To Bi-Wire or Not

[Midcow2]

I have one more observation: While Russ keeps talking about the separation in the cable/wire to prevent magnetic interference between frequencies, the main factor in a speaker sound is not the cable/wires leading to the speaker but the speaker and speaker coils themself. These cannot be separated and are inherent in the design and quality of a speaker.

I think using separated bare copper wires and polishing the outter surface will increase the skin effect and reduce all electromagnetic permeability under modulation, overmodulation intermodulation and remodulation The best polish to use is Mother's

The Serenity Prayer: “God grant me the serenity to accept those things I cannot change, the strength to change the things I can, and the wisdom to know the difference.”

'Laws of physics' is one of those things I accept I cannot change.

 

[fmw]

Even a sub-optimal session has been sufficient to convince people on speaker wire issues. Speaker wire is probably one of the easiest things to test, too - level matching isn't even an issue, assuming realistic gauge.

Things get trickier with items that are hard to conceal, and do require level-matching, etc.

It's true that you need a sufficient number of trials, but that isn't really a complication, especially on a simple A vs. B comparison.

I can't hear speaker wire even in a subjective listening test. The reason is probably that all the bias controlled testing I've done has altered my biases. I don't expect to hear a difference and I don't. But some people do.

Level matching can be necessary if the resistance of the wires or length of the wires is meaningfully different. It is easy enough to check things out prior to the test. It just takes a volt meter.

Concealing the product from the listener is necessary always for an objective listening test as is the randomness of the test iterations. It is impossible to have truthful resuts if the listener knows which product is being tested. It has nothing to do with concealability. It has to do with bias.

 

[fmw]

I think using separated bare copper wires and polishing the outter surface will increase the skin effect and reduce all electromagnetic permeability under modulation, overmodulation intermodulation and remodulation The best polish to use is Mother's

OMG, he's defined an entire new niche in exotic cable marketing. Individually polished strands. Think of the possibilites. Think of the prices.

 

[russ_l]

Last Post this Thread

I knew ahead of time that it would be fruitless jumping into this thread. Been there, done that on other forums. The reason I continue to bang my head against the wall is due to the pigheadedness of the naysayers. Notice in my first post very early on I said, “biwiring may work some of the time”. Certainly not an absolutely rigid statement. I also concluded with “in my humble opinion”.

What pisses me off, pardon my French, are the naysayers talking in absolutes; as in “it can’t be heard (period)”! Nary a single response such as “in my opinion, based on my own listening experiences, differences due to biwiring can not be heard”. That would be a reasonable response.

I interpret “It can not be heard (period)” as meaning the person making the statement has listened to every biwired combination of amplifiers, cables and speakers possible and has not heard a difference. Whoa that we could all be that wealthy to attempt such a feat.

If one is sufficiently knowledgeable and wants to argue the merits of intermodulation distortion in cables, that’s fine. But “biwiring can’t be heard (period)” that’s just nonsense.

Unless I’m forced to prove my qualifications as happened here, I try to keep my educational background out of any post and describe the science of the subject as simply as I can. Jumping right in with BSEE MSEE says I’m smarter than everyone else. That certainly is not the case.

Once again, I’m off to investigate AcuDefTechGuy’s unique approach to multichannel listening (and viewing). I’ve been purchasing multichannel SACDs for some time now. I’ve walked away from two channels and consider myself a dyed-in-wool multichannel Audioholic. See you in that thread.

Russ

PS- if anyone wants to start a battery-biased dielectrics thread I've been there done that one too.

 

[pearsall001]

I knew ahead of time that it would be fruitless jumping into this thread. Been there, done that on other forums. The reason I continue to bang my head against the wall is due to the pigheadedness of the naysayers. Notice in my first post very early on I said, “biwiring may work some of the time”. Certainly not an absolutely rigid statement. I also concluded with “in my humble opinion”.

What pisses me off, pardon my French, are the naysayers talking in absolutes; as in “it can’t be heard (period)”! Nary a single response such as “in my opinion, based on my own listening experiences, differences due to biwiring can not be heard”. That would be a reasonable response.

I interpret “It can not be heard (period)” as meaning the person making the statement has listened to every biwired combination of amplifiers, cables and speakers possible and has not heard a difference. Whoa that we could all be that wealthy to attempt such a feat.

If one is sufficiently knowledgeable and wants to argue the merits of intermodulation distortion in cables, that’s fine. But “biwiring can’t be heard (period)” that’s just nonsense.

Unless I’m forced to prove my qualifications as happened here, I try to keep my educational background out of any post and describe the science of the subject as simply as I can. Jumping right in with BSEE MSEE says I’m smarter than everyone else. That certainly is not the case.

Once again, I’m off to investigate AcuDefTechGuy’s unique approach to multichannel listening (and viewing). I’ve been purchasing multichannel SACDs for some time now. I’ve walked away from two channels and consider myself a dyed-in-wool multichannel Audioholic. See you in that thread.

Russ

PS- if anyone wants to start a battery-biased dielectrics thread I've been there done that one too.

I was wondering how long it would take you before you threw in the towel on this one. I think that the vast majority of folks on this forum are of the opinion that "If it can't be measured, then by golly it doesn't exist & don't you dare say you can hear a difference". I'm waiting for them to proclaim that all speakers sound the same too. I find it quite amusing & makes for a good read.

I've always relied on the best test equipment yet known to man...the human ear. To this day they heven't failed me yet.

 

[Midcow2]

Russ keep participating

...
Jumping right in with BSEE MSEE says I’m smarter than everyone else. That certainly is not the case. .....

I am not so sure everyone thought that, when you enumerated your qualifications.

Some of the very people you dissed on this forum are very,very smart. And a BSEE and MBA and other such academic achievements do not always indicate the true level of intelligence and knowledge; I should know.

However, Russ for the most part your discussions are interestingly and theorectical if nothing else. I think you should continue to particpate IMHO.

 

[zhimbo]

I think that the vast majority of folks on this forum are of the opinion that "If it can't be measured, then by golly it doesn't exist & don't you dare say you can hear a difference".

Not me.

I'm of the opinion that if you can't hear it you can't hear it.

Seems pretty clear, doesn't it?

All testing that I've read indicates you can't hear a difference - unless you already know what you're listening to. But if a difference is real, that shouldn't matter.

If anyone knows of blind testing - which is listening, not measuring, by the way - which shows otherwise, please point me to it.

 

[Midcow2]

Bubbles in Diet Pepsi



There are Carbon Dioxide bubbles in Diet Pepsi, I know I have seen them. But I haven't been able to count them or to catch one so do they really exist?

But, if I put one of my two personal super detecting device Audioholic sound devices to the edge of the glass I can verify their presence. .. So they must exist correct..

Hearing is believing, seeing is sometimes believing because except for magnetic filings I have yet to see an electromagnetic field.

 

[TLS Guy]

.I interpret “It can not be heard (period)” as meaning the person making the statement has listened to every biwired combination of amplifiers, cables and speakers possible and has not heard a difference. Whoa that we could all be that wealthy to attempt such a feat.

If one is sufficiently knowledgeable and wants to argue the merits of intermodulation distortion in cables, that’s fine. But “biwiring can’t be heard (period)” that’s just nonsense.

I'm going to make one more comment about this. The reason is I think it is an important educational point. It is also an important matter about interpretation of data, and evaluation of systems. The point I'm getting at is levels of significance.

You may note I used the phrase "significant difference repeatedly." Assessing and interpreting significant differences is something ALL individuals in scientific disciplines are called to do. If you don't, you have nonsense and chaos, like the statement I have quoted from your post above. It may well be that those of us in the medical profession a called to make these judgments more often, but it still should be a familiar task to all disciplines.

What I'm getting at is that you have to be able to sort out the significance of change, measurement, or calculation. This issue is a case in point. Any difference in biwiring is of a significant level that is well below the level of other failings in any possible system. Therefore you can make a 100% accurate judgment that an item is of absolutely no significance (consequence). You can make a judgment with certainty that at the current state of the art, any changes introduced into a competently engineered system by biwiring will not be audible.

It is in this area that the exotic tweak people are most in error from a scientific point of view.

To some lay people this may sound a strange concept, but if you think about it, it is sound logic. I have made judgments like this on courses of action and approaches to clinical problems through out my career, and all clinicians worth their salt do the same. I think the same could be said of all good practitioners in every scientific and engineering discipline.

 

[Swerd]

...You may note I used the phrase "significant difference repeatedly." Assessing and interpreting significant differences is something ALL individuals in scientific disciplines are called to do. If you don't, you have nonsense and chaos, like the statement I have quoted from your post above. It may well be that those of us in the medical profession a called to make these judgments more often, but it still should be a familiar task to all disciplines.

What I'm getting at is that you have to be able to sort out the significance of change, measurement, or calculation. This issue is a case in point. Any difference in biwiring is of a significant level that is well below the level of other failings in any possible system. Therefore you can make a 100% accurate judgment that an item is of absolutely no significance (consequence). You can make a judgment with certainty that at the current state of the art, any changes introduced into a competently engineered system by biwiring will not be audible.

It is in this area that the exotic tweak people are most in error from a scientific point of view.

To some lay people this may sound a strange concept, but if you think about it, it is sound logic. I have made judgments like this on courses of action and approaches to clinical problems through out my career, and all clinicians worth their salt do the same. I think the same could be said of all good practitioners in every scientific and engineering discipline.

Very well stated - and I couldn't agree more.

I've participated in a few blind listening tests (one compared high priced vs. low priced crossover capacitors and the other compared resistors in crossovers), but none of them tried to address this question:

What are the listeners' responses when they hear test conditions that are known to be just barely audibly different?
​

If you wish to test the audibility of bi-wired speakers compared to standard wiring, you must be able to compare listeners responses when they are presented with tweaks or features that really are audibly different. This would establish experimentally what is significant and what is less than significant.

I always remember how a guy at the capacitor listening test, who swore by those expensive boutique capacitors, did not hear that his own DIY speakers that he brought that day had the tweeter wired out of phase with the woofer. That left a deep suck-out around the 2500 Hz crossover point. But he claimed that boutique capacitors in the crossover made a huge difference .

 

[mtrycrafts]

I've always relied on the best test equipment yet known to man...the human ear. To this day they heven't failed me yet.

It is great for telling you what artistic presentations you may or may not prefer but as a measuring tool, you are greatly mistaken about its capability.
If it was so great, why is it that serious audio folks would not recommend you level match by ear??? Why have any test discs or spl meters? Just rely on your ears, right?

 

[mtrycrafts]

Hearing is believing,

Unfortunately, for some believing is hearing

 

[pearsall001]

It is great for telling you what artistic presentations you may or may not prefer but as a measuring tool, you are greatly mistaken about its capability.
If it was so great, why is it that serious audio folks would not recommend you level match by ear??? Why have any test discs or spl meters? Just rely on your ears, right?

Here's a short paragraph from the NAD website. Nice reading.

Credit for the sound of NAD’s components rests squarely with our unique design approach and our experienced and very talented design team. Most companies design their products to a technical specification and a price point. While this sounds logical enough, it does not address the way the product will actually be used by the eventual owner. You don’t listen to specifications, you listen to music and sound. While NAD products exhibit excellent technical measurements, we have relied on our own ears and listening experience to determine the final design of our products. Because of our unique design approach, NAD’s sound is simply more “real” sounding, adding enjoyment and excitement to your favourite films and music recordings.

Gee, what a novel concept...they use there ears! Just because something specs out good or the spl meter says this is spot on, it doesn't mean that it will sound good.

Specs, discs, meters etc, etc, are all good tools but they are only a piece of the puzzle. Your ears have the final say in how well something sounds.

 

[mtrycrafts]

Here's a short paragraph from the NAD website. Nice reading.

Credit for the sound of NAD’s components rests squarely with our unique design approach and our experienced and very talented design team. Most companies design their products to a technical specification and a price point. While this sounds logical enough, it does not address the way the product will actually be used by the eventual owner. You don’t listen to specifications, you listen to music and sound. While NAD products exhibit excellent technical measurements, we have relied on our own ears and listening experience to determine the final design of our products. Because of our unique design approach, NAD’s sound is simply more “real” sounding, adding enjoyment and excitement to your favourite films and music recordings.

Gee, what a novel concept...they use there ears! Just because something specs out good or the spl meter says this is spot on, it doesn't mean that it will sound good.

Specs, discs, meters etc, etc, are all good tools but they are only a piece of the puzzle. Your ears have the final say in how well something sounds.

So, whoever was doing the listening, I wonder if any of it was conducted blind like some companies do, PSB for one, added their subjective likes and dislikes.

This tells you nothing about the ear's capability as a measuring instrument which you did make some claims for, only that the listener preferred his subjective evaluation. What if the next person didn't like that persons preference?
However, please note the parts about the speakers exhibiting "excellent technical measurements." What a concept, right?
Guess what, researchers at NRC in Canada can show that listeners do like speakers with excellent technical measurements overwhelmingly, end of story.

Also, that quote tells you nothing about what tuning they in fact had to do or did, just that they also listened to their speakers.

 

[pearsall001]

Let's back up here a little. No, your ears can't compete against a "measuring device". I didn't mean that literally. But your ears can measure (does it sound good) the final sound quality, something a measuring device can't tell you, except on paper only.

I'm sure there are quite a few (alot actually) pieces of gear that were designed to certain specs that by all accounts should have sounded superb...but in reality sounded like poo. Again the ears pass the final verdict.

All I'm saying is that if it doesn't sound good to you then the spec sheet doesn't amout to a hill of beans.

Oh, I can't find one mention of the word speakers in the paragraph that I posted. I'll try reading it again. What is your assumption here? I think NAD was referring to there gear.

 

[zhimbo]

Let's back up a little more...this thread is about biwiring.

Human perception is, indeed, a truly wondrous thing. It is also notoriously unreliable and affected by such things as biases & preconceptions, inherent "bugs" in our processing, and momentary quirks of attention.

I'm a big fan of human perception...but I also know easy it is to fool under many circumstances.

Yes, the ear is the final judge if something "sounds good", specs be damned. But strangely enough, it's a terrible judge of if something is real.

 

[fmw]

Here's a short paragraph from the NAD website. Nice reading.

Credit for the sound of NAD’s components rests squarely with our unique design approach and our experienced and very talented design team. Most companies design their products to a technical specification and a price point. While this sounds logical enough, it does not address the way the product will actually be used by the eventual owner. You don’t listen to specifications, you listen to music and sound. While NAD products exhibit excellent technical measurements, we have relied on our own ears and listening experience to determine the final design of our products. Because of our unique design approach, NAD’s sound is simply more “real” sounding, adding enjoyment and excitement to your favourite films and music recordings.

Gee, what a novel concept...they use there ears! Just because something specs out good or the spl meter says this is spot on, it doesn't mean that it will sound good.

Specs, discs, meters etc, etc, are all good tools but they are only a piece of the puzzle. Your ears have the final say in how well something sounds.

That's marketing babble. In fact NAD components are competently designed and do provide musical transparency on a par with products from other companies. I can't believe you try to make a case by quoting marketing babble.

Our ears are connected to our brains so actually it is our brains that have the final say about how something sounds to us. The ears are simply the vehicle for collecting the waves. Our brains interpret what we hear with all the biases and preferences we have developed. It is possible to remove bias from hearing and when we do that, then we discover how things really sound, not just how they sound to us.

 

[markw]

There's actually a legal term for that "marketing babble"

That's marketing babble. In fact NAD components are competently designed and do provide musical transparency on a par with products from other companies. I can't believe you try to make a case by quoting marketing babble.

Our ears are connected to our brains so actually it is our brains that have the final say about how something sounds to us. The ears are simply the vehicle for collecting the waves. Our brains interpret what we hear with all the biases and preferences we have developed. It is possible to remove bias from hearing and when we do that, then we discover how things really sound, not just how they sound to us.

It's called "puffery". Here's a pretty good overall explanation, with examples.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puffery

"Puffery" depends on our brains being fooled by expectations and implies we don't need any further "proof". This is why white van speakers are still selling like hotcakes.

NAD backs up it's technical claims when put to the test and measures at least as good as it promises. It backs up it's "puffery" with real-world measurements.

It's funny that the companies with the least technical proof from measurments and testing depend upon this for more than those that do.

 

[Rickster71]

OK, let's move the discussion into actual practice.
I have a speaker that lacks or spikes at a certain frequency, let's say 60Hz.
Since it has been said by more enlightened people than myself, that cables make an audible difference, I'm going to buy cables that 'fix' my dip or spike at 60Hz.
So I go to the audio store, and I look at all the packages of cables for one that 'fits' my problem at 60Hz. This would be analogous to buying shoes; I take a size 12, so I look for a size 12.
If this were the case, (that cables or Bi-wiring change sound) wouldn't cable manufacturers label all their $1k dollar wire with the frequency that it 'fixes?'
Or, would I be charged a restocking fee if I mistakenly purchased $2,000.00 wire for 100Hz, instead of 60Hz, and have to return it?

 

[fmw]

OK, let's move the discussion into actual practice.
I have a speaker that lacks or spikes at a certain frequency, let's say 60Hz.
Since it has been said by more enlightened people than myself, that cables make an audible difference, I'm going to buy cables that 'fix' my dip or spike at 60Hz.
So I go to the audio store, and I look at all the packages of cables for one that 'fits' my problem at 60Hz. This would be analogous to buying shoes; I take a size 12, so I look for a size 12.
If this were the case, (that cables or Bi-wiring change sound) wouldn't cable manufacturers label all their $1k dollar wire with the frequency that it 'fixes?'
Or, would I be charged a restocking fee if I mistakenly purchased $2,000.00 wire for 100Hz, instead of 60Hz, and have to return it?

And strangely a high end audiophile will buy an expensive cable because some magazine reviewer told him it would improve his system and, apparently, he has no reason to think otherwise. Yet he will decry the use of an equalizer which will actually fix that 60hz spike. Go figure.