A model A Ford will still roll down the road, but a 2017 Ford GT will go down the road a lot better in every conceivable way.
But you can see the scenery better in a model A!
Seriously, I agree DSP is a better way for most things, with much greater control and stability. Just saying it ain't the only way. Pure analog approaches can quickly get messy for more complex systems, but are a simpler solution for others.
I don’t agree with the blanket statement that subwoofers are necessary to have deep, articulate, distortion free, even sounding bass. Plenty of tower speakers are full range. Room size plays the largest role in this argument.
Most towers struggle with higher distortion presented with very deep bass, despite their rating, but again my reason is mainly for smoother in-room bass response that requires placing the sub(s) to counter room modes (nodes, usually, as antinodes are usually amenable to EQ -- using a DSP). Room size, dimensions, are key, yes. Less a problem in a bigger (or very well treated) room. My speakers have pretty good bass response but the overall sound benefits greatly from properly integrated subwoofers, at least to me. Mostly because my room dimensions lead to some obnoxious nodes very close in frequency.
I professionally mind my own business. How often do you ask that question? I would bet pretty often.
I think rarely, actually, but have not kept track. It helps me to know my audience, as sometimes I do not understand what was written or do not express myself well, so it's hard to tell if it is a lack of fundamental knowledge or simply a communication gap (which may well be mine). This forum attracts a wide range of people, some with very high levels of knowledge, from all over the world. I ask because I do not want to talk down or over the audience, especially if the problem is communication and not knowledge base. The problem with the 'net is that simply asking the question is a challenge it would not be in casual face-to-face conversation. I'll reference a trumpet forum I help moderate: we have great pro players who do not really understand the physics of sound, and middle-school kids who try to come across as seasoned pros (and fail miserably). Sometimes it's hard to tell the difference.
We’re not talking about electrical theory here. There is no dispute how sound waves move through the atmosphere. Also, that’s physics, not electrical theory. If there was a specific, scientific, mathematical answer to this question, we would not be on a forum offering theories in the first place. The fact is bi-amping does change the electrical behavior of a stereo system.
You were talking about sinusoidal sweeps not accurately describing the impedance of the speakers, and perhaps the amplifier/speaker interaction. That is electrical, at least to me, but I am an electrical engineer so tend to see things in that light. I was not talking about the acoustic output (I had a couple of grad classes on acoustics but have forgotten most of it since my career took a different path). For the record, I do not dispute that bi-amping changes the electrical properties on the amp/speaker side, and if anything I wrote came across that way I apologize. I do believe "passive" bi-amping as implemented by AVRs is of very limited benefit for the reasons described in other posts and the article or two I posted here and elsewhere. There is an electrical difference, but to me the real benefits are in removing the passive crossovers and using a line-level crossover before the amplifiers. I believe in that we are in agreement.
As for passive (AVR-type) bi-amping,
@RichB did a rather thorough comparison and believes he can tell a difference, backed by experimental (empirical) data, and I am fine with that (not that he needs my approval but I appreciate all of his effort). In other cases people have found the differences disappeared in blind testing.
