This should start a very interesting discusion !
Last edited by a moderator:
A Bright Shining Lie…Why ignoring an inconvenient truth is stifling system performance a blog from Roy Gregory
- Thread starter Elliot G.
- Start date
Don't see the link to the article, so here it is: https://gy8.eu/blog/a-bright-shining-lie/
Interesting article. Thank you Elliot for posting it. I found the concluding paragraph well stated:
“Listening is a learnt skill and listening to audio systems is no different. The skill doesn’t lie in what you hear. It lies in understanding what it means. Does it matter whether the difference you hear comes from a change of component or a change of speaker position? No. Because, the individual components and individual differences don’t matter. What does matter is not whether the SYSTEM sounds different, but whether it sounds better…”
There was a thread a while back about changing variables during an evaluation process. I argued for keeping things the same but I’ve been convinced since then that I was wrong, especially when it comes to amplifier speaker combinations. I think this came up originally in a discussion about the CH precision amplifiers and Marty’s system.
I now have corner horn speakers with the appropriate amplification so I cannot really change speaker position. I’m comparing two wonderful turntables at the moment. They do sound different. I suspect if I still had my former conventional box speakers out into the room I would be tempted to play with speaker position given the differences in bass performance between the two turntables. One turntable is clearly better than the other one and I don’t think the outcome would change but it might be a matter of optimizing the performance of each. In my case the system was set up with one turntable and this set up does not favor that turntable over the new one in for evaluation. In this specific case, I don’t think it’s a matter of trade-offs, one is simply superior to the other.
It is a thought provoking article that is basically describing what David Karmeli was advocating in that old discussion. It goes further because of Mr. Gregory’s comments about how this affects the industry and how products are sold. It seems to be an inconvenient truth indeed, don’t perhaps not as obvious as the Lance Armstrong deception.
“Listening is a learnt skill and listening to audio systems is no different. The skill doesn’t lie in what you hear. It lies in understanding what it means. Does it matter whether the difference you hear comes from a change of component or a change of speaker position? No. Because, the individual components and individual differences don’t matter. What does matter is not whether the SYSTEM sounds different, but whether it sounds better…”
There was a thread a while back about changing variables during an evaluation process. I argued for keeping things the same but I’ve been convinced since then that I was wrong, especially when it comes to amplifier speaker combinations. I think this came up originally in a discussion about the CH precision amplifiers and Marty’s system.
I now have corner horn speakers with the appropriate amplification so I cannot really change speaker position. I’m comparing two wonderful turntables at the moment. They do sound different. I suspect if I still had my former conventional box speakers out into the room I would be tempted to play with speaker position given the differences in bass performance between the two turntables. One turntable is clearly better than the other one and I don’t think the outcome would change but it might be a matter of optimizing the performance of each. In my case the system was set up with one turntable and this set up does not favor that turntable over the new one in for evaluation. In this specific case, I don’t think it’s a matter of trade-offs, one is simply superior to the other.
It is a thought provoking article that is basically describing what David Karmeli was advocating in that old discussion. It goes further because of Mr. Gregory’s comments about how this affects the industry and how products are sold. It seems to be an inconvenient truth indeed, don’t perhaps not as obvious as the Lance Armstrong deception.
Excellent article. Yes, insertion of different components often requires changes in set-up. I have experienced this many times, in my own system as well as others. I'll just give one example where the solution was simple -- in my particular system.
Recently I changed from KT150 tubes to KT120s in my power amp. Had I kept the same set-up, the KT120s would have sounded in some ways worse given their lower treble output. A simple change towards more speaker toe-in did the trick. Under these circumstances the KT120s in this Octave amp were superior in every way -- in my particular system, that is.
It has been reported that deep bass output of the KT120s is less than that of the KT150s. In other systems this probably would have required further adjustments. In mine with monitors and subwoofers it doesn't matter; the deep bass comes from the subs that are fed directly from the preamp, not from the power amp.
Midbass with the KT120s is better fleshed out on my monitors, a welcome addition in my system. In other systems this kind of change might require other set-up changes as well.
Recently I changed from KT150 tubes to KT120s in my power amp. Had I kept the same set-up, the KT120s would have sounded in some ways worse given their lower treble output. A simple change towards more speaker toe-in did the trick. Under these circumstances the KT120s in this Octave amp were superior in every way -- in my particular system, that is.
It has been reported that deep bass output of the KT120s is less than that of the KT150s. In other systems this probably would have required further adjustments. In mine with monitors and subwoofers it doesn't matter; the deep bass comes from the subs that are fed directly from the preamp, not from the power amp.
Midbass with the KT120s is better fleshed out on my monitors, a welcome addition in my system. In other systems this kind of change might require other set-up changes as well.
Excellent article. Absolutely agree. As the system here has grown in capability and flexibility...where you really have to explore and test the bounds of its performance...it has taken LONGER to truly understand each new component as it has gone in.
With the Robert Kodas and the XLFs, it has been nearly a year that I have been getting to know them with system adjustments that have been going in steadily. But there has been a delay in readjusting the speakers due to Covid.
However, in some respects, that might turn out to be a good thing because after several hundred albums, I 'think' I now have the measure of the sound in the system today...and thus am glad to have more detailed listening notes to share with the experts who are coming to finetune the XLFs.
More to come, as RG has clearly and articulately written!
With the Robert Kodas and the XLFs, it has been nearly a year that I have been getting to know them with system adjustments that have been going in steadily. But there has been a delay in readjusting the speakers due to Covid.
However, in some respects, that might turn out to be a good thing because after several hundred albums, I 'think' I now have the measure of the sound in the system today...and thus am glad to have more detailed listening notes to share with the experts who are coming to finetune the XLFs.
More to come, as RG has clearly and articulately written!
I’ll keep this simple: you can not make a comparative assessment of two components without keeping all other variables the same/consistent, to assure that the analyses are properly performed so that results are valid and reliable.
A controlled and constant set of parameters “frame-in” and provide context for the basis of the comparison. Ever heard of a “level playing field”?
Now this doesn’t mean that you can‘t move the speakers to “optimize” the new component’s performance, who would not do this with a new component? But to complete the analysis, the original component must be inserted in the system with the “repositioned speakers” to complete and validate the assessment; this is the only way to “normalize” the evaluation and comparison of two or more components, in the same system under the same set of conditions. Thus this is why reviewers traditionally maintain a “reference“ system, as the standard and basis for comparisons.
The relocation or movement of the speakers to “optimize“ the performance of the new component is in reality finding a “complementary“ boundary response to compensate for the new component’s impact on the system’s resultant response. This is either constructive (additive) or destructive (subtractive) frequency response compensation.
Hopefully you all realize that this article is Roy Gregory’s attempt to save-face and dig himself out of the hole he’s got into when I exposed the fallacy in his relative assessment process.
This is plain logic and common sense. This should be obvious and if it isn’t………
A controlled and constant set of parameters “frame-in” and provide context for the basis of the comparison. Ever heard of a “level playing field”?
Now this doesn’t mean that you can‘t move the speakers to “optimize” the new component’s performance, who would not do this with a new component? But to complete the analysis, the original component must be inserted in the system with the “repositioned speakers” to complete and validate the assessment; this is the only way to “normalize” the evaluation and comparison of two or more components, in the same system under the same set of conditions. Thus this is why reviewers traditionally maintain a “reference“ system, as the standard and basis for comparisons.
The relocation or movement of the speakers to “optimize“ the performance of the new component is in reality finding a “complementary“ boundary response to compensate for the new component’s impact on the system’s resultant response. This is either constructive (additive) or destructive (subtractive) frequency response compensation.
Hopefully you all realize that this article is Roy Gregory’s attempt to save-face and dig himself out of the hole he’s got into when I exposed the fallacy in his relative assessment process.
This is plain logic and common sense. This should be obvious and if it isn’t………
Last edited:
Interesting article, but in fact it is just a semantics affair exposed with a lot of verbiage. What is the purpose of the envisaged comparisons - carry an A/B of the components in a particular system or find their full possibilities in such system?
Your corner horns save you a lot of hassle from inconvenient "truths"...
In addition, you don't know where you should be moving said speaker to get the optimization...this means quite a lot of faffing about to see even IF there is a location where the speaker now performs better (if it in fact was performing worse after the change). If there isn't a better spot, can you then declare one piece of gear inferior to another or do you have to keep shuffling your speakers around?
I guess if you have tiny speakers it would be easy to do but for many of us with larger (or very large) speakers, this is a non-starter unless you happen to have them on wheels, which is probably a big no-no as well.
Not a very practical approach though for a review and/or dealer demo though, is it?? Tell the customer to come back everyday for 6 months and then start moving things to show them what can be done with the system (assuming they haven't bought elsewhere since).
Agreed.
I am also somewhat perplexed that moving one’s speakers to optimise one’s system response to any changes elsewhere is seen as some form of epiphany (thanks Marc) and new thinking. Surely this is normal at home albeit not normal at a dealer.
Totally agree it is not practical for a reviewer who needs to move equipment thru the system rapidly to keep on with production schedules. But even without moving speakers...a reviewer has a tough job because they are reviewing equipment with a fixed system when in fact, you probably should try the amp with several speakers or vice versa. In an extreme, trying an SET amp with a wickedly inefficient and difficult speaker to drive gives the wrong results. But its not the SET...its the match between the speaker and amp, so the reviewer then needs to change out speakers to more properly evaluate the amp. Such as it is with a system and with enormous variability of interactions between even one component change.
However, from the standpoint of an owner...it is exactly what you want to do to optimize the total result. The system.
If the amp interface with the speaker means it will not drive the bass quite the same as the prior amp, but its mid to upper range frequency is sublime, the question will be: do you go back to the original...or do you try to get the system to drive bass a bit more using other methods (like speaker placement)...in order to keep that newly found midrange/upper? Neither scenario will be perfect...but the latter may be better. And thus, in many cases, the answer is yes. In which case the system does have to move around.
Perhaps Roy’s use of “lie” in the title is deliberate clickbait. A difference of opinion about the philosophy and the methodology of loudspeaker optimization and loudspeaker comparison does not rise to the level of a “lie.”
Francisco, I am surprised by your answer, given that you rightly always emphasize a whole-system approach, and also rightly suggest that often a component does not perform as well as desired because of lack of matching to the system, rather than because of intrinsic quality.
This also, as you stated before, has the potential to make negative reviews problematic (even though personally I think that sometimes a negative review could be warranted, beyond the caveat of system matching).
So I thought this article was very much along the lines of your arguments.
And obviously, the answer to your somewhat rhetorical question is that, yes, it is about finding the full possibilities in a system.
If you want to optimize, you have to be prepared to move speakers around. Size of speakers is no excuse.
So do you compensate by repositioning the speakers when you insert new interconnect or speaker cables into your system? How about when evaluating new record clamps or record weights? Do you also reposition the speakers then? Do you relocate the speakers when evaluating the differences between the balanced (XLR) and single-ended (RCA) inputs or outputs of the same preamp? In a multi-arm turntable set-up do you compensate by reposition the speakers for each arm or cartridge or combination of both? Please walk me through the logic where speaker repositioning compensation is valid for some components and not for others? Do you compensate with speaker repositioning for temperature gradients as the components and system warm up and go through their operating temperature range? Where is speaker repositioning valid? And where is it not? Get the picture yet?
speaker portioning is meant to optimize the loudspeaker’s polar response and radiation patterns with respect to the room boundaries and listener’s position. It is not practical or logical for use for components compensation, but you could of course make use of it that way if that is logical to you.
The best reviewers and end-users at home can do when evaluating different components is to “normalize” the evaluation. If you were for instance make an assessment of two different components with each “optimized” with their own, different, speaker positioning this assessment would be invalid and flawed when evaluating the Inherent qualities of each component. For a reviewer to do this, is and would be ignorant as it would imbed different parameters and invalidate any and all conclusions that are being attempted to be shared with the readers as these would be special cases as opposed to diligent systematic process, from which the reader can draw broad and valid conclusions reached on the basis of evidence and solid reasoning.
Last edited:
Similar threads
 | Steve Williams Site Founder | Site Owner | Administrator |  | Ron Resnick Site Owner | Administrator |  | Julian (The Fixer) Website Build | Marketing Managersing |