The Mysterious Case of the Listening Window! By Jeff Day, Positive Feedback

[wil]

I went back and re-read my posts in this thread - my goodness , 31 - that's too high percentage wise although maybe 2/3 of those are not on the topic you present here. I find the relevant posts: #13 (first), #38, #63, #96, #175, #191, #248, #273, #314, #322. I re-read looking for something confusing, inconsistent, or circular that I wrote. I didn't see any of that, but feel free to point out some 'problem' wilth anything I"ve written thus far. I hope I haven't been too unclear to cause that within yourself with regard to my "objections."

You presented the Day article for us to look at and I read it. My approach to that was to consider it whole - as an article (or whatever noun is preferred.) I found it readable, with many andecdotes from Day. Apparently the anecdotes - most of which were unconnected as I read them - were a preface or lead up to Day's discussion of his notion of listening windows. Once he got there I'm thinking huh? is this another anecdote. I thought the article was scattered or disjointed at that point. It is really all over the place. But okay - it's his column. It may tie to together for him, and while some of it was mildly entertaining to read, it was largely biographical and I kept thinking 'where is this going.' It wasn't a review, or an editorial (though maybe it should have been) or a how-to; it wasn't expository. As I got closer to the end I thought it was a waste of (my) time and didn't see a high value as you did in presenting it to us to read. Like I said - different reactions, different opinions.

So, with a focus on listening window ....

Apparently the listening window discussion was the key to the article. I didn't think his listening window discussion was particulary cogent. Notice I'm talking about the way he said what he did.

Open his article, and go along with me. I hope I'm not skipping or omitting.

DAY: "I have been pondering for quite some time why enthusiast hifi after the 1960s evolved the way it did, with much - but not all of it - becoming increasingly amusical, at least from a music lover's perspective of wanting to be able to enjoy a wide spectrum of music of various recording periods and quality. "

Okay some hi-fi has gone off the tracks, beome increasingly 'unmusical' for the perspective of someone who enjoys a wide spectrum of music types.

DAY:The ability of a hifi system - or the individual components it is composed of - to be able to play a wide variety of recorded music from different periods, of different styles, and of varied recording quality, I refer to as the listening window.

The ability of a hifi system to accomodate music diversity is what he calls a listening window.

DAY: The listening window is a subjective measure of how wide a variety of recorded music one can listen to through a high-performance audio system and still have it sound and feel believably like a live music experience.

Okay: The ability of a hifi system to accomodate music diversity (ie., the listening window) is a subjective measure of just how diverse a set of music it can play in a way that is realistic.

Here I'm unclear about what is subjectively measured. Subjectivity - I take that to be something that is a matter of someone's opinion. I'm guessing its not the music diversity that is subjective, but it could be - 'how different is this music from that music. He probably means subjective belief about does it, or does it not, sound realistic. O...kay.

DAY: My parents console televisions stereos from the 1950s and 1960s had a wide listening window that allowed for enjoyable listening of pretty much anything of any recording quality. How was that accomplished?

Note: he's introduced the term at this point as a descriptor, but remember it is a subjective measure of believability - how is that believability accomplished. Here is where I thought the payoff would come - we'd get some real information. What makes up or causes a wide listening window.

But no ... we don't learn how his parents console accomplished a wide listening window. Instead of that, we get:

DAY:Yet many contemporary audio systems fail miserably at having a wide listening window, and can only accomodate a very narrow listening window of superb recordings, or risk sounding decidedly amusical on average recordings of great music.

A narrow listening window results in their owners buying the same audiophile recordings over and over again with each new remaster of the same old recording, because that's the only thing that sounds good on their stereo systems. "

Me: Huh? This isn't an account of the believability of his parents console to play diverse music. It doesn't follow. He doesn't tell us.

Then Day proceeds to tell us "An increasing number of us hifi nuts and music lovers again want a stereo system with a wide listening window - like many of those high-performance vintage systems so easily achieved ..." Do an increasing number of music lovers want to play all different periods, different styles of varied quality? Perhaps. For me there are many many types of music I have no interest in playing on my stereo because there are so many that I do want to play.

DAY: " My vintage audio system has an extremely wide listening window, and it superbly plays back music from any recording media of any quality while still making it sound and feel like a valid musical experience.

For me that's what high-fidelity audio is all about, and the non-intuitive part of it is why do so many high-priced and high-performance enthusiast audio systems totally suck at being able to accomplish that feat when some of the vintage gear could do that so easily? What's the secret?

Okay - at this point Day has assumed what he's trying to establish. He begs the question.

But, but maybe now we'll learn the secret ingredients of subjective believability with music diversity. Why so many high-priced stereos do not have it, when some vintage gear - like his parent's console or his Stokowski Altecs - has "it". What is the secret?

Do we learn that secret - do we get an answer to the question that Day poses?
No - we get just another non-sequitar:

DAY: "There's a few audio companies I am familiar with that have figured out how to do that, like the aforementioned Audio Note (UK) systems of Peter Qvortrup, or the First Watt and Pass Labs systems of Nelson Pass. "

"With each of those sets of electronics powering the "Stokowski" Altec loudspeakers I get an impressively wide listening window."

No secret is told - he just talks about his equipment.

At the end...

DAY:"Over the next year or so, I want to tell you more about what makes this wide listening window possible in a high-fidelity, high-performance, audio system ."

Another tease.

My objection? I didn't think Day's article was all that compelling - it was somewhat disorganized and poorly argued. I did enjoy reading the part about Stokowski comparing the sound of his orchestra to the sound of it reproduced. I did enjoy reading that Day wanted his system to sound like live music. But that was not a revelation to me. Maybe if it was written differently I may have had a different reaction.

To me, his article does come off as a bit of an amorphous tease, heavily laced with nostalgia. I seriously doubt his parents console was more musically engaging or "live" than most modern, well put together, audio systems. And when he trots out the straw man cliche of the high-end audiophile who can only listen to a few select "audiophile recordings" he lapses into the ridiculous.

I thought Moricab put it well in an earlier post where he talked, (to paraphrase), about getting the best out of every recording without accentuating a bad recording's flaws. But a "revealing" system will reveal a recording's flaws. I'll deal with that any day over a soporific console from the 60's.

 

[thedudeabides]

Pretty easy actually. I read and interpreted the article. I'm sure Mr. Day has many talents and areas of expertise but based on what he wrote in that one article, I just wouldn't take take him seriously regarding things related to high-end audio. Except perhaps that he's enjoyed listening to music for a long time.

Thanks stehno for the response. I'm still confused but that's OK. For me, listening / enjoying music for a long period of time carries a lot more cred than those who listen to their hi end gear and not the music. And with all due respect, I think many (but not all) folks who listen to and own hi end gear do exactly that.

 

[Ron Resnick]

Tim, I thought Jeff's essay overall was stream of conscious-y, but thoughtful and pleasant. I think his most interesting and solid point was the attempt to define "listening window."

I, personally, would not have chosen the term "listening window" to describe the extent to which a high-end audio system achieves a high average of ability to make reproduced music of different genres sound and feel believably like live music experiences. I might have chosen the more plain meaning, but grossly more cumbersome, "average musical genre believability factor."

 

[Ron Resnick]

. . . based on what he wrote in that one article, I just wouldn't take take him seriously regarding things related to high-end audio.

I found nothing in the essay to be objectively inaccurate. I found the essay to be thoughtful. I read the "listening window" concept to be original, and to be worthy of analysis, as evidenced by the number of posts on this thread.

I found nothing at all to disqualify Mr. Day from being taken seriously regarding things related to high-end audio. Having read and enjoyed this particular article I now would be more likely to read Mr. Day's articles in the future.

 

[PeterA]

I found nothing in the essay to be objectively inaccurate. I found the essay to be thoughtful. I read the "listening window" concept to be original, and to be worthy of analysis, as evidenced by the number of posts on this thread.

I found nothing at all to disqualify Mr. Day from being taken seriously regarding things related to high-end audio. Having read and enjoyed this particular article I now would be more likely to read Mr. Day's articles in the future.

Yes, that is pretty much how I see it too, Ron. There is nothing outrageous or earth shattering or even ridiculous in this article, and certainly nothing offensive. One might not agree as is apparent from the many negative posts here, but clearly some here think it is worth discussing. Just look at the number of posts in this thread.

I will also look for any follow up columns to see if he takes these ideas further. I agree with Tim that it would be interesting to read from Mr. Day why he thinks some gear/systems/setup allow for more enjoyment of a broader range of music while not reducing its believability. I think some members here are finding that to be the case with their systems too. Better understanding why might be helpful. Part of it for me has to do with the presentation not drawing attention to particular sonic attributes or "hyping" some frequencies or details: less system sound or character to what I am hearing.

In a broader sense, this article is asking where the "high end" has led us over the years. That is somewhat refreshing. It is a different kind of questioning and it is worth contemplating, IMO.

 

[PeterA]

LOL

I come back from a delightful sail with friends the other day to read this comment and another post telling me that I am writing about some fairytale. I am beginning to wonder about some of these responses.

Tasos, you are laughing out loud because a friend of yours was asked if he feels stupid by another member here? I am sorry to read that from you.

I responded to DonC in a different post explaining why I don't feel stupid. I will just add here that I actually feel a bit empowered. Empowered because I have learned something. I learned that my Ching Cheng power cords, and also my stock Pass Labs power cords (which happen to also be Ching Cheng), both sounded better to me in my system than did my more expensive Harmonic Technology and Transparent Audio cords that I owned and enjoyed for years. They also sounded better than the MIT power cord that I auditioned, as well as two other brands I will not mention.

You referred to those cheap Chinese cords as "junk" to me privately without even doing me the curtesy of hearing them in my system. Have you ever heard them? I feel empowered because I was able to sell those cords, get back some money which I can now happily use elsewhere in my system, or to buy some more LPs, or to save for a rainy day. That is indeed a good feeling, a good outcome, and a lesson learned.

I try not to have fun at someone else's expense. I am hear to learn and to share my experiences. One does not have to read or comment on them.

 

[cjfrbw]

It's all DIY with Garrard 401, shure mono, and DIY amp with 6sn7 ECC32

Thank you.

 

[cjfrbw]

Jeff Day's SIT 3 review is quite detailed about using his various audio systems and speakers, if anybody is more interested in that aspect.
https://positive-feedback.com/reviews/hardware-reviews/first-watt-sit-3-stereo-power-amplifier/

 

[microstrip]

(...) I have since learned and moved on. I feel humbled by the experience but not stupid. I don’t even view it as a mistake. It was the right thing at the right time.

Peter,

Why do you feel humbled by the experience? Tansparent Audio power cables are excellent items, your preferences simply changed along time. I have not listened to everything, but two of the best listening sessions I have the pleasure of attempting used Tansparent Audio cabling, including their power cables.

For most of us this an hobby, not a profession, and should be analyzed as such. I only feel unpleased with it when I do not manage to sell something I do not want to keep because no one really wants it or I smell smoke coming from the equipment!

I have the perception that sometime in the future I risk valuating very differently this hobby and my preferences can change, perhaps considering my expenses with it unwise. But now it is a great hobby gathering music, equipment, friends, great meals and an interesting audio forum ...

 

[jeff1225]

Well summarized. I should agree with him on tannoy and Altec but frankly what he writes and why he does things always makes me want to snooze by the first para. So despite knowing about his blog I don't follow it

Nothing's worse that the reviews on 6 Moons. 10 page reviews of gear with the first 6 pages being non-sensical garbage. It's too bad because I'm into the gear they review( First Watt, Zu, etc).

 

[spiritofmusic]

Nothing's worse that the reviews on 6 Moons. 10 page reviews of gear with the first 6 pages being non-sensical garbage. It too bad because I'm into the gear they review( First Watt, Zu, etc).

Well Jeff, Sjraen was instrumental in me buying my Zus in 2008.

 

[Ron Resnick]

Gentlemen, please let's get back to the topic of the thread.

Thank you.

 

[treitz3]

Can't you two both just be adults and ignore each other? This back and forth is childish, to be honest. No, I do not care who "started it". It's getting old.

Tom

 

[wil]

Nothing's worse that the reviews on 6 Moons. 10 page reviews of gear with the first 6 pages being non-sensical garbage. It too bad because I'm into the gear they review( First Watt, Zu, etc).

A 6 Moons review is like.... Well, it's like nothing I've ever read before. I usually find there is a lot of great information therein, but do not enjoy the tortuous process required to sift it out from the avalanche of florid prose. Ernest Hemingway, he is not.

 

[PeterA]

Peter,

Why do you feel humbled by the experience? Tansparent Audio power cables are excellent items, your preferences simply changed along time. I have not listened to everything, but two of the best listening sessions I have the pleasure of attempting used Tansparent Audio cabling, including their power cables.

For most of us this an hobby, not a profession, and should be analyzed as such. I only feel unpleased with it when I do not manage to sell something I do not want to keep because no one really wants it or I smell smoke coming from the equipment!

I have the perception that sometime in the future I risk valuating very differently this hobby and my preferences can change, perhaps considering my expenses with it unwise. But now it is a great hobby gathering music, equipment, friends, great meals and an interesting audio forum ...

Fransisco, I'm going to try to keep it on topic. Thanks.

 

[jeff1225]

A 6 Moons review is like.... Well, it's like nothing I've ever read before. I usually find there is a lot of great information therein, but do not enjoy the tortuous process required to sift it out from the avalanche of florid prose. Ernest Hemingway, he is not.

I agree 100% with your assessment, you also outlined the critique more eloquently than I.

 

[tima]

Ernest Hemingway, he is not.

Heh.

I'd choose A.A.Milne over 6 Moons.

 

[the sound of Tao]

A 6 Moons review is like.... Well, it's like nothing I've ever read before. I usually find there is a lot of great information therein, but do not enjoy the tortuous process required to sift it out from the avalanche of florid prose. Ernest Hemingway, he is not.

Not sure about Sjraen’s listening window but his writing window is definitely stuck shut... very obscured and near impossible to see through. No transparency or clarity... Hmmm think he deserves the full lunar eclipse award

 

[stehno]

I've not put much thought into this but for those who prefer not to salivate 1 year while waiting for Mr. Day to reveal his secret knowledge on this mysterious subject, theoretically there should exist but 5 things within our scope that give the illusion that a component or playback system discriminates against music genre.

1. Amplification e.g. 15wpc vs say 500wpc​

2. Speaker size / limited frequency response e.g. bookshelf vs full-range.​

3. Distortions e.g much raised noise floors.​

4. Listening volume levels.​

5. Ensuring high-powered amplifiers have enough AC juice required for complex / dynamic passages.​

1. Amplification. I realize some wear their 15wpc SET amps as a badge of honor but dynamic headroom will potentially suffer for every dynamic / complex passage. It should be obvious to most that music genre play an important role here. For those focused primarily on string quartet, the 15wpc SET amp may suffice. But step into more aggressive, complex, and/or dynamic music genres and headroom will be exhausted frequently even at lower volume levels.

2. Speaker size / limited frequency response. Regardless of preferred music genre, there usually is enough low frequency info embedded in a given recording that apart from insufficient real estate space in the listening, there should be no excuse for not having speakers (and perhaps subwoofers) to at least theoretically handle the full frequency spectrum.

3. Distortions e.g. much raised noise floors. Noise floors play a far bigger role than meets the eye and in nearly every category and this "listening window" thing is no exception. Distortions (audible and especially inaudible) determine a given playback system's noise floor level. yadda yadda. Nevertheless, a much raised noise floor though impacting all music genre equally (they don't discriminate) will make a playback system seem as though it favors simple string quartet-like music rather than more dynamic complex orchestral-like music.

4. Listening volume levels as important as anything here. Elevator music volume levels make for an excellent band-aid for masking a host of potential playback presentation issues but is not recommended as also robs us of tremendous enjoyment potential.

5. High-powered amps requiring much AC juice from the wall will fall flat on their faces when attempting to accurately reproduce dynamic / complex passages (think certain music genres) if any of the AC is robbed from the amplifier. For example, about 20 years ago, I had a high-powered amp requring a 20amp circuit/outlet at the wall. The only thing sharing AC power on that circuit was a pre-amp requiring 23 watts or maybe 2 amps - I forget. When I moved the pre-amp to its own dedicated circuit/line, I couldn't believe how the dynamics came to life, even at lower volumes.

I might be overlooking something but to the best of my knowledge this is the exhaustive list of potential variables that when unaddressed or poorly addressed will give the illusion that our playback systems favor certain music genres over others. I use the word illusion because that's all it is. Our playback equipment and speakers lack the intelligence to intentionally discriminate between music genres. But there are a few unintentional concerns I list below.

Lastly, universal distortions e.g. much raised noise floors mentioned above are by far are the biggest culprit regarding this narrowed "listening window" thing. Sure with limited amplification and limited frequency spectrum there are brick walls to run into. But a much raised noise floor induces very significant and unmusical brick walls throughout the entire frequency spectrum. Think hi-fi sound.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes (concerns outside our scope):
There always exists the very real and probable potential that a designer / manufacturer could influence the sound of their product such that it seems to favors certain music genre over others. We ought to be aware of these concerns however, since these concerns are outside our scope as consumers, they are not included in the list above.

1. Component designers potential voicing strategies may give some illusion the components/speakers impact certain music genres and/or venues more than others. For example. Perhaps a designer's favorite genre is string quartet and using this genre for the bulk of their voicing exercise.

2. A manufacturuer exercising inferior designs, materials, construction, and/or assembly that can contribute to or increase distortions (noise floors) that will also give the illusion that the component favors some music genres over others. But again, this too is an illusion as the technology does not exist to allow for electronics to discern music genres for intended discrimination. There are the very significant universal distortions (see #3 above) and then there are increased distortions over and above the usual very significant distortions due to inferior design techniques.

 

[tima]

Tim, I thought Jeff's essay overall was stream of conscious-y, but thoughtful and pleasant. I think his most interesting and solid point was the attempt to define "listening window."

I, personally, would not have chosen the term "listening window" to describe the extent to which a high-end audio system achieves a high average of ability to make reproduced music of different genres sound and feel believably like live music experiences. I might have chosen the more plain meaning, but grossly more cumbersome, "average musical genre believability factor."

Hi Ron - I agree with your second paragraph.

I can't help wonder if the notion of a stereo system that can play all different kinds of music with believable realism is really worthy of being a category or classification method for gauging systems. How will it help us? What empty niche of description does it fill? Can it lead to discovering ways of improving our music enjoyment?

Where Day makes his article interesting, imo, is not through creation of new terminology - I don't see existing language as lacking. Where he generates interest is in the potential dialectic between systems with believable realism and those "that fail miserably" to produce it.

I say dialectic, one, in hopes of avoiding black-and-white categorization - his is wide, yours is narrow. I don't think this helps at all. And two, in hopes of including the idea of change or motion or evolution insofar as I believe we each start somewhere and modify not just our systems but also our goals and preferences as we go. (I admit "dialectic" may not be the best word here.)

The wide listening window notion is actually pretty complex, at least imo. It includes three factors: a) a broad diversity of music across periods and styles, b) music of varied recording quality, and c) reproduced recordings/music that sound and feel believable like a live music experience does. Some will say that is simple: music that sounds natural. Okay. but I think we'd really make progress if we just tackled c) in terms of believable realism, then learn where that falls out wrt a) and b).

Tell me the characteristics of sound with believable realism, even a few will be helpful. Do it in positive terms. Then let me gauge the sound of my own system against those descriptions. Or take me to the concert hall or the jazz club or to hear the quartett in the library and point out aspects of sound that assure? me that it is live: immediacy, dynamics, energy, etc.

We've actually been doing something like that here at WBF. Discussing topics like imaging and blackness, reading David, reading accounts of changes made by PeterA, Al M and others. Sure, it's back and forth with numerous sidetracks, but I know I've gained more from those discussions than wide and narrow.

(If you tell me my system has a narrow window because it cannot play MoFi realistically, that doesn't really help.)