[[email protected]]

Parts:
-High quality 6.1 receiver.
-High quality speakers.
-14 gauge wire.

Problem:
My two front tower speakers have 2 wire connections. From reading other
topics and other sources, I know that this is to separate the high
sounds from the low, but my receiver does not support this
configuration because it only has the one output per one channel.
I am a newbie when it comes to speaker configuration best practice.
Here are my questions:
-Do I need a different receiver or different speakers that are
compatible?
-Do I need a separate amp? Should I get a separate amp? If so, does it
go before or after the receiver?
-Anything else you would recommend?

I hooked the speakers up to the lower connection, it sounds pretty
good, but I notice a big difference depending on which set I connect
to. I don't have a cash flow problem, and I want the best system
possible. Any information is much appreciated. Also, if anyone can
suggest a good book I can pick up or a useful website, that would be
great as well. Thanks a lot.

[bob]

wrote:
Parts:
-High quality 6.1 receiver.
-High quality speakers.
-14 gauge wire.

Problem:
My two front tower speakers have 2 wire connections. From reading other
topics and other sources, I know that this is to separate the high
sounds from the low, but my receiver does not support this
configuration because it only has the one output per one channel.

Many speakers have two sets of binding posts, which allows you to:
1) bi-amp, driving the woofers and tweeters from different amplifiers,
or
2) bi-wire, running two sets of cables from your amp/receiver to each
speaker.

There are good reasons why you might want to bi-amp, although if you
have a "high-quality" receiver, it probably isn't necessary. There's no
good technical reason to bi-wire, but some audiophiles do it anyway.
(Audiophiles tend to do a lot of things for no good reason.)

I am a newbie when it comes to speaker configuration best practice.
Here are my questions:
-Do I need a different receiver or different speakers that are
compatible?

No.

-Do I need a separate amp? Should I get a separate amp? If so, does it
go before or after the receiver?

Not unless you want to bi-amp, in which case the second amp must be
connected to a pre-amp output on your receiver, so that both the
outboard amp and the amplifier section of your receiver are running in
parallel.

-Anything else you would recommend?

I hooked the speakers up to the lower connection, it sounds pretty
good, but I notice a big difference depending on which set I connect
to.

This is odd. Check your speakers. Are any of the metal plates
connecting the upper and lower binding posts missing? This would
explain a difference in sound. Otherwise, I suspect you are just a
victim of the placebo effect--you're imagining a change in sound
because you know you've made a change in the wiring. It happens a lot
more often than you might think.

I don't have a cash flow problem, and I want the best system
possible. Any information is much appreciated. Also, if anyone can
suggest a good book I can pick up or a useful website, that would be
great as well. Thanks a lot.

Not sure what more info you're looking for, but here's a page on set-up
that's part of a larger site with lots of reliable info:

http://www.audioholics.com/techtips/...etupbasics.php

bob

[MC]

What is the make and model of the speakers that have the double connection?
Of the amplifier?

[mike]

bob wrote:
wrote:


There are good reasons why you might want to bi-amp, although if you
have a "high-quality" receiver, it probably isn't necessary. There's no
good technical reason to bi-wire, but some audiophiles do it anyway.
(Audiophiles tend to do a lot of things for no good reason.)





bob
Curiosity question Bob. Which sound frequencies requires more power to
reproduce. Lets say below 500hz or 5000 hz?
LOwer frequencies require more amplifier power than higher frequencies.
Bi-amping is just not an "audiophile" thing to do. If one uses a good
quality electronic crossover with semi-matched amps, you can get a
better sound from bi-amped speakers "IF" and I say only "IF" the
designer of said speakers had actually designed the speakers to be
bi-amped. Not all speakers sound better bi-amped.
What I don't get is that if this news group is about HIGH END AUDIO, why
constantly trash the HIGH END AUDIO spectrum.
Mike Mueller

[[email protected]]

The speakers are Home Theater Direct - Level 3.
The receiver is an Onkyo - TX-SR600.

So you think I am making up the difference in sound? The connection of
the metal plates (Jumpers?) looks good. It sounds louder when connected
to the top with less bass. Deeper and more full of a sound on the
lower.
If the plates distribute the sound to the other connections anyway,
what is the point of 2 wires? If you do use 2 wires, should you take
off the plates?

MC wrote:
What is the make and model of the speakers that have the double connection?
Of the amplifier?

[[email protected]]

mike wrote:

What I don't get is that if this news group is about HIGH END AUDIO, why
constantly trash the HIGH END AUDIO spectrum.

I doubt if it is the purpose or intention of anyone here to "trash" any
part of the audio spectrum, high-end or otherwise. But the audio myths
and false assumptions that go along with them are fair game.

In the following, I am writing ONLY for myself! SMALL RANT WARNING!

Some of the blather from cryo-treated receptacles through tiny speaker
cable towers should be looked at with considerable skepticism. That
some individuals derive pleasure from the use of such is fine... and
their (sole and only) choice. But in my opinion, "High End" has only a
little to do with cost, and everything to do with the sound produced.
The purpose of this NG is to discuss/help/support achieving the best
possible sound from whatever is at hand. If asked for advice, giving
that advice that will help the requestor towards achieving the best
possible sound from what they are able to afford, gather or again have
at hand... based on their peculiar (in the sense of specific) needs and
wants.

So, if an individual has $2000 to spend on a system, advising towards
even $100 worth of cables vs. better speakers or a better
cartridge/stylus/TT combination verges on the unethical. We are
permitted to advise within our comfort zones (I will nearly always
point towards vintage equipment in specific applications for
unsurpassed bang-for-buck results. In others, $80 CD players straight
from China will give results as good as any... and so forth). But the
goal should never be out of view.

So, I will trash the mythology in a hummingbird heartbeat and at every
opportunity, and _always_ advise towards a practical, cost-effective,
and hopefully best-performing solution available for the application
and budget. There are a whole bunch of damned myths out there,
incredibly costly bits of entirely worthless peripherals and
super-hyped equipment that would not pass any logical scrutiny or any
well-designed test. All this may be expensive, but it is emphatically
NOT high-end, even a little bit. Not at all. Magic stones, sand-filled
speaker stands, "full range" single-driver speakers (horn, not
ES-type), magic CD markers, $1000 line-cords, GROWL!

De gustibus non est disputandum. But again and finally, High End has
not one damned thing to do with cost. It may wind up being expensive,
true. But that is an accidental result, not a cause.

Humorous aside: In 1973, I purchased a stereo that cost as much as my
(well used) car at the time ($600). I still have elements of that
stereo today (AR4x speakers/AR integrated amp), although not in primary
use. If I were to spend as much today as for our most recent vehicle
purchase ($28,000), that would be one helluva system... But I am not so
sure that it would sound substantially better than what is presently in
play.

END RANT

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA

[Harry Lavo]

wrote in message ...
mike wrote:

What I don't get is that if this news group is about HIGH END AUDIO, why
constantly trash the HIGH END AUDIO spectrum.

I doubt if it is the purpose or intention of anyone here to "trash" any
part of the audio spectrum, high-end or otherwise. But the audio myths
and false assumptions that go along with them are fair game.

In the following, I am writing ONLY for myself! SMALL RANT WARNING!

Some of the blather from cryo-treated receptacles through tiny speaker
cable towers should be looked at with considerable skepticism. That
some individuals derive pleasure from the use of such is fine... and
their (sole and only) choice. But in my opinion, "High End" has only a
little to do with cost, and everything to do with the sound produced.
The purpose of this NG is to discuss/help/support achieving the best
possible sound from whatever is at hand. If asked for advice, giving
that advice that will help the requestor towards achieving the best
possible sound from what they are able to afford, gather or again have
at hand... based on their peculiar (in the sense of specific) needs and
wants.

So, if an individual has $2000 to spend on a system, advising towards
even $100 worth of cables vs. better speakers or a better
cartridge/stylus/TT combination verges on the unethical. We are
permitted to advise within our comfort zones (I will nearly always
point towards vintage equipment in specific applications for
unsurpassed bang-for-buck results. In others, $80 CD players straight
from China will give results as good as any... and so forth). But the
goal should never be out of view.

So, I will trash the mythology in a hummingbird heartbeat and at every
opportunity, and _always_ advise towards a practical, cost-effective,
and hopefully best-performing solution available for the application
and budget. There are a whole bunch of damned myths out there,
incredibly costly bits of entirely worthless peripherals and
super-hyped equipment that would not pass any logical scrutiny or any
well-designed test. All this may be expensive, but it is emphatically
NOT high-end, even a little bit. Not at all. Magic stones, sand-filled
speaker stands, "full range" single-driver speakers (horn, not
ES-type), magic CD markers, $1000 line-cords, GROWL!

De gustibus non est disputandum. But again and finally, High End has
not one damned thing to do with cost. It may wind up being expensive,
true. But that is an accidental result, not a cause.

Humorous aside: In 1973, I purchased a stereo that cost as much as my
(well used) car at the time ($600). I still have elements of that
stereo today (AR4x speakers/AR integrated amp), although not in primary
use. If I were to spend as much today as for our most recent vehicle
purchase ($28,000), that would be one helluva system... But I am not so
sure that it would sound substantially better than what is presently in
play.

END RANT

Okay, Peter, but then why knock those (as many here do) who can easily
afford to spend that $28,000, and get just as much value from their system
today as you did then. I'll suggest why: the standard of living of the
average American family has slid backwards for the last thirty years, so
that today most equipment that costs the equivalent of a used car is out of
the range most people can afford to spend given all the other spending
pressure. Thus it appears as "unobtainium" and triggers a host of defense
measures asserting why such a system is extravagent beyond belief.

[bob]

wrote:
The speakers are Home Theater Direct - Level 3.
The receiver is an Onkyo - TX-SR600.

So you think I am making up the difference in sound?

It's possible. And, since you've checked the jumpers, you've eliminated
the most obvious physical cause for a difference. So we're kinda left
with the psychological cause, unless we can find some other
explanation.

And no, you're not crazy. This happens to all of us, just as we're all
susceptible to optical illusions. A number of people here have told
stories over the years of hearing clear differences between two
things--and then discovering that the switch wasn't working, and they
were listening to the same thing the whole time. One of them was and is
a well-known audio equipment reviewer and tester. So, if this is a
psychological thing, you are in very good company.

The connection of
the metal plates (Jumpers?) looks good. It sounds louder when connected
to the top with less bass. Deeper and more full of a sound on the
lower.
If the plates distribute the sound to the other connections anyway,
what is the point of 2 wires?

As I said earlier, there is no point to using two wires (unless you're
using two amps!). But there are guys out there who would like to sell
you high-priced wire, and then they'd like to sell you twice as much
high-priced wire. So they hype the biwire idea, and some consumers fall
for it.

If you do use 2 wires, should you take
off the plates?

That's the idea--you're driving the two drivers separately. (Although,
if you think about it, all you're really doing is changing the place at
which the signal is split. With one wire, it's split at the speaker
terminals. With two, it's split at the amp terminals. Doesn't make a
whole lotta difference.)

bob

[[email protected]]

Harry Lavo wrote:

Okay, Peter, but then why knock those (as many here do) who can easily
afford to spend that $28,000, and get just as much value from their system
today as you did then.

Harry:

If an individual chooses to spend $28K or $280K on a system, it is
there choice and more power to them. One hopes, however, that such a
person is purchasing value instead of smoke-and-mirrors. That would be
my point. As you have noted on several occasions, my
cobbled-together-system of various bits was costly-when-new. Value is
value, and very good things, especially very good new SOTA things may
well be very expensive. I also have peculiar (in the sense of specific)
tastes. Put simply, I spend what is necessary in time and treasure to
achieve my goal. I admire others that can and do that... I only hope
that they are getting something towards their goals rather than towards
the enrichment of a con.

But someone who purchases mythology, smoke, mirrors and lies is making
a mistake or being led astray. That would be my point. Better they
should spend the same amount after an actual improvement.

And, we _ALL_ know of some of the very many such items as exist that
are this way.

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA

[[email protected]]

THEIR

Yikes. Doing too many thing at once, and the roof is leaking (not my
roof, but my responsibility)...

Sorry about that.

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA

[Steven Sullivan]

wrote:
Harry Lavo wrote:

Okay, Peter, but then why knock those (as many here do) who can easily
afford to spend that $28,000, and get just as much value from their system
today as you did then.

Harry:

If an individual chooses to spend $28K or $280K on a system, it is
there choice and more power to them. One hopes, however, that such a
person is purchasing value instead of smoke-and-mirrors.

At this late date, all one hopes is that such a person doesn't
publicly write silly things about the value of his purchase -- like
attributing it to the 'sound' of his silver cabling, or the lack of
'stairsteps' in the output of his Gyrodec compared to the CD player he
used to own.




___
-S
Still not bloggin'.

[[email protected]]

Ok. So basically what I'm hearing is that everything is fine and I
should only change my system if I want to. Neither connection sounds
bad, they just sounded a bit different, so I'm fine with that.

So a question for everyone. If money was not tight and you could afford
to beef up your system, what would you get? Just so I know what to look
at when upgrading.


bob wrote:
wrote:
The speakers are Home Theater Direct - Level 3.
The receiver is an Onkyo - TX-SR600.

So you think I am making up the difference in sound?

It's possible. And, since you've checked the jumpers, you've eliminated
the most obvious physical cause for a difference. So we're kinda left
with the psychological cause, unless we can find some other
explanation.

And no, you're not crazy. This happens to all of us, just as we're all
susceptible to optical illusions. A number of people here have told
stories over the years of hearing clear differences between two
things--and then discovering that the switch wasn't working, and they
were listening to the same thing the whole time. One of them was and is
a well-known audio equipment reviewer and tester. So, if this is a
psychological thing, you are in very good company.

The connection of
the metal plates (Jumpers?) looks good. It sounds louder when connected
to the top with less bass. Deeper and more full of a sound on the
lower.
If the plates distribute the sound to the other connections anyway,
what is the point of 2 wires?

As I said earlier, there is no point to using two wires (unless you're
using two amps!). But there are guys out there who would like to sell
you high-priced wire, and then they'd like to sell you twice as much
high-priced wire. So they hype the biwire idea, and some consumers fall
for it.

If you do use 2 wires, should you take
off the plates?

That's the idea--you're driving the two drivers separately. (Although,
if you think about it, all you're really doing is changing the place at
which the signal is split. With one wire, it's split at the speaker
terminals. With two, it's split at the amp terminals. Doesn't make a
whole lotta difference.)

bob

[Harry Lavo]

wrote in message ...
Harry Lavo wrote:

Okay, Peter, but then why knock those (as many here do) who can easily
afford to spend that $28,000, and get just as much value from their
system
today as you did then.

Harry:

If an individual chooses to spend $28K or $280K on a system, it is
there choice and more power to them. One hopes, however, that such a
person is purchasing value instead of smoke-and-mirrors. That would be
my point. As you have noted on several occasions, my
cobbled-together-system of various bits was costly-when-new. Value is
value, and very good things, especially very good new SOTA things may
well be very expensive. I also have peculiar (in the sense of specific)
tastes. Put simply, I spend what is necessary in time and treasure to
achieve my goal. I admire others that can and do that... I only hope
that they are getting something towards their goals rather than towards
the enrichment of a con.

But someone who purchases mythology, smoke, mirrors and lies is making
a mistake or being led astray. That would be my point. Better they
should spend the same amount after an actual improvement.

And, we _ALL_ know of some of the very many such items as exist that
are this way.


Yes, but back in the 60's we were also being told by the Japanese companies
and Stereo Review and High Fidelity that we should be buying all the
imported stuff...it represent "just as good" or "nearly as good" and was
much cheaper. Today it's the Adcoms and the NAD's etc that are "just as
good" or "nearly as good" along with the Japanese, Korean, and Chinese
goods. But now as then, there was another pricier layer of gear that
offered more refinement to those who could appreciate it....and that for the
most part is the gear that has held it's value....the Fishers, the Scotts,
the Mac's, the Marantz's, the Citations, along with the better Dynacos,
Heaths, and Eico's. I would suggest that today's BAT's, CJ's, ARC's,
Levinsons, B&W's, Thiels, etc are in that position to hold lasting value.

The rest of the stuff is fluff...and nobody should get too excited about it
one way or the other. But we certainly shouldn't tar anybody who likes and
buys expensive gear "fools", "tweakos", and such. The actual percent of
audiophiles who buy the far out stuff is only a small minority of our
already small minority...and if they can afford it and find value in fooling
around, why not?

[MC]

And no, you're not crazy. This happens to all of us, just as we're all
susceptible to optical illusions. A number of people here have told
stories over the years of hearing clear differences between two
things--and then discovering that the switch wasn't working, and they
were listening to the same thing the whole time. One of them was and is
a well-known audio equipment reviewer and tester. So, if this is a
psychological thing, you are in very good company.

What it is, I think, is that you can't eliminate the time dimension in
auditory perception. You are not what you were 2 minutes ago. You will not
have the same experience twice from the same stimulus twice. In general,
the challenge, for the brain, is not to find differences but to find
similarities and reject inconsequential differences. At the level of raw
perception, nothing ever repeats itself.

[Jerry]

Bob, I've recently had excellent results with bi-amping an old set of
AR-3a's. The results were just stunning.

Now, in all fairness that could be because my amp (100 watts RMS per channel
into 4 ohms) was just over taxed by the 3a's.

There is another school of thought, however, that claims that bi-amping will
always improve any speaker. Bi-amping prevents the back-EMF (and it's
harmonics) generated by the woofer(s) from impacting the mid-range and
tweeters. In short, bi-amping electonically isolates the woofers from the
other speakers

Today some of the top of the line speakers incorporate a "powered
sub-woofer" ....

http://www.cambridgesoundworks.com/s...em=k1t50zz zz

Whether you bi-amp or go the route of "powered sub-woofers", the result is
similar in that you have achieved total electronic isolation.

Regards,
Jerry




wrote in message ...
Ok. So basically what I'm hearing is that everything is fine and I
should only change my system if I want to. Neither connection sounds
bad, they just sounded a bit different, so I'm fine with that.

So a question for everyone. If money was not tight and you could afford
to beef up your system, what would you get? Just so I know what to look
at when upgrading.


bob wrote:
wrote:
The speakers are Home Theater Direct - Level 3.
The receiver is an Onkyo - TX-SR600.

So you think I am making up the difference in sound?

It's possible. And, since you've checked the jumpers, you've eliminated
the most obvious physical cause for a difference. So we're kinda left
with the psychological cause, unless we can find some other
explanation.

And no, you're not crazy. This happens to all of us, just as we're all
susceptible to optical illusions. A number of people here have told
stories over the years of hearing clear differences between two
things--and then discovering that the switch wasn't working, and they
were listening to the same thing the whole time. One of them was and is
a well-known audio equipment reviewer and tester. So, if this is a
psychological thing, you are in very good company.

The connection of
the metal plates (Jumpers?) looks good. It sounds louder when
connected
to the top with less bass. Deeper and more full of a sound on the
lower.
If the plates distribute the sound to the other connections anyway,
what is the point of 2 wires?

As I said earlier, there is no point to using two wires (unless you're
using two amps!). But there are guys out there who would like to sell
you high-priced wire, and then they'd like to sell you twice as much
high-priced wire. So they hype the biwire idea, and some consumers fall
for it.

If you do use 2 wires, should you take
off the plates?

That's the idea--you're driving the two drivers separately. (Although,
if you think about it, all you're really doing is changing the place at
which the signal is split. With one wire, it's split at the speaker
terminals. With two, it's split at the amp terminals. Doesn't make a
whole lotta difference.)

bob

[[email protected]]

wrote:
So a question for everyone. If money was not tight and you could afford
to beef up your system, what would you get?

Season tickets to the Handel and Hayden Society concerts
New tongue springs for my harpsichord.
A large living room and a small chamber organ.
More CD's, LP's and tapes.

More equipment, more expensive equipment, new equipment,
different equipment does NOT make me enjoy the music
more, nor does it make me enjoy more music.

More music does that.

[[email protected]]

Harry Lavo wrote:
But someone who purchases mythology, smoke, mirrors and lies is making
a mistake or being led astray. That would be my point. Better they
should spend the same amount after an actual improvement.

Yes, but back in the 60's we were also being told by the Japanese companies
and Stereo Review and High Fidelity that we should be buying all the
imported stuff...it represent "just as good" or "nearly as good" and was
much cheaper. Today it's the Adcoms and the NAD's etc that are "just as
good" or "nearly as good" along with the Japanese, Korean, and Chinese
goods. But now as then, there was another pricier layer of gear that
offered more refinement to those who could appreciate it....and that for the
most part is the gear that has held it's value....the Fishers, the Scotts,
the Mac's, the Marantz's, the Citations,

But, ironically, the Fishers and the Scotts did not represent
the "procier layer."

along with the better Dynacos,
Heaths, and Eico's. I would suggest that today's BAT's, CJ's, ARC's,
Levinsons, B&W's, Thiels, etc are in that position to hold lasting value.

If you want something that holds value, buy real estate.
Just because something "holds it's value" doesn't mean
it performs well or even sound any good. There are plenty
of examples of things that "held their value" but, as audio
products, are as much the incompetently designed, miserable
pieces of drek today they were when they were new. Indeed,
it could be said they "held their value," but had an exceedingly
small intrinsic value which never grew, all out of proportion
to their "perceived" value. Certain Levinson products, such
as one of their DACs come to mind, for example. It weas SO
badly designed to begin with, yet it was held by some in
such esteem as to defy logic and even common sense.

It sounds as if you're talking more about jewelry than
usable equipment. Jewelry has high perceived value
all out of proportion to its intrinsic value. So does many
examples of so-called "high-end" equipment.

That it holds some perception of value is NOT a
qualification of fitness for purpose.

[[email protected]]

Harry Lavo wrote:

Yes, but back in the 60's we were also being told by the Japanese companies
and Stereo Review and High Fidelity that we should be buying all the
imported stuff...it represent "just as good" or "nearly as good" and was
much cheaper.
*CLIP*

But now as then, there was another pricier layer of gear that
offered more refinement to those who could appreciate it....and that for the
most part is the gear that has held it's value....the Fishers, the Scotts,
the Mac's, the Marantz's, the Citations, along with the better Dynacos,
Heaths, and Eico's. I would suggest that today's BAT's, CJ's, ARC's,
Levinsons, B&W's, Thiels, etc are in that position to hold lasting value.

The rest of the stuff is fluff...

*CLIP*

and if they can afford it and find value in fooling
around, why not?

The first problem with all this is that (and with all due respect, no
hostility offered or meant) being "told" something (AKA Received
Wisdom) is a very dangerous situation. If a preference is counter to
'received wisdom', there is a danger that the holder of said preference
feels that it is wrong, and therefore does something else. Entirely
apart from my opinion of the Audio Review Industry and the many-many
conflicts within in, real and perceived, such information is best
described as a point-of-departure vs. s decision-making tool.

And, you are very-most-likely correct that good (sounding) equipment
that is also made well and from quality parts even if expensive will
stand the test of time. And that would be true of a $1000 piece or a
$10,000 piece. I sincerely believe that (new) Audio Quality is
purchased on an asymtopic cost curve. The basic quality requirements
are met quickly and at a relatively low cost. Incremental improvements
are possible thereafter, but at disproportionately higher costs for
each increment as measured against the first leap. There are those who
choose to invest in these small increments, who drive the industry to
achieve them, and (eventually & hopefully) bring them down to more
affordable levels in time. That is a good thing. And we all owe a lot
to those able to afford nose-bleed priced stuff.

What happens all too often is that certain individuals are trained out
of believing in their own tastes and ears. They (mostly) may even
purchase very fine equipment, and may even spend a great deal of money.
And they are told that this is what they like. Or they read a review
somewhere and are instantly insecure in whatever decision they just
made. These are again all-to-often people who in their business lives
make important decisions affecting many lives all the time. Yet when it
comes to themselves, they lack confidence. I guess that is what I am
railing against in actuality. These individuals are prey to the less
than scrupulous, which are an entire and substantial industry in this
particular hobby.

There is a brief paragraph in Dorothy L. Sayer's "An Unpleasantness at
the Bellona Club"

An individual was turned down for club membership because he accepted a
fine cigar with a fine port. Another individual was accepted because he
stated that he was a beer-and-cigarette person, that good port and
tobacco would be wasted on him.

The former operated on what he felt was expected of him. The latter
stated and stood by his preferences.

I hope that this helps.

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA

p.s.: On occasion, I do this.

Dorothy L. Sayers was a member of a select group of writers, including
names instantly recognizable. She will not be listed in the membership
as it was "exclusively male"... but she attended as many meetings as
any and read at as many as any.

Questions: What was the Group? What did she read?

To the first person that e-mails me with the correct answers, I will
give one-from-a-list of tubes, including but not limited to: 80, 5AR4,
MP(one "item") Mullard EL-84, and so-forth. Postage paid anywhere in
the world that US-origin mail is accepted.

My hopes are that someone will know the answer without resorting to the
web. But that is not a condition.

[[email protected]]

Jerry wrote:
Bob, I've recently had excellent results with bi-amping an old set of
AR-3a's. The results were just stunning.


AR speakers are power-pigs and like/require a fairly high damping
factor. Some amps/receivers do not do so well at 4 ohms (nominal) load
(drops to under 2 ohms at certain frequencies) for damping factor. So,
bi-amping will address both these issues. And, as a set of clear, clean
AR speakers, all drivers and pots functioning at optimum are pretty
damned-good speakers, the results will be immediate and significant.

That speaker lasted MANY years in production and was revived twice due
to pent-up demand, The AR-11 & 10pi were its younger brothers, the LST
its steroidal twin, and the AR9 its direct descendent. That is a LOT of
years of production and pairs produced. I keep two pairs and admit to
serious prejudice towards their sound. But then, I have enough power to
drive them well. I keep several other speakers, but...

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA

[Jerry]

....
Jerry wrote:
Bob, I've recently had excellent results with bi-amping an old set of
AR-3a's. The results were just stunning.

Bob wrote:
AR speakers are power-pigs and like/require a fairly high damping
factor. Some amps/receivers do not do so well at 4 ohms (nominal) load
(drops to under 2 ohms at certain frequencies) for damping factor. So,
bi-amping will address both these issues. And, as a set of clear, clean
AR speakers, all drivers and pots functioning at optimum are pretty
damned-good speakers, the results will be immediate and significant.


Peter, I agree with everything you said. Particularly about the sound of
AR speakers.

Like you, I have multiple sets. Besides the AR-3a's I also have a set of
TSW 610's. Prior to bi-amping the 3a's the 610's were a lot
"clearer/cleaner" than the 3a's. Now, the situation is reversed as the
610's can no longer match the bi-amped 3a's.

Bi-amping changes all kinds of things. I really doubt that is just a matter
of "power". My AR1500 is conservatively rated at 100 watts RMS at 4 ohms.
Further, while the bass has improved (tighter, better definition, etc.), the
most significant improvements are heard in the mid-range and tweeter.

With your huge amp, Peter, I'm really curious whether you'd experience that
same "stunning" improvements that I achieved via bi-amping.

Regards,
Jerry

[DFW]

wrote:


Questions: What was the Group? What did she read?

To the first person that e-mails me with the correct answers, I will
give one-from-a-list of tubes, including but not limited to: 80, 5AR4,
MP(one "item") Mullard EL-84, and so-forth. Postage paid anywhere in
the world that US-origin mail is accepted.

My hopes are that someone will know the answer without resorting to the
web. But that is not a condition.

The Inklings

[[email protected]]

DFW wrote:

The Inklings

You are half-way there.

The Inkings is correct.

Now, what did she read?
Hint: It was not Wimsey.

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA

[DFW]

wrote:
DFW wrote:

The Inklings

You are half-way there.

The Inkings is correct.

Now, what did she read?
Hint: It was not Wimsey.

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA

I'd have to use the Internet...