24.101.100.147
| '); } else { document.writeln(''); } } else { document.writeln(''); } } else { document.writeln(''); } } // End --> |
In Reply to: RE: I'm still a skeptic posted by esande on October 25, 2009 at 11:32:03
to the online manual from the Magneplanar website about the hookup for Bi-wiring.
http://www.magnepan.com/content/binary/pdf_manuals/manual_MG16.pdf
Maybe I'm not understanding what you mean about my report being the only evidence?
Were you referring to my statement that Magneplanar made the speakers capable that way, to be bi-wired, if so, then the manual should be adequate evidence that they did.
Or, Are you just talking about that I "reported" I hear a difference Bi-Wired vs. "Not"?
If that's the case, then it seems that the start of this post doesn't count then either.
I do wish I could find the web site that I had read that had the primer on Bi-Amping. It made a decent argument as to why Bi-wiring could yield audible improvements in a speaker (like the Maggies) that had the seperate leads for the "highs & lows". Something about the inefficiency of the low pass crossover? and that a direct feed to the high side yields more signal and sinced that signal isn't needed at the low end it then leaves more low signal accesible ther too?
I'm just trying to remember what I read three or four months ago that convinced me to try it. I don't know if what I'm writing here is exactly the argument that was made, but I think that's something like what I remember.
Of course it went on from there to say how much better and significant the improvement would be if you Bi-Amped. It also went on to tell of the advantages of active vs. passive crosses.
I mention all this in case somebody else out there might remember where I might have read this. I could have sworn it was the primer in the asylum here, but I looked at the one there now and it's much less informative than the one I'm referring to.
I like both Diana Krall AND Bob Dylan, But I like Patricia Barber and Neil Young more.
Follow Ups:
Post a Followup: