Dear fellow members,
I'm humble enough to admit an unintentional mistake. No idea what went wrong, but I measured again this morning and both curves, with and without bi-wiring do match perfectly.
However, the relative harshness of the tweeters is gone with bi-wiring.
I can not explain that but careful listening clearly shows an improvement with 2 cables. I don't rule out the placebo effect. 😉
Here again the plot with and without bi-wiring.
Conclusion: measurements show no difference, listening seems to do.
I wonder if there is a way to make this harshness visible in a measurement.
The plot also shows the curve at the listening position with DSP. I did not yet compensate for the dip at 80Hz.
I'm humble enough to admit an unintentional mistake. No idea what went wrong, but I measured again this morning and both curves, with and without bi-wiring do match perfectly.
However, the relative harshness of the tweeters is gone with bi-wiring.
I can not explain that but careful listening clearly shows an improvement with 2 cables. I don't rule out the placebo effect. 😉
Here again the plot with and without bi-wiring.
Conclusion: measurements show no difference, listening seems to do.
I wonder if there is a way to make this harshness visible in a measurement.
The plot also shows the curve at the listening position with DSP. I did not yet compensate for the dip at 80Hz.
^ This. What troubles (and tickles) me is that we all (seem to) love the same things; music / electronics. Yet, the passionate (and sometimes painfully impolite) arguments between "objectivists and subjectivists" had almost turned me away from enjoying my hobby on-line with others. There's a place for everyone.
The 'objectivists' tend to bucket everything into "if you can hear it, it can be measured". That's fine... but... the reverse is often ignored. There's never been any study (that I've seen) showing soundstage etc. and how that can be measured and/or reliably trended for hearing differences. All that seems to be discussed is FR. 'Objectivists' also tend to leave out that it all costs money, effort, and time to do any of that. Getting a research budget to do a bi-wire study would likely be laughable (as an example). First can anyone hear the difference with whatever is being discussed (because that's hypothetically what really matters)? THEN, can we figure out what electrically changes to correlate / find causation. It simply must occur in that order, IMO. It cannot be "We've measured it every-which way from Sunday, and there's no difference (that we found), so NO ONE can hear it".
The 'subjectivists' tend to go with the only argument they have, which is "trust me, I (and my buddies) DO hear it". That's fine too, but it really has been shown that people (in a certain population) have short audio memories, and that there are good and bad ways to do controlled studies to rule out bias. If they make the claim that they can hear it, then fine. However, claiming that everyone should be able to hear it or that it's "night and day", is nonsense. The BS around... "Well, your system isn't 'resolving' enough to where you could get that last %0.00001" is infuriating marketing madness. It's a known tactic, and those that practice it, should be flogged, IMO (and jokingly). Asking subjectivists to "prove" everything is a bit overkill in a hobby. Sure, I'd like to see some (reliable) evidence that any one person could meet my standards for hearing a difference in bi-wiring, but hey... I'm not paying for it. 🙂
Taking the analogy further... if the best riders known to the planet, with the best equipment can't do X, then it's safe to say within reason that something is (currently) impossible. If a 15K bike allows the best riders to achieve peak (and measurable) performance differences, fantastic. On the other hand, I don't buy into getting a 15k bike will make me a "better rider". Sure, for some... it will. For me... diminishing returns is a very real thought process when it comes to bicycles... and audio.
Cheers!
Last edited:
Objective data becomes subjective once interpreted, They are not either/or. Interpretation of objective data is amost always subjective , the only way it cannot be subjective if the input and output of the interpretation are exactly the same. You can understand data better once you know this. So people who clam to be objectivists are in fact subjectives , they say look at the Data its correct, but the data they are oftern showing you is often subjective.
That should be fairly easy. Some other things are quite hard to measure. Tell you what though, if you measure some things that are the result of complex mix of known physical effects, and or if the numbers look small, then the so-called objectivists will reject it anyway.
Anyway, you just need to measure the voltage and current at the HF driver with and without bi-wiring. Do an FT on each and you will probably see a difference. Remember though what I said about if the numbers are small the objectivists are likely to dismiss the difference as inaudible (like they know).
EDIT: You should probably measure phase at the HF driver too, relative to the amplifier input. For that you may or may not need a multi-tone stimulus.
Otherwise, according the so-called objectivists you shouldn't be allowed to say you hear any difference at all because you don't have "proof."
Last edited:
Its not BS, and I'm not selling anything. Also, please don't exaggerate the number of zeros.
If you come here for a visit, you may find some evidence to warrant adjusting your position.
^ That wasn't pointed at you. The fact that you received it as such... is a bit telling. I absolutely would enjoy meeting you and seeing how you and yours listen / evaluate. I mean that with sincerity.
Separate but related to above - No one (at least not me) is trying to back anyone into a corner. It seems many are weary of the "battle". Hell, I would be too. All I personally have ever asked for, hopefully politely, is whatever evidence anyone has used to formulate their claims / beliefs. Then, I can review that information to see if we come to the same conclusions. If people say, well, just trust me... believe me I do trust those that say it. I have no reason to not trust what they say. I, however, will not accept that their experience is universally true for everyone, least of which, me. I, personally, require a bit more than that to separate me from my $$ or dedicate time to a pursuit (unless it's fun for me).
Likewise, if someone is kind enough to provide references to written works, "scientific" or not, I'll gladly read those to see if I draw the same conclusions. All this handwaving and 'taking sides' is draining.
Likewise, if someone is kind enough to provide references to written works, "scientific" or not, I'll gladly read those to see if I draw the same conclusions. All this handwaving and 'taking sides' is draining.
Its an old accusation seen before around here, often directed at subjectivists who suggested something like, "maybe you can't hear it because you system isn't resolving enough?" Suggesting such a thing can get some people really riled up, even though it may well be true.
Also, just because marketing people say some of the same types of things doesn't mean there isn't some truth to it. As far as marketing goes, mixing truth with fiction may be an effective technique. I would only say don't throw out the baby with the bathwater. The true parts shouldn't rejected just because they were used along with some possibly false or exaggerated claims by some marketing guy.
Last edited:
Or put a different, slightly related way... lies, damn lies, and statistics.
Noted. I personally promise that anything directed toward you, specifically, will @ you or quote you. My intent was to call out the marketing side of things where people are goaded into buying expensive things that (likely) will have no effect (real or imagined) in their systems only to be told that .... "Oh, you silly boy, how could I have known you didn't have the Whatsahoozit 4000 already... you need one of THOSE to really hear the difference. Those are only an additional... $$$$". That sort of thing. Hyperbole clearly intended. Cheers!
If you were able to attach two cables to your speakers, they have two pairs of sockets. How are these connected if only one cable is connected?
We are talking here about physical objects that modulate current, i.e. signal. In any case, whether audible or not.
Another type of single or bi wiring: DECCA recommended connecting its cartridges with only one ground wire. This is also audible: two cables, channel-separated, modulate the signal, channel-separated. The ear perceives this. Only one wire sounds cleaner and more homogeneous.
Or psu: most use two secondary windings. Disconnect one and you have a cleaner and more homogeneous sound.
A thesis, which is why many seem to benefit from bi-wiring: the wooden loudspeakers tend to sound gray and flat. Other impurities give them more "life" and "contour";-)
Probably to eliminate a ground loop.
There is capacitive and magnetic coupling between secondary windings in a transformer. Disconnecting one winding will eliminate the coupling as well as whatever noise and distortion the coupling may have carried.
An electronics education apparently only enables people to think in conceptual categories. Left. Everything conceptual and ideal.
The physical reality, the material reality, can be seen on the right. Whether diameters, shapes, materials, physical layout, whatever: quasi micro-electrical effects that are ignored in the upper world. For example, minimal runtime differences between different cables. Which the ear shows, but not the conceptual smooth line;-)
The physical reality, the material reality, can be seen on the right. Whether diameters, shapes, materials, physical layout, whatever: quasi micro-electrical effects that are ignored in the upper world. For example, minimal runtime differences between different cables. Which the ear shows, but not the conceptual smooth line;-)
Attachments
![DSCN0635[1].JPG](/community/data/attachments/1289/1289977-8fad5afdc4d3b0fedb0dcf06c780853b.jpg?hash=YZtWSCDhmb)
Not really. It starts out that way in order to keep it simple at first. Later, people may or may not learn more about complexities.
EDIT: However, there can be a trap. Sometimes people start to believe the models are the reality, or that the models are what reality must conform to (and not the other way around). That can be a problem.
Not sometimes. Mostly;-)
I could use this forum as proof;-)
However, audio engineering requires attention to physical reality because it is in the auditory realm.
I could use this forum as proof;-)
However, audio engineering requires attention to physical reality because it is in the auditory realm.
A phrase without much meaning or scientific support. Try doing some simple basic electronics operations, that is, Ohmn's Law, and you will see how that applies to everything that worries you.
https://www.audioholics.com/audio-video-cables/bi-wiring-from-amplifier-to-loudspeaker
https://www.audioholics.com/audio-video-cables/bi-wiring-from-amplifier-to-loudspeaker
Last edited:
Its not the basic equations, its assumptions about human interpretation of FFT measurements, perhaps interpretation scope measurements, etc. Sometimes its about the assumption that resistance is the only thing that could matter if it changed in a given circuit. A lot of that type of thing is based on subjective evaluation by persons looking at measurements. Also, a lot of times people forget about the details of app notes and things like the work of Cyril Bateman and or that of Henry Ott. People tend to revert to simple models which in practice are not always complete enough.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.