Bi-wire?

[beanbag]

Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging. Very impressive. Please elaborate its relevance to the thread at hand.

I am simply responding to Roberto's question. Further, that article may contain other lessons that apply to topics in audio. A bonus, if you will.

You may want to look at the ******'s system on the "computer audiophile forum" website.

I am so happy that you are soliciting the help of others to advise on my room setup. I am especially interested to know if you agree with the professional's assessment in post #6.

 

[beanbag]

Thought I would share an interesting scientific analysis of the reasons why A/B/X testing is simply an invalid means of testing our abilities to differentiate subtle audible nuances between audio components: http://www.anstendig.org/ABTesting.html

Hello Rich,

That article doesn't mention ABX testing at all. (Note the X) The fundamental difference being that from a personal value point of view, ABX testing does not require any training at all. Its main purpose is to determine if any perceived differences are real or not.

 

[Rich]

Hello Rich,

That article doesn't mention ABX testing at all. (Note the X) The fundamental difference being that from a personal value point of view, ABX testing does not require any training at all. Its main purpose is to determine if any perceived differences are real or not.

Did you actually read the article? His points apply to all forms of A/B testing, including A/B/X. And his point is that training in how to listen and what to listen for is absolutely necessary with these types of testing. The point being that because the differences are inherently subtle, and because the tests rely on auditory memory which is inherently unreliable, then only a trained listener who is very familiar with the music being played and equipment being tested is going to be able pick out the differences between those components reliably.

My point is that someone may not be able to pick out differences between components in an A/B/X test and therefore assume as you do that there are no audible differences, when in fact if they listened to both components over a much longer period of time in their systems (assuming they are trained listeners), they could very well become familiar with the real audible differences of those components and then actually be able to differentiate between them on a A/B/X test. The test by itself, without the familiarity with the components, is inadequate to allow them to discern differences which would become obvious over a longer term.

 

[Rich]

Regarding your point on personal value, I will concede that you are correct insomuch as if someone is not a gifted and trained listener then it doesn't make a lot of sense for them to spend large amounts of money on high end equipment that will probably make no audible difference to them. The problem I have is when A/B/X testing proponents try to take these unreliable tests and extrapolate them to the whole population with statements like "there are no audible differences between amps, cables, etc. because people can't hear a difference between them so they are just wasting their money on them." I recall reading about a Stereophile test where a bunch of listeners couldn't pick out any difference between two speaker cables, yet J.A. and M.F. of Stereophile were easily and consistently able to do so.

For me, I have done it both ways, and I find that listening to a component in my system for a few weeks or months on music I am familiar with is the best way to determine whether that component has a positive or negative impact on the sound in my system. I expect the same is true for most serious audiophiles with the exception of a few engineers. I have found that engineers tend to believe in nothing that isn't quantifiably measurable. Which is why we used to routinely strike them from our juries when I was a prosecutor.

 

[TDIMike]

I just own a pair of the Motion 40s along with the Marantz SR7007. I'm expecting to unpack everything this week. I will be doing stereo for the moment.

My questions are: should I bi-wire the speakers? If that's the case, What will be the proper way of doing so? Your suggestions, comments are welcomed.... Thanks in advance

Maybe I can offer some help. I too have Motion 40s and I am currently bi-amping. I have a Marantz NR1603 that is only 50 WPC. While just running standard connections the bass and mids had a little to be desired. I picked the receiver I did because I liked its form factor, and I knew I'd be adding an amp at some point and I got a killer deal on the receiver. In order to tide me over until I did add an amp I decided to bi-amp. Run my main connections to the top posts to drive the highs and single mid, and my 7.1 surround amps to the low posts to drive the bass woofers.

For me it made a tremendous difference. Obviously your receiver puts out more power than mine, but you really have to put it through the ear test.

 

[Rich]

For me it made a tremendous difference. Obviously your receiver puts out more power than mine, but you really have to put it through the ear test.

Great post and I wholeheartedly agree. Generally speaking, you are going to hear much more significant benefits from biamping than from biwiring.

 

[Gordon Gray]

I am so happy that you are soliciting the help of others to advise on my room setup.

Hi bean,

From what I can tell, you have a very challenging / unique room to work with to say the least, especially within the context of optimizing the performance of your ML's. Despite all the back and forth, I do wish you success in your quest to obtain better sound.

Perhaps others can help. You never know.

GG

 

[InterMechanico]

Thank you for bringing the original question back front and center, TDImike.

 

[TDIMike]

Thank you for bringing the original question back front and center, TDImike.

Haha, no problem. People are passionate about their stuff, and that's one thing I love about these groups. However, sometimes the threads kinda take on a life of their own.

 

[User211]

Hola. I am going to chime in here. Here are some points of view that are facts:
1) Sound it is a matter of liking.

Agree.

2) What I do like, not necessary must be your liking. What I listen, not necessary you have to listen too.

Agree.

3) Sound liking is subjective.

Agree but that's just 1 & 2 again.

4) Overall sound is logarithmic.

And your point is?

5) Measurements are made at certain SPL level.

They can be made at multiple levels. You can apply a correction filter appropriate to your current listening level easily. It is easy to swap WHILE you are listening.

6) Only +-5dB in SPL is enough to measure a totally change of the frequency response domain of any room, using a pink noise, because of room acoustics. The absorption of any material in the room, changes dramatically at different SPL. Sabin is expressed as the unit of absorption/meter. Each material has different level and grade of absorption and it is expressed as the Sabin, as the SPL varies.

See 5.

5) Using dipolar speakers like Martin Logan, usually the measure is wrong, because of the absolute phase. ML fires 180° the back signal with respect of the front 0°

Measure at the listening position and it will be absolutely fine. It will account for any phase cancellations in the bass.

6) What type of microphone is use for these measurements? If you use a condenser microphone, you need a phantom power supply of +48V. If you use another type of microphone, then, what you are using for measurement, depends of the quality of the mic. A good mic costs circa a Montis speakers.

No it doesn't Roberto. An excellent corrected mic costs peanuts. Here is the UMIK-1 BEFORE corrections are made via compensation tables via s/w. http://www.cross-spectrum.com/cslmics/700-0589_mic_report.pdf. The correction tables will make it flat. The angle of the mic requires an appropriate correction table, though.

7) Music is art. It is an expression of a feeling. How can you measure a feeling? This is a very subjective thing. As an example, classical music. You have the piano score. Every musician will play the work different, even that they are the same musical notes. How can you measure love or hate? Or pain, or happiness? Sadness?

The products you use have been through an engineering process that have involved measuring - and a lot of it.

8) Resonances are part of the musical instrument(s) and nuances are part of the musician(s). Too much room treatment could kill a room.

Well don't apply too much then!

9) What it is good for the Bull, not necessary it is good for the cow. Everything is subjective to the liking and the kind of music. Recordings are not done the same way.

Non-linear FRs and poor impulse responses may well be liked by some ears. Who is to deny anyone that?

10) The best tool on hand is our ears: Trust in your ears!.

Agreed.

See bold comments above.

 

[Audio14]

Maybe I can offer some help. I too have Motion 40s and I am currently bi-amping. I have a Marantz NR1603 that is only 50 WPC. While just running standard connections the bass and mids had a little to be desired. I picked the receiver I did because I liked its form factor, and I knew I'd be adding an amp at some point and I got a killer deal on the receiver. In order to tide me over until I did add an amp I decided to bi-amp. Run my main connections to the top posts to drive the highs and single mid, and my 7.1 surround amps to the low posts to drive the bass woofers.

For me it made a tremendous difference. Obviously your receiver puts out more power than mine, but you really have to put it through the ear test.

Thanks for the useful suggestions

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk

 

[beanbag]

The problem I have is when A/B/X testing proponents try to take these unreliable tests and extrapolate them to the whole population with statements like "there are no audible differences between amps, cables, etc. because people can't hear a difference between them so they are just wasting their money on them."

Evidently some people over-generalize. Amps can sound different because they measure different. Same with wires and cords. The AB audio test is unreliable no matter how much one trains for it because it can give false positives (differences noted). The ABX test can always be failed but will never give a false positive unless you are a really lucky guesser.

I have found that engineers tend to believe in nothing that isn't quantifiably measurable.

I guess I am one of those people, then. Audio signals come in volts or pascals. It has been true for the last few decades now that measurement and recording equipment is better than ears in picking out differences in signals. It has only been true for the last few years that with the advent of computers, digitization, cheap equipment, and the internet, that even the common man can verify this for him/her self.

Some things, like straight wires and straight power cords, are electrically easy to quantify. So if two things measure the same, or very similarly, AND nobody can pass an ABX test between them, then I think it is safe to say that there's no real difference.

I don't know if the setups that JA and MF used to listen to cables were exactly the same. Maybe they weren't and maybe the lamp cord was cheap chinese counterfeit copper-clad steel that had unusually high resistance. I do know that MF turned down the chance to win $1,000,000 by being able to tell the difference between super-overpriced cables and regular overpriced cables.

For me, I have done it both ways, and I find that listening to a component in my system for a few weeks or months on music I am familiar with is the best way to determine whether that component has a positive or negative impact on the sound in my system.

That's fine since nobody likes to go thru the trouble of doing abx testing anyway. In my case, I like to take out the measurement mic and convert audio differences into visual differences where AB comparisons are valid. (See, I did read that article, LOL)

I expect the same is true for most serious audiophiles with the exception of a few engineers. Which is why we used to routinely strike them from our juries when I was a prosecutor.

At least now I know how to get out of jury duty.
I'll have you know that engineers on the jury were the ones that acquitted the obviously-not-guilty Howard Roark. They're the true sub-heroes of the story.

 

[Rich]

At least now I know how to get out of jury duty.
I'll have you know that engineers on the jury were the ones that acquitted the obviously-not-guilty Howard Roark. They're the true sub-heroes of the story.

May not work everywhere. But we have a high proportion of engineers in this town, and we learned through trial and error that many engineers could not convict someone based on proof beyond a reasonable doubt. They required proof to an absolute certainty, which is impossible in most criminal cases. So we would routinely strike the engineers from our juries.

 

[User211]

May not work everywhere. But we have a high proportion of engineers in this town, and we learned through trial and error that many engineers could not convict someone based on proof beyond a reasonable doubt. They required proof to an absolute certainty, which is impossible in most criminal cases. So we would routinely strike the engineers from our juries.

Hm so he probably did it. Maybe. Seems that way. 20 years for him. LOL. Not.

Pretty sad that people do get convicted on the balance of probability, but hey, tis the way of things.

 

[bonzo]

Sounds to me like Texas

 

[InterMechanico]

Actually, it sounds like the Queens' justice to me. Off track, but it should be noted that people generally commit crimes in the dark, away from cameras and witnesses. Beyond a reasonable doubt is most accurate means we have of administering justice.

Howard Roark is not a real person, and Ayn Rand was a Space Cadet.

 

[InterMechanico]

Joking aside, I do intend to try out the Dirak MiniDSP in the near to nottodistant future. My room and my ears will definitely benefit from the improvement. It will be easy to hear the difference because I have 2 digital sources with identical DACS (for comparison)
. The annoying part is that I have 2 digital sources feeding an integrated amplifier so to get the best of both sources, I need to buy a stand alone dac or a pre amp/ amp combo or????

 

[Rich]

Hm so he probably did it. Maybe. Seems that way. 20 years for him. LOL. Not.

Pretty sad that people do get convicted on the balance of probability, but hey, tis the way of things.

No, this is wrong. Balance of probability would be equivalent to a standard called "preponderance of the evidence" which is a lower standard than "beyond a reasonable doubt." Beyond a reasonable doubt is exactly like it sounds: not maybe or probably he did it; but all the evidence taken in totality indicates that there is no reasonable doubt that this guy committed this crime. But this evidence can include using circumstantial, as well as direct evidence, and a lot of engineers also seem very loathe to even consider circumstantial evidence. The truth is that if we had a standard of absolute proof based on direct evidence, meaning beyond any doubt or to an absolute certainty, then no one would ever be convicted of any crime in this country. As it is, a whole lot more guilty people get off (e.g. OJ Simpson) than innocent people get convicted, which is as it should be for the fairest possible system.

Howard Roark is not a real person, and Ayn Rand was a Space Cadet.

Exactly. We have to work in the real world, not in the world of fiction and fantasy. So many people don't seem to get that simple distinction.

 

[twich54]

As it is, a whole lot more guilty people get off (e.g. OJ Simpson) than innocent people get convicted, which is as it should be for the fairest possible system.

caveat ………….. money and corruption also play a 'big' part !