The Mysterious Case of the Listening Window! By Jeff Day, Positive Feedback
- Thread starter PeterA
- Start date
People claim to be very confused about this topic and I’m simply suggesting that we read some of Jeff’s comments for some added insight and context.
Last edited:
I don't follow the insight.
Topic seems fine to me. Some people want their stereo to just be enjoyable period. That's one reason I've been using a conical tip stylus lately.
Folks on this site never over analyze subjective comments or topics.
1) Specific gear selection.So what changes have you made and why?
Rob
2) Remove expensive special design sound tuning devices.
3) Fine tune the position of mid range driver and tweeter.
To get better sound from certain type of music and recording.
I have different requirement to enjoy different type of music. Acoustic Classical vs amplified rock, techno, dance music for instance need to be reproduced differently to sound good to me. So no one window fit all imo. You can make the window wide but you are not going to get A+ in all types of music.
Graham, when i read the scribblings about the thoughts you and Tim have, i feel like a caveman trying his firs wall drawings. Stop it ! You are making the rest of us feel inadequateThanks Tim, yes also completely a fan of improving understanding in language. I’m perhaps less concrete these days because I’m having change of life issues and I’m trying to get comfortable with a realisation that I am at a new point in my life cycle and open to enjoying the freedom that the return to play can bring.
Earlier I clearly overused the acronym thingy
Anything that makes things harder to understand rather than easier is always a nemesis for the writer. The trickster still gets me at times but I’m trying to simplify because I do need to use synthesis and abstracts with my classes so they can get how design and environment shape experiences.
I do believe if we look at the time point of culture we see what people look to for needs.
The modernists applied order and process and valued authenticity. The gear that was produced honoured engineering and order and the gear and the desired sound may reflect that.
The 70s, 80s and 90s the postmodernists championed consumption (excess) and expressionism and a freedom from rules and the gear then became about how we can synthesise anything.
The contemporary world may be swinging back to looking towards the agency of natural order and holistic process and perhaps our desire for sound and the language we become more comfortable relating to may once again look again to nature for its essential references.
Much in the way that design is looking towards biomimicry and using biology more as process over traditional manufacturing and synthetic chemical approaches as natural processes can be more in tune with the organic. Maybe we aren’t comfortable with using the word natural because we have been so removed from the experience of it. The tipping away from a human-centric man made cultivation and a shift back to a more nature-centric core to life and living are trends that may define where we are heading. Nature may be more venerated going forwards and so being natural may become the goal again.
Yes naturalist listening with loose hanging equipment is dangerous in a class A tubed environmentIsn't that dangerous?
SCNR this invitation of yours
Peter,
IMHO Jeff comments only added confusion to the topic. IMHO your type of tuning created a narrow window. In fact most of the high-end creates narrow windows around our preferences.
Again IMHO there is no correlation between what you call "natural" and the "listening window".
BTW, NS can't fuel a regular page in a blog, such as Jeff Space. These blogs need permanent action and visible evolution - just the opposite of a NS system.
Yes, I'm also surprised the word is controversial. But I may understand why, or at least speculate why. I believe you disagree with me about the reasons for this, but that's okay as those may be sidebar issues and not core. (Like Bolshevik committee meta-discussions about rules in the movie 'Reds'.
Perhaps drawing out some explanation for the controversy will clarify it.
A big part of the swirl around natural is its lack of precision, or put differently, its need of explanation or examples. I touched on this in post #96 of this thread. The need for precision and clarity is not to change the direction of the audio industry (you) or change attitudes of the past 30-40 years (@ddk), but rather to facilitate the discussion here - one that has been going on for a while now - and to learn from creating that precision. You observe your own surprise at the reaction to it.
As David suggests, the word is sufficient to some here, however, imo, left in that state the controversy shall remain. Imo, those who find it sufficient should welcome the opportunity to clarify it for others. Though at the end of the day I suspect natural is too generic to carry a special, distinct definition on its own.
(Fwiw, the preferences built on the HP/Holt vocabulary find that vocabulary to blame - the claim is it is misleading. Well .... we can keep saying that and bitching about it or try to make in-roads on it or at least some revisionisms.)
Another possible reason for controversy is the tendency that artificial has to be an antonym of natural. The unconscious syllogism could go something like: "If my system or my preferences are not natural (in the way those guys describe it) it must be artificial and neither my system nor my music is artificial." Or something like that.
People did not care for the term 'synthesist' because of its root in 'synthetic' despite preferring their own sound. Whatever is the opposite of natural is grounded on nothing - there is no indepedent reference point for the non-naturalist - as if a justification is needed. While people make their own choices, they generally like to think those choices have some rationale attached to them, a rational that is not theirs alone. I don't think such reactions are calculated but their unpleasantness is taken out on 'natural'.
Lastly, some dislike 'natural' because they feel that imposing a specialized definition on it is presumptuous, even dictatorial. "Who are these people that arrogate themselves upon what had been a good common word?"
All this? Idle speculation on my part.
Tim,
IMHO another reason of controversy is because "natural" and "artificial" are essentially recording attributes, not equipment or system attributes. Equipment should reproduce what is encoded in the recording, not transform it. Unless we consider the whole chain: artist - sound engineer or related - system/room - listener , we will be always arguing over our momentary personnel preferences.
Fransisco, what happens to the sound of your system when you remove your specialty footers and power cords and replace them with what came included with the gear? Does the system sound become more or less "natural" and does the "listening window" become wider or narrower? I'm not suggesting one or the other, just curious about if and how the sound changes.
I found insightful Jeff's comments about the importance of set up and how it affects the listening window. Perhaps he will go into more detail in later writings. Here is one example he gives:
"For example, some years ago I heard a solid-state system with Wilson Watt/Puppy loudspeakers - not normally known for high levels of musicality - that sounded very musical, and with a wide listening window.
Whoever set that system up to achieve such an excellent presentation of the music really knew what they were doing from a setup standpoint."
I also found this comment from a reader quite interesting:
Hi Jeff,
I've always considered the 'listening window' criterion explained here to be the holy grail to be attained in hi-fi but realized that audiophiles in general don't believe such goal to be possible indeed. Therefore I was very glad to hear that there are dedicated music lovers out there who do care about this and are willing to make it happen by concentrating on those factors that really matter, i.e., recreating music's emotional core. It is not everyday that precious ideas such as yours are explained and fostered in the audio press. Congrats for doing the homework that mainstream audio publications don't, and going to places they dare not go either.
How do you know, Francisco? Have you listened to Peter's system? I know I have.
The short of all of that is, "I had a nice stereo once that was based on SS". What does one do with that?
Ok but as stated by maybe even most on this forum, they don't specifically care about exactly what is on album, they want it to sound real-live(ish).
Similar threads
