoacoustical phenomenon. I don't know if a bi-wired
system has a different gain than a single-wired system or not,
but I believe this is the point Craig was trying to get across.
I assume we care whether bi-wiring sounds "different" or "better"
than single-wiring, and if the gain is different, that will obscure
any results that can be obtained by listening, if indeed there are
any meaningful results to be had.
_____________________________________________________________
John Busenitz buse...@ecn.purdue.edu
P.U. ECE http://cernan.ecn.purdue.edu/~busenitz
Disclaimer: My statements do not represent Purdue University.
Steve Zipser (Sunshine Stereo)
John Busenitz wrote:
>
> On Wed, 17 Jul 1996, Steve Zipser (Sunshine Stereo) wrote:
>
> > Craig, wouldn't an alteration of the volume control change what we
> > hear? Isn't that what we're testing? That is why we used two different
> > amplifiers. The Carver Lightstar is claimed to be virtually impervious
> > to load. I find both amps are stable.
>
> I'm not going to comment on the actual topic at hand, but I would
> like to make a small point.
>
> Something that is louder (ie has more gain) will sound subjectively
> "better", whether it is or not. That is why one must match levels
> when comparing amplifiers, preamps, and speakers subjectively.
> It's a psychoacoustical phenomenon. I don't know if a bi-wired
> system has a different gain than a single-wired system or not,
> but I believe this is the point Craig was trying to get across.
It shouldn't. There are obviously transfer function differences,
leading to changes of response at different frequencies that are level
dependent. What is the cause. We can hear the effect - so instead of
chopping down out methodology - which was very careful in this case, I
amd looking for answers. Seems like the anal-retentives (I don't
consider them onjective in this instance) just want to shoot down my
theories. They are either too lazy, too insecure, or really don't have
the knowlege to figure out what is going on.
> I assume we care whether bi-wiring sounds "different" or "better"
> than single-wiring, and if the gain is different, that will obscure
> any results that can be obtained by listening, if indeed there are
> any meaningful results to be had.
Well JB - why is the gain different? Whi is it not different at all
frequencies & at all levels? That IS the question.
Zip
Doug Bora
: I still think the benefits of bi-wiring are marginal/illusory and that
: such crossover wiring arrangements have become ubiquitous for marketing
: rather than technical reasons. For example, John Dunlavy has published a
: paper showing good reasons why he does NOT recommend bi-wiring, but
: since he wants to sell as many of his excellent speakers as possible, he
: includes the option so that his customers may try it for themselves.
Could you post a quick summary of what exactly those reasons are? I'm not
on either side of this debate (I don't know enough about it to have a
side), and I'd like to see everything either side has to say on the
matter.
--
Doug Bora
stig...@wwa.com
Steve Zipser (Sunshine Stereo)
Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
>
> With reference to an earlier post of mine on the single vs. bi-wire
> debate, let me make it clear that while Steve Zipser clearly has a
> vested interest in these matters, I did not intend to impugn his honesty
> as a dealer or his integrity as a person. General opinion on the Net
> would indicate that he is an enthusiastic but square guy who will give
> you his honest opinion on audio matters and will not sell you anything
> he does not believe will improve your system. I unreservedly apologise
> for any suggestion of impropriety which may have been implied in my
> text.
Stewart:
You are a true gentleman. Around these parts we say you're a real
mensch!
> I still think the benefits of bi-wiring are marginal/illusory and that
> such crossover wiring arrangements have become ubiquitous for marketing
> rather than technical reasons.
Yet both your amp & speakers are bi-wireable. Your manufacturers (who
are certainly more knowlegeable than we) recommend bi-wiring. And, you,
yourself, bi-wire your own system!!!!!
> For example, John Dunlavy has published a
> paper showing good reasons why he does NOT recommend bi-wiring, but
> since he wants to sell as many of his excellent speakers as possible, he
> includes the option so that his customers may try it for themselves.
Stewart:
This statement floors me, since it shows that Dunlavy has no faith in
his speakers to make it on their own merits AND he plays both sides
against the middle! It is interesting, since about ten years ago - when
he was still with the good folks at Duntech of Australia, and I was at
Lyric Hifi, John calledus (me & Mike Kay & Lenny Belleza) at Lyric to
tell us of an outrageous improvement they had come up with for the
Duntech Sovereigns. He told us they had reworked the crossover so the
speaker could be bi-wired (this is before the biwiring became de regeur)
and it effected a dramatic improvement in performence!! We tried it and
HE WAS RIGHT! Now he does a 180 degree turnaround?
I don't think so!
Cheers & happy listening!
Zip
PS: So you biwire anyway Stewart?
PPS: MY own private system uses Quad ESL-63's. I can't biwire even if
I wanted to! :) :) :)
Tim Brown
In article <31EBAA...@netrunner.net>,
"Steve Zipser (Sunshine Stereo)" <z...@netrunner.net> wrote:
>Tim Brown wrote:
>> I've heard bi wiring on a couple of high $$ systems (other than my own,
>> which you assume "sucks") and heard what I expected: no difference.
>>
>> >Instead of being buttheads, why don't some of you post useful stuff -
>> >like my recommended recordings posts.
>> >Zip
>>
>> Instead of calling names why don't you learn to make measurements yourself
>> before you parrot someone else's flawed theories.
>>
>> Tim
>
>Tim:
>You proved you can count, now try listening - come on down here to
>Florida - visit our store where I can pick out monowiring vs biwiring
I don't need to come that far to hear good audio equipment. I would rather go
back up to Wisconsin and hear Richard Griener's system some more (see, I can
drop names too!)
>The fact that you didn't hear a
>difference is neither surprising nor meaningful. You wanted to hear no
>difference so you heard no difference.
The fact that you DID hear a difference is neither surprising nor meaningful.
You wanted to hear a difference so you heard a difference. See how easy
assertion is?
This merely means that:
>(a) Your attitude prevented you from hearing the differences
>(b) You can't hear your way out of a paper bag
>(c) Your system sucks
(a) My attitude is only scientific skepticism.
(b) Have you tested my hearing, or are you relying on emperical assumption?
(c) What does my system have to do with it if I can't hear it on other systems
that are better than mine?
>Why don't you do something positive instead of being negative
I do lots of positive things. More than I'll ever bother to share with you.
Bob Myers
Steve Zipser (Sunshine Stereo) (z...@netrunner.net) wrote:
> > For example, John Dunlavy has published a
> > paper showing good reasons why he does NOT recommend bi-wiring, but
> > since he wants to sell as many of his excellent speakers as possible, he
> > includes the option so that his customers may try it for themselves.
> Stewart:
> This statement floors me, since it shows that Dunlavy has no faith in
> his speakers to make it on their own merits AND he plays both sides
> against the middle! It is interesting, since about ten years ago - when
> he was still with the good folks at Duntech of Australia, and I was at
> Lyric Hifi, John calledus (me & Mike Kay & Lenny Belleza) at Lyric to
> tell us of an outrageous improvement they had come up with for the
> Duntech Sovereigns. He told us they had reworked the crossover so the
> speaker could be bi-wired (this is before the biwiring became de regeur)
> and it effected a dramatic improvement in performence!! We tried it and
> HE WAS RIGHT! Now he does a 180 degree turnaround?
> I don't think so!
Well, Steve, you may not think so, BUT....
I've spoken to John about this, among other things, fairly recently. I
don't want to put words in his mouth, but let me just say that based on our
conversation I have absolutely no reason to question what Stewart says above.
I don't see anything wrong with John permitting his customers to "try it for
themselves", as Stewart said, even though he may not himself believe in the
efficacy of biwiring.
Bob Myers KC0EW Hewlett-Packard Co. |Opinions expressed here are not
Workstations Systems Div.|those of my employer or any other
my...@fc.hp.com Fort Collins, Colorado |sentient life-form on this planet.
John Byrns
In article <31EC27...@netrunner.net>, "Steve Zipser (Sunshine Stereo)"
<z...@netrunner.net> wrote:
> Richard D Pierce wrote:
>
> > You have stated, without question, that the phenomenon MUST exists
> > because you hear it. You have stated that you conducted "blind" tests,
> > yet you have never once given ANY details as to the exact test protocol.
> > Without such details, the only person who claims your tests are blind,
> > fair and unbiased is you. We cannot depend upon simply your claims. Give
> > us the details.
>
> It was simple. I listened. I left the room. The person I was with
> made the changes (or not) decided by random rolling of a die! When he
> completed the 'change'. He walked out of the room & I walked back in,
> sat down & listened again. No words were exchanged till the end of the
> test. As far as we are concerned this was a very valid test. So, if
> you cannot depend upon my claims, why should we depend on yours? I am
> sorry to have taken up your time, I mistakenly thought you were
> interested in scientific truth.
I would like to try this bi-wiring technique to see how much it can improve
the sonics of my system. Unfortunately my speakers were built in the days
before manufacturers provided the connections necessary for bi-wiring. The
crossovers are in metal housings, and I don't want to destroy them to try
this experiment. However the crossovers can be removed from the speakers
and installed remotely. If I connected the crossover directly to the
amplifier with a short length of wire, and then ran two longer lengths of
wire from the crossover to the speaker drivers, would this give me the same
effect as bi-wiring? Would I expect the same improvement in the sonics as
I would get with true bi-wiring?
How does the type of speaker system used affect the results obtained from
bi-wiring? Is it necessary to use modern, High-End audiophile approved
speakers to hear any improvment in sonics? Or will bi-wiring improve the
sonics of most good quality 2-way speaker systems?
How does the type of speaker cable used affect the results obtained by
bi-wiring? I am currently using black 14 ga. zip cord for my speaker
cables. Will I need to buy some exotic speaker cables to hear the improved
sonics resulting from bi-wiring?
Regards,
John Byrns
Tim Brown
In article <31EBE1...@netrunner.net>,
"Steve Zipser (Sunshine Stereo)" <z...@netrunner.net> wrote:
>I have done these comparison under both blind conditions & sighted
>conditions. I have scored 20 out of 20 on both my Duntechs & Gallos, in
And just what the hell do you hear?
Tim Brown
In article <4sgsn7$r...@flagstaff.net66.com>, dpar...@net66.com (Dave) wrote:
We had an in-expensive BSR
>equalizer/anyliser and even was able to record a very big difference
>in that mid-range dip.
> There was a dip in the x-over region when the upper and lower drivers
>were jumped. a dip that was nearly 6 db at 3khz. When we did the same
>test when bi-wired, the dip was only approx1-2db at that same
>frequency. The speakers sounded much more full and a bit more forward.
This sounds like a classic case of the upper drivers being connected with
reverse phase. There is no mystery here: reverse the lower or higher range
from what it should be and you get a dip in the crossover region. I get the
feeling that Zip is inadvertantly doing this.
Tim
D,A, Sclap
In article <4sp6uc$o...@ase.ase.com>, bro...@ase.com says...
He probably hears music, butthead. What do you hear when you play your stereo?
Where do these gavones come from?
DAC
Steve Zipser (Sunshine Stereo, Inc.)
Tim Brown wrote:
> This sounds like a classic case of the upper drivers being connected with
> reverse phase. There is no mystery here: reverse the lower or higher range
> from what it should be and you get a dip in the crossover region. I get the
> feeling that Zip is inadvertantly doing this.
Wrong. Simply wrong. Everything was hooked up correctly. Period. The
differences were there & I was able to pick 'em out time after time.
Zip
Michael Wong
In article <31EBAA...@netrunner.net>, z...@netrunner.net says...
>You proved you can count, now try listening - come on down here to
>Florida - visit our store where I can pick out monowiring vs biwiring
>listening conditions.
Hi there! Since you say that you've personally blind-tested bi-wiring
successfully, I was curious whether you're familiar with Mission's 765
tower speakers. They don't make them anymore, but I bought a pair many years
ago and have been quite happy with them, paired with an Adcom GFA-555 Mark II
power amp and GFP-345 preamp. Not ultra high end stuff, but I'm not a wealthy
man.
In any case, my Missions are currently monowired, with a small jumper
connecting the two sets of binding posts on the back. If I remove the jumpers,
I can biwire them. Before I go and spend a bunch of money on speaker wire
connectors so I can hook up twin sets of 12 ga. cable to my Adcom's single set
of binding posts, I was wondering whether you'd expect audible improvements
from biwiring on this type of setup, and if so, what should I listen for?