Nah, Jimmy and I are much cooler than that.

Agreed. BTW, what is ""Morbius V Alimental IV""??

[QUOTE=Michael Grant;14205786]
As for whether this is audible: it all depends on the numbers, really. The linear analysis tells us that biwiring can introduce a bump in the frequency response right at the crossover frequency. It probably isn't audible in most cases, but crossover frequencies do tend to be in the range of hearing where we're reasonably sensitive.

Audible?? Who asked that??:p

Actually, if it is audible, it's probably somewhere between hazy and dirt..at least for me and my systems..:p

John, on the other hand, suspects that more is going on because of the differences in instananeous energy distribution within the crossover itself. I don't think it's consequential. That's where our disagreement lies.

Good summation..

Ran the simu..the program has lost the weird anomolies that I suspected were artifacts of some sort, and I've no clue as to why.....so I am more comfortable at the moment that the results seem consistent..uh oh, thunder..I'll type fast..

It shows a distinct difference between the tweeter voltages..not cap voltage, not energy storage, but voltages across the tweets. Unfortunately, I have to screen capture into MS word, so it'll be a few minutes..

Cheers, John

Make sure to post your SPICE model too so I can understand the circuit you built.

But of course, nobody ever denied that biwiring could produce different results; not you, not me, not Lessuf. So we're not surprised that you might simply see different voltages across the tweeters per se. It's this 2*f energy modulation that has been your sticking point all along.

Hi

I have not visited this forum for a good while. I have been and continue to be extremely busy with a new business venture… I have acquired a new appreciation for the iPod with an Etymotic Research bud.... I have also been listening to Flac on my iPod and it does make a substantial difference..

compared to....? 128kbps CBR mp3? Apple Lossless? Something in between?


These days the forum seems to be dominated by the Audio Flat Earthers Rhetoric: No! YOUR-gear,-which –I- have not HEARD is no different than gear xyz.. .. Ok you continue to believe it is …ok Prove it to me in a blind test and you are responsible to hold that double-blind test and No I will not listen to your gear-unless-you-pay-for-my-plane-ticket-and-my-food-and-for -my-time-out-of-work….


You can continue to mock scientific standards of proof -- what you perversely call 'flat earthism' -- or not. Your choice.


Yet I must say that I have lately been taking a different view on things I would qualify as Audiophile Orthodoxy, especially the perilous (and bandwidth-consuming) subject of cables. I will quickly add that to me, Turntables, Arms, Cartridge, CD players, Preamps, amps and especially speakers do sound immensely different..

CD players shouldn't sound 'immensely different', unless some of them are quite badly designed compared to the others.

I have not become a double-blind advocate


why not? The reports that 'converted' you involved blinded tests.

but one needs to exercise some skepticism toward claims that fly in the face of all logic…

A view you earlier seemed to equate with 'flat earthism'.

Make sure to post your SPICE model too so I can understand the circuit you built.

Repeatable is the requirement, no? Peer review is required..
[QUOTE=Michael Grant;14205916]
But of course, nobody ever denied that biwiring could produce different results; not you, not me, not Lessuf. So we're not surprised that you might simply see different voltages across the tweeters per se. It's this 2*f energy modulation that has been your sticking point all along.

You meant 2*f1*f2 modulation..of course.:p

And, the entire premise I've carried all along is of course, the difference in voltages at the drivers..be it amplitude, phase, or both..

Cheers, John

Guilty as charged on the snark factor, but this is a easy fall back when I'm on an audio forum and someone defends Redbook:eek:.

I think it is obvious that electrical and acoustic theory will explain everything (ok-most everything, gotta allow for the occasional magic dot) we can hear-it is the question of what matters and why that we should be yearning to understand (those other factors)-and form the basis of a cooperative and productive debate. For example-I see a lot of arguments with DBT as a panacea, yet not a lot about how one can train or increase sensitivity for a DBT.

That's because in audio-land we routinely have people claiming they ALREADY hear a difference between A and B. In that case, to test THAT claim, all that's really required is to let them try to do it blind.

In a research (or e.g., codec testing) setting, we want to determine if a certain difference can be heard generally. So discrimination training is definitely in order. The subjects may never even have heard A and B before, nor have a clue what to listen for.

In the first case, the listener already claims to know what to listen for; already claims to hear it -- often claims to hear it routinely and easily, because they're golden ears using 'audiophile' equipment, of course. This is the blowhard stance of the Michael Fremers of the world, and it's always fun to see what happens when one simply prevents them from 'seeing' what they're hearing.



As an aside-have you ever heard the story about the wine critic Robert Parker going to a Chateau that he had given low scores to? They asked for a re-taste and he agreed that the wine he was tasting was better than he had written-but then correctly informed them it was because he was tasting a different vintage. So yes, I suspect some can do better in these circumstances than others-yet where is the discussion of "trained palates"?

How do you know Parker didn't have some *other* clue that the vintage was different? Or just made a good guess?


Training is definitely an advantage in discriminating difference. But it doesn't obviate the need for controls. Even a 'trained palate' has been fooled in a blind test...pointing up the importance of such controls. Even a 'golden ear''s claims of cable difference should not be taken at face value.




In my experience it is the subjectivists that lead the way to better sound, because they are willing to try stuff based primarily on observation. The same poster above claims vinyl has some distortion that adds ambience. Yet in my experience it is vinyl that has the larger range of ambience retrieval (bad recordings bad, good recordings good), not digital (sorry, redbook).

Vinyl is not 'retrieving' ambience. It is adding spurious ambience that you happen to find euphonic. I can do something similar, and do, by applying Dolby Pro Logic II to stereo tracks. Better yet, I can alter the ambience by adjusting parameters. And I can turn it off when I want to.



I remember having the honor of listening to the Johnny Hartman/John Coltrane master tapes at the Mo-fi studio in Sebastapool. We heard the feed, then the level matched output in redbook, then 24/96, then the original vinyl. I know what I heard

and would like to explore why the analog signal had a commonality that the digital didn't, and why the 24/96 sounded obviously superior to redbook. There's a lot of really smart guys lurking about here, and I'm not at their level. But I do know what I hear, and telling me I really don't hear it 'cuz you can't explain it is not what I'm after.

What science tells is is that we 'hear' things, then we pretty much automatically ascribe a 'cause' to what we heard. And that's where we start making erroneous inferences.

You're mixing up all kinds of arguments. Difference between the vinyl and the digital is an absurd comparison, because their are multiple causes for such differences. Why you LIKED one better than the other, can be due to those, AND ALSO to some biasing factors that aren't related to the sound.
Expectation bias being a biggie.


A better test would be to take the vinyl output, and digitize that. Then compare all three of them BLIND.

And, the entire premise I've carried all along is of course, the difference in voltages at the drivers..be it amplitude, phase, or both..Right. But we're not doing anything useful here if you're not bringing anything new to the table. If I send a the summation of two sinusoidal voltages at frequencies f1 and f2 out of the amplifier, then I'm going to see voltages with components at f1 and f2 and only f1 and f2 at the drivers. If you agree then I don't even know what we're debating for, because there's no disagreement between me, you, and Lessuf.

Right. But we're not doing anything useful here if you're not bringing anything new to the table. If I send a the summation of two sinusoidal voltages at frequencies f1 and f2 out of the amplifier, then I'm going to see voltages with components at f1 and f2 and only f1 and f2 at the drivers. If you agree then I don't even know what we're debating for, because there's no disagreement between me, you, and Lessuf.

Oh man, the screen copies are garbage, but I'll post em anyway.

first, the schematic..then the tweeter difference with the lf sine off, then the tweeter difference with the lf sine on.

Wait a coupla minutes till I see what does post..
v1 is 5 volts 25 khz
v2 is 20 volts 10 hz..both are zero out impedance
caps are 5 uf
inductors are .3mH
loads are all 10 ohms
wires are all 1 ohm total loop.

All comps are ideal.

image 1 is with the 10 hz signal off. The display is the difference between the tweeter voltage, obviously non zero. If I break the mono woofer load, the tweeter difference goes flatline.

Image 2 is tweeter voltage difference with the 10 hz voltage on. Again, If I break the woofer line, this also flatlines.

Obviously the woofer current has impacted the differences between the voltages each tweeter sees. And just as obviously, that is a consequence of the voltage drop along the monowire path that the woofer current caused, the difference presumably being the current being used to charge the capacitors, each seeing a slightly different voltage drop on the line.

When I change the lf signal to a non sine pattern, the last time I did this analysis all heck broke loose.. But I'll have to repeat that one, as today microcap seems to be working seemingly well.

Transient analysis is of course the bottom line here, isn't it? as, I can't remember the last time I popped a cold one and listened to sine waves...

Cheers, John

ps. not only is that difference of interest, I've been trying to subtract the hf signal from the diffeence to ferret out either amplitude modulation or phase modulation...having a working microcap makes it so much easier than before..

Transient analysis is of course the bottom line here, isn't it? as, I can't remember the last time I popped a cold one and listened to sine waves...Yeah, but this is a linear system, analysis of one informs analysis of the other.

Anyway, what am I supposed to be seeing that is so challenging? You add a 10Hz signal in, some of it comes out of the tweeter voltage. And it's 10Hz just like I would expect. Looks fine to me.

Got a lunch meeting.

After reading the last few pages I can only say that "objectivists" and "subjectivists" may be on the same planet but they are in different worlds.

Actually, I believe the just noticeable differences (jnd) that are bandied about is somewhere in the .5dB range. Unfortunately, that is .5dB difference two channel, and not interchannel.. Much work still needs to be done with respect to two channel reproduction and imaging, as even .1dB interchannel may be an issue.

If you believe that humans are capable of discriminating a 0.1db delta, and you have amplifiers that have 800 ohm output Z, then I suppose cables could be a factor on that order. I mentioned that there can be some debate about what is considered insignificant and what effects are considered parasitic and where but if the jnd bar is at to 0.1db then that’s a whole ‘nuther ballgame that crosses my reasonable line and I won’t be quibbling with any results on the 0.1db level.

Dave

Yeah, but this is a linear system, analysis of one informs analysis of the other.

That is what we were taught...


Anyway, what am I supposed to be seeing that is so challenging? You add a 10Hz signal in, some of it comes out of the tweeter voltage. And it's 10Hz just like I would expect. Looks fine to me.


Um, how best to explain.

The tweeter difference is a difference.
If you ran the left speaker using biwiring, and the right speaker using monowiring, the difference I am showing you is the difference between the right tweeter and the left. That is not a graph of the absolute voltages on the tweeters, but the differences between them.

Here's another run. I've modelled two cabinets tied to the same voltage source...This time the top line is the two driving voltages, the center is the tweeter differences, and the bottom is the difference between the currents within the two cabinets, assuming one cabinet is monowired the other biwired.

It is my expectation that if it made no difference, then the cabinets would not draw different currents.

They do not show that behaviour.

Is that audible..who knows.

Cheers, John

ps..I'm gonna try changing the monowire resistance to see if it zero's out absolutely..since Bob Lee's been claiming the resistance halves, I gotta test my model to see if he's correct.

If you believe that humans are capable of discriminating a 0.1db delta, and you have amplifiers that have 800 ohm output Z, then I suppose cables could be a factor on that order. I mentioned that there can be some debate about what is considered insignificant and what effects are considered parasitic and where but if the jnd bar is at to 0.1db then that’s a whole ‘nuther ballgame that crosses my reasonable line and I won’t be quibbling with any results on the 0.1db level.

Dave
Dave, I gotta explain a tad of localization..our ability to discern the direction of an acoustic signal.

We image with both our ears, and we are quite sensitive beasts when it comes to that. We can distinguish ear to ear differences down to 1.5 uSec (according the the hearing researchers), and simple geometry spherical wavefront calculations gives .1dB (or so) ear to ear level differences for distinguishing the position of the source to a foot or so..(don't kill me for the numbers, I don't have the data and calcs at my disposal...)

But yet, nobody tends to consider that ear to ear sensitivity when it comes to stereo reproduction..

Don't ask me why, it's just so..

Cheers, John

Hear Hear. ... Let's say for instance that we were on an automotive enthusiast forum and discussing high performance automobiles. Somebody posts that, "hey, I like the Lamborghini Gallardo and you say, you can't possibly , you're a moron for liking that car, it's too much money you can have the same exact performance or similar 0-60mph and top end for a 1/3rd the cost with a Corvette Z06. You must buy the Z06 or you're an idiot. You know what, if he wants a Gallardo, that's what he likes and he has the money and that's what he wants then that's a subjective choice.

Using the objectivist MO that seems to gravitate towards these parts the only appropriate purchase is the Corvette or nothing. It's a little patronizing IMO and smacks of big daddy speaking to his child. Sure there's snake oil in cables, we get it, we don't need 20,000 posts to know or understand this. Some people here are intelligent adults and don't necessarily want or need to be told what your world views are and you want them to do ad nauseum and can by their own experience go out into the big wide world and daresay listen with their own ears and vote with their own wallets.

I'll take the Lambo every time, baby! :rolleyes:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pVoxxHKR-PM

This guy strangely reminds me of valhalla...

If this were a car forum, I expect that we would see friction between the people interested in car technology, in what the likes of Caroll Shelby, Smokey Yunick, and Michael Schumacher have to say, etc., and the people who bolt fake wings onto the backs of their cars to make them fassssssst.

and know the cable police

Who are the "cable police" of whom you speak?

That is what we were taught...Because it is true, thanks. Let's not play games. It's one thing to misunderstand and/or misuse the equivalence, but it doesn't change that it's there. You've shown nothing here that is news to anyone fluent in standard linear circuit analysis.The tweeter difference is a difference.So? Neither I, nor Lessuf, denied that there would be. The example you gave me in our e-mail discussion had perfect brick-wall crossovers, which is the reason we didn't see it there. But I acknowledged the whole time that a difference would be likely in the non-ideal case.

Part of the problem is you keep going back to this instantaneous energy analysis. But it's nothing but a distraction! What you're seeing in this simulation is exactly what you'd get with a standard complex impedance analysis.

If you were trying all this time to prove that there was a difference, thinking that we didn't believe there was, then you were barking up the wrong tree. You are so itching to prove us all wrong on something, but I'll be damned if I know what it is.ps..I'm gonna try changing the monowire resistance to see if it zero's out absolutely..since Bob Lee's been claiming the resistance halves, I gotta test my model to see if he's correct.That might be the case. I know we didn't need to do that in the case of brick wall transformers. I do not think you're going to eliminate all the difference between the two cases by halving or doubling the cable impedance though. If you dial it in just right, and do a frequency response sweep, you should see the monowire and biwire cases coincide at DC and infinity, with a bump right around the crossover frequency.

Dave, I gotta explain a tad of localization..our ability to discern the direction of an acoustic signal.

We image with both our ears, and we are quite sensitive beasts when it comes to that. We can distinguish ear to ear differences down to 1.5 uSec (according the the hearing researchers), and simple geometry spherical wavefront calculations gives .1dB (or so) ear to ear level differences for distinguishing the position of the source to a foot or so..(don't kill me for the numbers, I don't have the data and calcs at my disposal...)

But yet, nobody tends to consider that ear to ear sensitivity when it comes to stereo reproduction..

Don't ask me why, it's just so..

Cheers, John

Wouldn't that only be important if you bi-wired one speaker and not the other?

Unfortunately, it is not irrelevant. For speakers and zip, for example, the consequence of the higher line impedance is the storage of inductive energy that the cable otherwise would not have. For IC's, it's the storage of capacitive energy. For both, the energy is aquired through the process of reflections.

How is it, though, that these phenomena are so minute that they are irrelevant? How is it that whether one takes the cable's characteristic impedance into account or does not, in a wire length << lambda of the highest audio frequency, the results do not vary?

Because it is true, thanks. Let's not play games. It's one thing to misunderstand and/or misuse the equivalence, but it doesn't change that it's there. You've shown nothing here that is news to anyone fluent in standard linear circuit analysis.So? Neither I, nor Lessuf, denied that there would be. The example you gave me in our e-mail discussion had perfect brick-wall crossovers, which is the reason we didn't see it there. But I acknowledged the whole time that a difference would be likely in the non-ideal case. The analysis of the instantaneous energy dissipations is nothing but a distraction. What you're seeing in this simulation is exactly what you'd get with a standard complex impedance analysis.

If you were trying all this time to prove that there was a difference, thinking that we didn't believe there was, then you were barking up the wrong tree. You are so itching to prove us all wrong on something, but I'll be damned if I know what it is.

This is not particularly directed at you, Michael, so please do not take offense.

1. I have been lambasted for using a brick wall crossover..and told to work the analysis with pseudo-real components.. SO I HAVE DONE SO. (I don't recall if you made that complaint or not, but I'm very happy that microcap now seems to be behaving...I would have provided this analysis far earlier..

2. We have been told many many times that biwiring DOES NOT MAKE A DIFFERENCE for real components and real signals (as opposed to thought exercises which nobody likes.). A proper analysis using a current circuit simulator would seem to disagree with that.

3. I had something really really profound to say here, but for the life of me I can't remember it...I think that dongle comment is still making me laugh too much...



The analysis of the instantaneous energy dissipations is nothing but a distraction.

No, it is the driver of the whole boat. It is a system loss which is different at the instantaneous level between the two wiring setups.

It drove me to this analysis, and it is the entity with which the crossover components are compensating for...the circuit driver which causes the cabinet currents to be different.

I included a graph showing the results of changing the monowire wire resistance, to see if using a specific value caused the difference to go away. If it had, then all my analysis is of no merit and Bob Lee is dead nuts on.

It was not possible to zero out the difference using any value of resistance for the monowire.

I would just LOVE to call this a fait accompli, a tour de (france), a win, whatever..but that is far too hasty.

I believe others should duplicate what I modelled and found. As, there certainly are possibilities that I messed up the analysis somewhere.

Forget the simple analysis Michael, try duplicating what I did to either confirm or refute my results.

Note to all: This analysis, while indicative of a difference, has not been reproduced by anyone else (today is the first day I've shown the results), so I consider it to be suspect. Anybody who claims biwiring makes a difference because this analysis "proves it", I'll be sure to slap them upside the face...IT IS NOT PROVEN YET..

I await others either confirming or refuting my results..

Cheers, John

Michael, have a happy 4th, it is always enjoyable discussing with you, even if we sometimes disagree or mis-understand...

If you dial it in just right, and do a frequency response sweep, you should see the monowire and biwire cases coincide at DC and infinity, with a bump right around the crossover frequency.

I'm not sure. I used a two frequency stimulus, and tried for the sweet spot, but found only a minima. Conceptually, I believe the correct resistance is exactly as I said it should be, with both biwires being the exact same resistance as the monowire.

Wouldn't that only be important if you bi-wired one speaker and not the other?

My suspicion is that if we biwire both, or monowire both, that most humans will not find a difference due to adaptation of stimulus and lack of adequatly prepared source parameters...(perhaps all humans, but that's another story)..

By biwiring only one cabinet and running mono, I believe that is the most sensitive test possible using humans, that of right-left difference. And even if it shows a difference, so what?? That doesn't mean that wiring both the same will be audible..but it would give a hint.

How is it, though, that these phenomena are so minute that they are irrelevant? How is it that whether one takes the cable's characteristic impedance into account or does not, in a wire length << lambda of the highest audio frequency, the results do not vary?

I assume you are speaking of audibility tests?

The best I have is that because we adapt to localization stimulus on the fly, changing both wires does not allow us to use our most sensitive aspect, that of right-left discrimination.

Cable Z determines the ratio of inductive to capacitive energy storage. When line and load match, those two storage mechanisms have equal amounts of energy, and the total energy storage is a minima.. But zip runs 100 ohms, speakers 8 (give or take), inductive dominates..for IC, the opposite is true. Now that I seem to have a good simulation program up and running, I'll be able to add in some wire inductances, play a bit, to determine if any differences can be found.
When I first put real hardware together to test my biwire analysis, I used #14awg wires, 8 ohm resistors, and reasonable caps and inductors..but had serious concerns with the inductance of the wires, as I could not eliminate that as a confounder to my results.

If you are speaking of measurements, have you read anywhere of two tone tests where the interchannel amplitude difference and interchannel time delays have been measured, to 1.5 uSec and .1 dB?

I'd certainly have problems with that level of resolution and accuracy of correlation and differences..especially at the hundred watt level..

Cheers, John

I take it on fact that you did not direct this all at me. Given that...1. I have been lambasted for using a brick wall crossover..and told to work the analysis with pseudo-real components.. SO I HAVE DONE SO. (I don't recall if you made that complaint or not,Nah, I didn't make the complaint. I certainly didn't mind doing the analysis with brick walls. The problem, it turns out, is that use of brick wall crossovers ended up obscuring the real effects.

In fact, maybe that was your problem. You knew intuitively that biwiring makes a difference. Then, when you did a "traditional" analysis using brick wall crossovers, it didn't make a difference. But that didn't mean the traditional analysis was flawed; in fact, it was 100% correct! It was just that in the reasonable quest to simplify the analysis, you picked a case where biwiring happens to make zero difference.

Again, that's just speculation. I wasn't looking over your shoulder. But I do know that the idealized case we hashed out awhile back had exactly no difference between the biwire and monowire case, but we both agreed that a more realistic example would produce it.We have been told many many times that biwiring DOES NOT MAKE A DIFFERENCE for real components and real signals (as opposed to thought exercises which nobody likes.). A proper analysis using a current circuit simulator would seem to disagree with that.Well, maybe so, but I certainly never said it.

Furthermore, I don't know if your particular component choices are fair. For one thing, 1 ohm for the wires is a lot. For instance, if you look at Lessuf's analysis, even 0.1 ohms produces a noticeable hump in the frequency response, and he stops at 0.5 Ohms. (See his Figure 9.) Your low-pass cutoff frequency (5.3kHz) is higher than your high-pass cutoff frequency (3.2kHz), and they're first-order, so you're already getting a fair amount of bleedover. Add the effect of your high cable impedance and I don't think we should be surprised by your results.No, it is the driver of the whole boat. It is a system loss which is different at the instantaneous level between the two wiring setups.It might have driven it for you, but none of your conclusions are any different than you get with standard linear circuit analysis.Forget the simple analysis Michael, try duplicating what I did to either confirm or refute my results.I could try and duplicate it, sure---if I even remotely suspected it was wrong. I don't. Note to all: This analysis, while indicative of a difference, has not been reproduced by anyone else (today is the first day I've shown the results), so I consider it to be suspect. Anybody who claims biwiring makes a difference because this analysis "proves it", I'll be sure to slap them upside the face...IT IS NOT PROVEN YET..It may not be proven according to some arbitrary standard but it's not surprising. And Lessuf's analysis predicts this kind of result too so it's not even unprecedented.

..and told to work the analysis with pseudo-real components.. SO I HAVE DONE SO.

Your analysis is only as good as your model. If you’re looking for deltas on the order of <0.1db then you’ll likely find them with parasitic causes so your model should include these if you want to slice it that fine. A butterfly flapping it’s wings in Mexico could be modeled in a weather simulation and it can be argued that no simulation would be accurate without accounting for it but would cross the line of reasonably insignificant for most reasonable folk.

Dave

My suspicion is that if we biwire both, or monowire both, that most humans will not find a difference due to adaptation of stimulus and lack of adequatly prepared source parameters...(perhaps all humans, but that's another story)..
It's a good and important story though. If a probe and an experimental method is found that allows for a reliable differentiation that is one story. If the probe is changed to musical information, with the same experimental method, and there is no longer reliable differentiation that is also a story.

I take it on fact that you did not direct this all at me. Given that...Nah, I didn't make the complaint. I certainly didn't mind doing the analysis with brick walls. The problem, it turns out, is that use of brick wall crossovers ended up obscuring the real effects.

Actually, one of the physicists here slapped me upside the head and said use real comps..it's been a while, I cannot fault anybody..but others have indeed made the same recommendation.

You knew intuitively that biwiring makes a difference. Then, when you did a "traditional" analysis using brick wall crossovers, it didn't make a difference. But that didn't mean the traditional analysis was flawed; in fact, it was 100% correct! It was just that in the reasonable quest to simplify the analysis, you picked a case where biwiring happens to make zero difference.

I don't recall any instance where I picked a case where biwiring makes no difference..might have, maybe not...

Furthermore, I don't know if your particular component choices are fair. For one thing, 1 ohm for the wires is a lot. For instance, if you look at Lessuf's analysis, even 0.1 ohms produces a noticeable hump in the frequency response, and he stops at 0.5 Ohms. (See his Figure 9.) Your low-pass cutoff frequency (5.3kHz) is higher than your high-pass cutoff frequency (3.2kHz), and they're first-order, so you're already getting a fair amount of bleedover.

Fair enough..I just changed the L to .5 millihenries and the caps to 3 uf.

Now the cabinets current difference is 5 milliamps. Both hf and lf are present in the differences.

Let see, 3 volt hf at 8 ohms is 375 milliamps, 5 mils represents 1.3% difference between the tweeters. You know, I look at the 5 mil graph and think, that's waaay too small. But as a percentage, it's kinda big.


Add the effect of your high cable impedance and I don't think we should be surprised by your results.

Oh darn, I put the wrong values up for the wire resistance, they were all .5 ohm..sorry bout that.

Seeing as the model's working now (well, it did show some anomolies when I was changing the crossover comps, but I got that to stop), I'll be able to split the sources, and impose identical hf signals but different lf signals, to determine the level of impact bi vs mono will have.

But don't hold your breath, I got vaca to worry bout..

Have a happy 4th Michael.

And everybody else as well..

Cheers, John

Your analysis is only as good as your model. If you’re looking for deltas on the order of <0.1db then you’ll likely find them with parasitic causes so your model should include these if you want to slice it that fine.

Oh man, you got that right. That's exactly why I never provided the earlier simulations, as they provided anomolies. Further tweaking(exercising) of the models at that time was able to pruduce even more ridiculous results.

I present the model and analysis so that others can duplicate my results.

One can only assume that parasitics do not cross software boundaries, but that may not even be a correct assumption.

Actually, my results, even with comp changes, was in the 1.3 percent realm. That's not in the dirt, not even on the ground...:p

Cheers, John

For the sake of everyone else's interest, we should point out that the difference between the monowire and biwire cases is measured in millivolts, even though the two sinusoids start out at 5V and 20V amplitude. This is small potatoes. And that's assuming no attempt to normalize for absolute level differences.

Seems like a good place to stop!

Butterfly effect? small changes in initial condition can play a large role. Pspice does have the .IC parameter for this and initial conditions with reactive components can be wack without using .ICs. (One of the reasons many prefer IBIS over spice for transmission line simulations...)

"In 1961, Lorenz was using a numerical computer model to rerun a weather prediction, when, as a shortcut on a number in the sequence, he entered the decimal .506 instead of entering the full .506127 the computer would hold. The result was a completely different weather scenario."

Dave

Nah, I don't think so. I did some rough calculations too and it's the right order of magnitude. We know it's not zero.

Yes, even the difference between any pair of Nordost, KBK or zipcord is non-zero.

Butterfly effect? small changes in initial condition can play a large role. Pspice does have the .IC parameter for this and initial conditions with reactive components can be wack without using .ICs. (One of the reasons many prefer IBIS over spice for transmission line simulations...)

"In 1961, Lorenz was using a numerical computer model to rerun a weather prediction, when, as a shortcut on a number in the sequence, he entered the decimal .506 instead of entering the full .506127 the computer would hold. The result was a completely different weather scenario."

Dave

Dave,

You ONLY have the possibility of a "Butterfly Effect" if the problem is NON-LINEAR!!!

The analysis here is ENTIRELY LINEAR - so there's no "Butterfly Effect"

Atmospheric modelling is different - those models are highly non-linear and chaotic.

The Nbs (and MIT I believe) can have 10x the cap per ft you noted on the Canare and Nordost.

But the MIT cables have a "network" box that is a built in crossover, big difference.

Quote:
In my experience it is the subjectivists that lead the way to better sound, because they are willing to try stuff based primarily on observation. The same poster above claims vinyl has some distortion that adds ambience. Yet in my experience it is vinyl that has the larger range of ambience retrieval (bad recordings bad, good recordings good), not digital (sorry, redbook).

Vinyl is not 'retrieving' ambience. It is adding spurious ambience that you happen to find euphonic. I can do something similar, and do, by applying Dolby Pro Logic II to stereo tracks. Better yet, I can alter the ambience by adjusting parameters. And I can turn it off when I want to.

I think you missed the "range" part.
Is this like the old Thermos joke? You seem to be ascribing magical properties to vinyl-"how do it know" when to have more or less ambience?

Is this like the old Thermos joke? You seem to be ascribing magical properties to vinyl-"how do it know" when to have more or less ambience?
The types of distortions it introduces are associated with giving a sense of ambience. The LP "player" does not know when to introduce the distortion, it always introduces it. Depending on the quality of the recording and the condition of the LP, the distortions will sound different, but nontheless euphonic to some of us.

Is this like the old Thermos joke? You seem to be ascribing magical properties to vinyl-"how do it know" when to have more or less ambience?
The types of distortions it introduces are associated with giving a sense of ambience. The LP "player" does not know when to introduce the distortion, it always introduces it. Depending on the quality of the recording and the condition of the LP, the distortions will sound different, but nontheless euphonic to some of us.

You can make a digital recording of the LP reproduction and it will have the same distortions, thus showing the digital domain can reproduce it.

The types of distortions it introduces are associated with giving a sense of ambience. The LP "player" does not know when to introduce the distortion, it always introduces it. Depending on the quality of the recording and the condition of the LP, the distortions will sound different, but nontheless euphonic to some of us.

First, this still fails to explain why the range of ambient retrieval is greater with analog that redbook. Keep in mind that (whoops MG, here I go) quality of ambience is discernable on a good system. It's not like more is better.
This is where the "euphonic" silliness comes from. You have to stop with the "we smarty engineers know you analog guys just wanna listen through a reverb plate." stuff.

Raul-what's the best cd player and record player YOU'VE had side by side in your sytem? I'm sure lots of posters are going to agree-until you've done years and years of DBT on this hypothesis I suppose I should be dubious of your conclusions.

Second, I would assume that you would have no issue with the statement that digital distortions (you know the kind, the ones that ANY digital conversion introduce because digital is always harsh and yucky) are amusical to some of us?

In the interest of a non-snarky debate, let me throw this out. On well recorded DAA or DDA records I have, there is usually no more or less ambience than on the same cd played side by side. But on the best analog records I have, there is more ambience retrieval than on the same AAD or ADD disc. This goes directly against your hypothesis. IF you assume my observations are correct, can you come up with a better theory?

Second, let me expand on the idea of recorded ambience, as more is not better if not an accurate representation of what's on the master. If vinyl can retrieve greater soundstage information (size, image placement, distance between instruments, etc), then you would agree that it is more accurate, correct?

But on the best analog records I have, there is more ambience retrieval than on the same AAD or ADD disc. This goes directly against your hypothesis. IF you assume my observations are correct, can you come up with a better theory?Over on the "Do all CD player's sound the same" thread, I made the assertion that, once the digital samples are placed on a CD, there is only one proper way to pull them off again (that is, only one proper analog signal that represents them). Unfortunately, there are a variety of ways to go from analog to digital, some better than others. If vinyl can retrieve greater soundstage information (size, image placement, distance between instruments, etc), then you would agree that it is more accurate, correct?It would be more accurate in that particular aspect, yes. That doesn't necessarily mean it's more accurate overall---but if it's not, it is entirely reasonable for subjective opinion to come in and break the tie.

Over on the "Do all CD player's sound the same" thread, I made the assertion that, once the digital samples are placed on a CD, there is only one proper way to pull them off again (that is, only one proper analog signal that represents them). Unfortunately, there are a variety of ways to go from analog to digital, some better than others.It would be more accurate in that particular aspect, yes. That doesn't necessarily mean it's more accurate overall---but if it's not, it is entirely reasonable for subjective opinion to come in and break the tie.


My bad, I did mean accurate in this regard. And for what it's worth, every time I've heard higher rez material, the ambience accuracy was one of the first things to improve.

First, this still fails to explain why the range of ambient retrieval is greater with analog that redbook.

Who's proved it is?

Keep in mind that (whoops MG, here I go) quality of ambience is discernable on a good system. It's not like more is better.

But an LP system doesn't know how much ambience was already properly retrieved in the recording. It just adds it willy nilly. So a recording that's already nicely 'ambient' will be made over ambient.


This is where the "euphonic" silliness comes from. You have to stop with the "we smarty engineers know you analog guys just wanna listen through a reverb plate." stuff.

Why? Like I said, LP technology was well-studied YEARS ago. We know why it does what it does. It's *distortion*. You 'have to' understand that.


Raul-what's the best cd player and record player YOU'VE had side by side in your sytem? I'm sure lots of posters are going to agree-until you've done years and years of DBT on this hypothesis I suppose I should be dubious of your conclusions.

Have you captured LP output to digital and compared them? THat would tell you whether digital can do 'ambience retrieval' or not.

Second, I would assume that you would have no issue with the statement that digital distortions (you know the kind, the ones that ANY digital conversion introduce because digital is always harsh and yucky) are amusical to some of us?

TOo bad for your argument that digital is not always harsh and yucky.

... And for what it's worth, every time I've heard higher rez material, the ambience accuracy was one of the first things to improve.

Unfortunately, proper testing shows otherwise:D
http://www.bostonaudiosociety.org/explanation.htm

that hi res and Red Book cannot be audibly differentiated.
So, something happened to that perception, like bias interference?

First, this still fails to explain why the range of ambient retrieval is greater with analog that redbook. ..?

Why? Perhaps that ambiance you are perceiving is not what is in reality, what was recorded in reality or what is on the master. But, is the byproduct of the vinyl medium itself.

For the sake of everyone else's interest, we should point out that the difference between the monowire and biwire cases is measured in millivolts, even though the two sinusoids start out at 5V and 20V amplitude. This is small potatoes. And that's assuming no attempt to normalize for absolute level differences.

Seems like a good place to stop!

On the contrary, my friend.

It has only begun...be patient, it will eventually bear fruit..

Questions to ask:

1. The term 2AB I bandy about is a power term, a power modulation. Why oh why would anybody think that there is a frequency domain product?? Voltage and Current are proportional to the square root of the power...think in terms of square root of 2AB..

2. Hasn't anybody yet noticed the GLARING point??? The graph is screaming at me... When one sinusoid is subtracted from another of the same frequency but's amplitude are varied on the second, but there was no null, merely a minima? Phase..The tweeters are going off phase with respect to each other..For 3sin(ft) - 3sin(ft-phi) = .005sin(ft + x), what is the solution for phi that gives .005?.

3. The crossover node is obviously pulled down by the woofer current, and that pulldown is altering the tweeter current in an out of phase way, the tweeter current is doing the same to the woofer.. When a monowire woofer is disconected from the node, the biwire/monowire tweeter difference goes to zero..

Has anybody figured out where this analysis is going??

The woofer impedance determines the pulldown of the node in monowiring..the further it pulls the node, the farther the tweeters deviate.

Consider the range of a woofer's impedance. It's impedance determines how badly the mono node affects the crossover/tweeter system..

Given two monowired speakers, 3 volts at 25Khz fed in phase to both amplifier channels, and then one channel driven with a bass frequency that is at the impedance peak frequency of the woofer (say 20 or 30 ohms), how much will the tweeter difference be??

Curious minds want to know.

I unfortunately, do not have microcap available at the moment, but somebody out there has to be curious, no??

Enough for today...

Cheers, John

John, if you come up with anything that isn't wholly predicted by traditional linear circuit analysis, let me know. But nothing this circuit is doing is remotely new and interesting. It's a basic RLC network, for goodness sake. The phase shift deviation of the tweeters? Predictable. The 2AB power modulation? Predictable. Power not obeying superposition? Fundamental.

Look, I'm a curious mind, which is precisely why I don't want to look at this anymore. There's nothing out of the ordinary here. And given that microcap is going to simulate this as a linear system (because it is), it's not going to reveal anything new, either. I am off in search of new problems, such as the nasty bug I managed to insert in my code today.

Do have a good weekend.

John, if you come up with anything that isn't wholly predicted by traditional linear circuit analysis, let me know. But nothing this circuit is doing is remotely new and interesting. It's a basic RLC network, for goodness sake. The phase shift deviation of the tweeters? Predictable. The 2AB power modulation? Predictable. Power not obeying superposition? Fundamental.

Look, I'm a curious mind, which is precisely why I don't want to look at this anymore. There's nothing out of the ordinary here. And given that microcap is going to simulate this as a linear system (because it is), it's not going to reveal anything new, either. I am off in search of new problems, such as the nasty bug I managed to insert in my code today.

Michael,

Agreed - this is all SIMPLE linear electrical network theory - I don't know WHY in the
world jneutron is making such a big deal over this elementary circuit analysis.

Michael,

Agreed - this is all SIMPLE linear electrical network theory - I don't know WHY in the
world jneutron is making such a big deal over this elementary circuit analysis.


And I dare say can anyone hear it even? My guess is nope.

See jneutron? If a physicist thinks it's basic circuit analysis, it really must be basic. :D

(just a little dig there.)

See jneutron? If a physicist thinks it's basic circuit analysis, it really must be basic. :D

(just a little dig there.)
Michael,

You're correct. If there's any practical application - then the physicist isn't any good -
leave it to the engineers. Like the mathematician says, "If it isn't useless; what good
is it?"

There is ONE application - but I'm not sure it's "practical" - kind of a
"application of last resort".

Have a Happy 4th of July.

John, if you come up with anything that isn't wholly predicted by traditional linear circuit analysis, let me know. But nothing this circuit is doing is remotely new and interesting. It's a basic RLC network, for goodness sake. The phase shift deviation of the tweeters? Predictable. The 2AB power modulation? Predictable. Power not obeying superposition? Fundamental.

Look, I'm a curious mind, which is precisely why I don't want to look at this anymore. There's nothing out of the ordinary here. And given that microcap is going to simulate this as a linear system (because it is), it's not going to reveal anything new, either. I am off in search of new problems, such as the nasty bug I managed to insert in my code today.

Do have a good weekend.

Hmmm..traditional, basic, predictable, fundamental..nothing new...

What then was the answer to even one of my questions? You have sidestepped it with weasel words...

If the use of monowire allows the woofer impedance variation (or even nonlinearity) to cause a change in the tweeter signal phase or amplitude, then there is a clear issue which is understood and can be controlled.

To ignore it without understanding the level of effect, not very scientific... If within a monowire stereo system, one woofer is at 4 ohm impedance due to the bass content driving that channel, and the right woofer is at 25 ohms again due to the frequency driving it, what is the impact on the interchannel tweeter amplitude and phase??

I've already tossed in reactive woofer sources and seen the impact, changed the resistance and seen the impact, but have yet to document on forum the results. Several hundred millivolts interchannel difference is certainly not insignificant, and that is the level of impact I was seeing.

I'll re-work the models to provide more in the way of results, and post them regardless of your opinion, which has been clear from the start.. You are welcome to critique the results of course, I welcome your viewpoint.

Michael,

Agreed - this is all SIMPLE linear electrical network theory - I don't know WHY in the
world jneutron is making such a big deal over this elementary circuit analysis.
Because that "elementary circuit analysis" is providing sufficient evidence that biwiring may indeed prevent significant interchannel errors with respect to amplitude or phase by virtue of a solid tie to the voltage node.

Let me ask you Morbius... In my work, many times I use a different analytical technique...a different approach, to ascertain the accuracy of an initial analysis. When the results of two different analytical approaches disagree, I do not toss the one I don't like and embrace the one I like..

Do you?

I do not know any physicists that would..

So why would you ask me to?

And I dare say can anyone hear it even? My guess is nope.

I dare say you may be correct. I've not said otherwise..

See jneutron? If a physicist thinks it's basic circuit analysis, it really must be basic. :D

(just a little dig there.)

That's ok..this is a good natured forum, after all..

Michael,

You're correct. If there's any practical application - then the physicist isn't any good -
You obviously don't know the same physicists I do. There is a range..
leave it to the engineers.
So then practice what you preach..leave it to the engineers. that be me...:p

Or get involved.. Your choice.

I bother with this thread, this topic, this analysis simply because there is (are?) a good mathematician and physicist and some audio EE types on board to bounce ideas and results off of. Is that not what you do at work?? I do...

Like the mathematician says, "If it isn't useless; what good
is it?"

Haven't heard that one before, I like it...;)

Cheers, John

Your browbeating isn't going to draw me back in. I am not afraid of discovery and invention; it is my trade. But you are far from the first person I have dealt with that insists on making the easy look difficult... So biwiring measures different! So it changes the distribution between woofer and tweeter! So... what else?

Why? Perhaps that ambiance you are perceiving is not what is in reality, what was recorded in reality or what is on the master. But, is the byproduct of the vinyl medium itself.

I think you missed my point. (I know Krabbie did). If I don't get more ambience on poor recordings or in direct comparisons to digital sourced vinyl,
then your argument falls apart, right? I think you can argue the "if", but not the logical progression. Second, arguing a vinyl listening test from years ago proved such and such is meaningless-it's a moving target. Horses were proven much better than automobiles in 1884.

Your browbeating isn't going to draw me back in. I am not afraid of discovery and invention; it is my trade.

Browbeating??

When you do it, it's a funny dig...but when I do it, it's browbeating..:confused:

interesting..
But you are far from the first person I have dealt with that insists on making the easy look difficult.

browbeating now, eh?

.. So biwiring measures different! So it changes the distribution between woofer and tweeter! So... what else?

Lets see, you've stated there is no phase change...yet the analysis says otherwise.

Many claim biwiring can make no difference..I find otherwise...extent yet unknown..

Serious advances have been made here..

1. You accept that biwiring measures different. (let's keep it as "may")
2. You accept that it alters the distribution between woofer and tweeter. (again "may")
3. You now "may" believe that the tweeter phase may shift interchannel,

But your response is "so what"??

Please review your stance.

If you do not care about the analysis, nor the end result, just ignore the analysis, the results, the discussion...simple. Your choice...

I prefer your take and your knowledge.

Questions.

1. What are the parameters of your speakers.
2. What is the impedance curve of your woofers.
3. What is the loop resistance of your wires..including all the connections.
4. What are the crossover points for your speakers.

Or, recommend a first order network and two drivers that we can find models of..

Cheers, John

[


Have you captured LP output to digital and compared them? THat would tell you whether digital can do 'ambience retrieval' or not.

Yes, I have. But comparing a record to a cd with a redbook source also works.

TOo bad for your argument that digital is not always harsh and yucky.[/QUOTE]

I was kidding.

When you do it, it's a funny dig...but when I do it, it's browbeating..You want to call what I do browbeating, fine! I'm just saying, it won't work with me :)Lets see, you've stated there is no phase change.No, I haven't. Never did. In fact I'm certain there is (except in the perfect brickwall crossover case). Many claim biwiring can make no difference..I find otherwise...extent yet unknown..I never claimed it made no difference (again, except in the ideal brick wall crossover case). As for "unknown extent", please. The extent is easily calculable from the parameters of the system using standard linear circuit analysis. Lessuf did it, for instance (he may not have obtained exactly the numbers you want but they are trivial additions to the work he did).Serious advances have been made here..
1. You accept that biwiring measures different. (let's keep it as "may")
2. You accept that it alters the distribution between woofer and tweeter. (again "may")
3. You now "may" believe that the tweeter phase may shift interchannel,Actually, I've never rejected any of those things. (I take that back: I don't know what you mean when you say that the phase may shift "interchannel". But I entirely accept that the phases of the sinusoids at the tweeter change.) So no "advance" has been made.But your response is "so what"??Yep. Precisely.

You want to call what I do browbeating, fine! I'm just saying, it won't work with me :)
Just usin your words.. you do as you wish, I'm fine with that..

As for "unknown extent", please. The extent is easily calculable from the parameters of the system using standard linear circuit analysis.

Of course it is..but were the right questions asked??

Apparently, no.

If an excellent model is not pushed correctly, incorrect answers may come out. Specifically, if one does not push seperate channels to highlight different behaviour, then one will never see different behaviour.


Lessuf did it, for instance (he may not have obtained exactly the numbers you want but they are trivial additions to the work he did).

Incorrect.

It is trivial to do the analysis using 8 ohm resistors..or even identical woofer models..

But where is the analysis which drives independent multiple frequencies on both channels simultaneously? Like music...

Actually, I've never rejected any of those things. (I take that back: I don't know what you mean when you say that the phase may shift "interchannel".

HOLY CR##.:eek::eek:. No wonder you are not understanding where I'm coming from..

If any bass content can cause the tweeter content to phase shift, then the bass content is shifting the image of the tweeter content sideways with respect to the listener..

If a female vocal sibilance is dead center on playback, and a bass guitar hits the left channel only, if that lf content causes the sibilance to phase shift, the sibilance will not be in the same location in space as the lower harmonic content of the female vocal. Blurring, lack of focus, whatever one wishes to call it.

The amount of phase shift is amazingly small...we can detect 1.5 plus microsecond shift interaural..

Hence my analysis..



But I entirely accept that the phases of the sinusoids at the tweeter change.) So no "advance" has been made..

How much interchannel phase shift is considered audible?

Using analytical techniques, I am working to put numbers to that.

If it's 250 pSec, no biggie.

If it's 100 uSec, it is a big thing.

1 uSec, 2, 5...maybe yes, maybe no.

But to decide it is not worthy of analysis to determine level of effect...you may work like that, but I do not..

Cheers, John

If any bass content can cause the tweeter content to phase shift, then the bass content is shifting the image of the tweeter content sideways with respect to the listener..OK, great, we now have disagreement. I call that progress. This is a linear circuit, John. The phase shifts are not being caused by the content of the signal, they are being caused by the differences in circuit impedance. The HF sinusoid at the tweeter has exactly the same phase shift whether or not the LF sinusoid is being applied.

OK, great, we now have disagreement. I call that progress. This is a linear circuit, John. The phase shifts are not being caused by the content of the signal, they are being caused by the differences in circuit impedance. The HF sinusoid at the tweeter has exactly the same phase shift whether or not the LF sinusoid is being applied.

Hence the reason you are not understanding me.

The phase shift will be independent of content IFF the impedance of the lf load is the same.

If one channel woofer is driven at a frequency where it's impedance is 4 ohms, and the other channel is driven at the driver's resonance, while both are seeing an identical hf signal, each circuit will show a different hf phase shift as one summing node becomes unloaded, the other not..

This is exactly like subbing a 20 ohm load on one circuit, keeping the other at 4 or 8.

Cheers, John

What you have described here is a nonlinear load. If you're chucking the assumption of linearity out the window, that's fine. All bets are off. But then what the heck are you doing giving us linear circuit examples and using a linear Microcap model? It's not going to show you any of this. None of the circuits you have ever shown me will behave as you describe. They are all linear, which means that full superposition applies.

Let me ask you Morbius... In my work, many times I use a different analytical technique...a different approach, to ascertain the accuracy of an initial analysis. When the results of two different analytical approaches disagree, I do not toss the one I don't like and embrace the one I like..

Do you?

I do not know any physicists that would..

jneutron,

I haven't tossed away an analysis just because it wasn't to my liking -
so do NOT accuse me of doing so!!!

I've just been MONUMENTALLY UNIMPRESSED with your analysis in this
interchange with Michael Grant - just as I have been UNIMPRESSED with
your previous analyses in this Forum.

You're passionate - but you don't persuade.

This whole folderal is BORING!!

Wow. Now that is browbeating :(

jneutron,

I haven't tossed away an analysis just because it wasn't to my liking -
so do NOT accuse me of doing so!!!

And where have I accused you of doing such???

Please read more accurately.

I have asked you why I should toss an analysis away. Not you, me...why should I...
I do not do so, and I do not know any physicists who do...

Your ability to read a post accurately is unimpressive..please be a tad more careful before reacting in such a manner..

I've just been MONUMENTALLY UNIMPRESSED with your analysis in this
interchange with Michael Grant - just as I have been UNIMPRESSED with
your previous analyses in this Forum.

Quite honestly, it is of no concern to me what you think. I have no concerns as to whether or not you are impressed. Let's just say,,,monumentally unconcerned with your "opinion", as emotionally derived as it were..

However, my opinion of you being able to read a post accurately has certainly taken a hit. Why is it you think I have accused you of unprofessional behaviour??



You're passionate - but you don't persuade.
Again, why should I be concerned??

This whole folderal is BORING!!
So?

Cheers, John

ps..please read the post accurately before being such a hothead..I meant no disrespect of you, but was asking why you would expect me to quit a question to which I have not a complete answer...

Wow. Now that is browbeating :(

No, actually, it is acting like a hothead without actually reading the post correctly.

That suprises me..I expect better.

Cheers, John

What you have described here is a nonlinear load. If you're chucking the assumption of linearity out the window, that's fine. All bets are off. But then what the heck are you doing giving us linear circuit examples and using a linear Microcap model? It's not going to show you any of this. None of the circuits you have ever shown me will behave as you describe. They are all linear, which means that full superposition applies.

As I have stated from the jump, I have been unhappy with the entire 2AB thing, and how the systems are supposed to be identical even though the dissipation issue is "unresolved", so to speak. Initial microcap modelling shows the phase to be affected by the system, a result I also found suprising..

Use of the microcap model is to work out the relationships, pure and simple, of the system topology.l..To give a feel for what the systems are doing.

Now that I've a better feel for how the systems interact to produce the phase shifts I speak of, I can modify the "linear" model to encompass the range of effects which will occur, as in making one woofer run high impedance, the other low, to examine what it does to the hf content. True, not specific non linear components but linear "samples" at different frequencies...piecewise approximations...

Once a consistent range of hf effect has been worked out, examination of the end date will give us a view of whether or not the effect is worthy of further examination, audibility and such.

If it's in the mud even though I've tossed the worst cases I can think of, it's pretty much a done deal.

However, if it overlaps that which hearing researchers have shown to be audible, then we have a path to take.

As I've stated many times, I do not know if biwiring is audible, I do not actually care one way or the other.. But, the knowledge is of interest to me.

I am perplexed that others fight so hard saying it is not, without the actual data to support such assumptions.

Cheers, John

three engineers went hunting. they came across some tracks. while arguing whether they were deer, bear or cougar tracks, they were run over by a train.


Never has so much argument over something that has not yet been determined to be audible raged for so long. i will accept that if indeed we were going no holds barred and wanted the best of everything, you would drive the low end with more og a D class amp with plenty of power and lots of forgiveness, drive the mids with an excellent SS amp and kick ass tube for the highs. (IAMV individual amps may vary) because in theory some stuff that likely could not be heard by bats, MIGHT happen.

But get a grip, and Micheal, for F sake, stop egging him on, and Greg, please do not keep this going.

But get a grip, and Micheal, for F sake, stop egging him on, and Greg, please do not keep this going.

Why?

Taking an analysis to it's conclusion is only logical, regardless of the outcome.

It matters not whether you like the outcome or not, it is what it is.

It may end up that I've run down a blind alley, it may not.

So what's the problem?

Cheers, John

John,

Time to cut the crap. These last several of posts of yours have made it clear you don't have a proper understanding of the distinctions between linear and nonlinear circuits. Don't try and weasel out otherwise. You trotted out a simple linear circuit example and its very linear simulation, and expressed surprise at the results. When I didn't---because, well, anyone with proper intuition about linear circuits shouldn't be---you get on my case about it. Accuse me and others of a lack of intellectual curiosity and rigor, an unwillingness to think outside the box, you name it.

And when pressed to explain why you remain curious about those same very unordinary results, you talk about bass content causing a shift in phase on the tweeter... a distinctly nonlinear effect. You talk about the load impedance depending on what frequency the woofer is being driven at... a distinctly nonlinear effect. (Here's a hint: if what happens at 25kHz has any effect whatsoever on what happens at 10Hz, then you don't have a linear system. Sure, no real-life circuit is fully linear. But an RLC network fed into Microcap sure the hell is.)

Bzzt. Game over.

Time to stop wasting our time. You are welcome to the last word but I am done here. You have wasted enough of my time already.

Time to stop wasting our time. You are welcome to the last word but I am done here. You have wasted enough of my time already.


Do you know if Best Buy or Circuit City sells any bi amp speakers? I dont really know what brands are advertised for BA.

I will go get one in the morning put the damn thing on the SMAART and get this over with on the whole is it audible argument.

it strikes me just about any speaker could be bi-amped. just go inside, snip the woofer cables and drive it directly.

Or are we much farther outside the box than that?

in the pro world, 'bi-amping" used to be done all the time. if memory serves, Adamson's old big trap boxes had separate mid high's and bass boxes that need separate drive. (i had 18 of them in my warehouse, boy was i glad to switch over the Meyer MP1's) and that was i also seem to recall some of the luster of the old turbosound rigs like the flashlite.

They way i look at it, in the world of UNCOMPROMISING sound, one name (in the pro world) stands high. that is John Meyer. when john started putting amps inside all his cabinets, he did so due to the fact that the amp designers kept making (what he felt were) fundamental mistakes. so he decided to fix them.

and if HE is not running three separate amps in each line array module (and trust me, if it made ANY difference, no matter the magnitude, he would) then it makes no difference in the real world. NONE.

Go browse this site if you want no nonsense VERY TECHNICAL info.
http://www.meyersound.com/products/technology/

it strikes me just about any speaker could be bi-amped. just go inside, snip the woofer cables and drive it directly.

Or are we much farther outside the box than that?

in the pro world, 'bi-amping" used to be done all the time. if memory serves, Adamson's old big trap boxes had separate mid high's and bass boxes that need separate drive. (i had 18 of them in my warehouse, boy was i glad to switch over the Meyer MP1's) and that was i also seem to recall some of the luster of the old turbosound rigs like the flashlite.

They way i look at it, in the world of UNCOMPROMISING sound, one name (in the pro world) stands high. that is John Meyer. when john started putting amps inside all his cabinets, he did so due to the fact that the amp designers kept making (what he felt were) fundamental mistakes. so he decided to fix them.

and if HE is not running three separate amps in each line array module (and trust me, if it made ANY difference, no matter the magnitude, he would) then it makes no difference in the real world. NONE.

Go browse this site if you want no nonsense VERY TECHNICAL info.
http://www.meyersound.com/products/technology/

My bad Dizz I said bi amp which is great I meant bi wire.

Here is a jpg of Meyer HD1s that I SMAARTed. The phase is off because I had a pin 2 hot cable on them instead of a pin 3.Regardless the FR plot is dead on great. I have 2 of these in my home from a smokin deal on Ebay.

Have you captured LP output to digital and compared them? THat would tell you whether digital can do 'ambience retrieval' or not.

Yes, I have. But comparing a record to a cd with a redbook source also works.

?? 'cd with a redbook source'?

If you're talking about comparing an LP and commercial CD of the same record, then chances are excellent that the mastering is different. So you aren't comparing 'same'. If you're sure a vinyl production master was used in a flat transfer for the CD, with no additional mastering moves ,then you have a better shot at isolating the distorting effects of the LP medium and playback, which some find euphonic (there are others which it would be hard to call euphonic in any setting -- e.g., pitch variation). However, the 'retrieved' ambience isn't on the master tape. It's added by playback chain for vinyl. If you want to hear what's on the master tape, whether that's the original masteres, or a vinyl production master, the digital transfer will be more accurate.

And again, to demonstrate that the effect like is ADDED by your playback medium and technology, digitally record the output of an LP. It will capture the 'retrieved ambience', demonstrating that 1) there's nothing inherent in
'redbook' that is* *preventing* that effect and thus 2) it's an effect added by LP.

John,
Time to cut the crap. These last several of posts of yours have made it clear you don't have a proper understanding of the distinctions between linear and nonlinear circuits. Don't try and weasel out otherwise. You trotted out a simple linear circuit example and its very linear simulation, and expressed surprise at the results. When I didn't---because, well, anyone with proper intuition about linear circuits shouldn't be---you get on my case about it. Accuse me and others of a lack of intellectual curiosity and rigor, an unwillingness to think outside the box, you name it.

Actually, you are the one that has been telling me about what I know or do not know.

You've badgered me, explaining how linear this, linear that...linear everything...

When I have been laying the foundation for a better understanding of how actual speakers and actual crossovers interact.

Now that the initial groundwork has been laid so that examination of the systems can be tested, you start with the crap.

If you are not comfortable discussing an nonlinear mechanism within the constraints of linear modelling, just say you are not comfortable..

If you do not understand, just say so.

I've never claimed the world is linear.
I've never claimed the world is simple.

I work in an 11 dimensional motion control programming world, chock full of multi-dimensional non-linear systems.... so what we have discussed so far is....trivially simplistic..

If you cannot handle it, just go away. Stop trying to dismiss me...

Or, discuss.

Your call.

Cheers, John

ps.. honestly, it looks like you are doing everything you can to quash the analysis because you've staked your reputation on biwiring not making any difference...

That is how we differ..I do not care where the results lead.

Do you know if Best Buy or Circuit City sells any bi amp speakers? I dont really know what brands are advertised for BA.

I will go get one in the morning put the damn thing on the SMAART and get this over with on the whole is it audible argument.
1.. why would best buy bother?

2.. What would you test? swept sine?

That would be a joke..given what has been posted as of late..


Cheers, John

ps.. honestly, it looks like you are doing everything you can to quash the analysis because you've staked your reputation on biwiring not making any difference...Interesting. That's completely false. And it's not the first time you've falsely attributed something to me, either. I honestly have to wonder if you're all there.

has anything here not been covered here
http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/audio/biwire/Page1.html

?

Or is this a giant re-hash for a potential result of interest ONLY to theorists?

OK, great, we now have disagreement. I call that progress. This is a linear circuit, John. The phase shifts are not being caused by the content of the signal, they are being caused by the differences in circuit impedance. The HF sinusoid at the tweeter has exactly the same phase shift whether or not the LF sinusoid is being applied.

I agree.

?? 'cd with a redbook source'?

If you're talking about comparing an LP and commercial CD of the same record, then chances are excellent that the mastering is different. So you aren't comparing 'same'. If you're sure a vinyl production master was used in a flat transfer for the CD, with no additional mastering moves ,then you have a better shot at isolating the distorting effects of the LP medium and playback, which some find euphonic (there are others which it would be hard to call euphonic in any setting -- e.g., pitch variation). However, the 'retrieved' ambience isn't on the master tape. It's added by playback chain for vinyl. If you want to hear what's on the master tape, whether that's the original masteres, or a vinyl production master, the digital transfer will be more accurate.

And again, to demonstrate that the effect like is ADDED by your playback medium and technology, digitally record the output of an LP. It will capture the 'retrieved ambience', demonstrating that 1) there's nothing inherent in
'redbook' that is* *preventing* that effect and thus 2) it's an effect added by LP.


Wow, you sure do seem to think that repeating the same thing makes it true, huh? The "digital transfer will be more accurate"? Says you? You've proved this how? First, by failing to state at what standard you mean, you are wrong. An mp3 of a master is more accurate than a well mastered record?

Once more for the cheap seats and the deaf engineer types: If on a variety of digitally mastered recordings, the vinyl version has no more or less ambience than the cd, yet on well recorded analog or high res digital masters the vinyl has more ambience than the cd, you must be wrong, right?

Based on observation, I'm perfectly willing to accept that higher res digital can approach or exceed some of the limitations of vinyl. You seem to think if the word digital is on the wrapper then God herself has verified the truth to the source. Rather than debate further, c'mon by anytime you're in town
and I'll play all such combinations we're debating. You tell me what you hear
and we'll see whose preconceived notions crumble.

Wow, you sure do seem to think that repeating the same thing makes it true, huh? The "digital transfer will be more accurate"? Says you? You've proved this how? First, by failing to state at what standard you mean, you are wrong. An mp3 of a master is more accurate than a well mastered record?

Once more for the cheap seats and the deaf engineer types: If on a variety of digitally mastered recordings, the vinyl version has no more or less ambience than the cd, yet on well recorded analog or high res digital masters the vinyl has more ambience than the cd, you must be wrong, right?

Based on observation, I'm perfectly willing to accept that higher res digital can approach or exceed some of the limitations of vinyl. You seem to think if the word digital is on the wrapper then God herself has verified the truth to the source. Rather than debate further, c'mon by anytime you're in town
and I'll play all such combinations we're debating. You tell me what you hear
and we'll see whose preconceived notions crumble.

Ambience is usually added in the mix, and the recording medium will not affect it directly. However, different processing used in the different mastering processes could possibly change how the ambience comes across. Usually mastering for vinyl requires more processing.

And of course, if you believe that one medium is inherently better for ambience, you'll almost certainly hear it that way even if they happen to be the same.

Wow, you sure do seem to think that repeating the same thing makes it true, huh? The "digital transfer will be more accurate"? Says you? You've proved this how?

First, by failing to state at what standard you mean, you are wrong. An mp3 of a master is more accurate than a well mastered record?

No, obviously I don't mean 'every possible digital transfer will be more accurate than any analog transfer. We were talking about CD, after all.

But speaking of mp3s, I can 'prove' whether or not a person can tell the mp3 from a nonlossy source, using ABX comparison. I've done such comparisons with myself, and others, as subjects, with a variety of music, letting the listeners use their own gear. Some of the participants who were sure mp3s sounded poorly, have been rather surprised to find they can't tell them apart, whent he mp3s are well-made.

Once more for the cheap seats and the deaf engineer types: If on a variety of digitally mastered recordings, the vinyl version has no more or less ambience than the cd, yet on well recorded analog or high res digital masters the vinyl has more ambience than the cd, you must be wrong, right?

No, I mustn't. Your conclusions don't necessarily follow from your premise, and your premise is faulty. You're asking me to accept your anecdotal subjective impressions as some objective measure of accuracy.

Based on observation,

sighted, I presume, and that raises a huge red flag. You do understand that elementary point, right?


I'm perfectly willing to accept that higher res digital can approach or exceed some of the limitations of vinyl.


Actually, plain old redbook already meets or exceeds the limitations of vinyl in measurable accuracy to the source across the audible spectrum. You're free to prefer the less accurate format, of course.


You seem to think if the word digital is on the wrapper then God herself has verified the truth to the source. Rather than debate further, c'mon by anytime you're in town and I'll play all such combinations we're debating. You tell me what you hear and we'll see whose preconceived notions crumble.

I'd rather be entertained by someone with a clue about how to run a proper test, thanks. Then again, running an ABX with you as subject, and some mp3s of vinyl sources as test material, could be hilarious.

But in the meantime,your homework would be to search AVS using 'vinyl' as the search phrase and "jj_0001" as the user name

\


I'd rather be entertained by someone with a clue about how to run a proper test, thanks. Then again, running an ABX with you as subject, and some mp3s of vinyl sources as test material, could be hilarious.

But in the meantime,your homework would be to search AVS using 'vinyl' as the search phrase and "jj_0001" as the user name

I wouldn't dis grellberg and reject his invitation, agree or not, you don't know what you would be missing if you are a music lover!

I wouldn't dis grellberg and reject his invitation, agree or not, you don't know what you would be missing if you are a music lover!

Carl

I agree completely. Grellberg is now, always has been and forever will be a totally analog system up in the top 5 in this country. Krabapple you are preaching to the choir by trying to teach grellberg about analog. He has forgotten more than I would bet you ever knew

Carl

I agree completely. Grellberg is now, always has been and forever will be a totally analog system up in the top 5 in this country. Krabapple you are preaching to the choir by trying to teach grellberg about analog. He has forgotten more than I would bet you ever knew

I don't think krabapple is trying to teach grellberg about analog, though krab is probably one of the more knowledgeable people on this forum.

I don't think krabapple is trying to teach grellberg about analog, though krab is probably one of the more knowledgeable people on this forum.
perhaps but when it comes to analog and knowing grellberg ( I don't know krabapple) my money is on grellberg. Any who know him knows his passion for an all analog system.

perhaps but when it comes to analog and knowing grellberg ( I don't know krabapple) my money is on
grellberg. Any who know him knows his passion for an all analog system.


Is 'passion' the guarantor of truth? Passion can get in the way of clear-sighted evaluation.

Grellberg doesn't seem to want to acknowledge distortion that routinely accompanies a vinyl playback chain. More bizarrely, he doesn't want to confront the technically uncontroversial idea that these distortions --indeed, everything audible coming off an LP -- are easily captured and reproduced by a 16/44.1 digital recording of the vinyl playback chain's output, and hence they are artifacts of that playback chain. Instead he prefers to discuss 'retrieving' ambience that isn't in the recording in the first place.

Is grellberg aware that the characteristic distortions of LP were documented decades ago in JAES ('you can look it up' as they say)? In succeeding decades some of the more egregious ones have reduced to inaudibility, with the best technology, but there are some that are just part and parcel of the technology. Vinyl is simply less accurate as a reproduction medium, than a competent digital recording -- and accuracy is measurable, not a purely subjective concept.

I've never, ever said vinyl can't sound great. I've used the word euphonic numerous times. I grew up on LPs. I'm quite sure LPs can sound fabulous. Why does grellberg have such a hard time admitting 16/44.1 CDs can sound fabulous too?

People don't necessarily prefer 'accurate', particularly when the basic format -- two channel audio - is already inherently crippled in terms of the 'ambience' it can retrieve. But let's call a spade a spade, rather than a 'compost retrieval implement', OK? I don't call Dolby Pro Logic II 'ambience retrieval', though I quite enjoy the effect. It shouldn't be a matter of whether one has sufficient 'passion' for a given format. There are people who are kookoo for 8-track cassettes. It's irrelevant to acknowledging the pbjective technical aspects and capbilities of the format...and their audible effects.

And my advice to read jj_001's posts stands. He's the real repository of knowledge about what we hear and why, not me.

Is 'passion' the guarantor of truth? Passion can get in the way of clear-sighted evaluation.

Grellberg doesn't seem to want to acknowledge distortion that routinely accompanies a vinyl playback chain. More bizarrely, he doesn't want to confront the technically uncontroversial idea that these distortions --indeed, everything audible coming off an LP -- are easily captured and reproduced by a 16/44.1 digital recording of the vinyl playback chain's output, and hence they are artifacts of that playback chain. Instead he prefers to discuss 'retrieving' ambience that isn't in the recording in the first place.

Is grellberg aware that the characteristic distortions of LP were documented decades ago in JAES ('you can look it up' as they say)? In succeeding decades some of the more egregious ones have reduced to inaudibility, with the best technology, but there are some that are just part and parcel of the technology. Vinyl is simply less accurate as a reproduction medium, than a competent digital recording -- and accuracy is measurable, not a purely subjective concept.

I've never, ever said vinyl can't sound great. I've used the word euphonic numerous times. I grew up on LPs. I'm quite sure LPs can sound fabulous. Why does grellberg have such a hard time admitting 16/44.1 CDs can sound fabulous too?

People don't necessarily prefer 'accurate', particularly when the basic format -- two channel audio - is already inherently crippled in terms of the 'ambience' it can retrieve. But let's call a spade a spade, rather than a 'compost retrieval implement', OK? I don't call Dolby Pro Logic II 'ambience retrieval', though I quite enjoy the effect. It shouldn't be a matter of whether one has sufficient 'passion' for a given format. There are people who are kookoo for 8-track cassettes. It's irrelevant to acknowledging the pbjective technical aspects and capbilities of the format...and their audible effects.

And my advice to read jj_001's posts stands. He's the real repository of knowledge about what we hear and why, not me.


my advice is to listen to grellberg. When it comes to the repository of knowledge my money remains with him when it comes to analog.

that is the thing though doc... we are talking about reproduction of a waveform. not analog vs digital.

We can go through and prove in every way possible that the digital is more accurate, but if this hobby proves anything.. nobody and i do mean nobody... is interested in accuracy.

I read somewhere about people doing LP-CD tests and could easily pick the LP. when the output of the turntable was recorded and then they had to chose between an LP and a clean digital recording of that LP... nobody was able to pick accurately.

LP adds to the playback chain, maybe it is a naturalness... CD can be a little antiseptic at times. Add the level of finesse that vinyl junkies add to their rooms... and the odds are good that you have a combination that leads to obsession.

that is the thing though doc... we are talking about reproduction of a waveform. not analog vs digital.

We can go through and prove in every way possible that the digital is more accurate, but if this hobby proves anything.. nobody and i do mean nobody... is interested in accuracy.

I read somewhere about people doing LP-CD tests and could easily pick the LP. when the output of the turntable was recorded and then they had to chose between an LP and a clean digital recording of that LP... nobody was able to pick accurately.

LP adds to the playback chain, maybe it is a naturalness... CD can be a little antiseptic at times. Add the level of finesse that vinyl junkies add to their rooms... and the odds are good that you have a combination that leads to obsession.


I would bet grellberg is interested in accuracy

but when we talk about tubes, and LP's, they simply are not as accurate as CD playback through a solid state amp.

i will not try to say that they sound better worse, equal, but from a strict definition, the accuracy is not as good. Hence descriptions that read sterile, warm, etc.

Now i am not saying that digital is better. I am a HUGE fan of the Reel to Reel world, and feel that it has an accuracy that is equal to redbook and better dynamic range. and D/T class amps, while efficient and very cool, are no equal to more conventional amps (at least today)

If we talk of pure accuracy, most people would not like how it sounded. the room adds nuance, the speakers do, and some will argue that the little vibration isolating butcher blocks do so as well. So PURE accuracy is out the window.

Being into LP calls for a level of detail that ensures that one take care of lots of the more esoteric aspects of a sound system. you just cannot be "sloppy" and be into LP, so by that very nature, i would argue that two system comprised of the same gear in identical rooms would end up with the vinyl hound likely having the better (subjectively) sounding room.

I am not saying these differences are massive, we are definitely far into the realm of barely audible, so all the tweaking on top can definitely make things even better.


At the end of the day, Vinyl adds to a reproduction chain. by its nature, it cannot avoid it. And in most cases, the aspect that are added, are pleasing.

Of course i could be full of crap.

perhaps but when it comes to analog and knowing grellberg ( I don't know krabapple) my money is on grellberg. Any who know him knows his passion for an all analog system.


If I look what grellberg has written, then I would say that he don't know as much as krabapple. 16/44.1 is MUCH better than vinyl ever can be, and it is easy to prove it, and it has been proven to death.

To have a passion for something and having knowledge, is two different things.

We can go through and prove in every way possible that the digital is more accurate, but if this hobby proves anything.. nobody and i do mean nobody... is interested in accuracy.


Well, many are not interested but some are. I'm looking for accuracy, not for distortion at crazy high prices.

Interesting. That's completely false. And it's not the first time you've falsely attributed something to me, either. I honestly have to wonder if you're all there.

No, it's completely true.

Here is the statement, again..

ps.. honestly, it looks like you are doing everything you can to quash the analysis because you've staked your reputation on biwiring not making any difference...

Notice the words "it looks like".

As in "gives the appearance"

or

""It seems like""

I did not say ""you are doing...""

There is a significant difference, you just missed it.

I've never willingly falsely accused or attributed anything to you..and if I did (and it was pointed out to me), I would have apologized. But you already knew that about me..

As for me being "all there",, I've never claimed that I was "all there", or even sane, for that matter..:p

What is clear to me, is that you need to read my words just a wee bit better, and stop making the assumption that I'm out to get you, or that I am the enemy of all that is linear..

I agree.

With what?

Are you claiming that a linear analysis, using pure resistive loads, is a correct modelling of a two way speaker system??

Given what we all know about how electrodynamic drivers respond throughout the audio band, is it legitimate to use pure resistors as driver substitutes, and pretend that is an accurate model??

Cheers, John

I see. So repeatedly stating and confirming, as I have, that biwiring does make a difference, in your mind "looks like" I am staking my reputation on it not making a difference.

Like I said. You're not all there.

First rule of hole digging...

I see. So repeatedly stating and confirming, as I have, that biwiring does make a difference, in your mind "looks like" I am staking my reputation on it not making a difference.

Your reaction to the discussion certainly does seem that way.

Quite honestly, I prefer you being an "opponent" as it were, as I enjoy your take and trust in your abilities.. I trust you in that you have both feet firmly planted.

So things like this:...""Like I said. You're not all there.""

and this:""First rule of hole digging..""

surprise me.

You spend more time attacking me than discussing the strengths and weaknesses and results of the model or discussion..

Most people I encounter who attack the individual instead of focussing on the topic, do so because they cannot understand the argument..

You are an enigma because I know you are far more capable than that, yet you still attack with silly things like "you're not all there".

Interesting..

Cheers, John

You have much to learn, grasshopper.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eGblsNXkJog

You have much to learn, grasshopper.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eGblsNXkJog

Case in point..

Cheers, John

Be encouraged, grasshopper.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gASY7Lj5GPQ

Be encouraged, grasshopper.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gASY7Lj5GPQ

Unfortunately, I can't access youtube...so haven't the foggiest what insults you've lowered yourself to providing...:p

Cheers, John

ps..Gonna run the model with some modifications.. monowire two channel, hf content same, lf content different. Should be interesting..

Is 'passion' the guarantor of truth? Passion can get in the way of clear-sighted evaluation.

Grellberg doesn't seem to want to acknowledge distortion that routinely accompanies a vinyl playback chain. More bizarrely, he doesn't want to confront the technically uncontroversial idea that these distortions --indeed, everything audible coming off an LP -- are easily captured and reproduced by a 16/44.1 digital recording of the vinyl playback chain's output, and hence they are artifacts of that playback chain. Instead he prefers to discuss 'retrieving' ambience that isn't in the recording in the first place.

Is grellberg aware that the characteristic distortions of LP were documented decades ago in JAES ('you can look it up' as they say)? In succeeding decades some of the more egregious ones have reduced to inaudibility, with the best technology, but there are some that are just part and parcel of the technology. Vinyl is simply less accurate as a reproduction medium, than a competent digital recording -- and accuracy is measurable, not a purely subjective concept.

I've never, ever said vinyl can't sound great. I've used the word euphonic numerous times. I grew up on LPs. I'm quite sure LPs can sound fabulous. Why does grellberg have such a hard time admitting 16/44.1 CDs can sound fabulous too?

People don't necessarily prefer 'accurate', particularly when the basic format -- two channel audio - is already inherently crippled in terms of the 'ambience' it can retrieve. But let's call a spade a spade, rather than a 'compost retrieval implement', OK? I don't call Dolby Pro Logic II 'ambience retrieval', though I quite enjoy the effect. It shouldn't be a matter of whether one has sufficient 'passion' for a given format. There are people who are kookoo for 8-track cassettes. It's irrelevant to acknowledging the pbjective technical aspects and capbilities of the format...and their audible effects.

And my advice to read jj_001's posts stands. He's the real repository of knowledge about what we hear and why, not me.


First, you brought up ambience as part of your argument, not me. Gotta keep up, krab.

Second, you might want to stay away from "technically uncontrovertible ideas"-it only took the AES, what, 10 years to discover that jitter matters?

Oh, so vinyl's gotten better (apparently in just the last 12 hours :D), but not enough to overcome its fatal flaws? Overall accuracy is measurable? Nope, defined or specific things are measurable. As there is no storage or conversion (if one starts with a master tape) that is perfect, it is up to the listener to decide the order of what matters.

Let me ask you the natural progression of your argument-how bad does a signal have to be for you to actually hear it?

Seriously, come listen sometime and we will have fun.

Seriously, come listen sometime and we will have fun

besides he's got an incredible wine cellar, second only to"rsbeck"

FWIW, my engineers disagree with yours.
http://www.nanophon.com/audio/antialia.pdf

besides he's got an incredible wine cellar, second only to"rsbeck"

As evidenced by me never challenging anything he posts:D

Here's the argument boiled down to a single objectively testable hypothesis: a RedBook CD can completely capture the sound of an LP; that is, the CD is audibly indistinguishable from the original. That's either true or it's not. Note we're talking about the digital recording of the output of a turntable, not the parallel pressing of CDs and LPs from the same source. Other assertions involve too many other factors such as mastering differences, that make objective determination difficult. I for one think it would be great fun to do a test like that. Grellberg's system would be a great place to start.

Here's the argument boiled down to a single objectively testable hypothesis: a RedBook CD can completely capture the sound of an LP; that is, the CD is audibly indistinguishable from the original. That's either true or it's not. Note we're talking about the digital recording of the output of a turntable, not the parallel pressing of CDs and LPs from the same source. Other assertions involve too many other factors such as mastering differences, that make objective determination difficult. I for one think it would be great fun to do a test like that. Grellberg's system would be a great place to start.

Sounds like a fun idea for the next BAAS. And Krab, regardless of our respective positions, the o's and s's do seem do have fun here and at OB's.
We all seem to get nicer outside the anonymity of the forum-do come by if ever in sf!

my advice is to listen to grellberg. When it comes to the repository of knowledge my money remains with him when it comes to analog.

wow. Way to chant the mantra, doc. It's like I didn't write anything at all. :p

I would put my money on jj. He actually knows how and why stuff , you know, *works*.

perhaps but when it comes to analog and knowing grellberg ( I don't know krabapple) my money is on grellberg. Any who know him knows his passion for an all analog system.

Okay, I don't know grellberg, I can only judge from his posts. Perhaps he knows more about analog, digital, distortion, accuracy, et al, than he lets on here.

If I look what grellberg has written, then I would say that he don't know as much as krabapple. 16/44.1 is MUCH better than vinyl ever can be,

Well, hold on. From a perspective of, the output signal of redbook digital at its best is a measurably more accurate reproduction of the input signal, in the audible range, than vinyl at its best.

Any other definition of 'better' is simply subjective preference, or involves
qualifications like frequency response in the inaudible range (LP has a wider
potential FR, but in practice usable signals above 20 kHz are extremely rare, low level, and not 'flat'. Also rather fragile, given the stone-scraping-plastic technology.)

With what?

Are you claiming that a linear analysis, using pure resistive loads, is a correct modelling of a two way speaker system??

Given what we all know about how electrodynamic drivers respond throughout the audio band, is it legitimate to use pure resistors as driver substitutes, and pretend that is an accurate model??

No.

I am agreeing with this:
Originally Posted by Michael Grant
OK, great, we now have disagreement. I call that progress. This is a linear circuit, John. The phase shifts are not being caused by the content of the signal, they are being caused by the differences in circuit impedance. The HF sinusoid at the tweeter has exactly the same phase shift whether or not the LF sinusoid is being applied.

First, you brought up ambience as part of your argument, not me. Gotta keep up, krab.

And you're the one who brought up the phrase 'vinyl sucks' as part of your argument, not me.

So, again, do you know where the 'retrieved ambience' of vinyl comes from, grellberg? Hint: it's not coming from the source.

Second, you might want to stay away from "technically uncontrovertible ideas"-it only took the AES, what, 10 years to discover that jitter matters?

Second, I didn't write 'uncontrovertible'. I wrote 'uncontroversial'. Two different things.

Third, jitter in the context of digital audio first appears in a JAES article in 1979 -- you can look it up!

http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=3163

Fourth, feel free to demonstrate that the deficits you claim to hear in Redbook are due to jitter, given the extant data on jitter audibility.

Lastly, deficiencies of vinyl WERE 'discovered' and noted in JAES in the 50s-70s -- are you suggesting these somehow become insignificant because jitter was neglected in the early CD era?


Oh, so vinyl's gotten better (apparently in just the last 12 hours :D), but not enough to overcome its fatal flaws? Overall accuracy is measurable? Nope, defined or specific things are measurable. As there is no storage or conversion (if one starts with a master tape) that is perfect, it is up to the listener to decide the order of what matters.

This is nice handwaving, but in fact, all 'deficiencies' are not of equal magnitude. Some are inherently likely to be more audible than others.
There is a field called psychoacoustics, you should look into it.

And the idea that accuracy is not measurable, would be a surprise to many in the hardware and software ends of audio.

Let me ask you the natural progression of your argument-how bad does a signal have to be for you to actually hear it?

The question is not how *bad*, it's how *different*. But in measurable terms, reducing bit depth from 16 to 12, is something most people can hear in a blind test.

The simple question is, can you tell a redbook transfer of LP output, from the LP output itself, in a blind, level-matched test? That's it, really. If not, them there's nothing particularly deficient with redbook in terms of 'ambience retrieval'. So where's it coming from on the LP?


Seriously, come listen sometime and we will have fun.

You Bay Area AS guys tend more towards the woo end of things. Maybe that's a west coast thing. I'd much prefer to attend the BAS (Boston) meetings, thanks.

It's always interesting, though when an online personality persists in being a snide a-hole, then asks me to come visit.

No.

I am agreeing with this:
Originally Posted by Michael Grant
OK, great, we now have disagreement. I call that progress. This is a linear circuit, John. The phase shifts are not being caused by the content of the signal, they are being caused by the differences in circuit impedance. The HF sinusoid at the tweeter has exactly the same phase shift whether or not the LF sinusoid is being applied.
Ah, ok..

I was just making sure you did not believe a model of a speaker using a resistor was consistent with reality.

Cheers, John

FWIW, my engineers disagree with yours.
http://www.nanophon.com/audio/antialia.pdf

I would wager I was reading the work of the late Julian Dunn before you ever heard of him.

I have mentioned in numrous posts that potential benefits of higher SR comes from making filters easier to implement. That's all Dunn is talking about here. However, he was always pretty careful to qualify his claims about *audibility*. Case in point:

More work is required to evaluate the limits on the perception of the echo effects described here. This should cover both the audibility of echoes and their effect on the localisation of sound sources. One direct benefit of the increased use of 96kHz for recording is that there will be an increasing amount of source material suitable for this work.

And in fact, Meyer and Moran (of the Boston AS) over the last few years conducted extensive blind listening tests of DSD (sample rate in megaherz) vs DSD downsampled to redbook....surely you've heard what the result was?


The effects described here indicate that it may be difficult to distinguish any
beneficial effects of an increase in sampling frequency from the different filter
behaviour. This should be considered when making comparisons between different
rates.



Your claims jump the gun. You already claim to hear stuff , fer sure, that Dunn says need to be demosntrated as audible in practice.

Dunn was also admirable in his research into the audibilty of differences between digital 'clones'. He identified one possible source , in the inadequate design of mid-90s CDPs which could introduce spuriae into playback of digitally identical discs. Interestingly, the blind tests he conducted about the *audibility*of such difference came up negative, even when 'golden ears recording pros were tested, despite all the anecdotal testimonials -- the same sort of testimonials referred to as the impetus for this nanophon white paper.

Actually, the vinyl CD shootout thing has already been done once. Look up "john elison challenge" on vinyl asylum.

http://db.audioasylum.com/cgi/search.mpl?searchtext=john+elison+challenge&b=AND&topic=&topics_only=N&author=&date1=&date2=&slowmessage=&sort=date&sortOrder=DESC&forum=vinyl

John Elison went to Mike Lavigne's in Seattle and recorded vinyl cuts from Mike's vinyl system in hi rez on an Alesis unit with a hard drive, then down sampled to 44/16 Redbook. In a blind comparison, Mike was able to pick out 4 out of 5 of the vinyl to CD comparisons correctly as the original vinyl record. However, he considered this a failure, and Mike conceded that it might be possible based on hearing to make a CD that audibly mimics the original vinyl record enough to fool a listener. I have copies of these CD's. The only conclusion I can draw from the CD's is that I probably wouldn't like the Dartzeel preamp unit as a phono stage, since otherwise the vinyl setup was the Rockport Sirius III and a hi end lyra cartridge. Of course, I didn't hear the original vinyl records on Mike's system, either.
I could give a rat's ass if vinyl is distorted or not, and I do believe that analog sourced vinyl has remarkable ambient recovery for a two channel medium, especially in comparison to digital sources. However, this would be in the realm of "psychoacoustics", not "psychotic circuit surfing."
This was discussed in the audio rags ad nauseum during the eighties and nineties when audiophiles started to realize the only guys with good sound left were the guys with turntables, and drying up of ambient cues and tonalities was one of the first things noticed about digititis.
Digital has improved a LOT and I enjoy my digital system when I listen to it, but for some reason my hand always reaches for the vinyl first.

You Bay Area AS guys tend more towards the woo end of things. Maybe that's a west coast thing. I'd much prefer to attend the BAS (Boston) meetings, thanks.

It's always interesting, though when an online personality persists in being a snide a-hole, then asks me to come visit.

I'm a West Coast guy, a Nor Cal guy, but I'm not into the "woo" side of things.

See my posts on the cable threads.

I've been to Grellberg's listening room. I can guarantee Grellberg is a very amiable host, a great guy, and you would have a terrific time at his place listening to his vinyl set-up. I would venture that there are very few opportunities in the world to hear such a system. It's like a visit to another world. I'd say, put on-line clashes aside and take him up on his offer.

A newsflash, all A/D are not perfect. So one must check so the A/D is good and then compare it to the vinyl. The best way would be to compare the vinyl to vinyl + A/D and D/A.

Actually, the vinyl CD shootout thing has already been done once. Look up "john elison challenge" on vinyl asylum.

http://db.audioasylum.com/cgi/search.mpl?searchtext=john+elison+challenge&b=AND&topic=&topics_only=N&author=&date1=&date2=&slowmessage=&sort=date&sortOrder=DESC&forum=vinyl

John Elison went to Mike Lavigne's in Seattle and recorded vinyl cuts from Mike's vinyl system in hi rez on an Alesis unit with a hard drive, then down sampled to 44/16 Redbook. In a blind comparison, Mike was able to pick out 4 out of 5 of the vinyl to CD comparisons correctly as the original vinyl record. However, he considered this a failure, and Mike conceded that it might be possible based on hearing to make a CD that audibly mimics the original vinyl record enough to fool a listener. I have copies of these CD's. The only conclusion I can draw from the CD's is that I probably wouldn't like the Dartzeel unit as a phono stage, since otherwise the vinyl setup was the Rockport Sirius III and a hi end lyra cartridge. Of course, I didn't hear the original vinyl records on Mike's system, either.


There are some things that can give a faulty result:

*Did anyone tested the A/D in the Alesis? Not all DAC's sound the same.
*Recording at a higher samplingrate and than downsample it to a lower, can give problems if its not done right.
*Did they levermatch both sources to 0,1 dB?
*If he first recorded the record and then compare that to the vinyl again, then the vinyl could have got some dust that made one extra pop or small noise, and it would be enough to hear witch is the vinyl.

There are some things that can give a faulty result:

*Did anyone tested the A/D in the Alesis? Not all DAC's sound the same.
*Recording at a higher samplingrate and than downsample it to a lower, can give problems if its not done right.
*Did they levermatch both sources to 0,1 dB?
*If he first recorded the record and then compare that to the vinyl again, then the vinyl could have got some dust that made one extra pop or small noise, and it would be enough to hear witch is the vinyl.

You can direct this question to John Elison on Vinyl Asylum, he is an engineer and would probably love to talk about it. I believe the playback of the CD was done on a Meitner setup, the recording only was done with the Alesis, which recorded in some kind of hi rez 88/24 then downsampled to 44/16 and printed to Redbook CD. I believe that there was some sort of volume control done. That would be some pretty good hearing memory to know which pop is where on a vinyl CD if it is not a permanent scratch. Alternatively, you could have recorded a pop on the CD which didn't show up on the replay of the vinyl, and that would misdirect as well.
I am not vouching for the effort as allowing any kind of conclusion one way or the other, just that it was done already fairly recently. If you try hard enough, you could shoot down just about any so called DBT on a technicality.

Krab, it really is your loss that you can't compartmentalize a bit better, that you'd dismiss an invitation so lightly. This is an argument about audio, for goodness sake, it's not like anyone is insulting your mother. It has to a person been a pleasure to meet in person a number of folks on this forum---even the most unabashed subjectivists. You don't have to give up your objectivism to hang out, have some wine (or some other equally satisfying beverage) and listen to music. I still think OB's cable elevators are silly and he knows it :)

And heck, no matter what you think of vinyl reproduction, it is hard to see a Rockport Sirius III in person and not think it is pretty damn cool, even in sort of a Rube Goldberg kind of way.

Speaking of, it's time to quote the entirely non-blind and non-scientific comparison of a Rockport Sirius III and a CD-R recording of same presented in Stereophile:
http://www.stereophile.com/turntables/258/index4.htmlThe Yorke/Immedia/Graham combo is my reference, and it's really great, but I'm afraid the results were not even close. In fact, I made two demo CD-Rs of various tracks using the Rockport, to A/B with the LPs in real time. Of course, the "live" LPs creamed the CD-R, which sounded slightly brighter and edgier but less immediate. Nonetheless, the CD-Rs did capture the Rockport's essence.

When I A/B'd the CD-R with the "live" LPs on the Yorke, the CD-R topped the LPs in overall presentation, dynamics, and especially solidity. Whatever bad you can say about CD transfers, loss of speed stability ain't it. The rock-solid Rockport's performance shone through, as did its freedom from "mechanicalness" and its total lack of grain and unnatural edge. I wish I could legally dupe these CD-Rs and send them to you; five minutes of listening to them would tell you more about the greatness of this 'table than my +3000 words possibly can. And because neither I nor, probably, you will ever be able to afford the System III Sirius, wouldn't it be nice to have a taste? Take it from me—it would be.Here's the takeaway: a CD-R recording of the Rockport Sirius III "captured the Rockport's essence" and was, in that reviewer's mind, superior to his own reference turntable system in many ways.

still think OB's cable elevators are silly and he knows it :)

As of my most recent visit, OB's cable elevators are no longer employed.

They are now unemployed cable elevators.

Oh my! :D

Where do you suppose all of the unemployed deadbeat cable elevators hang out?

Michael..it has been a while since you've been to my house but I got rid of them long time ago

BTW, to Krab...I spent the morning at grellberg's house listening to analog. As usual it was an out of body experience. What was fun was playing some old vinyl albums followed immediately by playing the same cut on a CD. Although good, it just didn't approach that of the Rockport. I am hoping Andy Payor soon releases his much anticipated Sirius V TT as I have first right of refusal on grellberg's Sirius lll.

As of my most recent visit, OB's cable elevators are no longer employed.

They are now unemployed cable elevators.

Did he go hydraulic? :D

Did he go hydraulic? :D

Actually I believe you and your wife were the last visitors to my house who saw them in my system. Didn't I sell them to you/:p

I spent the morning at grellberg's house listening to analog. As usual it was an out of body experience. What was fun was playing some old vinyl albums followed immediately by playing the same cut on a CD. Although good, it just didn't approach that of the Rockport.
Whoa. I should'a been there.:( Isn't it 'bout time for another bottle or four of wine at Grellberg's?

Whoa. I should'a been there.:( Isn't it 'bout time for another bottle or four of wine at Grellberg's?

we do need a new BAAS gathering

I have made some changes to my system that I have been mum about with another new addition coming. It will be fun

Did he go hydraulic? :D

Well, no. At least, not while I was there.

Whoa. I should'a been there.:( Isn't it 'bout time for another bottle or four of wine at Grellberg's?

When did we ever stop at four?

One of my best friends is dating a wine distributor, and she gets him (among other things) great deals on some high end vino. And OB has new toys. So yes, it's time.

And to add to OB's description of the morning, it was a comparison between McCartney Unplugged on vinyl vs a cdr of the same.

OK Steve, spill the beans, new addition? Congrats another baby delivered while in retirement:)

OK Steve, spill the beans, new addition? Congrats another baby delivered while in retirement:)

Mark,once the final piece to the puzzle comes to gether in the next few days I will put up a new thread but not just yet. Suffice it to say some big changes made. Stay tuned. This isn't the thread in which to discuss them however.

I smell a turntable :)

I smell a Deathstar :)
OB dont give in and spill the beans on the last bit or your puzzle that is coming together...

What of the Rebellion? If the Rebels have obtained a complete technical reading of this station, it is possible, however unlikely, they might find a weakness and exploit it

:)
Cheers
DT

'bout time!

I'm a West Coast guy, a Nor Cal guy, but I'm not into the "woo" side of things.

See my posts on the cable threads.

I've been to Grellberg's listening room. I can guarantee Grellberg is a very amiable host, a great guy, and you would have a terrific time at his place listening to his vinyl set-up. I would venture that there are very few opportunities in the world to hear such a system. It's like a visit to another world. I'd say, put on-line clashes aside and take him up on his offer.

Why do his pals keep reading my posts as "I don't think grellberg has a good system?" :rolleyes:

I don't give a rat's ass whether grellberg has an 'otherwordly' vinyl setup, frankly. I'm sure it sounds fantastic, maybe even to me. That's completely beside the point, which is that its not doing anything audible that a CD setup couldn't do. And it can't possibly be as accurate in the audible range (in the objective sense) as CD audio can. THIS DOESN"T MEAN THAT EVERY CD SOUNDS BETTER THAN ITS LP COUNTERPART.
The MASTERING counts.

As for the invite, did I mention that I live in the *east* coast?

Why do his pals keep reading my posts as "I don't think grellberg has a good system?" :rolleyes:

I don't give a rat's ass whether grellberg has an 'otherwordly' vinyl setup, frankly. I'm sure it sounds fantastic, maybe even to me. That's completely beside the point, which is that its not doing anything audible that a CD setup couldn't do. And it can't possibly be as accurate (in the objective sense) as a CD can.

As for the invite, did I mention that I live in the *east* coast?

Krab we're sending out invitations for the next BAAS meeting. Where did you say you live again?;)

Yeah, and FrantzM lives in Haiti. What of it? :)

Yeah, and FrantzM lives in Haiti. What of it? :)

Frantz spent a long weekend at my house having flown i from Port au Prince. I picked him up at SFO. We all had a great weekend

You can direct this question to John Elison on Vinyl Asylum, he is an engineer and would probably love to talk about it. I believe the playback of the CD was done on a Meitner setup, the recording only was done with the Alesis, which recorded in some kind of hi rez 88/24 then downsampled to 44/16 and printed to Redbook CD. I believe that there was some sort of volume control done. That would be some pretty good hearing memory to know which pop is where on a vinyl CD if it is not a permanent scratch. Alternatively, you could have recorded a pop on the CD which didn't show up on the replay of the vinyl, and that would misdirect as well.
I am not vouching for the effort as allowing any kind of conclusion one way or the other, just that it was done already fairly recently. If you try hard enough, you could shoot down just about any so called DBT on a technicality.

er, you do realize that John Elison says Mike *lost* the challenge, right? And Mike Lavigne paid $250 to the loser fund as a result.

http://www.audioasylum.com/audio/vinyl/messages/765335.html


Last year I went to Seattle and plugged my antiquated 1995 Audio Alchemy CD player into Mike Lavgine's multi-hundred-thousand dollar stereo system using cheap Monster Cable and showed him that even he couldn't tell the difference consistently between an LP played on his $75,000 Rockport Sirius III turntable and a CD-R recording of that same LP made with my relatively inexpensive, unmodified Alesis ML-9600 Masterlink CD recorder. Let's face the facts here.

Mike Lavigne selected every LP that I digitally recorded. He knew them intimately because he had played them as demonstration LPs for all his guests for quite some time. He forbid me to change anything in his system except to connect my equipment to his preamp's record output and its auxilary input. The test was conducted by his own Seattle Audio Club members and I wasn't even present in the room. Yet he lost his own challenge.



Personally, I would say that a 5-trial test isn't very robust. But 4/5 correct (p= 0.188) is certainly not significantly better than chance at a 'standard' 95% confidence level (p<0.05)

Btw it amusing that this is the *second* challenge that Mike L's lost. The other one was a cable comparison. He also has an 'otherwordly' system, AFAICT.

As of my most recent visit, OB's cable elevators are no longer employed.

They are now unemployed cable elevators.

our stumbling economy is creating so many tragedies :p

Krab we're sending out invitations for the next BAAS meeting. Where did you say you live again?;)


New York. Any local owners of systems from 'another world' are welcome to invite me over. Or, if one of you west coasters want to buy me a roundtrip plane ticket and hotel and car rental, hey, I won't say no.

New York. Any local owners of systems from 'another world' are welcome to invite me over. Or, if one of you west coasters want to buy me a roundtrip plane ticket and hotel and car rental, hey, I won't say no.

It would almost be worth members of BAAS to pass the hat and see if we can come up with air fare. We are all reallly nice guys

Why do his pals keep reading my posts as "I don't think grellberg has a good system?"

I didn't read your post that way. I read it as you thinking you shouldn't go because you thought Grellberg was an a-hole.

I'm not into the woo and Grellberg didn't try to put *me* in a pot with carrots and potatoes -- I'm betting you would have a great time -- and -- listen to a world class system.

I'm merely a character witness.

As for the invite, did I mention that I live in the *east* coast?


Might be easier to travel if you lived *on* the East Coast. What's the weather like in there? :-)

When did we ever stop at four?
I like your attitude.

Saw something I thought was pretty cool the other day called the "fusion lug".

No raised eyebrows yet, we were not dealing with the audio world when I saw this. In this process the excess wire is stamped into a machinable lug that closely resembles the Cardas "paddle" termination.

How about that for solder free!!

That sounds really cool. Do you have a link? I Googled "fusion lug" and found something different---a paddle terminator with solder built in, so you just had to heat it up to solidify the connection.

Try Googling "Fusionlug".
Mfgr. is Cableco

Got it, thanks. That really is cool!

I want a device that lets me make these at home ;>

You my friend have either a really big garage or an extremely high WAF rating.

No, just dreams as big as stars, my friend.

New York. Any local owners of systems from 'another world' are welcome to invite me over. Or, if one of you west coasters want to buy me a roundtrip plane ticket and hotel and car rental, hey, I won't say no.

check the new Virgin...some cheap deals i've heard

er..no, thanks, that hardly seems to fit my 'all expenses paid for by someone else' criterion.