Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#81
|
|||
|
|||
Bi-wiring - Hogwash?
Bob Saccamano wrote:
Audio is one of those areas where there are so many mistruths, myths and emotions floating around, that all you can trust, and probably should, is your own ears. If *you* think it sounds better, then it does. It depends on how you define "sounds better." If you mean that it makes you happier, then go for it. If you mean that the sound you hear is materially changed, then it's a very simple matter to measure and quantify it. If it's not measurable, it ain't there. Colin |
#82
|
|||
|
|||
Bi-wiring - Hogwash?
"Colin B." wrote in message ... Bob Saccamano wrote: Audio is one of those areas where there are so many mistruths, myths and emotions floating around, that all you can trust, and probably should, is your own ears. If *you* think it sounds better, then it does. It depends on how you define "sounds better." If you mean that it makes you happier, then go for it. If you mean that the sound you hear is materially changed, then it's a very simple matter to measure and quantify it. If it's not measurable, it ain't there. Colin Though I agree with the premise about bi-wiring, the idea that nothing exists that cannot be measured is dead wrong. Humans didn't have the ability to measure the curve of the surface of the Earth until the Arabs did it in the early dark ages. Does that mean the world was flat until they figured out how to measure it??? We need to present a good logical argument to defend the fact that bi-wiring doesn't do anything. - FLINT |
#83
|
|||
|
|||
Bi-wiring - Hogwash?
"Colin B." wrote in message ... Bob Saccamano wrote: Audio is one of those areas where there are so many mistruths, myths and emotions floating around, that all you can trust, and probably should, is your own ears. If *you* think it sounds better, then it does. It depends on how you define "sounds better." If you mean that it makes you happier, then go for it. If you mean that the sound you hear is materially changed, then it's a very simple matter to measure and quantify it. If it's not measurable, it ain't there. Colin Though I agree with the premise about bi-wiring, the idea that nothing exists that cannot be measured is dead wrong. Humans didn't have the ability to measure the curve of the surface of the Earth until the Arabs did it in the early dark ages. Does that mean the world was flat until they figured out how to measure it??? We need to present a good logical argument to defend the fact that bi-wiring doesn't do anything. - FLINT |
#84
|
|||
|
|||
Bi-wiring - Hogwash?
"Colin B." wrote in message ... Bob Saccamano wrote: Audio is one of those areas where there are so many mistruths, myths and emotions floating around, that all you can trust, and probably should, is your own ears. If *you* think it sounds better, then it does. It depends on how you define "sounds better." If you mean that it makes you happier, then go for it. If you mean that the sound you hear is materially changed, then it's a very simple matter to measure and quantify it. If it's not measurable, it ain't there. Colin Though I agree with the premise about bi-wiring, the idea that nothing exists that cannot be measured is dead wrong. Humans didn't have the ability to measure the curve of the surface of the Earth until the Arabs did it in the early dark ages. Does that mean the world was flat until they figured out how to measure it??? We need to present a good logical argument to defend the fact that bi-wiring doesn't do anything. - FLINT |
#85
|
|||
|
|||
Bi-wiring - Hogwash?
"Colin B." wrote in message ... Bob Saccamano wrote: Audio is one of those areas where there are so many mistruths, myths and emotions floating around, that all you can trust, and probably should, is your own ears. If *you* think it sounds better, then it does. It depends on how you define "sounds better." If you mean that it makes you happier, then go for it. If you mean that the sound you hear is materially changed, then it's a very simple matter to measure and quantify it. If it's not measurable, it ain't there. Colin Though I agree with the premise about bi-wiring, the idea that nothing exists that cannot be measured is dead wrong. Humans didn't have the ability to measure the curve of the surface of the Earth until the Arabs did it in the early dark ages. Does that mean the world was flat until they figured out how to measure it??? We need to present a good logical argument to defend the fact that bi-wiring doesn't do anything. - FLINT |
#86
|
|||
|
|||
Bi-wiring - Hogwash?
On Tue, 02 Mar 2004 21:29:37 GMT, "flint"
wrote: Humans didn't have the ability to measure the curve of the surface of the Earth until the Arabs did it in the early dark ages. Does that mean the world was flat until they figured out how to measure it??? Really? Eratosthenes has already measured the diameter of the Earth pretty accurately in the third century BC. And well before that the curvature was known and estimated - albeit approximately. Of course the flat earthers are still out there. There are plenty to be found in the land of high-end audio. d _____________________________ http://www.pearce.uk.com |
#87
|
|||
|
|||
Bi-wiring - Hogwash?
On Tue, 02 Mar 2004 21:29:37 GMT, "flint"
wrote: Humans didn't have the ability to measure the curve of the surface of the Earth until the Arabs did it in the early dark ages. Does that mean the world was flat until they figured out how to measure it??? Really? Eratosthenes has already measured the diameter of the Earth pretty accurately in the third century BC. And well before that the curvature was known and estimated - albeit approximately. Of course the flat earthers are still out there. There are plenty to be found in the land of high-end audio. d _____________________________ http://www.pearce.uk.com |
#88
|
|||
|
|||
Bi-wiring - Hogwash?
On Tue, 02 Mar 2004 21:29:37 GMT, "flint"
wrote: Humans didn't have the ability to measure the curve of the surface of the Earth until the Arabs did it in the early dark ages. Does that mean the world was flat until they figured out how to measure it??? Really? Eratosthenes has already measured the diameter of the Earth pretty accurately in the third century BC. And well before that the curvature was known and estimated - albeit approximately. Of course the flat earthers are still out there. There are plenty to be found in the land of high-end audio. d _____________________________ http://www.pearce.uk.com |
#89
|
|||
|
|||
Bi-wiring - Hogwash?
On Tue, 02 Mar 2004 21:29:37 GMT, "flint"
wrote: Humans didn't have the ability to measure the curve of the surface of the Earth until the Arabs did it in the early dark ages. Does that mean the world was flat until they figured out how to measure it??? Really? Eratosthenes has already measured the diameter of the Earth pretty accurately in the third century BC. And well before that the curvature was known and estimated - albeit approximately. Of course the flat earthers are still out there. There are plenty to be found in the land of high-end audio. d _____________________________ http://www.pearce.uk.com |
#90
|
|||
|
|||
Bi-wiring - Hogwash?
"Don Pearce" wrote in message ... On Tue, 02 Mar 2004 21:29:37 GMT, "flint" wrote: Humans didn't have the ability to measure the curve of the surface of the Earth until the Arabs did it in the early dark ages. Does that mean the world was flat until they figured out how to measure it??? Really? Eratosthenes has already measured the diameter of the Earth pretty accurately in the third century BC. And well before that the curvature was known and estimated - albeit approximately. Of course the flat earthers are still out there. There are plenty to be found in the land of high-end audio. d _____________________________ http://www.pearce.uk.com The Arabs were almost right on the money when they calculated the circumference of the Earth, but you are right about Eratosthenes. However, my argument still holds that simply not being able to measure something is a poor argument for something not being there. - FLINT |
#91
|
|||
|
|||
Bi-wiring - Hogwash?
"Don Pearce" wrote in message ... On Tue, 02 Mar 2004 21:29:37 GMT, "flint" wrote: Humans didn't have the ability to measure the curve of the surface of the Earth until the Arabs did it in the early dark ages. Does that mean the world was flat until they figured out how to measure it??? Really? Eratosthenes has already measured the diameter of the Earth pretty accurately in the third century BC. And well before that the curvature was known and estimated - albeit approximately. Of course the flat earthers are still out there. There are plenty to be found in the land of high-end audio. d _____________________________ http://www.pearce.uk.com The Arabs were almost right on the money when they calculated the circumference of the Earth, but you are right about Eratosthenes. However, my argument still holds that simply not being able to measure something is a poor argument for something not being there. - FLINT |
#92
|
|||
|
|||
Bi-wiring - Hogwash?
"Don Pearce" wrote in message ... On Tue, 02 Mar 2004 21:29:37 GMT, "flint" wrote: Humans didn't have the ability to measure the curve of the surface of the Earth until the Arabs did it in the early dark ages. Does that mean the world was flat until they figured out how to measure it??? Really? Eratosthenes has already measured the diameter of the Earth pretty accurately in the third century BC. And well before that the curvature was known and estimated - albeit approximately. Of course the flat earthers are still out there. There are plenty to be found in the land of high-end audio. d _____________________________ http://www.pearce.uk.com The Arabs were almost right on the money when they calculated the circumference of the Earth, but you are right about Eratosthenes. However, my argument still holds that simply not being able to measure something is a poor argument for something not being there. - FLINT |
#93
|
|||
|
|||
Bi-wiring - Hogwash?
"Don Pearce" wrote in message ... On Tue, 02 Mar 2004 21:29:37 GMT, "flint" wrote: Humans didn't have the ability to measure the curve of the surface of the Earth until the Arabs did it in the early dark ages. Does that mean the world was flat until they figured out how to measure it??? Really? Eratosthenes has already measured the diameter of the Earth pretty accurately in the third century BC. And well before that the curvature was known and estimated - albeit approximately. Of course the flat earthers are still out there. There are plenty to be found in the land of high-end audio. d _____________________________ http://www.pearce.uk.com The Arabs were almost right on the money when they calculated the circumference of the Earth, but you are right about Eratosthenes. However, my argument still holds that simply not being able to measure something is a poor argument for something not being there. - FLINT |
#94
|
|||
|
|||
Bi-wiring - Hogwash?
On Tue, 02 Mar 2004 21:39:18 GMT, "flint"
wrote: "Don Pearce" wrote in message .. . On Tue, 02 Mar 2004 21:29:37 GMT, "flint" wrote: Humans didn't have the ability to measure the curve of the surface of the Earth until the Arabs did it in the early dark ages. Does that mean the world was flat until they figured out how to measure it??? Really? Eratosthenes has already measured the diameter of the Earth pretty accurately in the third century BC. And well before that the curvature was known and estimated - albeit approximately. Of course the flat earthers are still out there. There are plenty to be found in the land of high-end audio. d _____________________________ http://www.pearce.uk.com The Arabs were almost right on the money when they calculated the circumference of the Earth, but you are right about Eratosthenes. However, my argument still holds that simply not being able to measure something is a poor argument for something not being there. - FLINT I think the point is that as soon as anybody knew there was something (earth's diameter) that needed measuring, they set about doing it and pretty soon got close. In audio, the differences that supposedly exist often magically go away as soon as you do anything that looks even halfway objective. And they vanish totally when a measurement happens. It is not that they are there, but not measurable, but they are not measurable because they are figments. You can bet that if the world was in fact flat, but some people had suggested it was round, the measurements would have happened just as quickly, and verified the flatness just as quickly. Absence of measurements supporting differences is a good indication that they are in all probability not there. d _____________________________ http://www.pearce.uk.com |
#95
|
|||
|
|||
Bi-wiring - Hogwash?
On Tue, 02 Mar 2004 21:39:18 GMT, "flint"
wrote: "Don Pearce" wrote in message .. . On Tue, 02 Mar 2004 21:29:37 GMT, "flint" wrote: Humans didn't have the ability to measure the curve of the surface of the Earth until the Arabs did it in the early dark ages. Does that mean the world was flat until they figured out how to measure it??? Really? Eratosthenes has already measured the diameter of the Earth pretty accurately in the third century BC. And well before that the curvature was known and estimated - albeit approximately. Of course the flat earthers are still out there. There are plenty to be found in the land of high-end audio. d _____________________________ http://www.pearce.uk.com The Arabs were almost right on the money when they calculated the circumference of the Earth, but you are right about Eratosthenes. However, my argument still holds that simply not being able to measure something is a poor argument for something not being there. - FLINT I think the point is that as soon as anybody knew there was something (earth's diameter) that needed measuring, they set about doing it and pretty soon got close. In audio, the differences that supposedly exist often magically go away as soon as you do anything that looks even halfway objective. And they vanish totally when a measurement happens. It is not that they are there, but not measurable, but they are not measurable because they are figments. You can bet that if the world was in fact flat, but some people had suggested it was round, the measurements would have happened just as quickly, and verified the flatness just as quickly. Absence of measurements supporting differences is a good indication that they are in all probability not there. d _____________________________ http://www.pearce.uk.com |
#96
|
|||
|
|||
Bi-wiring - Hogwash?
On Tue, 02 Mar 2004 21:39:18 GMT, "flint"
wrote: "Don Pearce" wrote in message .. . On Tue, 02 Mar 2004 21:29:37 GMT, "flint" wrote: Humans didn't have the ability to measure the curve of the surface of the Earth until the Arabs did it in the early dark ages. Does that mean the world was flat until they figured out how to measure it??? Really? Eratosthenes has already measured the diameter of the Earth pretty accurately in the third century BC. And well before that the curvature was known and estimated - albeit approximately. Of course the flat earthers are still out there. There are plenty to be found in the land of high-end audio. d _____________________________ http://www.pearce.uk.com The Arabs were almost right on the money when they calculated the circumference of the Earth, but you are right about Eratosthenes. However, my argument still holds that simply not being able to measure something is a poor argument for something not being there. - FLINT I think the point is that as soon as anybody knew there was something (earth's diameter) that needed measuring, they set about doing it and pretty soon got close. In audio, the differences that supposedly exist often magically go away as soon as you do anything that looks even halfway objective. And they vanish totally when a measurement happens. It is not that they are there, but not measurable, but they are not measurable because they are figments. You can bet that if the world was in fact flat, but some people had suggested it was round, the measurements would have happened just as quickly, and verified the flatness just as quickly. Absence of measurements supporting differences is a good indication that they are in all probability not there. d _____________________________ http://www.pearce.uk.com |
#97
|
|||
|
|||
Bi-wiring - Hogwash?
On Tue, 02 Mar 2004 21:39:18 GMT, "flint"
wrote: "Don Pearce" wrote in message .. . On Tue, 02 Mar 2004 21:29:37 GMT, "flint" wrote: Humans didn't have the ability to measure the curve of the surface of the Earth until the Arabs did it in the early dark ages. Does that mean the world was flat until they figured out how to measure it??? Really? Eratosthenes has already measured the diameter of the Earth pretty accurately in the third century BC. And well before that the curvature was known and estimated - albeit approximately. Of course the flat earthers are still out there. There are plenty to be found in the land of high-end audio. d _____________________________ http://www.pearce.uk.com The Arabs were almost right on the money when they calculated the circumference of the Earth, but you are right about Eratosthenes. However, my argument still holds that simply not being able to measure something is a poor argument for something not being there. - FLINT I think the point is that as soon as anybody knew there was something (earth's diameter) that needed measuring, they set about doing it and pretty soon got close. In audio, the differences that supposedly exist often magically go away as soon as you do anything that looks even halfway objective. And they vanish totally when a measurement happens. It is not that they are there, but not measurable, but they are not measurable because they are figments. You can bet that if the world was in fact flat, but some people had suggested it was round, the measurements would have happened just as quickly, and verified the flatness just as quickly. Absence of measurements supporting differences is a good indication that they are in all probability not there. d _____________________________ http://www.pearce.uk.com |
#98
|
|||
|
|||
Bi-wiring - Hogwash?
"flint" wrote in message
... Though I agree with the premise about bi-wiring, the idea that nothing exists that cannot be measured is dead wrong. Humans didn't have the ability to measure the curve of the surface of the Earth until the Arabs did it in the early dark ages. Does that mean the world was flat until they figured out how to measure it??? We need to present a good logical argument to defend the fact that bi-wiring doesn't do anything. - FLINT Here is my attempt at the "good logical argument." It's called the application of Kirchoff's laws. Since the bi-wired speakers ultimately connect to the same set of output terminals on the voltage source (amplifier/receiver/whatever) all of the points on both pairs of conductors will be at the same electrical potential at any one point in time. Excluding the negligible resistance of the conductors (if you are using 300 feet of 28 gauge wire for your speakers, you've got bigger problems than thinking that bi-wiring makes a difference) it doesn't matter if you use one, two, or forty-eight pairs of wires between the same set of output terminals and your speakers -- they'll all be coincidently connected and at the exact same electrical potential and therefore make no difference. Essentially, all bi-wiring is doing is moving the shunt-block from the back of the speaker to the back of the amplifier. If this makes a difference in the sound, there is a problem with one or more of your speaker wires. If you want to make use of separate speaker input terminals, get a pair (or six or forty-eight) amplifiers and drive each one with the output from an electronic cross-over that is tuned to bandwidth-limit it's output to match the effective range of the driver being excited, then -- as long as each circuit shares no common output-to-input conductors -- you have created a system that can isolate the reactive loads presented by each of the individual drivers. Opinion Of course, with this approach you now you have cross-amplifier volume-adjustment linearity and level-matching issues that may make the final result less accurate than the single-source/single amplifier solution. /Opinion Do what sounds best, but don't expect physics to make an exception for a bi-wired configuration just because somebody said it would make a difference. -afh3 |
#99
|
|||
|
|||
Bi-wiring - Hogwash?
"flint" wrote in message
... Though I agree with the premise about bi-wiring, the idea that nothing exists that cannot be measured is dead wrong. Humans didn't have the ability to measure the curve of the surface of the Earth until the Arabs did it in the early dark ages. Does that mean the world was flat until they figured out how to measure it??? We need to present a good logical argument to defend the fact that bi-wiring doesn't do anything. - FLINT Here is my attempt at the "good logical argument." It's called the application of Kirchoff's laws. Since the bi-wired speakers ultimately connect to the same set of output terminals on the voltage source (amplifier/receiver/whatever) all of the points on both pairs of conductors will be at the same electrical potential at any one point in time. Excluding the negligible resistance of the conductors (if you are using 300 feet of 28 gauge wire for your speakers, you've got bigger problems than thinking that bi-wiring makes a difference) it doesn't matter if you use one, two, or forty-eight pairs of wires between the same set of output terminals and your speakers -- they'll all be coincidently connected and at the exact same electrical potential and therefore make no difference. Essentially, all bi-wiring is doing is moving the shunt-block from the back of the speaker to the back of the amplifier. If this makes a difference in the sound, there is a problem with one or more of your speaker wires. If you want to make use of separate speaker input terminals, get a pair (or six or forty-eight) amplifiers and drive each one with the output from an electronic cross-over that is tuned to bandwidth-limit it's output to match the effective range of the driver being excited, then -- as long as each circuit shares no common output-to-input conductors -- you have created a system that can isolate the reactive loads presented by each of the individual drivers. Opinion Of course, with this approach you now you have cross-amplifier volume-adjustment linearity and level-matching issues that may make the final result less accurate than the single-source/single amplifier solution. /Opinion Do what sounds best, but don't expect physics to make an exception for a bi-wired configuration just because somebody said it would make a difference. -afh3 |
#100
|
|||
|
|||
Bi-wiring - Hogwash?
"flint" wrote in message
... Though I agree with the premise about bi-wiring, the idea that nothing exists that cannot be measured is dead wrong. Humans didn't have the ability to measure the curve of the surface of the Earth until the Arabs did it in the early dark ages. Does that mean the world was flat until they figured out how to measure it??? We need to present a good logical argument to defend the fact that bi-wiring doesn't do anything. - FLINT Here is my attempt at the "good logical argument." It's called the application of Kirchoff's laws. Since the bi-wired speakers ultimately connect to the same set of output terminals on the voltage source (amplifier/receiver/whatever) all of the points on both pairs of conductors will be at the same electrical potential at any one point in time. Excluding the negligible resistance of the conductors (if you are using 300 feet of 28 gauge wire for your speakers, you've got bigger problems than thinking that bi-wiring makes a difference) it doesn't matter if you use one, two, or forty-eight pairs of wires between the same set of output terminals and your speakers -- they'll all be coincidently connected and at the exact same electrical potential and therefore make no difference. Essentially, all bi-wiring is doing is moving the shunt-block from the back of the speaker to the back of the amplifier. If this makes a difference in the sound, there is a problem with one or more of your speaker wires. If you want to make use of separate speaker input terminals, get a pair (or six or forty-eight) amplifiers and drive each one with the output from an electronic cross-over that is tuned to bandwidth-limit it's output to match the effective range of the driver being excited, then -- as long as each circuit shares no common output-to-input conductors -- you have created a system that can isolate the reactive loads presented by each of the individual drivers. Opinion Of course, with this approach you now you have cross-amplifier volume-adjustment linearity and level-matching issues that may make the final result less accurate than the single-source/single amplifier solution. /Opinion Do what sounds best, but don't expect physics to make an exception for a bi-wired configuration just because somebody said it would make a difference. -afh3 |
#101
|
|||
|
|||
Bi-wiring - Hogwash?
"flint" wrote in message
... Though I agree with the premise about bi-wiring, the idea that nothing exists that cannot be measured is dead wrong. Humans didn't have the ability to measure the curve of the surface of the Earth until the Arabs did it in the early dark ages. Does that mean the world was flat until they figured out how to measure it??? We need to present a good logical argument to defend the fact that bi-wiring doesn't do anything. - FLINT Here is my attempt at the "good logical argument." It's called the application of Kirchoff's laws. Since the bi-wired speakers ultimately connect to the same set of output terminals on the voltage source (amplifier/receiver/whatever) all of the points on both pairs of conductors will be at the same electrical potential at any one point in time. Excluding the negligible resistance of the conductors (if you are using 300 feet of 28 gauge wire for your speakers, you've got bigger problems than thinking that bi-wiring makes a difference) it doesn't matter if you use one, two, or forty-eight pairs of wires between the same set of output terminals and your speakers -- they'll all be coincidently connected and at the exact same electrical potential and therefore make no difference. Essentially, all bi-wiring is doing is moving the shunt-block from the back of the speaker to the back of the amplifier. If this makes a difference in the sound, there is a problem with one or more of your speaker wires. If you want to make use of separate speaker input terminals, get a pair (or six or forty-eight) amplifiers and drive each one with the output from an electronic cross-over that is tuned to bandwidth-limit it's output to match the effective range of the driver being excited, then -- as long as each circuit shares no common output-to-input conductors -- you have created a system that can isolate the reactive loads presented by each of the individual drivers. Opinion Of course, with this approach you now you have cross-amplifier volume-adjustment linearity and level-matching issues that may make the final result less accurate than the single-source/single amplifier solution. /Opinion Do what sounds best, but don't expect physics to make an exception for a bi-wired configuration just because somebody said it would make a difference. -afh3 |
#102
|
|||
|
|||
Bi-wiring - Hogwash?
"flint" wrote in message
Though I agree with the premise about bi-wiring, the idea that nothing exists that cannot be measured is dead wrong. Remember this is the 21st century. Arguments based on the previous millennium are declared obsolete. Humans didn't have the ability to measure the curve of the surface of the Earth until the Arabs did it in the early dark ages. Does that mean the world was flat until they figured out how to measure it??? Obsolete argument. We need to present a good logical argument to defend the fact that bi-wiring doesn't do anything. Wrong, that would be an attempt to prove a negative, which is always difficult or impossible. No, the challenge has to be turned around. We need a good logical argument or well-done listening test that shows that bi-wiring does something worthwhile, or at least barely audible. Bi-wiring doesn't do nothing, it merely does very little. We know exactly what it does, and that can easily be compared to what we know about the audibility of Just Noticeable Differences. Unless the speaker wire is so small that its stupid, whatever biwiring does is too small to matter. |
#103
|
|||
|
|||
Bi-wiring - Hogwash?
"flint" wrote in message
Though I agree with the premise about bi-wiring, the idea that nothing exists that cannot be measured is dead wrong. Remember this is the 21st century. Arguments based on the previous millennium are declared obsolete. Humans didn't have the ability to measure the curve of the surface of the Earth until the Arabs did it in the early dark ages. Does that mean the world was flat until they figured out how to measure it??? Obsolete argument. We need to present a good logical argument to defend the fact that bi-wiring doesn't do anything. Wrong, that would be an attempt to prove a negative, which is always difficult or impossible. No, the challenge has to be turned around. We need a good logical argument or well-done listening test that shows that bi-wiring does something worthwhile, or at least barely audible. Bi-wiring doesn't do nothing, it merely does very little. We know exactly what it does, and that can easily be compared to what we know about the audibility of Just Noticeable Differences. Unless the speaker wire is so small that its stupid, whatever biwiring does is too small to matter. |
#104
|
|||
|
|||
Bi-wiring - Hogwash?
"flint" wrote in message
Though I agree with the premise about bi-wiring, the idea that nothing exists that cannot be measured is dead wrong. Remember this is the 21st century. Arguments based on the previous millennium are declared obsolete. Humans didn't have the ability to measure the curve of the surface of the Earth until the Arabs did it in the early dark ages. Does that mean the world was flat until they figured out how to measure it??? Obsolete argument. We need to present a good logical argument to defend the fact that bi-wiring doesn't do anything. Wrong, that would be an attempt to prove a negative, which is always difficult or impossible. No, the challenge has to be turned around. We need a good logical argument or well-done listening test that shows that bi-wiring does something worthwhile, or at least barely audible. Bi-wiring doesn't do nothing, it merely does very little. We know exactly what it does, and that can easily be compared to what we know about the audibility of Just Noticeable Differences. Unless the speaker wire is so small that its stupid, whatever biwiring does is too small to matter. |
#105
|
|||
|
|||
Bi-wiring - Hogwash?
"flint" wrote in message
Though I agree with the premise about bi-wiring, the idea that nothing exists that cannot be measured is dead wrong. Remember this is the 21st century. Arguments based on the previous millennium are declared obsolete. Humans didn't have the ability to measure the curve of the surface of the Earth until the Arabs did it in the early dark ages. Does that mean the world was flat until they figured out how to measure it??? Obsolete argument. We need to present a good logical argument to defend the fact that bi-wiring doesn't do anything. Wrong, that would be an attempt to prove a negative, which is always difficult or impossible. No, the challenge has to be turned around. We need a good logical argument or well-done listening test that shows that bi-wiring does something worthwhile, or at least barely audible. Bi-wiring doesn't do nothing, it merely does very little. We know exactly what it does, and that can easily be compared to what we know about the audibility of Just Noticeable Differences. Unless the speaker wire is so small that its stupid, whatever biwiring does is too small to matter. |
#106
|
|||
|
|||
Bi-wiring - Hogwash?
flint wrote:
"Colin B." wrote in message ... Bob Saccamano wrote: Audio is one of those areas where there are so many mistruths, myths and emotions floating around, that all you can trust, and probably should, is your own ears. If *you* think it sounds better, then it does. It depends on how you define "sounds better." If you mean that it makes you happier, then go for it. If you mean that the sound you hear is materially changed, then it's a very simple matter to measure and quantify it. If it's not measurable, it ain't there. Colin Though I agree with the premise about bi-wiring, the idea that nothing exists that cannot be measured is dead wrong. Be careful of how far you extend my comments. We are speaking within a specific context here. Humans didn't have the ability to measure the curve of the surface of the Earth until the Arabs did it in the early dark ages. Does that mean the world was flat until they figured out how to measure it??? That's a straw man argument. If they had reliably discovered the method of measuring planetary curvature, proven that it was correct, and then measured the planet to be flat, then they probably would have been right. (and we would be living in a VERY different universe!) We need to present a good logical argument to defend the fact that bi-wiring doesn't do anything. OK, how's this? We know how variations in a signal are detected by hearing, in controlled tests. We can measure signal differences to several orders of magnitude below the various hearing thresholds. If measurements show no change to the signal, or a change WELL below the hearing threshold, we can conclude that there will be no difference. If someone would argue differently, then it's easily resolved: Controlled listening tests. Listening in an environment where there's no ability to bias the results. Time and time and time again, test like this have confirmed our knowledge of signal transfer and hearing. We've done the science. It all corresponds. Measuring audible and inaudible effects is old hat. Look at it from another perspective: If hearing is caused by the eardrum vibrating, then measuring the changes in the signal going to the speaker that causes that eardrum to vibrate is all we need to do to debug the electronics chain. It's not a matter of not being able to measure it. We CAN measure it, we HAVE measured it, and endless tests have CONFIRMED it. Colin |
#107
|
|||
|
|||
Bi-wiring - Hogwash?
flint wrote:
"Colin B." wrote in message ... Bob Saccamano wrote: Audio is one of those areas where there are so many mistruths, myths and emotions floating around, that all you can trust, and probably should, is your own ears. If *you* think it sounds better, then it does. It depends on how you define "sounds better." If you mean that it makes you happier, then go for it. If you mean that the sound you hear is materially changed, then it's a very simple matter to measure and quantify it. If it's not measurable, it ain't there. Colin Though I agree with the premise about bi-wiring, the idea that nothing exists that cannot be measured is dead wrong. Be careful of how far you extend my comments. We are speaking within a specific context here. Humans didn't have the ability to measure the curve of the surface of the Earth until the Arabs did it in the early dark ages. Does that mean the world was flat until they figured out how to measure it??? That's a straw man argument. If they had reliably discovered the method of measuring planetary curvature, proven that it was correct, and then measured the planet to be flat, then they probably would have been right. (and we would be living in a VERY different universe!) We need to present a good logical argument to defend the fact that bi-wiring doesn't do anything. OK, how's this? We know how variations in a signal are detected by hearing, in controlled tests. We can measure signal differences to several orders of magnitude below the various hearing thresholds. If measurements show no change to the signal, or a change WELL below the hearing threshold, we can conclude that there will be no difference. If someone would argue differently, then it's easily resolved: Controlled listening tests. Listening in an environment where there's no ability to bias the results. Time and time and time again, test like this have confirmed our knowledge of signal transfer and hearing. We've done the science. It all corresponds. Measuring audible and inaudible effects is old hat. Look at it from another perspective: If hearing is caused by the eardrum vibrating, then measuring the changes in the signal going to the speaker that causes that eardrum to vibrate is all we need to do to debug the electronics chain. It's not a matter of not being able to measure it. We CAN measure it, we HAVE measured it, and endless tests have CONFIRMED it. Colin |
#108
|
|||
|
|||
Bi-wiring - Hogwash?
flint wrote:
"Colin B." wrote in message ... Bob Saccamano wrote: Audio is one of those areas where there are so many mistruths, myths and emotions floating around, that all you can trust, and probably should, is your own ears. If *you* think it sounds better, then it does. It depends on how you define "sounds better." If you mean that it makes you happier, then go for it. If you mean that the sound you hear is materially changed, then it's a very simple matter to measure and quantify it. If it's not measurable, it ain't there. Colin Though I agree with the premise about bi-wiring, the idea that nothing exists that cannot be measured is dead wrong. Be careful of how far you extend my comments. We are speaking within a specific context here. Humans didn't have the ability to measure the curve of the surface of the Earth until the Arabs did it in the early dark ages. Does that mean the world was flat until they figured out how to measure it??? That's a straw man argument. If they had reliably discovered the method of measuring planetary curvature, proven that it was correct, and then measured the planet to be flat, then they probably would have been right. (and we would be living in a VERY different universe!) We need to present a good logical argument to defend the fact that bi-wiring doesn't do anything. OK, how's this? We know how variations in a signal are detected by hearing, in controlled tests. We can measure signal differences to several orders of magnitude below the various hearing thresholds. If measurements show no change to the signal, or a change WELL below the hearing threshold, we can conclude that there will be no difference. If someone would argue differently, then it's easily resolved: Controlled listening tests. Listening in an environment where there's no ability to bias the results. Time and time and time again, test like this have confirmed our knowledge of signal transfer and hearing. We've done the science. It all corresponds. Measuring audible and inaudible effects is old hat. Look at it from another perspective: If hearing is caused by the eardrum vibrating, then measuring the changes in the signal going to the speaker that causes that eardrum to vibrate is all we need to do to debug the electronics chain. It's not a matter of not being able to measure it. We CAN measure it, we HAVE measured it, and endless tests have CONFIRMED it. Colin |
#109
|
|||
|
|||
Bi-wiring - Hogwash?
flint wrote:
"Colin B." wrote in message ... Bob Saccamano wrote: Audio is one of those areas where there are so many mistruths, myths and emotions floating around, that all you can trust, and probably should, is your own ears. If *you* think it sounds better, then it does. It depends on how you define "sounds better." If you mean that it makes you happier, then go for it. If you mean that the sound you hear is materially changed, then it's a very simple matter to measure and quantify it. If it's not measurable, it ain't there. Colin Though I agree with the premise about bi-wiring, the idea that nothing exists that cannot be measured is dead wrong. Be careful of how far you extend my comments. We are speaking within a specific context here. Humans didn't have the ability to measure the curve of the surface of the Earth until the Arabs did it in the early dark ages. Does that mean the world was flat until they figured out how to measure it??? That's a straw man argument. If they had reliably discovered the method of measuring planetary curvature, proven that it was correct, and then measured the planet to be flat, then they probably would have been right. (and we would be living in a VERY different universe!) We need to present a good logical argument to defend the fact that bi-wiring doesn't do anything. OK, how's this? We know how variations in a signal are detected by hearing, in controlled tests. We can measure signal differences to several orders of magnitude below the various hearing thresholds. If measurements show no change to the signal, or a change WELL below the hearing threshold, we can conclude that there will be no difference. If someone would argue differently, then it's easily resolved: Controlled listening tests. Listening in an environment where there's no ability to bias the results. Time and time and time again, test like this have confirmed our knowledge of signal transfer and hearing. We've done the science. It all corresponds. Measuring audible and inaudible effects is old hat. Look at it from another perspective: If hearing is caused by the eardrum vibrating, then measuring the changes in the signal going to the speaker that causes that eardrum to vibrate is all we need to do to debug the electronics chain. It's not a matter of not being able to measure it. We CAN measure it, we HAVE measured it, and endless tests have CONFIRMED it. Colin |
#110
|
|||
|
|||
Bi-wiring - Hogwash?
flint wrote:
The Arabs were almost right on the money when they calculated the circumference of the Earth, but you are right about Eratosthenes. However, my argument still holds that simply not being able to measure something is a poor argument for something not being there. I'll just sum up my previous long-winded article again he In the field of audio, we ARE able to measure everything in a signal that's audible, and can measure all of it to levels far below audibility. That's why if we don't measure a deviation in the signal, we can say with confidence that there's no audible difference. Colin |
#111
|
|||
|
|||
Bi-wiring - Hogwash?
flint wrote:
The Arabs were almost right on the money when they calculated the circumference of the Earth, but you are right about Eratosthenes. However, my argument still holds that simply not being able to measure something is a poor argument for something not being there. I'll just sum up my previous long-winded article again he In the field of audio, we ARE able to measure everything in a signal that's audible, and can measure all of it to levels far below audibility. That's why if we don't measure a deviation in the signal, we can say with confidence that there's no audible difference. Colin |
#112
|
|||
|
|||
Bi-wiring - Hogwash?
flint wrote:
The Arabs were almost right on the money when they calculated the circumference of the Earth, but you are right about Eratosthenes. However, my argument still holds that simply not being able to measure something is a poor argument for something not being there. I'll just sum up my previous long-winded article again he In the field of audio, we ARE able to measure everything in a signal that's audible, and can measure all of it to levels far below audibility. That's why if we don't measure a deviation in the signal, we can say with confidence that there's no audible difference. Colin |
#113
|
|||
|
|||
Bi-wiring - Hogwash?
flint wrote:
The Arabs were almost right on the money when they calculated the circumference of the Earth, but you are right about Eratosthenes. However, my argument still holds that simply not being able to measure something is a poor argument for something not being there. I'll just sum up my previous long-winded article again he In the field of audio, we ARE able to measure everything in a signal that's audible, and can measure all of it to levels far below audibility. That's why if we don't measure a deviation in the signal, we can say with confidence that there's no audible difference. Colin |
#114
|
|||
|
|||
Bi-wiring - Hogwash?
To those who are technically informed, there is consensus.
You decide. So tell me, how does one determine those that are technically informed? :-) |
#115
|
|||
|
|||
Bi-wiring - Hogwash?
To those who are technically informed, there is consensus.
You decide. So tell me, how does one determine those that are technically informed? :-) |
#116
|
|||
|
|||
Bi-wiring - Hogwash?
To those who are technically informed, there is consensus.
You decide. So tell me, how does one determine those that are technically informed? :-) |
#117
|
|||
|
|||
Bi-wiring - Hogwash?
To those who are technically informed, there is consensus.
You decide. So tell me, how does one determine those that are technically informed? :-) |
#118
|
|||
|
|||
Bi-wiring - Hogwash?
On Tue, 02 Mar 2004 21:39:18 GMT, "flint"
wrote: The Arabs were almost right on the money when they calculated the circumference of the Earth, but you are right about Eratosthenes. However, my argument still holds that simply not being able to measure something is a poor argument for something not being there. Did the Arabs invent a revolutionary new tool to make the measurement? Or did they choose to interpret previously available data and observations in a fresh way? Once you admit the world MIGHT be round, it's not too hard to find supporting observations. |
#119
|
|||
|
|||
Bi-wiring - Hogwash?
On Tue, 02 Mar 2004 21:39:18 GMT, "flint"
wrote: The Arabs were almost right on the money when they calculated the circumference of the Earth, but you are right about Eratosthenes. However, my argument still holds that simply not being able to measure something is a poor argument for something not being there. Did the Arabs invent a revolutionary new tool to make the measurement? Or did they choose to interpret previously available data and observations in a fresh way? Once you admit the world MIGHT be round, it's not too hard to find supporting observations. |
#120
|
|||
|
|||
Bi-wiring - Hogwash?
On Tue, 02 Mar 2004 21:39:18 GMT, "flint"
wrote: The Arabs were almost right on the money when they calculated the circumference of the Earth, but you are right about Eratosthenes. However, my argument still holds that simply not being able to measure something is a poor argument for something not being there. Did the Arabs invent a revolutionary new tool to make the measurement? Or did they choose to interpret previously available data and observations in a fresh way? Once you admit the world MIGHT be round, it's not too hard to find supporting observations. |
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Help - wiring identity Pioneer OEM CD changer | Car Audio | |||
VW Factory CD Changer - Wiring Diagram? | Car Audio | |||
Wiring for component "drawers"? | General | |||
Honda Acura external amp wiring (repost) | Car Audio | |||
Acura/Bose Amp wiring | Car Audio |