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

[Carlos269]

You seem to be saying a reviewer as a human is incapable of sorting out a products performance if any change outside setting the new product into a place where something else sat and touching nothing else is the baseline. That is in essence saying humans are too simple in their overall capacities to comprehend and analyze much ouside a simple change. Maybe????

Correct.

It is possible the reviewer may derive a more or less accurate opinion as based upon their past reference if to much is changed. This could definitely be the case with a wholesale change such as new electrical infrastructure, a new rack, a new TT. There very well may be a transition or time of acclimation to the new environment. But we dont live in a stagnant world. Reviewers hear things they like and buy them to keep as their reference. Maybe this is a good thing as they are constantly adjusting their base understanding. They might at times look back and realize something was better or worse than they thought at the time. Maybe its a human fallacy. But how do you escape that. We can't keep everything the same forever. That negates growth.

This isn’t an intellectual exercise. This is obvious and cut and dry. Let’s explore what you experienced “at Fremers, and other places, changing the electrical infrastructure can radically alter equipment performance“ to drive the point home:

You did the electrical work and then “After the change, I was stunned by the speaker and loved them”. Did the electrical work and electrical power changes optimize the source component to really extract the most out of the media? Or was it that the new clean power allowed the preamplifier to shine and allow it to be “set it up as best as you can”? Or did the new electrical power allow the amplifier to be “optimized” and produce its full potential? It certainly did not effect the speaker‘s power as I assume that the speakers are passive and not powered speakers but yet here you are attributing the changes in electrical power to the speaker’s performance as you were “stunned by the speaker and loved them”. Do you see what I mean now?

The focus of equipment reviews are the component under assessment and nothing else. The value in an equipment review is to tell you as much as it can about the component under analysis.

Here is how the reviewer can escape “We can't keep everything the same forever.”: 1) By establishing a baseline, in other words a “reference“ basis for his comments, 2) By being consistent with his methods and processes and procedures, and 3) By understanding that his observation are of no value in “absolute” terms but can offer value to the readers in “relative” terms.

The reviewer does not have to stay stagnant, but he must reestablish a baseline and maintain consistency with his efforts from the past to provide value to his readers and keep comments in the context of and focused on the equipmemt under review.

 

[wil]

The problem I see with the static approach is that the reference base line will always have the advantage of being optimized in that system compared to the reviewed component being simply inserted into that system.

Maybe the most useful and comprehensive review would use both methods: first make an assessment of the reviewed component in the reference setup and then a second assessment after optimizing through speaker adjustments.

 

[Carlos269]

The problem I see with the static approach is that the reference base line will always have the advantage of being optimized in that system compared to the reviewed component being simply inserted into that system.

Maybe the most useful and comprehensive review would use both methods: first make an assessment of the reviewed component in the reference setup and then a second assessment after optimizing through speaker adjustments.

I’m not sure why this is so difficult to comprehend but obviously it is for some. We are at a point where we are going around in circles. You either get it or you don’t. I don’t need to keep explaining the same thing over, and over, ….and over again.

 

[microstrip]

I’m not sure why this is so difficult to comprehend but obviously it is for some. We are at a point where we are going around in circles. You either get it or you don’t. I don’t need to keep explaining the same thing over, and over, ….and over again.

You will always go in circles unless you precisely define by what means "comparing" for you. Different people have different views on it, the debate becomes a semantics affair.

Some of the WBF members insist of redefining known words, even those with precise technical or traditional meaning in soudn reproduction , invoking the fact that subjective analyzes and expression needs a dedicated lexicon. I see their point, but it creates a Babel tower.

 

[ddk]

I’m not sure why this is so difficult to comprehend but obviously it is for some. We are at a point where we are going around in circles. You either get it or you don’t. I don’t need to keep explaining the same thing over, and over, ….and over again.

It’s not about getting it as you say, what you don’t understand or accept is that we disagree with you and your arguments on this topic.

david

 

[Carlos269]

It’s not about getting it as you say it’s you that doesn’t get it, we disagree with you and your arguments.

david

This ”Bright shining Lie” has not only tarnished the image and standing of Mr. Gregory but also that of those that have sided with him, as it has provided a glimpse into their intellect and their lack of basic understanding of this hobby.

I certainly see you and your postings in a new light.

 

[ddk]

This ”Bright shining Lie” has not only tarnished the image and standing of Mr. Gregory but also that of those that have sided with him, as it has provided a glimpse into their intellect and their lack of basic understanding of this hobby.

I certainly see you and your postings in a new light.

You’re entitled to your opinion.

david

 

[Atmasphere]

I am just thinking about digital - many modern digital sources can have outputs as high as 6V with minimal output impedance. And yes, I am just asking if you could change the design of the MA2 or M100 to sound the same of the MP1+MA2 or MP1+MA100? I have owned the first combo and preferred the sound with the preamplifier by far to the direct driving of the power amplifier.

I can imagine that your class D would also sound better with the MP1. Where can we find detailed information about your class D?

On our website is one place to look.

One of the issues we've run into quite often is that most of the sources out there (not just digital) don't drive interconnects very well. So the interconnect becomes a variable, even if the source is balanced. Of course, with balanced line the interconnect cable isn't supposed to have a 'sound' but it often does because the source driving it doesn't support that balanced line standard even though it might be balanced. The standard requires the the shield of the cable must not be driven (as it is in an RCA connection). This, and the typically high impedance usually seen in 'high end' audio balanced equipment means you are likely to hear cable differences. The MP-1 was the first balanced line preamp for home use ever made. It didn't occur to us at the time to not support the standard and as a result the cables at its output make far less difference and you can drive the cables a really long way as well (although the benefit of balanced operation is there even if the cable is only 6 inches long). I suspect this drive-ability issue is what you were hearing. Its sold a lot of preamps for us.

Spare me Ralph, I have heard the very best Class D (except yours of course ) and it sounds NOTHING like a good OTL…even yours. The distortion pattern is also nothing like it should be as the proportion of low and high orders is not right and there won’t be any effective masking or match with the ears own self-generated harmonics.
Your claim about cheap Chinese class D is BS. A friend of mine bought several cheapies thinking he would find a cheap nirvana… they only caused headaches. Experiment over.

'Very best class D' is an interesting phrase. Elsewhere in audio the 'best' seems to be something that doesn't exist; there is 'better' and 'different' seems to be the consensus. The lowest distortion class D module is the Purifi but its only sold as a module and how its implemented can have a dramatic effect on how it sounds. So I'm doubting this statement. But I do agree it likely didn't sound anything like a good OTL, or even ours, whatever that means And to my knowledge if a Purifi was used its distortion spectra is quite different from ours.

My claim wasn't BS. A customer of mine in town is big on 'full range' high efficiency drivers and owns a basement full of amplifiers, a number of them being SETs. He called quite adamant on this topic and so I took a listen, and had to agree that in many ways the cheapo class D amp was bettering the SETs. Not in every way mind you, nor is that what I said earlier. I said:

'Nowadays you can buy inexpensive Chinese class D amps that sound better in many ways than the best SETs.'

-which is something quite different. When we did the comparison one thing that came up right away was all the things that might be done to make the cheapo class D amp sound better- better power supply, unlimit the bass response and so on. I didn't see it as worth it. If it were, things like the amp we make likely would not have a market

 

[Al M.]

This ”Bright shining Lie” has not only tarnished the image and standing of Mr. Gregory but also that of those that have sided with him, as it has provided a glimpse into their intellect and their lack of basic understanding of this hobby.

Too funny.

 

[Carlos269]

Too funny.

You laugh, I laugh, we laugh…….with the “Bright Shining Lie” the joke is on you!

 

[cjfrbw]

I think I'll use my audiophile-dar and tingling Spidey senses to move the speakers into exactly the right spot out of the thousands of possible spots they can go. That will tune up the amplifier to perfection. Because "I will know!".

I think if this keeps some audiophiles ritualized in a way that they need to be to exhaust their obsessions before they actually sit down to listen, then so be it. All religions need rituals and sacrifice.

 

[morricab]

On our website is one place to look.

One of the issues we've run into quite often is that most of the sources out there (not just digital) don't drive interconnects very well. So the interconnect becomes a variable, even if the source is balanced. Of course, with balanced line the interconnect cable isn't supposed to have a 'sound' but it often does because the source driving it doesn't support that balanced line standard even though it might be balanced. The standard requires the the shield of the cable must not be driven (as it is in an RCA connection). This, and the typically high impedance usually seen in 'high end' audio balanced equipment means you are likely to hear cable differences. The MP-1 was the first balanced line preamp for home use ever made. It didn't occur to us at the time to not support the standard and as a result the cables at its output make far less difference and you can drive the cables a really long way as well (although the benefit of balanced operation is there even if the cable is only 6 inches long). I suspect this drive-ability issue is what you were hearing. Its sold a lot of preamps for us.


'Very best class D' is an interesting phrase. Elsewhere in audio the 'best' seems to be something that doesn't exist; there is 'better' and 'different' seems to be the consensus. The lowest distortion class D module is the Purifi but its only sold as a module and how its implemented can have a dramatic effect on how it sounds. So I'm doubting this statement. But I do agree it likely didn't sound anything like a good OTL, or even ours, whatever that means And to my knowledge if a Purifi was used its distortion spectra is quite different from ours.

My claim wasn't BS. A customer of mine in town is big on 'full range' high efficiency drivers and owns a basement full of amplifiers, a number of them being SETs. He called quite adamant on this topic and so I took a listen, and had to agree that in many ways the cheapo class D amp was bettering the SETs. Not in every way mind you, nor is that what I said earlier. I said:

'Nowadays you can buy inexpensive Chinese class D amps that sound better in many ways than the best SETs.'

-which is something quite different. When we did the comparison one thing that came up right away was all the things that might be done to make the cheapo class D amp sound better- better power supply, unlimit the bass response and so on. I didn't see it as worth it. If it were, things like the amp we make likely would not have a market

We will have to agree to disagree. I haven’t heard a single remotely realistic sounding class d amp and most sound thoroughly wretched. If you don’t hear how flat and lacking natural timbre and tone then we are just talking past each other.

 

[Atmasphere]

We will have to agree to disagree. I haven’t heard a single remotely realistic sounding class d amp and most sound thoroughly wretched. If you don’t hear how flat and lacking natural timbre and tone then we are just talking past each other.

I've heard plenty that sound flat- I know exactly what you're talking about. We've got one in the shop and its really boring IMO. When I first heard a class D amp 20 years ago I was wondering if it was a joke. A lot I've head since didn't seem much better so I don't think we're talking past each other... Its my guess that the issue you're having is making the assumption that because you've heard plenty of such class D amps that they all sound that way. Seriously, they don't. The other tricky bit you have to watch for is playing one that actually is musical on a speaker which is not designed to expect an amp of such low output impedance. That alone can cause the amp to sound flat when its really just a mismatch.

For example if you're running SETs successfully its very likely that your speakers are designed to work with them (SETs tend to act like a power source), since the design rules are a bit different as opposed to those speakers that expect to be driven by a voltage source. Unless your speaker has controls on the back to allow you to adjust the speaker to the voltage response of the amplifier, the simple fact is you'll get some sort of sonic anomaly or aberration. For more on this see http://www.atma-sphere.com/en/resources-paradigms-in-amplifier-design.html

 

[Fsonicsmith]

This thread is a surprise. I rarely participate/post on this Board because I tend to have strong opinions and state them bluntly. It always seemed to me that this Board is populated by an insular group of very genteel and well-heeled men who enjoy an echo chamber. I have no desire to be booted and as it is, historically my few posts have been completely ignored. I am figuratively and literally a nobody.
So with the crap out of the way, some of the responses to the OP made me wince and that is saying something. Are there histories and personal agendas at play in the background? I always say, "many arguments do not arise in a vacuum". But in the end, and I apologize in advance for so many references to quotes, but this a prime example of "sound and fury signifying nothing". It is up to the individual to make choices in life. If the listener wants to experiment with speaker placement each time an amp is swapped out, so be it. Keep in mind, even when someone else's system is hypothetically "optimized", it may still not be a system that suits your taste and ears. Or look at it this way-if some greater force could see to it that someone else's system is always optimized for a given room and set of components, would that insure the owner's happiness and joy?
I do appreciate the OP. I changed out my amp recently. I intend to play around with speaker positioning later today or tomorrow.

 

[Carlos269]

This thread is a surprise. I rarely participate/post on this Board because I tend to have strong opinions and state them bluntly. It always seemed to me that this Board is populated by an insular group of very genteel and well-heeled men who enjoy an echo chamber. I have no desire to be booted and as it is, historically my few posts have been completely ignored. I am figuratively and literally a nobody.
So with the crap out of the way, some of the responses to the OP made me wince and that is saying something. Are there histories and personal agendas at play in the background? I always say, "many arguments do not arise in a vacuum". But in the end, and I apologize in advance for so many references to quotes, but this a prime example of "sound and fury signifying nothing". It is up to the individual to make choices in life. If the listener wants to experiment with speaker placement each time an amp is swapped out, so be it. Keep in mind, even when someone else's system is hypothetically "optimized", it may still not be a system that suits your taste and ears. Or look at it this way-if some greater force could see to it that someone else's system is always optimized for a given room and set of components, would that insure the owner's happiness and joy?
I do appreciate the OP. I changed out my amp recently. I intend to play around with speaker positioning later today or tomorrow.

What the owner does at home with his equipment is his or her business, I think we can all agree with that; what a reviewer does with the equipment and how it serves the readers, is the readers’ business and that is the point of view that you fail to see. Good equipment reviewers should work in the interest of their readers; in these circumstances, the OP, this is not the case.

It not about what you do, or what you do not do, it’s about how to properly assess a component under valid conditions, that can lead not only the reviewer, but also the readers, to reach “sound” conclusions based on logic and the understanding of the subject at hand. And that my friend is something that even after reading all the postings over these many pages you still do not seem to grasp.

 

[Fsonicsmith]

t not about what you do, or what you do not do, it’s about how to properly assess a component under valid conditions, that can lead not only the reviewer, but also the readers, to reach “sound” conclusions based on logic and the understanding of the subject at hand. And that my friend is something that even after reading all the postings over these many pages you still do not seem to grasp.

I hate it when the phrase "and that my friend" is used with utter sarcasm. Did I miss the point? No, perhaps you missed my reference to "insular" participants which refers, "my friend" to industry insiders and so-called reviewers. "So-called" because with the internet, anyone can call themselves a reviewer.
What purpose does it serve any of us for a reviewer to ignore reality (my version and the OP's version of reality-not yours) and simply plug in an amp to an existing system if that protocol does not give an amp a fair chance to shine? What possible service does that provide for the reader? This is not a peer-reviewed research and laboratory project! It is subjective review, not much different than reviewing restaurants, literature, or music. I believe this point has been made-would you advocate for reviewing a set of speakers by placing them in the same spot as the last pair without adjusting them for optimum sound? I do not mean to make this an ad-hominem debate, but I too feel like the subject in Edvard Munch's classic piece of art.

 

[Carlos269]

I hate it when the phrase "and that my friend" is used with utter sarcasm. Did I miss the point? No, perhaps you missed my reference to "insular" participants which refers, "my friend" to industry insiders and so-called reviewers. "So-called" because with the internet, anyone can call themselves a reviewer.
What purpose does it serve any of us for a reviewer to ignore reality (my version and the OP's version of reality-not yours) and simply plug in an amp to an existing system if that protocol does not give an amp a fair chance to shine? What possible service does that provide for the reader? This is not a peer-reviewed research and laboratory project! It is subjective review, not much different than reviewing restaurants, literature, or music. I believe this point has been made-would you advocate for reviewing a set of speakers by placing them in the same spot as the last pair without adjusting them for optimum sound? I do not mean to make this an ad-hominem debate, but I too feel like the subject in Edvard Munch's classic piece of art.

I’m not going to restate what I have already stated, multiple times in this thread, but I will simply state that there has to be a valid basis for the reviewer’s comments. If the reviewer is not able to discern if the changes in sound performance came from 1) “optimizing” the component under review (Mr. Gregory‘s goal with his approach), 2) the speaker/room interaction caused by repositioning the speakers, or 3) the unintended changes brought about to other components in the systems cause by the speakers repositioning (surely you don’t think that repositioning the speakers, following Mr. Gregory’s flawed logic, only has an affect of “optimizing” the component under review, or in your own words giving it “a fair chance to shine”, while it has no effect on any other component in the system), then of what value are his comments?And how does he correlate any observations back to the component under review? Again, you have to have a basis or “reference” to make observations that can be categorically attributed back to the component under assessment. This isn’t rocket science and it should be easy for everyone to comprehend.

 

[andromedaaudio]

Carlos , i think you can never be a reviewer , because you keep all the gear, lol

 

[Carlos269]

Carlos , i think you can never be a reviewer , because you keep all the gear, lol

You should see my latest toys. They are really something special. I have most definitely peaked and have no interest or desire in anything new at this time.

 

[morricab]

You should see my latest toys. They are really something special. I have most definitely peaked and have no interest or desire in anything new at this time.

What might those be?