The Difference Between Bi-amping and Bi-wiring

F

fmw

Audioholic Ninja
I recent went to my friend’s birthday dinner which consisted of a custom tasting menu and a selection of wines from his collection.

For each wine, there was documentation including the Robert M. Parker Jr. rating (I don't follow wine). There was one bottle with a 100 RMP rating; 9-10 at the table preferred it to the 90 rated wine.

I am not sure if that makes me more or less discerning, a PIA, or some combination :p :D

- Rich
I have no experience with wine tasting other than having been to a few. I have little doubt there there is taste bias just as there is hearing bias, vision bias etc. If the people preferred one over the others I only hope they didn't know which was which. Otherwise I would throw out the results. If the test was blind then I assume it was valid and the preferred wine was really preferred.

Which brings up another point. The tests we did had nothing to do with preference. It was simply scoring answers to "is this A or is this B." We only tested for the existence of an audible difference. Passive biamplification doesn't have any audible difference. Sorry.
 
Steve81

Steve81

Audioholics Five-0
But I understand the ego involved.
There's definitely a problem with hubris here. You state that you have done blind testing associated with the topic of passive bi-amping, and didn't hear a difference. Another person, one with different equipment and listening habits, claims that he has heard a difference. In your opinion, the only possible explanation for the difference this other person heard is bias. Ego indeed.
 
RichB

RichB

Audioholic Field Marshall
Which brings up another point. The tests we did had nothing to do with preference. It was simply scoring answers to "is this A or is this B." We only tested for the existence of an audible difference. Passive biamplification doesn't have any audible difference. Sorry.
You experiments are not valid. Period. This has been clearly stated by other on this thread.
You refuse to discuss and to...listen :D

It has been clearly pointed out on this thread that your experiiments are not representative nor are they statistically sound. Instead of refuting that, you simply state your belief as fact.

I don't dismiss your findings, nor do I dismiss them as bias.

I am advocating is that interested folks may want try this at home make their own determination. I do this because I have heard the difference and I think others may benefit. I am sorry you don't like that.

- Rich
 
RichB

RichB

Audioholic Field Marshall
There's definitely a problem with hubris here. You state that you have done blind testing associated with the topic of passive bi-amping, and didn't hear a difference. Another person, one with different equipment and listening habits, claims that he has heard a difference. In your opinion, the only possible explanation for the difference this other person heard is bias. Ego indeed.
This seems apt:

How Becoming An Expert Can Make You Closed-Minded

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/expert-closed-minded_us_563369bbe4b00aa54a4db53a

- Rich
 
F

fmw

Audioholic Ninja
You experiments are not valid. Period. This has been clearly stated by other on this thread.
You refuse to discuss and to...listen :D

It has been clearly pointed out on this thread that your experiiments are not representative nor are they statistically sound. Instead of refuting that, you simply state your belief as fact.

I don't dismiss your findings, nor do I dismiss them as bias.

I am advocating is that interested folks may want try this at home make their own determination. I do this because I have heard the difference and I think others may benefit. I am sorry you don't like that.

- Rich
My comparisons are the only valid way to determine audible differences. What is invalid is introducing bias into the comparisons. What others have said here to the contrary is just plain wrong.

My findings cannot be dismissed as bias because bias was eliminated in the methodology.

I understand you heard a difference. I explained why. You reject the explanation. No point in continuing any further.
 
Swerd

Swerd

Audioholic Warlord
In theory it depends not on who survives a duel but:

- the AVR, prepro, preamp, amp in use.
- the crossover design of the speakers.
- the quality of the speakers overall.
- your discerning capability, not just your hearing but how good are you in discerning what should be audible.
- how prone you are to Placebo effect, we all are, but some more prone than others.
A list like this makes doing listening test seem so complex, that it might discourage people from trying. I'm not sure if that was your intent, but that was my reaction from reading it.

The purpose of scientific method is to eliminate the variables, one-by-one, to narrow down the possible conclusions. Taking the first 3 items on your list, only one will be varied while all the rest will be constant throughout the test. For example (I'll keep this simple to talk about by assuming speakers are 2-way with passive analog crossovers), if you are testing bi-amping, you would keep everything constant except one amp would drive all drivers in a speaker, or two amps would drive each driver separately. Nothing else changes. I thought it might be too obvious to point this out, but maybe not.

The last two items on your list, an individual's discerning capability, and one's proneness to the placebo effect are critically important. I'm glad you pointed them out, because if they are ignored, no listening test can have useful conclusions. They should be addressed by control experiments built into the listening tests.

How prone a listener is to the placebo effect can easily be determined by exposing listeners to tests where nothing is different, an A vs. A test (also known as a negative control). Not everyone reports hearing no difference – it can, and should be, measured. Floyd Toole & Sean Olive made an important contribution to the science of listening tests by showing conclusively that the results of this kind of A vs. A test were different depending on whether tests were done sighted or blind. (Obviously, all these tests must be done under blinded conditions.)

The other item on your list, a listener's discerning capability, is probably the most difficult to address. This would be a test of just what kind of subtle sound quality differences listeners can actually hear. It can be considered a positive control. As suitable positive controls, think of a short stretch (~1 minute long or less) of cleanly recorded music passage. Make additional digital copies and add various amounts of pink noise to the recording – so you have a series of short passages of the same music with 0%, 5%, 10%, etc., added noise. Test each listener to see what level of added noise is easily heard as different from no added noise. This would be like an internal calibration curve.

If, for example, a group of listeners could reliably hear a difference between 0% and 10% noise, it also tells you something useful about whether or not they can hear differences between single-amping or bi-amping:
  • If they can, the differences in sound quality between single-amping and bi-amping can be considered at least equivalent to the difference between 0% and 10% added noise.

  • If they can't, you can conclude that under conditions where listeners could reliably hear difference between 0% and 10% added noise, the couldn't hear differences between single-amping and b-amping.
That would be worth knowing.
 
F

fmw

Audioholic Ninja
There's definitely a problem with hubris here. You state that you have done blind testing associated with the topic of passive bi-amping, and didn't hear a difference. Another person, one with different equipment and listening habits, claims that he has heard a difference. In your opinion, the only possible explanation for the difference this other person heard is bias. Ego indeed.

I'm sorry you misunderstand me. The difference is bias controlled comparisons vs comparisons that do not control bias. It isn't that complicated but I'll just say I'm sure you are right and I apologize for upsetting your apple cart. Speaking of apples, I have some apple cobbler in the oven. Time to go remove it.
 
Swerd

Swerd

Audioholic Warlord
You experiments are not valid. Period. This has been clearly stated by other on this thread.
You refuse to discuss and to...listen :D

It has been clearly pointed out on this thread that your experiiments are not representative nor are they statistically sound. Instead of refuting that, you simply state your belief as fact.

I don't dismiss your findings, nor do I dismiss them as bias.

I am advocating is that interested folks may want try this at home make their own determination. I do this because I have heard the difference and I think others may benefit. I am sorry you don't like that.
I find your comments illogical or deliberately obtuse. Either you clearly don't understand, or you are deliberately provoking argument.
 
RichB

RichB

Audioholic Field Marshall
My comparisons are the only valid way to determine audible differences. What is invalid is introducing bias into the comparisons. What others have said here to the contrary is just plain wrong.

My findings cannot be dismissed as bias because bias was eliminated in the methodology.

I understand you heard a difference. I explained why. You reject the explanation. No point in continuing any further.
There are vaid reasons why the load and crossover interaction change with bi-amping.
There are confirmed KV in reference to the Salon2s.

For some unexplainable reason, I accept his view and not yours ;) :)

- Rich
 
Steve81

Steve81

Audioholics Five-0
I'm sorry you misunderstand me.
I don't misunderstand you at all. All I've said is that you've made a logical error in assuming that your blind test experiences can apply to every possible listener/circumstance. Maybe Rich is falling prey to bias, maybe not. OTOH, there are circumstances where passive bi-amping can make a difference. You yourself stated:

Naturally, the second amp in a three way system could well relieve enough power requirement from the bass amp to prevent clipping at a higher volume level than a setup with a single amp.
As I also stated earlier:
Remember, the woofer and mid/tweeter circuits are divorced from one another. As such, if the amp driving the woofers is starting to run out of steam, the resulting distortion will remain on the woofer circuit, as opposed to being fed to the mid/tweeter circuit. This is beneficial, as the distortion will be tamped down both by the woofer's low pass filter as well as the natural rolloff of the woofer.
Given that an audible difference can in fact be explained (and lines up pretty well with what I know about Rich's listening habits), what exactly are you gaining by repeating the same few lines ad nauseum?
 
RichB

RichB

Audioholic Field Marshall
I find your comments illogical or deliberately obtuse. Either you clearly don't understand, or you are deliberately provoking argument.
The statement made is: there can be no benefit to passive bi-amping.

It is direct contradiction my some SBT listening test of my own. There has been no science presented to the contrary. Just another listening session and result followed by the word FACT.

Gene produced a video where he had found a benefit to bi-amping. Is he deluded?
I am not advocating bi-amping. I present my experience for what it is. That is all.
It may well make more sense to buy a beefier amp; The JC-1 experiment points in that direction.

It seems odd that there are apparent differences in sound quality at low to moderate listening levels so I remain curious.

Other interested enthusiasts may want to try bi-amping. I'm interested in their experiences. There is no need to insult or dismiss them as bias and invalid.

I prefer posts that encourage, not discourage.

- Rich
 
F

fmw

Audioholic Ninja
There are vaid reasons why the load and crossover interaction change with bi-amping.
There are confirmed KV in reference to the Salon2s.

For some unexplainable reason, I accept his view and not yours ;) :)

- Rich
Me too. The two years of bias controlled testing we did was a waste of time and proved nothing. I am now a strong supporter of passive biamplification. So should I use the two unused amps in my AV receiver or should I bring a power amp down from the storage closet? What will sound best? I know, whichever sounds best to me but, unfortunately neither will sound better to me. So perhaps I can use what sounds best to you.
 
RichB

RichB

Audioholic Field Marshall
Me too. The two years of bias controlled testing we did was a waste of time and proved nothing. I am now a strong supporter of passive biamplification. So should I use the two unused amps in my AV receiver or should I bring a power amp down from the storage closet? What will sound best? I know, whichever sounds best to me but, unfortunately neither will sound better to me. So perhaps I can use what sounds best to you.
My father often quotes an italian saying:

Everybody does his own thing in his own home.
You have found your answer. ;)

- Rich
 
F

fmw

Audioholic Ninja
The statement made is: there can be no benefit to passive bi-amping.
I did not make such a statement. What I said was that any audible difference between a passively biamplified speaker and one that is not is generated by hearing bias, not by the passive biamplification. At least be kind enough not to put words in my mouth.

It is direct contradiction my some SBT listening test of my own. There has been no science presented to the contrary. Just another listening session and result followed by the word FACT.
Come here and I'll prove to you what I said is true. The audible difference will disappear in a properly conducted bias controlled comparison.

Gene produced a video where he had found a benefit to bi-amping. Is he deluded?
No but if the video said he heard an audible difference then I will conclude that he didn't do the comparison without bias. Not surprising either. Bias controlled tests aren't easy.

I am not advocating bi-amping. I present my experience for what it is. That is all.
You are advocating your hearing acuity against scientifically valid bias controlled testing.

It seems odd that there are apparent differences in sound quality at low to moderate listening levels so I remain curious.
I explained that but you refused to accept the explanation.

Other interested enthusiasts may want to try bi-amping. I'm interested in their experiences. There is no need to insult or dismiss them as bias and invalid.
I am simply reporting test results.

I prefer posts that encourage, not discourage.

- Rich
Then I recommend you stop reading my posts since you think I am discouraging.
 
Swerd

Swerd

Audioholic Warlord
The statement made is: there can be no benefit to passive bi-amping.

It is direct contradiction my some SBT listening test of my own. There has been no science presented to the contrary. Just another listening session and result followed by the word FACT.
The important point here, is that no science has been presented for or against bi-amping. The tests mentioned (yours and Gene's) allow no valid conclusions. I just posted (above) suggesting what kind of controls could make for valid conclusions. Until they are included, no test of listener audibility can be considered useful, much less conclusive.

Your repeated insistence on claiming audible benefits for bi-amping – in the absence of any valid evidence – makes me wonder about your motives. You don't seem to have any other interests in audio that you post here. Are you here to deliberately troll on a forum where objectiveness is the general theme?
 
F

fmw

Audioholic Ninja
Yes, I'm definitely a troll. You have my apologies. I promise never to bring up bias controlled testing again in this place. It obviously isn't welcome. It obviously isn't helpful to others.
 
RichB

RichB

Audioholic Field Marshall
The important point here, is that no science has been presented for or against bi-amping. The tests mentioned (yours and Gene's) allow no valid conclusions. I just posted (above) suggesting what kind of controls could make for valid conclusions. Until they are included, no test of listener audibility can be considered useful, much less conclusive.
Agreed, for AES that is.
Experiences are not welcom here?

Your repeated insistence on claiming audible benefits for bi-amping – in the absence of any valid evidence – makes me wonder about your motives. You don't seem to have any other interests in audio that you post here. Are you here to deliberately troll on a forum where objectiveness is the general theme?
I claim that I have heard a benefit that is all. Others claim to know why me and others found this to be the case.

Do you wonder about posters that claim there can be no benfit to passive bi-amping?

You don't seem to have any other interests in audio that you post here. Are you here to deliberately troll on a forum where objectiveness is the general theme?
Please don't call me a troll.
I am sorry my post count is not what you would like but I did write a review for AH. Do I get swerd points for that :p

- Rich
 
Irvrobinson

Irvrobinson

Audioholic Spartan
Selling my Salon2, B&W 802 Diamond, KEF 201/2, and most of my speakers was one of the best things I did in a long time.

I have ZERO regrets selling my Salon2.

I am 100% happy I sold my Salon2 and bought my five RBH SX-T2/R.
I was being facetious.
 
AcuDefTechGuy

AcuDefTechGuy

Audioholic Jedi
I was being facetious.
I kind of figured that, but I wanted to express how I feel anyway just in case someone was curious if I had any regrets.

The key is for everyone to be happy with his system and not have regrets.
 

Latest posts

newsletter

  • RBHsound.com
  • BlueJeansCable.com
  • SVS Sound Subwoofers
  • Experience the Martin Logan Montis
Top