And yes, I was annoyed at RichB's comments about bi-amping. I doubt if he really intends to make broad scientific conclusions, but he took one (and only one) case, perhaps an atypical exception or perhaps an artifact of unintended testing bias, and trotted it out as the exception that proves the rule. It's easy for me to take his comments as a direct challenge to my dearly held principles of scientific method & thinking.
I absolutely did NOT intend to make any scientific conclusion. I think that is where misunderstandings occur in forum based discussion. It is very difficult to convey "tone". Hey, I must be doing something wrong, judging from the arrows sticking out of me
I have a dearly held belief that Objectivism like Subjectivism can be taken to an extremes. It seems logical that if industry experts have, even if in extremely rare cases, found an improvement, then the possibility exists. The claim that there is no possibility for an improvement seems to be the more extreme position. Folks who come down on people hard on these forums actually stomp on conversation and limit discussion, even if this is not intended. That feels like bullying and I don't like bullying, not one bit.
I've read that long Rod Elliot article in the past, and I re-read parts of it this morning to refresh my memory. (I am not formally trained in electronics or physics, but I am trained in a different branch of science, molecular biology. Unlike other sciences, it is entirely experimental and many of us actually look down on arguments based on theories alone. We usually bring out stories about well known scientists who talked themselves out of doing experiments that might have won them fame & fortune if they had ignored their doubts and pushed ahead. I've known two such people.) Anyway, my own bias is to get all the data and info you can, and then try and explain the results. And you should never ever fall in love with your own ideas. Instead you should try to prove them wrong. I doubt if RichB sees it the same way.
If I may speak for RichB
, you are incorrect sir. In the past, I found no benefit what-so-ever to passive bi-amping, yet now I have (an observation and not scientific proof). Since this is strange, I come to forums to discuss these observations. Science can sometime begin with an observation and then the curious explore the potential causes:
Has anyone else found this to be true?
Is it something about the Salon2s, the Parasound amp, a combination of the two?
I am not an advocate, I am curious.
All observation should not dismissed as expectation bias. Individual experiences are data points. They may prove to be bad data points
Experments can fail, why did they fail?
My background is in hardware/software product development. I can't tell you how many times products that cannot fail, fail. Engineers will tell me this. To which, I respond: It just failed, there is no denying it. Now, let's figure out why
Back to Rod Elliot. His article provides in my opinion largely theoretical reasons why passive crossovers are a poor idea in audio. When I first read it, I took his conclusion, as gospel, that all speakers should have active crossovers upstream from amplification. I now think that is overstating things. He shows reasons how some passive crossovers create problems that can and should be avoided. Certainly the home audio industry has largely ignored his opinions. I think the practical & economic arguments against active crossovers carry equal weight to his electronic arguments for them. In the future, as prices and fashions change, that balance might shift.
There is Active Crossover advocacy and the rational seems sound (I am not a EE). Meridian has been doing this for years. Praticallity is the issue. The best is to remain digital and perform only one D/A to an amplifier tuned to the speaker. Another, other option for an A/D/A withing the speaker. Each speaker has a DAC an amp and must be powered. That's can be difficult for 5.1 systems, and now we have ceiling channels to contend with. Perhaps, digital wireless transition will be the game-changer.
If this entire brouhaha has only resulted in Alex improving his system, that’s good enough for me
- Rich
