A Bright Shining Lie…Why ignoring an inconvenient truth is stifling system performance a blog from Roy Gregory

[Kingrex]

You also admitted to paying Jay from Jay’s Audio Lab a consultation fee..enough said.

And I bought a Dartzeel NHB108 instead of a Luxman and could not be happier. One of the best audio purchase I made.

Since my speakers are designes to biamp, I was tacitly thinking of getting another NHB108 Model 1. I don't have the $ now and I would want to hear from people more in the know if I would gain much.

 

[Mike Lavigne]

And I bought a Dartzeel NHB108 instead of a Luxman and could not be happier. One of the best audio purchase I made.

Since my speakers are designes to biamp, I was tacitly thinking of getting another NHB108 Model 1. I don't have the $ now and I would want to hear from people more in the know if I would gain much.

back in 2004 i had my VR9SE's biamped vertically with 2 early stereo NHB108's. was amazing. raised the bar of authority, ease and scale; while even increasing the nuance and musical 'touch' the 108's do so well. but the VR9SE had lots of headroom in the ability to fill a room. so i'm not sure every bi-amping capable speaker would work that way. it would be positive, just not sure how much.

the VR9SE did have an active sub for the most bottom octave.

 

[jep123]

Mike, speaking from experience you have not learned much after all these years. Still chasing the “latest & greatest” shiny thing on glossy magazine pages to try to stay relevant.

There are some that stay mainstream like yourself and those of us that dive deep and explore not the costliest, but the best components. One day you may become enlighten and realize that the best equipment is not the newest or most expensive and are not found on “Main street” but rather in those special places where only the hardcore fanatics on the periphery of the hobby, crafting components and assembling systems for themselves, for the passion of it, are.

We are not looking for affirmation from others but driven by discovery and a pursuit of musicality. Your comment about “asking for advice from each other is the foundation of our hobby” therefore strikes me as ironic coming from you and your well stablished and documented record.

Let me know when you want to discuss filament bias, starved filament, current source follower design topology, field-coil full range driver‘s parameter modulation, transcoding with HQPlayer and let’s see how really “open to learning” you really are.

There is no need for such comments on Mike`s journey and his choices. If he has (and obviously he has) the possibility to buy his dream components in search for musical pleasure it is great and I find much joy in reading about his room and system. Mike seems like a very generous and friendly person to me. Sharing experiences is fundamental in a forum like this no matter which path one chooses to take.

From your post I can imagine that you are a more technical oriented audiophile (filament bias, starved filament, current source follower design topology, field-coil full range driver‘s parameter modulation, transcoding with HQPlayer)... Nothing wrong in that! Not everybody (and count me in here) has the knowledge or even interest to dive deep into these complex matters. But these choices must also be respected I think.

JP

 

[Carlos269]

There is no need for such comments on Mike`s journey and his choices. If he has (and obviously he has) the possibility to buy his dream components in search for musical pleasure it is great and I find much joy in reading about his room and system. Mike seems like a very generous and friendly person to me. Sharing experiences is fundamental in a forum like this no matter which path one chooses to take.

From your post I can imagine that you are a more technical oriented audiophile (filament bias, starved filament, current source follower design topology, field-coil full range driver‘s parameter modulation, transcoding with HQPlayer)... Nothing wrong in that! Not everybody (and count me in here) has the knowledge or even interest to dive deep into these complex matters. But these choices must also be respected I think.

JP

Your view is certainly a viewpoint. From my perspective, I see it differently.

 

[RoyGregory]

Wow, you are dancing around two different topics with your statements above; so let’s get some things straight and let’s be clear:

1. The original premise of the discussion was the validity of A/B reviews when the speakers have been repositioned between A/B comparisons. I think it is clear to everyone that this action invalidates any and all conclusions on the A/B equipment’s relative inherent qualities. So if you have been doing this for over 15 years, you have been doing it wrong all that time.

2. The acoustical excitation of a room by a speakers depending on upstream equipment: One of my favorite subjects as this is why “engineered” rooms do not deliver on their promise as “one size does not fit all”. In this case you do have it partially correct. Every component does not “alter the speaker/room relationship”. Let me explain, the dominant factor with the speaker/room interface is the speaker’s design and its resultant polar pattern or wave propagation pattern, hence line-arrays have minimal interaction with the ceiling and floors while omnidirectional designs have substantial interaction with all boundaries.

The part that you get right is that the speakers only conveys the electrical frequencies, and therefore acoustical excitations to the room, that the upstream equipment provides them. So all devices that alter the “spectral balance” will result in different room excitations; thus the fallacy with “engineered” rooms as they cannot be designed to be optimized for all excitations and every change has a different result.

The obvious point that you are missing is that while in theory “optimizing” the speakers’ position to ”complement” a new component’s frequency response or “spectral balance” might compensate for its deficiencies “in your room, with your speakers”, this does not benefit the readers at all and will lead to wrong conclusions. Furthermore, it implies that speaker repositioning is a practice that can be used to “optimize” every upstream component’s “spectral balance”, which is just plain ludicrous.

Mr. Gregory you have a lot to learn, please review some of my postings on this site as you may find them educational.

Wow – I guess Condescension is your super-power: shame it’s not Comprehension.

“The original premise of the discussion was the validity of A/B reviews when the speakers have been repositioned between A/B comparisons.”

WRONG!! The original premise is that the kind of A/B testing (to which you are clinging like a drowning man clings to floating wreckage) is a waste of time. It is a waste of time because it tells you nothing useful. So, to borrow one of your favourite phrases, let ME make this REAL simple, so that even YOU understand.

Audio journalists love a car analogy, so here’s one that illustrates my point. Let’s say a car manufacturer looks at the BMW M3 and thinks, I’d like a little of that action. Wanting to investigate the possibilities, he takes his standard 4-cylinder, 2-litre coupé and drops a 3.5-litre V8 into it, to see what happens. Doesn’t alter the tire pressures or the suspension settings. How much meaningful data do you think this ‘experiment’ will produce?

The car is a system, the engine is just a part of that system. Ultimately what we are interested in is the performance of the system as a whole. Trying to isolate the contribution of the engine is as impossible as it is pointless. After all – you can’t drive an engine, so why even bother? Likewise, you can’t listen to an amplifier – or a cable, a rack, a CD player or anything else – without placing it in a system context. Yet traditional reviews and store demonstrations rely almost entirely on the sort of circumscribed A/B comparisons you love so much. THAT’S the problem…

Your fixation with methodology totally misses the point. It is the goal that dictates the methodology, not the other way around. If your goal is better system performance (and mine is), the methodology adopted needs to meet that goal. Your approach doesn’t even get close. In fact, in the real world it leads directly to confusion and false conclusions. Ever wonder why so many people make bad decisions when it comes to upgrading? It ain’t ‘cos they’re stupid. It’s because they’re being encouraged to adopt a stupid approach.

 

[andromedaaudio]

Guys i think i found the problem
Carlos cant move the speakers even if he wanted to .

But he has probably the most amazing amount of gear you ll ever find

Friday night listening

Agree, the 26 type tube is a wonderful tube. In this case the preamplifier driving the 26 gain stage in the amplifier is a custom 01A/26 switchable, configured for 01A during these sessions. This particular amplification/gain chain of 01A ==> 26==> 801A/VT-62 is a very special combination...

www.whatsbestforum.com

 

[Al M.]

Oops.

 

[Elliot G.]

And I bought a Dartzeel NHB108 instead of a Luxman and could not be happier. One of the best audio purchase I made.

Since my speakers are designes to biamp, I was tacitly thinking of getting another NHB108 Model 1. I don't have the $ now and I would want to hear from people more in the know if I would gain much.

Rex,
I guess this to some degree depends on the speaker system. I have bi-amped a few systems I have owned both with an electonic crossover and vertically without a crossover. I am really wanting to try, and I will coming up fairly soon, biamping the Divin Noblesse virtically with two CH Precision M-10 stereo amplifiers. This is relatively easy to do in this case with one amp for each speaker all you need is a few more cables to make it happen and since the amps are identical there are no issues with amp sound and gain differences.
I have done this in the past with speakers and IMO the result was always positive. When using different amps and a crossover the process is far more complex and the results don't always do what you hoped for. As they say the juice ain't worth the squeeze.

I also believe that learning from an expert is always a good path to start your journey. Its a good idea to do some research before you start any expensive process. I always try to find from who or where I should buy before I start trying to figure out what I want to buy. I will use a different product so as not to offend anyone.
I have been an avid golfer on and off most of my adult life. At times playing more and for a period of time playing less. Since I have moved to Florida in the 90's I have been more serious and played more simply becuase I can and I love it. I have been caught up in the buying of new gear over a period of time, being influenced by all the commercials and endorsements and since clubs are not crazy money the changing was only painful to my game and not as much to my wallet. I had been "fitted" for clubs at big box stores twice and the process was total BS. They just wanted to sell me stuff so they did a par t of the process as if it was the whole process. Three years ago I did a bunch of research to find out where to get a real fitting, A fitting I had to pay for whether I bought or not, a fitting that took a few hours, afitting with the latest of technology and a fitting that was not brand oriented. I did that, it was incredibly interesting to see how the clubs and even more so the golf shafts made such big differences in what I was able to do. The thing that was most important it was it was specific to me and me alone. I wont bore you with the entire process but a the end it started me on a real path to lowering my scores and really enjoying the game more. I still spent money, in fact more at first, but much less as I continued.
In audio I see so many pictures of rooms, visit rooms at dealers, consumers, shows etc. FOr the most part they are not done correctly and yet in many instances those who own them sware that they have the secret and the proper path to doing it right.I can't tell you how many clients have said to me that their system smokes the ____________ fill in the blank and when I got to experience it it just was a huge DUD.
Anyone is entitled to like whatever it is they want, there are no scores here and it is really hard to measure success when everyone claims expertise however if you don't know or even if you think you do it might be worth the price to once hire an expert, these are researchable, and see after thier visit if your results have improved. In a world of 5/6 figure components a visit from a seriously experienced person with a great track record might change your outlook. BTW there is not one expert for everything either. Mkae sure you choose wisely Grasshopper.
I have had many experiences and a few really great teachers however I do know there is much to still learn and experience.

 

[Atmasphere]

Let me know when you want to discuss filament bias, starved filament, current source follower design topology, field-coil full range driver‘s parameter modulation, transcoding with HQPlayer and let’s see how really “open to learning” you really are.

Yikes.

Totally FWIW dept.: you can't get enough gain bandwidth product out of tubes to allow you to run enough feedback for the feedback to really do its job properly (and that's been true of most solid state amps built since the inception of the transistor as well but that's a different topic). So this means that if you want to prevent distortion from climbing with frequency in a tube amp you have to run no feedback at all. That in turn means the circuit will have higher distortion, which translates to less detailed, since distortion tends to obscure detail. This is easily measured and easily heard. Are you open to learning about this??

 

[Carlos269]

Wow – I guess Condescension is your super-power: shame it’s not Comprehension.

“The original premise of the discussion was the validity of A/B reviews when the speakers have been repositioned between A/B comparisons.”

WRONG!! The original premise is that the kind of A/B testing (to which you are clinging like a drowning man clings to floating wreckage) is a waste of time. It is a waste of time because it tells you nothing useful. So, to borrow one of your favourite phrases, let ME make this REAL simple, so that even YOU understand.

Audio journalists love a car analogy, so here’s one that illustrates my point. Let’s say a car manufacturer looks at the BMW M3 and thinks, I’d like a little of that action. Wanting to investigate the possibilities, he takes his standard 4-cylinder, 2-litre coupé and drops a 3.5-litre V8 into it, to see what happens. Doesn’t alter the tire pressures or the suspension settings. How much meaningful data do you think this ‘experiment’ will produce?

The car is a system, the engine is just a part of that system. Ultimately what we are interested in is the performance of the system as a whole. Trying to isolate the contribution of the engine is as impossible as it is pointless. After all – you can’t drive an engine, so why even bother? Likewise, you can’t listen to an amplifier – or a cable, a rack, a CD player or anything else – without placing it in a system context. Yet traditional reviews and store demonstrations rely almost entirely on the sort of circumscribed A/B comparisons you love so much. THAT’S the problem…

Your fixation with methodology totally misses the point. It is the goal that dictates the methodology, not the other way around. If your goal is better system performance (and mine is), the methodology adopted needs to meet that goal. Your approach doesn’t even get close. In fact, in the real world it leads directly to confusion and false conclusions. Ever wonder why so many people make bad decisions when it comes to upgrading? It ain’t ‘cos they’re stupid. It’s because they’re being encouraged to adopt a stupid approach.

Oh Mr. Gregory, no car anology will not get you out of this hole you are in because there is no logic to your approach. First of all, I understand that what you write are “component“ reviews. A “system” review would be meaningless and of no value to your readers as they do not have the same “system” in the identical acoustical space.

Speaking of “comprehension”, I’m in disbelief that you fail to see the fallacy and the lack of value for the readers with your component evaluation process.

I have expertly exposed the fallacy in your assessments. The readers of this thread can decide for themselves if you are the ”enlighten” one with a novel review approach, and all other reviewers in audio journalism have been doing it wrong and as you put it, using a “stupid @approach”, or if you are simply full of BS.

Sorry to say, you are no longer worthy of my time….until you come up with some other nonsense that need to be set straight….it’s time for me to move on to Ralph who is begging for education.

 

[Al M.]

I have expertly exposed the fallacy in your assessments.

LOL. In your own mind you have, that's right.

 

[Ron Resnick]

Mr. Gregory you have a lot to learn, please review some of my postings on this site as you may find them educational.

Please begin by educating us about what is behind this obnoxiousness and condescension. Please post here the URLs to your published formal reviews of components.

Thank you.

 

[Carlos269]

Yikes.

Totally FWIW dept.: you can't get enough gain bandwidth product out of tubes to allow you to run enough feedback for the feedback to really do its job properly (and that's been true of most solid state amps built since the inception of the transistor as well but that's a different topic). So this means that if you want to prevent distortion from climbing with frequency in a tube amp you have to run no feedback at all. That in turn means the circuit will have higher distortion, which translates to less detailed, since distortion tends to obscure detail. This is easily measured and easily heard. Are you open to learning about this??

It is interesting that since you started playing around with class-D amps all of the sudden you are interested in negative feedback. You know Ralph, Halcro achieved distortion levels nearly immeasurable, but the resulting sound was sterile and amusical.

Now let’s get to the learning part, since you have developed a fascination with maximizing “gain bandwidth product” let’s have a conversation on that and see who is teaching who.

What is the slew rate of your Class D amplifiers with all this negative feedback? How many Volts per micro-second? What is the Gain-bandwidth product of these class D amps? Is it in the MHz. Is it in the GHz? 100 KHz? What is the closed-loop frequency response of your Class D amplifiers?

You know Ralph, if it is Gain Bandwidth Product that you value perhaps you need to start designing with Op-Amps. An Analog Devices LT1993 instrumentation differential amplifier will get you 7 GHz gain bandwidth product, with extremely low distortion and differential input and output.

Are you familiar with the design of high-speed oscilloscopes? Do you know what high-speed design techniques, and circuit-topologies are implement to achieve their ultra high-speed performance and ultra low distortion?

You ever implemented current feedback in your products? With nodal distributed multiplying output?

You see Ralph, while I have not done board level circuit design in over 20 years, I still retain the knowledge and understanding.

Let’s keep exploring the learning. Do you have any experience with hybrid design technology on ceramic substrates? You see Ralph, I began my electronics designing career doing space electronics for NASA.

But I’m here and ready to learn so tell me something that I have not covered during my academic years and professional career in physics & electrical engineering. I am interesting in learning. Answer the questions above and we can continue with a technical exchange.

 

[Carlos269]

Please begin by educating us about what is behind this obnoxiousness and condescension. Please post here the URLs to your published formal reviews of components.

Thank you.

I’m not a reviewer. never claimed to be one.

 

[Carlos269]

LOL. In your own mind you have, that's right.

Al, you need to make a case for Mr. Gregory not just throw out a statement like that. Please make a case if you feel that he’s correct.

 

[Al M.]

Al, you need to make a case for Mr. Gregory not just throw out a statement like that. Please make a case if you feel that he’s correct.

I already made a case.

 

[cjfrbw]

The least satisfying and most time wasting in my audiophile interludes was pursuing tweak-o-phile's 'from God's mouth to my ear' Eureka moments. There is a lot of advice from the obsessive compulsive crowd, and most of it is a waste of time.

It can be a viable and successful marketing ploy, however, kind of like audiophile Morgellon's Disease. If the victim believes in the disease, they will buy the cure.

 

[Ron Resnick]

Oh Mr. Gregory, no car anology will not get you out of this hole you are in because there is no logic to your approach. First of all, I understand that what you write are “component“ reviews. A “system” review would be meaningless and of no value to your readers as they do not have the same “system” in the identical acoustical space.

Speaking of “comprehension”, I’m in disbelief that you fail to see the fallacy and the lack of value for the readers with your component evaluation process.

I have expertly exposed the fallacy in your assessments. The readers of this thread can decide for themselves if you are the ”enlighten” one with a novel review approach, and all other reviewers in audio journalism have been doing it wrong and as you put it, using a “stupid @approach”, or if you are simply full of BS.

Sorry to say, you are no longer worthy of my time….until you come up with some other nonsense that need to be set straight….it’s time for me to move on to Ralph who is begging for education.

“Greatest fool of all is the one who fools himself.”

 

[tima]

The obvious point that you are missing is that while in theory “optimizing” the speakers’ position to ”complement” a new component’s frequency response or “spectral balance” might compensate for its deficiencies “in your room, with your speakers”, this does not benefit the readers at all and will lead to wrong conclusions. Furthermore, it implies that speaker repositioning is a practice that can be used to “optimize” every upstream component’s “spectral balance”, which is just plain ludicrous.

I've read through some of this slugfest conversation. I'm not interested in judging the players, but I would like btter to understand what you are saying. If you would bear with me, I'm hoping you can offer additional information.

In the quote above, I follow your first sentence "while ... might compensate ...." to the point where you get to what I gather is a conclusion or consequence and state "this does not benefit the readers at all and will lead to wrong conclusions." Presumably this is the obvious point you say is missed. For me it seems like something more is needed to make the case, viz. why are readers not benefitted and to what wrong conclusions are they led in virtue of speaker position optimization - conclusions about what? Usually I would see the sentence as a non-sequitar, but I may be missing something from upstream. Would you say more?

 

[Carlos269]

I've read through some of this slugfest conversation. I'm not interested in judging the players, but I would like btter to understand what you are saying. If you would bear with me, I'm hoping you can offer additional information.

In the quote above, I follow your first sentence "while ... might compensate ...." to the point where you get to what I gather is a conclusion or consequence and state "this does not benefit the readers at all and will lead to wrong conclusions." Presumably this is the obvious point you say is missed. For me it seems like something more is needed to make the case, viz. why are readers not benefitted and to what wrong conclusions are they led in virtue of speaker position optimization - conclusions about what? Usually I would see the sentence as a non-sequitar, but I may be missing something from upstream. Would you say more?

Sure, I will connect the dots and make it clear. Let’s focus in the area that you have sited above for further clarification, as it should be rather obvious:

"while ... might compensate ...." if Mr. Gregory repositions the speakers to reinforce or attenuate the bass performance of his system with the new component in a new ”complementary“ arrangement, with new countributions (both constructive and destructive) from his acoustical space boundaries, the new or improved bass performance of his system are strictly the results of the speaker repositioning, in other words the loudspeaker/room’s interaction, and not an inherent quality of the new component under review.

"this does not benefit the readers at all and will lead to wrong conclusions." what Mr. Gregory is conveying to the readers is unique to his system, as the readers do not share his speakers and acoustical space. Of course, no reviewer shares the same acoustical space, and likely speakers, with the readers but with the traditional A/B comparisons, which Mr. Gregory called a stupid approach, the speaker room interaction is kept common (the same) between component A and B to allow the reviewer to make assessments on the relative qualities between components A and B under the same set of conditions. By imbedding two sets of boundary conditions, one optimized for components A and the other optimized for component B, the comparison and assessment is no longer normalized. Going beyond that, if you take the original component out of the picture all together, Mr. Gregory is attributing contribution from boundary reinforcement (both constructive and destructive)speaker/room interaction, which are unique to Mr. Gregory’s system environment, and passing them off as what can be achieved with the component under review, which the reader can be mislead to interpret as inherent qualities of the component under review and evaluation.

I honestly do not understand why the above is so hard to grasp.