Bi-wiring The question that can't be answered?

[jneutron]

hope that pic was removed before anyone else was blinded by it. Viewing was not by choice, and it was nasty.

Oops, sorry bout that. Perhaps I should post a warning?

Hey, ya know...all ya gotta do is drop the cookie...then, wheneva ya sees a post of mine, any questionable pic doesn't shows up...

Course, ya might miss a pic of Giorgia Palmas or Reon Kadena then...(man's got taste)..perhaps this pic??

Hmmm, risks, risks...what ta do...

gotcha..

Cheers, John

[E-Stat]

Interesting. I guess you are affirming correlation.

Yes, sorry for the hanging conclusion.

Attached is a graph of that, from one of his wire shootouts (from what I recall). While I present the data, I've no idea what each of the wires actually is nor their cost, nor their popularity..(sorry the graphs are not hi rez, saving jpegs below 100k is not very pretty.)

I don't care about cost or popularity in a vacuum either - just audible performance. Using your "lowest product" criteria, the best cable in this bunch has a dividend of 2. Nordost Valhalla's is 1.11 and my JPS Labs Superconductor+ is 1.16.

My goal has been to correlate these parameters to "possible" audibility, you give some interesting points of data..thanks.

Great goal! I haven't had more time today (yes, I work too) to examine some other popular cables using your criteria.

rw

edit: I found this text from the Nordost site regarding Valhalla. They must be using a slightly different factor than 1034.

"The cable has an effective dielectric constant of 1.12, which is incredibly low, the reference point being air or a vacuum, which has a dielectric constant of 1".

[poneal]

If you re-examine my statement and the graph, one glaring thing was said. The error component, the "2ab" graph, is the difference between biwiring and monowiring when the load is a branch circuit composed of frequency directing elements (a crossover). Two very important concepts were stated...1, the integral of this 2ab error component is ZERO, meaning it has an integrated energy of zero. This precludes the possibility of viewing it using standard FFT algorithms. and, 2. Half of the error is NEGATIVE energy...as a standalone concept, this defies the first law of thermodynamics half the time..If you examine the 2ab component and the "a squared plus b squared" yellow plot, you will notice that the extreme negative dissipation point coincides with the peak positive summation point, and the sum of those two at that point is zero (the light blue line). The 2ab component cannot exist without the sum of squares component, so physics is not defied..no new laws are being created.

But, nonetheless, there is a difference between biwiring and mono, for a two or three branch frequency dependent load. And from my simple previous back of the envelope analysis, a 120 milliohm speaker cable/connector set introduces a 1.5% error component to the node at the speaker. Nobody in their right mind would claim 1.5% is inaudible. The issue to date has been one of measuring.


I hope that is the case.

What wire thing? I have presented a simple analysis using a simple equation, shown how the error component enters audibility, explains how such an error signal defies measurement using rather sophisticated measurement tools (FFT), and simply stated that your rebuttal to the concept of biwiring did not have any "meat" to it, therefore failed to support your assertion that it is of no consequence.

And, I only provided the analysis of the R component of the wires, leaving L and C (or more precisely, Z) of the cable alone. That is a more difficult analysis as the energy within the system is not lost, but eventually arrives at the load lagged (disregarding frequency dependent reactive of course(no need to complicate things.).


I concur, but that is off topic here.

Wire is wire, of course. And for the most part, it can be considered as lossless without consideration of it's effect on the system. However, as you can see from my simple derivation of dissipation losses, the lumped parameters of the wire cannot be discounted for low impedance circuitry such as speakers.


For non cryogenic runs, I use bundled 500 mcm's, 500 amps per wire..over 5 kiloamps the trays cannot support the weight, so solid copper busswork is required..

For my big speakers, I use 12/3 extension cord with neutriks. For my HT, I use the 24awg out of the box and the free IC's, they meet my requirements. If I were concerned about this biwire thing, I'd do so...but I am not, so don't. This does not mean I think it silly, just that I do not require it.


That was noticeable. However, one should temper ones feelings in discussions within forums, as sometimes the person at the other end of the 'net may indeed have a valid point.


I know your pain, try pricing a 10 millihenry inductor that can handle 10 kiloamps.. And yes, I do not like the snake oil explanations either. Last night a salesguy tried to sell me an HDMI cable that had "nitrogen dielectric". Course, he has no clue what that is..


Accepted. nuff said.

Helping the poster is good, clearing up misconceptions is good (there are so many). But, as I point out, your own misconceptions with regard to biwiring did not support your argument, it would have been a more reasonable tact to ask why I stated such.

Cheers, John

I'm off next week for Thanksgiving and will start building one of the boxes for my Kappa Pro 15LF-2, HM130Z0, and MDT-37 pro stereo speakers. I already have some bi-amp terminals so I will use these. I will measure the response of the speaker with and without bi-wiring using the different topologies indicated in the link I gave. I will also take some impedance sweeps of these different type of arrangement. We can then determine whether it makes an audible difference. I have the ECM-8000 mic that has been calibrated. A Yamaha analog mixer with phantom power, and an amp and Sound Easy latest version. I will take on axis and off axis at about 1 meter away at tweeter height. This should at least tell us if it is audible.

Cheers,

Paul

[Resident Loser]

I'm off next week for Thanksgiving and will start building one of the boxes for my Kappa Pro 15LF-2, HM130Z0, and MDT-37 pro stereo speakers. I already have some bi-amp terminals so I will use these. I will measure the response of the speaker with and without bi-wiring using the different topologies indicated in the link I gave. I will also take some impedance sweeps of these different type of arrangement. We can then determine whether it makes an audible difference. I have the ECM-8000 mic that has been calibrated. A Yamaha analog mixer with phantom power, and an amp and Sound Easy latest version. I will take on axis and off axis at about 1 meter away at tweeter height. This should at least tell us if it is audible.

Cheers,

Paul

...be measureable or audible?...After all, many of our goldeneared brethren claim to hear things that defy measurement, fly in the face of measurement or claim that the correct type of measurement to account for what is heard has yet to be devised...

And besides things have to burn-in/break-in for at least a few centuries...

jimHJJ(...the word moot comes to mind...)

[jneutron]

I don't care about cost or popularity in a vacuum either - just audible performance. Using your "lowest product" criteria, the best cable in this bunch has a dividend of 2. Nordost Valhalla's is 1.11 and my JPS Labs Superconductor+ is 1.16.

I am of the belief that it is not just the LC product, but a combo of that and the characteristic impedance. It is the total energy stored that I am speaking of..
It is possible to create any cableset which meets an arbitrary load impedance...the real issue is to get the lc product as low as possible also.

edit: I found this text from the Nordost site regarding Valhalla. They must be using a slightly different factor than 1034.

"The cable has an effective dielectric constant of 1.12, which is incredibly low, the reference point being air or a vacuum, which has a dielectric constant of 1".

No, we speak of the same thing. The 1034 is really just a units conversion thing...be careful to use feet, nH and pF, or the numbers get really messy.

My guess is they measured L and C, calc'd the prop speed from:

V = 1/sqr(LC) = c/sqr(epsilon mu)

Assumed mu=1 to give v = 1/sqr(epsilon)

Then got the effective dielectric constant.

So we be speakin the same language..

Cheers, John

[jneutron]

I'm off next week for Thanksgiving and will start building one of the boxes for my Kappa Pro 15LF-2, HM130Z0, and MDT-37 pro stereo speakers. I already have some bi-amp terminals so I will use these. I will measure the response of the speaker with and without bi-wiring using the different topologies indicated in the link I gave. I will also take some impedance sweeps of these different type of arrangement. We can then determine whether it makes an audible difference. I have the ECM-8000 mic that has been calibrated. A Yamaha analog mixer with phantom power, and an amp and Sound Easy latest version. I will take on axis and off axis at about 1 meter away at tweeter height. This should at least tell us if it is audible.

Cheers,

Paul

If it were that easy, my guess is it would already have been measured.

You have to time correlate the mike to the source material.

Several confounders:
1. You have to time correlate the mike to the source material. Both signals..
2. You, in the listening area..reflections which change
3. spl
4. Mike diaphram movement (it sees the lows)
5. What algorithm is being used to capture the node voltage for impedance measure? FFT?

The method has some hairy confounders..I do not predict this will meet the requirements.

Don't forget, the error is a product of the branch currents, and we hear in stereo...Humans are sensitive to 2uSec temporal shifts ear to ear (each channel has different current products), humans are sensitive to very low ear to ear level shifts..

Your overall measurement technique does not consider temporal issues. A big hole there.

It'd be great if you found something there, but I suspect you will not..

Have a nice thanksgiving.

Cheers, John

[poneal]

...be measureable or audible?...After all, many of our goldeneared brethren claim to hear things that defy measurement, fly in the face of measurement or claim that the correct type of measurement to account for what is heard has yet to be devised...

And besides things have to burn-in/break-in for at least a few centuries...

jimHJJ(...the word moot comes to mind...)

It's like the guys who swear by those high dollar Mundorf capacitors. By golly they can hear a difference. I've not been able to tell personally. I did a little experiment this past month up at the DIY Iowa Event. I built this speaker for this guy with the understanding that I present it and get judged on it. I used electrolytic caps with .01uF film and foil by-pass caps on the positive leg. Of course I used my multimeter to ensure the values were the same since electrolytics' tolerance levels are not as stringent. Guess what? It won third place and everyone was amazed at the clarity and imaging of this speaker. I actually had on EE come outside and tell me before he left that in his opinion my sounded the best he had heard all day. He was just there to judge and enjoy. No entry. At DIY Ohio last year, they did a cap test. Took good old electrolytics vs the high end ones. Only 1 person said they heard a difference and this was from a group of individuals who listen hours trying to get the vocals and everything just right. Same with wire I guess.

Paul

[poneal]

If it were that easy, my guess is it would already have been measured.

You have to time correlate the mike to the source material.

Several confounders:
1. You have to time correlate the mike to the source material. Both signals..
-----Not a problem. All my meas. are time correlated via gating.
2. You, in the listening area..reflections which change
----I measure outside where reflections are not an issue
3. spl
---- I usualy use 1 watt at 1 meter
4. Mike diaphram movement (it sees the lows)
---Most meas. systems don't take good measurements down low on a gate. I've successfully gotten into the low hundred hertz range with a long enough gate.
5. What algorithm is being used to capture the node voltage for impedance measure? FFT?
---MLS signal is used and the FFT and other tranformations via the software.

The method has some hairy confounders..I do not predict this will meet the requirements.

Don't forget, the error is a product of the branch currents, and we hear in stereo...Humans are sensitive to 2uSec temporal shifts ear to ear (each channel has different current products), humans are sensitive to very low ear to ear level shifts..


-----This will be an MLS signal

Your overall measurement technique does not consider temporal issues. A big hole there.

----If you are talking about lobing then yes it does take that into consideration.

It'd be great if you found something there, but I suspect you will not..

Have a nice thanksgiving.

-----Hey, you too. I've got some EE buddies emailing me to make sure the test is a valid test. If you have any input into making it better I'm all ears. These EE's are some of the top engineers in speaker building. I'm not one for throwing around names but here are a few that I will bounch this off.

John Kreskovsky: http://www.musicanddesign.com/
Roman Bednarek: http://www.rjbaudio.com
John Krutke: http://www.zaphaudio.com
CurtC: http://www.geocities.com/cc00541/index.html
David Ralph: http://www.speakerdesign.net/

Cheers, John

I'm sure between all these head that we will come to some conclusion.

Paul

[jneutron]

I'm sure between all these head that we will come to some conclusion.
Paul

Perhaps. I'll be here to toss monkey wrenches into anything you do, of course...

Seriously, I'll help where I can..

Fraid I do not know any of those names, nor their companies..sorry.

Course, you probably don't know anybody I work with either..

I was not speaking of lobing. What I speak of is a temporal shifting of the hf as a result of the lf current..how to measure that while low freq spl is in the air is not gonna be easy. Perhaps mounting woof as a dipole to provide cancellation? Course, that gets anechoic, bet you don't have one..

Since the monowire error signal is zero integral energy, the assumption is that it's loss from the output signal is also zero integrated energy. I do not know if it will be measureable using standard techniques. Fraid FFT math is a tad above me..

Have a nice week.

Cheers, John

[poneal]

Perhaps. I'll be here to toss monkey wrenches into anything you do, of course...

Seriously, I'll help where I can..

Fraid I do not know any of those names, nor their companies..sorry.

Course, you probably don't know anybody I work with either..

I was not speaking of lobing. What I speak of is a temporal shifting of the hf as a result of the lf current..how to measure that while low freq spl is in the air is not gonna be easy. Perhaps mounting woof as a dipole to provide cancellation? Course, that gets anechoic, bet you don't have one..

Since the monowire error signal is zero integral energy, the assumption is that it's loss from the output signal is also zero integrated energy. I do not know if it will be measureable using standard techniques. Fraid FFT math is a tad above me..

Have a nice week.

Cheers, John

I got a few emails back and well I may still do this exercise during the building process but they brought me back to reality. That's the good thing about friends, they let you know when you onto nothing. Oh, BTW, here's some more articles on bi-amping and cables in general. This is a good site. They also have projects (not just articles) for building amps and diffferent electronics if you're so inclined. Not a bad site to keep bookmarked.

http://sound.westhost.com/articles.htm

Here's one of the responses that led me to this indecision.

Sacred Cows...

Generally the bi-wires are tied together at the amp, with separate runs to the woofer and to the mid/tweeter. -An extension of star-grounding, if you will. Some isolation of the speaker crossover networks is possible with bi wiring, but of course it depends...

This is more or less religious debate, and I see no reason to step on the toes of the true believers on either side of the fence.

All you can say for sure is that considering the practically unlimited number of situations; components, cables, speakers, individuals, etc., -In any given instance, it may be just as possible to hear an audible difference as not.

Sure, impedance, capacitance, and inductance will change. Will it make an audible difference? It depends on how much and how those changes interact with the rest of the system.

C

You take care,

Paul

[E-Stat]

fly in the face of measurement...

In the face of which measurement? Validated to prove exactly what?

rw

[Resident Loser]

In the face of which measurement? Validated to prove exactly what?

rw

...in toto the entire audiopile experience, I seem to recall any number of folks who wax euphorically about the sonic nirvana of tubes over solid state when specs would seem to be at odds with such anecdotal accolades, particularly when the phrase "straight wire with gain" (read: lower distortion) is the benchmark.

Other more mundane things, which fly in the face of logic, like bi-wiring, where one essentially doubles the the target area for EMI and RFI upon which to impinge their nasty little artifacts...or the fact that most of the aforementioned hash is generated within most modern components and yet there are some who spend a great deal of time and money attempting to lessen the deleterious effects of those unwanted signals, whose strength is inversely proportional to the distance from it's source...

There always seems to be a convenient "out"...

Personally, and in recent history, much of my listening is done, via about $12 of hardware...Dean Martin still sounds like Dean Martin, Coltrane and Davis, even in RVG mono, are still who they are and the music is what still matters...

There may be some audio breakthrough that will transport the performance into your living room, but for some strange reason, wire seems to be an unlikely candidate for the honor...

jimHJJ(...and then of course we have diverse bits of multi-track mono masquerading as as "stereo"...but that's another facet of the mythology...)

[jneutron]

I got a few emails back and well I may still do this exercise during the building process but they brought me back to reality. That's the good thing about friends, they let you know when you onto nothing.

Your friends are giving you bad advice.

Options are:
1. You explained inadequately to them what I have posted.

2. They do not have the ability to think beyond their understandings.

3. They do not wish to discover that their education is inadequate..

Oh, of course there is the option that they are correct..but I have discounted that...

Here's one of the responses that led me to this indecision.

Sacred Cows...

Generally the bi-wires are tied together at the amp, with separate runs to the woofer and to the mid/tweeter. -An extension of star-grounding, if you will. Some isolation of the speaker crossover networks is possible with bi wiring, but of course it depends...

This is more or less religious debate, and I see no reason to step on the toes of the true believers on either side of the fence.

All you can say for sure is that considering the practically unlimited number of situations; components, cables, speakers, individuals, etc., -In any given instance, it may be just as possible to hear an audible difference as not.

Sure, impedance, capacitance, and inductance will change. Will it make an audible difference? It depends on how much and how those changes interact with the rest of the system.

C

You take care,

Paul

This is all your fault.

You should have explained to your friends:

1. jneutron does not biwire any of his systems.
2. jneutron does not care to biwire any of his systems.
3. jneutron has never heard a difference as a result of biwiring.
4. jneutron has no desire to hear a difference as a result of biwiring.
5. jneutron has arrived at his assertions via mathematical analysis.
6. jneutron has applied conservation of energy to the analysis to arrive at his assertions.

Now, re-read that list and explain to me where I have invoked religion, beliefs, dogmas, sacred cows, golden hearing, manufacturer white papers..

I have used Maxwells equations, joule's law, ohms law, and the first law of thermodynamics.

I run into this a lot, actually. The real problem here is not what your friends learned, but rather, what they were taught. Rather than give you bad advice, they should be asking me questions.

Sheesh, I bet they still think "skin depth" is governed by the exponential equation for audio frequencies.

I'm glad you're still interested in testing, however.

Cheers, John

[E-Stat]

...in toto the entire audiopile experience, I seem to recall any number of folks who wax euphorically about the sonic nirvana of tubes over solid state when specs would seem to be at odds with such anecdotal accolades, particularly when the phrase "straight wire with gain" (read: lower distortion) is the benchmark.

Ah, THD. I repeat: Validated to prove what?

Other more mundane things, which fly in the face of logic, like bi-wiring, where one essentially doubles the the target area for EMI and RFI upon which to impinge their nasty little artifacts

Not necessarily. For those who use zip cord, yes. As for me, my cables are shielded. Regarding "logic", I guess you haven't read any of John E's posts - or simply think that the dozens of amplifier and speaker manufacturers who support bi-wiring are just pandering to irrational behavior.

Personally, and in recent history, much of my listening is done, via about $12 of hardware...Dean Martin still sounds like Dean Martin, Coltrane and Davis, even in RVG mono, are still who they are and the music is what still matters...

True. Similarly, I could say the same of my Boy Scout crystal radio.

rw

[jneutron]

Regarding "logic", I guess you haven't read any of John E's posts - or simply think that the dozens of amplifier and speaker manufacturers who support bi-wiring are just pandering to irrational behavior.

rw

Actually, I am sure that some support biwiring for irrational reasons, some because it is what their customers expect, and some because they either believe it makes a difference, or have heard a difference.

Given the fact that it is subtle, it requires actual measurement confirmation to convince the diehard EE types...biwiring and my analysis does fly in the face of what we were taught those oh so many years ago.

Paul, his friends, RL, they are simply supporting what has been taught, that's all. I can't blame them their position (although I can and do razz them), nor can I blame you yours.

Measurement confirmation will put that to rest, leaving us all to argue about something else. Course, the confirmation leads down a rather interesting circuit theory path...it almost seems to violate superposition. (it doesn't of course, but the distinction is dangerously subtle.)

Cheers, John

[poneal]

Your friends are giving you bad advice.

Options are:
1. You explained inadequately to them what I have posted.

2. They do not have the ability to think beyond their understandings.

3. They do not wish to discover that their education is inadequate..

Oh, of course there is the option that they are correct..but I have discounted that...


This is all your fault.

You should have explained to your friends:

1. jneutron does not biwire any of his systems.
2. jneutron does not care to biwire any of his systems.
3. jneutron has never heard a difference as a result of biwiring.
4. jneutron has no desire to hear a difference as a result of biwiring.
5. jneutron has arrived at his assertions via mathematical analysis.
6. jneutron has applied conservation of energy to the analysis to arrive at his assertions.

Now, re-read that list and explain to me where I have invoked religion, beliefs, dogmas, sacred cows, golden hearing, manufacturer white papers..

I have used Maxwells equations, joule's law, ohms law, and the first law of thermodynamics.

I run into this a lot, actually. The real problem here is not what your friends learned, but rather, what they were taught. Rather than give you bad advice, they should be asking me questions.

Sheesh, I bet they still think "skin depth" is governed by the exponential equation for audio frequencies.

I'm glad you're still interested in testing, however.

Cheers, John

One of them does bi-wire as he stated he heard a difference on some ribbons but only on certain tracks. It's not like they aren't thinking and that's just a wrong judgement on your part IMHO. To be quite honest, I posted a similar question over on the PE forum and got more replies from different individuals than here. This board is sorta slow though. You're welcome to post your opinion over there to stir the pot up some more . Here's the link:

http://www.pesupport.com/cgi-bin/config.pl?read=316909

It's interesting to read all the replies and it was kept very civil. BTW, the guy that does bi-wire, David Ralph, has published articles in speaker magazines. Here is one:

http://www.speakerdesign.net/home.html

just click on the first button titled, "Speaker Builder Article on Relative Acoustic Offset". He has other articles that are very interesting too.

Paul

[jneutron]

It's not like they aren't thinking and that's just a wrong judgement on your part IMHO.

Read the post again. I presented 4 options as explanation. I made no judgements.

To be quite honest, I posted a similar question over on the PE forum and got more replies from different individuals than here. This board is sorta slow though. You're welcome to post your opinion over there to stir the pot up some more . Here's the link:

http://www.pesupport.com/cgi-bin/config.pl?read=316909

Thanks, took a look.. You presented nothing regarding my analysis, which was incorrect on your part.

While they have more responses, I have not seen anything there to float my boat..

Your other link...Rods a nice guy, pretty smart.. While his analysis is pretty good, transmission line theory is a bit weak.

Cheers, John

[Resident Loser]

(1) Ah, THD. I repeat: Validated to prove what?


(2)Not necessarily. For those who use zip cord, yes. As for me, my cables are shielded. Regarding "logic", I guess you haven't read any of John E's posts - or simply think that the dozens of amplifier and speaker manufacturers who support bi-wiring are just pandering to irrational behavior.


(3)True. Similarly, I could say the same of my Boy Scout crystal radio.

rw

(1)You asked what flew in who's face...treating the subject as an entire package, that's my reply...I'd rather hear dry or brittle or analytical over soft, warm or spongy...To my way of thinking, the former is more revealing of lesser recordings whereas the latter just soaks up or glosses over defects...Even entities such as JR pretty much said that anything that makes everything sound good can't be all that accurate.

Personal preference is what it is, so I'd guess measurements need not apply...so I'd also guess that's my point.

(2)Good for you...how many others bi-wire with zip or use unshielded multi- conductor aftermarket wire?...Where is the supposed advantage offered by the equivalent gauge increase if it also puts out a welcome-mat for sonic vermin?

And for the record, yep...the emperors new clothes...How else are you going to sell new stuff...I mean look at the recording biz, the same old bought-and-paid-for catalog...Just introduce a new medium only this time don't provide a choice...bada-bing, bada-boom...sorry folks your record and tape collections are obsolete...and P.S. now we have SACDs and MP3s so don't get too comfy with your CDs and B&M stores...Just how many average audio types have the gear to realize any sonic improvement...Again pointing to JR, it's SOTA stuff, tweaked-to infinity and beyond, that has the best shot...that leaves out an awful lot of folks who will most likely hear nothing...

I'd hazard a guess if we weren't forcibly digitized, we wouldn't even be discussing the subject, as we'd be debating the pros and cons of tonearm/cart/TT combos...and that at least makes some sense.

(3)Cat's whisker you say! You'll have to separate those apples and oranges...My $7 GPX CDP and $5 Koss 'phones have more power, usable dynamic range and wider FR than an unpowered AM crystal set...they measure better and sound far closer to the average hi-fi...Yes, it's the music that matters but why compare them to audio that sounds like it's coming through a telephone handset...

jimHJJ(...I mean even I have my limits...)

[E-Stat]

To my way of thinking, the former is more revealing of lesser recordings whereas the latter just soaks up or glosses over defects...

So, which (defied) logic determines those characteristics?

(2)Good for you...how many others bi-wire with zip or use unshielded multi- conductor aftermarket wire?...Where is the supposed advantage offered by the equivalent gauge increase if it also puts out a welcome-mat for sonic vermin?

Wasn't your question regarding RFI rejection (that which shielding addresses)?

Yes, it's the music that matters but why compare them to audio that sounds like it's coming through a telephone handset...

Gee, that's what I was thinking when you set the bar with your "Dean Martin still sounds like Dean Martin.. " example.

rw

[Resident Loser]

So, which (defied) logic determines those characteristics?

Wasn't your question regarding RFI rejection (that which shielding addresses)?

Gee, that's what I was thinking when you set the bar with your "Dean Martin still sounds like Dean Martin.. " example.

rw

...specs are specs, all measured, all repeatable...What defies logic is doubling a potential receptor for wayward hash...Context, context...that's what paragraphs are for...

Actually my question and supporting statement was: Just how many average audio types have the gear to realize any sonic improvement...Again pointing to JR, it's SOTA stuff, tweaked-to infinity and beyond, that has the best shot...that leaves out an awful lot of folks who will most likely hear nothing...

Would you prefer Sinatra? Or Pavarotti? Not really a huge fan of his (although I really like Memories Are Made Of This), but with little contempo music to listen to, I've assumed a retrograde motion...one of my most recent male vocal acquisitions was DMs "Essential" compilation...some very nice guitar work in some of those tracks and even given the then SOTA, it hardly sounds like the truncated FR of a phone line...

jimHJJ(...or a crystal set...)

[Mash]

about the glorious benefits of bi-wiring loudspeakers. These wire debates never contribute anything really meaningful for anyone except those who sell wires.

This bi-wire debate is even complete with the requisite Audio-purist rebuttal to wires-are-inaudible: “If you cannot hear the benefits, your system is not resolving enough”. The highly original “You must try it and decide for yourself” might sound open-minded, but if someone should return and post a wires-are-inaudible listening result then it will be back to “your system is not resolving enough”. Ho hum.

These rebuttals to the inaudibility-of-wires-result are also good for the ‘new magic-interconnects with Foo-Foo dust’ debates. I know there must also be some ‘new magic-interconnects’ debates here somewhere. It IS rather efficient to be able to get double-duty out of an illogical argument.

You can blow thousands of dollars and lots of time fiddling with those redundant wires. But heck, you post that you can afford it. Me? I have a dock to buy and some land acquisition to negotiate. These activities will be far more “rewarding” than piddling my time and money away with wires.

I did revise our bedroom home movie system. It now has an up-converting OPPO HD DVD/CD feeding audio to a CJ preamp, which in turn feeds the audio to the HD LCD, and also to the Velodyne Servo-15, Jolida 302B, and smaller Magnepans which comprise the primary speaker system. Add the up-converting Bravo-1 for VCR tapes and we have a mostly-new-equipment killer-sounding system that cost $3000 not counting the HD LCD. This is a far, far better use of $3000 than any silly wires. But you chaps should continue your wire debates and spending your time and money on wire experiments for the better glory of the Audiophile world.

The Ripoff Reports site is far more interesting. People there have real problems instead of these audiophile make-believe problems. Those people posting their problems at the Ripoff Reports site are often butt-deep in real, as opposed to sham, poo.

My wife and I will continue to watch operas on DVD and enjoy lifelike video and audio, while you chaps listen to your wires’ stunning inner beauty. This sounds good to me.

[E-Stat]

...specs are specs, all measured, all repeatable..

Even the maker of arguably the worst sounding component ever (the ICK, sorry IC-150 preamp), Crown, has recognized the irrelevancy of THD. Note that their current gear has higher measured distortion. At least using this simplistic measure. Faith in useless metrics is no different from the voodoo Mash refers to.

rw

[E-Stat]

about the glorious benefits of bi-wiring loudspeakers. These wire debates never contribute anything really meaningful for anyone except those who sell wires.

I have a couple of questions if you don't mind. It seems you are a Magnepan fan since you have Tympanis and some other smaller model.

1. Why did Magnepan specifically design the 1.6, the 3.6, and the 20.1 to work bi-wired? That wording is found in the owners manuals. Admittedly, they didn't bother with the other models.

2. Why did Magnepan recommend that the 20.1s used in The Absolute Sound review be bi-wired? I heard that specific pair and really liked their sound. Here is the rear view if you're not familiar with them:



3. Is Jim Winey an incompetent engineer?

Just curious to get your take on these facts.

rw

[Mash]

when someone challenges the Foo-Foo Brigade.. Is this one of your job requirements to be a Hall Monitor at Audio Review?

Magnepan employees’ recommendations for bi-wiring have nothing to do with Jim Winey’s competence, engineering or otherwise. That is bad and even silly logic, Dude. You can do better. Can’t you?

I have not spoken with Jim in some time.

I have talked to some other folk at Magnepan besides Jim, and I have found some …[how do I put this delicately]… interesting commentary with which I was unhappy.

I am used to people doing what I wanted done, not the other way around. During my career I have never kissed a butt, but I have kicked a few. Doing anything to gain the approval of others for any reason is kissing butt, and nothing more.

Magnepan employees, or anyone else for that matter, can recommend anything they wish to recommend, but when it is my money and time I will do what I think is best. This is the philosophy I recommend to you.

I am now retired with
1. a very nice positive net worth,
2. full medical benefits and prescription drug coverage for my wife and I, and
3. a net income that nicely exceeds what we enjoyed when I was working.

You are NOT going to have (1) and (3) piddling your time and money away on useless concerns such as the joys of bi-wiring, regardless (irregardless, even?) of what is in vogue or who might be pushing it.

Anyone who wants a secure and comfortable retirement had better learn to think critically for himself. This was always Skeptic’s point, but I think you missed it to your own injury. Maybe you simply wish to help push the demand for wires. Either way, I don’t care. I got mine, Dude.

[E-Stat]

I have not spoken with Jim in some time.

Others who I know have.

Anyone who wants a secure and comfortable retirement had better learn to think critically for himself. This was always Skeptic’s point, but I think you missed it to your own injury. Maybe you simply wish to help push the demand for wires. Either way, I don’t care. I got mine, Dude.

Is there a direct relation between your retirement investment planning (a noble cause) and that of the technical requirements for high performance loudspeakers? As for me, I use full range electrostats and have no use for biwiring. Neither Magnepan, nor Nola, nor JBL, nor Revel, nor Karma, nor dozens of other speaker manufacturers I'm aware of also sell wire. I'm simply communicating that which the engineers of these and other fine loudspeakers and many an amplifier recommend based upon the investment they place in supporting that capability with their products.

rw