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

[Folsom]

Peter,

I found that sometimes in my system ChingCheng (or the Belden or cj supplied hospital grade) cables and no toe-in kills most rock recordings and most modern recordings. My Harmonia Mundi digitals (even the enjoyable analog sourced LaFolia) and AliaVox looses focus and detail. My preferred french singers and Leonard Cohen also suffered with them. Modern jazz from labels such as Black Saint/Soul Note also become less listenable, the so called surprise factor of music disappears.

Since long I have reduced my room treatments to a minimum, strictly what I need to compensate for a very long room bass modes and the very thick stone front and back walls . Nothing new here - it was also the advice from David Wilson in his manuals and F. Toole in his book, I am not an adept of treated rooms, also for visual reasons.

Reading from the diversity and enthusiasm of your own comments of your 2018 adventures and emotions I got the idea that the window was wider at that period. Now most of what I see is a search for confirmation of your progress, and an endorsement of a few experienced people advice. It is my biased faraway reading, surely nothing more than that and I can be wrong.

I never saw the audiophile accessories as a fundamental part of a system. I enjoy their effect also as part of the diversity of this hobby and for the pleasure I get from their contribution to the music of my system. BTW, I am not a person who is permanently comparing the size of soundstage and the recoding technique - I look mostly for the feeling of "being there". Once I "am there" I can imagine all else is good !

Well I agree in a way. Some albums I have sound flat and sorta shitty with a “detweaked” setup. Yet some stuff sounds totally amazing. Funny enough it isn’t time period dependent entirely.

To me it seems like a lot of album producing today is geared around the gear of today. They need to make it sound flatter because they play it back on equipment that’s meh. But not albums are that way. And it isn’t genre specific.

The window might be wide but there’s no way to completely escape that production of stuff.

What would be nice is the ability to adjust the sound on your stereo easily instead of by swapping a LOT of stuff for every album.

 

[ddk]

This is a comment about Day's article, not you:

I agree that setup is very important. However this looks like a strawman argument from Mr.Day. Perhaps he was listening to a poor setup all along.

It's not like the equipment changed from non-musical to musical. Iirc you liked your system before the recent changes you applied. What changed was your preferences and goals.

I don't think it's necessarily a strawman argument Tim, we're not born with the knowledge and experience to know what's possible there's education involved. The equipment doesn't need to change and setup can be simply suboptimal but not totally bad for one to be aware of the shortcomings without more understanding of the subject. Depending on one's demands or experience at that moment in time one might even be totally satisfied with the results and never know better is possible with some changes in setup even minor. Just look at the difference a quarter gram in VTF or half a millimeter in VTA setting makes. Given time and understanding the process on can achieve total transformation in the sound of that system. Granted it may not always be positive .

david

 

[Tango]

Well I agree in a way. Some albums I have sound flat and sorta shitty with a “detweaked” setup. Yet some stuff sounds totally amazing. Funny enough it isn’t time period dependent entirely.

To me it seems like a lot of album producing today is geared around the gear of today. They need to make it sound flatter because they play it back on equipment that’s meh. But not albums are that way. And it isn’t genre specific.

The window might be wide but there’s no way to completely escape that production of stuff.

What would be nice is the ability to adjust the sound on your stereo easily instead of by swapping a LOT of stuff for every album.

"De-tweak" is the " He Who Must Not Be Named" in this forum.
You will be doom saying it.

 

[Folsom]

"De-tweak" is the " He Who Must Not Be Named" in this forum.
You will be doom saying it.

Honestly I think it’s mostly an objection to the fact that it comes from the ear, not an engineered stance. Which is hilarious given how much foo-foo “engineering” is marketed to us. Even a lot of the well engineered stuff has no reason why it should make better music.

Production of new music is done with some of the new stuff you see in even audiophile products so it makes sense it has a tendency to relate.

 

[Tango]

Peter, I agree with all this. The difference in size of soundstage between different recordings has clearly increased, and low level energy is better portrayed.

And then you realize you can let each recording do the talking instead of your system helping out consistently til the difference you hear greatly diminish. Funny when we go this direction we start talking the same way because those are characters of sound we actually hear from our system. Not even having listened in real room and our equipments are totally different.

 

[the sound of Tao]

Al, we posted at the same time. I agree with this. Although I had not thought in terms of "listening window" before reading Jeff's article and starting this thread, I do indeed enjoy more of my record collection now. This is not to imply that my changes have homogenized the sound to make more of them listenable. It is the opposite. The recordings now sound more distinct from each other, particularly in terms of recording venue spatial cues and more variance in soundstage dimensions. If anything, the audiophile accessories I had before seemed to homogenize the sound because my Transparent cables made the soundstage more similar and the power cords emphasised particular frequencies to create more "detail". This made some poor recordings hard to sit through. It is no longer the case. The acoustic treatments overdamped the listening room, so subte resolution was lost.

This is now all very clear to me and it is all covered by my the term "natural". The sound is more convincing and the recordings sound more distinct without having recording attributes "emphasized" or homogenized.

I also found much the same Peter that doing things that have since broadened the range of music that I engage in didn’t require any detuning of my system or its performance. It was more about getting a more right balance.

It’s in times of great change that we tend to learn the most. In many ways it’s more likely to be easier to identify a correlation between changes to a system and the flow on changes in appreciation of patterns in what we then listen to also.

If people’s systems are relatively static then the opportunity to look at flow on effects from these changes isn’t there. It might be interesting to see emerging patterns of where people have changed gear and how this has broadened or narrowed what recordings and music styles they find more accessible or are less or more engaged by.

The anecdotal evidence shows in listening patterns and is always something worth reviewing. I’ve also been using the primary determination of moving towards more natural sound when making changes for the last year or so and I’m listening to more and enjoying more music and have greater engagement in it than ever as well. Pinning down a quality when making a change allows for good comparison and then seeing the related outcomes in longer term listening and patterns that come from it can help understand the nature of what we most fundamentally appreciate in listening.

 

[Al M.]

Peter,

I found that sometimes in my system ChingCheng (or the Belden or cj supplied hospital grade) cables and no toe-in kills most rock recordings and most modern recordings. My Harmonia Mundi digitals (even the enjoyable analog sourced LaFolia) and AliaVox looses focus and detail. My preferred french singers and Leonard Cohen also suffered with them. Modern jazz from labels such as Black Saint/Soul Note also become less listenable, the so called surprise factor of music disappears.

Regarding no toe-in, I have had bad results as well. It will all depend on the basic setup, distance between speakers and from sidewalls, distance from front wall etc., dispersion characteristics of the speakers and room acoustics. There is no simple formula. Peter has worked on his setup allowing for full toe out for a while, and initial results were not too convincing either.

I once tried full toe out when my speakers were far apart and close to the sidewalls and the result was disastrous. All life and dynamics were gone, and tonality was dull. In my most recent setup I have been able to achieve a dynamic, airy and exquisitely detailed sound with full toe out.

Yet this also depends on the room acoustics of the season, determined by temperature and humidity. There are times where toe in by a few degrees is necessary. I am not too strict about it; for me toe out is just a means to an end, not an end in itself. As long as I can maintain an imaging without pinpoint etch that satisfies me, this is all I need.

 

[tima]

Tim,

I understand what you are writing. However, can you not say that it is likely that less than optimized set up is also the issue for most or even all of Jim Smith's clients who hire him for his RoomPlay service? He does not change anything in the system except for listening seat and speaker positioning. His clients enjoy their sound more after he leaves. They don't change their taste or their gear. I am actually not sure my preferences have changed that much. I just hadn't understood how to realize them. The goal was always to make the system remind me more of my reference: live unamplified music and to more fully enjoy my music collection.

In the process, I learned to better recognize the flaws in my system and what was causing them. I have described the sound as going from more "hifi" to more "natural", but I now am uncertain if that really means that my preferences changed. I did indeed like what I had for years, but now it is different and better my goal really never changed.

I guess I have to think more about this. Your observation about the importance of set up and referring to it as a strawman in Mr. Day's comments is quite interesting to me. I have simply learned to appreciate more the vital important role of set up in a successful audio system. It is integral to the impact of the experience as Jim Smith demonstrates. David Karmeli taught me about set up also, but he also addresses the gear and accessories and their effect on the overall sound.

First, I did not refer to the importance of set-up as a strawman. The strawman comment was about the form of his argument. If his claim that 'solid-state amplification and a particular Wilson speaker did not lend themselves to musicality' was not a strawman, then at best that claim was a very weak premise, it's weakness exposed by his subsequent claim that he heard the same combination sound musical and the cause was a change in set-up. Mine is a comment, not about his conclusion (its truth value), but about how he got there (its validity.)

I assume people hire Jim Smith to adjust their speakers and perhaps their room within the confines of their equipment and room. That's what he does. And from what I hear he's good at it in terms of client satisfaction. I read several posts from you to that effect and I was happy that you found good results. My understanding also is the speaker adjustment by JS is not where your speakers are now.

In terms of preference or goal changing versus fuller enjoyment of your music collection, I am only going by my sense of your posts. And yes, thinking back, I don't recall you saying that your preference for live acoustic music changed. Your point about that is a good one and I probably wrote in haste without the same reflection you applied. The post to which you replied was about what Mr.Day said. I used you as an example. I did write: "This is a comment about Day's article, not you."

So, I don't question your saying your preferences/goals have not changed - that's not my perogative. It does seem that your approach? orientation? tactics? to achieving them did change. Your emphasis on what is important in achieving your preferences, or where your satisfaction is in terms of achieving your preferences, does seem to have changed. There's nothing wrong with that! I assume changing speaker toe-in to a straight ahead position was a relatively significant change in your room. Somewhat recently you use the term "natural" more frequently and contrast it with "hi-fi". But enough about you - you're not the topic.

In my first post in this thread (#13) I said what I liked about the Day article and some of what I didn't like. I do not think it was all that insightful, partially because I don't really understand (and thus do not buy into) his wide window narrow window notion.

After Qvortrup, Stowkowski, his wife, his parent's console and Louis Armstrong, at the end we get, a conclusion? with stuff like this:

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.

Yes, it's a column, not a review or an editorial. He gets to write anything he wants. And we each get to think of it what we choose. If I don't care for it that is not a reflection on your posting about it or bringing it to our attention. I did/do no see in the article what you and David see. That's okay. Heck we've got 240+ replies, so it must be worth talking about. There's our reward.

 

[tima]

I don't think it's necessarily a strawman argument Tim, we're not born with the knowledge and experience to know what's possible there's education involved. The equipment doesn't need to change and setup can be simply suboptimal but not totally bad for one to be aware of the shortcomings without more understanding of the subject. Depending on one's demands or experience at that moment in time one might even be totally satisfied with the results and never know better is possible with some changes in setup even minor. Just look at the difference a quarter gram in VTF or half a millimeter in VTA setting makes. Given time and understanding the process on can achieve total transformation in the sound of that system. Granted it may not always be positive .

david

Thanks. I have no disagreement about the value of set-up or the potential of its application to teach us and help us learn. I appreciate the fact that we assemble all these components into our systems and then have the opportunity (though not the the guarantee) to get from them what we want. And for someone with more experience and knowledge to further that still on our behalf. My reference to a strawman was about the way Day was making his case not about the case itself, though I'm not sure I understand what that was. cf. my reply to @PeterA in #248.

 

[bonzo75]

Am i the only one that occasionally gives the speakers a hug, or the amps a appreciative pad after a good performance ? I have a picture with one of Miami’s biggest club owners lovingly embracing my Martin Logan Statement speakers after he was blown away by their performance. It was at a after hours party in the final stages of a long night drinking, but the love was real Some month later i let a Playboy photographer use my apartment for a shoot, and he did some shots with the girl and the speakers, those speakers where sexy. Regretfully the session never made it into the magazine, and as my wife was doing the videography i was never given a copy of the pictures

Wait till you hear what Marc does to his Zus. Playboy editor did not allow that in either, too much

 

[tima]

Lol, just goin the fancy words M and makin it pertier (and more complex ) than it probably is.

Should I be embarassed for thinking like I write? In person I talk too slow and have a slight southern drawl. Drives the yan-quis nuts. (Said in a Magua voice. LOTM)

 

[tima]

@bonzo75 - You're quick! I like that.

 

[bonzo75]

@bonzo75 - You're quick! I like that.

Only while posting. Not like tang and Lagonda who are quick in the wrong scenario

 

[morricab]

Maybe getting greater latitude on recordings that work in a system doesn’t always involve negative sound compromises or detuning but rather just getting things more balanced and more right can do it as well.

No, but this is the hard part...getting the system to sound at least acceptable with less than perfect recordings without compromising the glory of the best recordings and creating a "sameness" that might be more pleasant in the short run but in the long run leads to boredom. The problem with the forensic system is a bit more obvious, I think.

 

[morricab]

See for example this interesting quote from Arthur S. Pfeffer in the march june 1981 issue of TheAbsoluteSound about his own biases. I appreciated a lot his reviews - and it was great to know in detail reviewers biases before reading.View attachment 69548

THis is the kind of thinking that I used to read Absolute Sound for! IMO, he has thought carefully about this and has the right approach. It is why I go regularly to hear unamplified music in real spaces...and of course it becomes interesting the contrast with recordings...very few recordings will sound like one hears live in real space due to manipulations by engineers.

One thing I have found though that helps to bridge the gap is go to hear small ensembles or large concerts and sit as close as is reasonably possible. As most recordings are recorded much closer than one hears live typically, you get a better sense of what a recording projects when you sit very close to a live event. One will find that auditory localization, for example, improves dramatically much in the way it is artificially done in a lot of recordings. Tonality is often a bit brighter as well (ok horns at the back of the orchestra still sound like they are at the back and thus less sharp than a trumpet up close...like I hear when my daughter is practicing) compared to mid-hall and again a lot more like a lot of recordings.

I have one recording in particular where I know the exact parameters of the production. It is a recording of Prokofiev's Romeo and Juliet and it was made with a single stereo ribbon microphone standing about 6 meters from the stage. There is no compression applied and only a tiny bit of EQ (forget the exact amount now but it was really small). It was given to me by the engineer who produced it.

It has probably the most natural perspective, relative to a live performance sitting about the same distance from the stage, of any recording I have. The dynamic range is also enormous (over 50dB I think). I know that this recording is close to the perspective of real because I was fortuneate enough to hear this same piece of music performed at Tonhalle in Zurich sitting in row 10, which was probably 5-6 meters from the stage, and was struck by how similar the tonality, soundstage and imaging were compared to the recording (listened to before and after the concert). Dynamics were greater live but this of course will also depend on the system for the playback. A larger system than mine might get this aspect more correct (but could be worse at other aspects relative to live) but of course the recording is probably not capturing the true dynamic of a full orchestra live. IMO, this engineer was able to capture the feeling of being in a live concert better than any other recording I have but it is an extremely demanding recording on the system and I have found that most simply fall apart due to the dynamic range and maintaining the correct "visual" perspective at all sound levels (once the system starts to compress the sound the whole soundstage can fall apart making a congealed mess).

 

[tima]

I’ve also been using the primary determination of moving towards more natural sound when making changes for the last year or so and I’m listening to more and enjoying more music and have greater engagement in it than ever as well.

I reflect. There is a heightened awareness of 'natural' in its somewhat narrow definition/concept. It's been an active topic for us for some while now. And, imo, a productive one.

Across this time we've squabbled discussed what it means and does not mean. This is one of the great values that we through WBF bring to ourselves and to 'the community.' That and our motivation to go at it suggests there is some there there as we continue to flesh it out. While I have difficulties with a singular word containing so much, as I look back I think we owe a big tip of the audiophile hat to David (@ddk) for natural. He doesn't own it and he hasn't been pushy or theological but he has been persitent and consistent in making us think. Even if you don't agree, this, imo, is a topic of huge import and potential dividend for those who find its value.

 

[Al M.]

THis is the kind of thinking that I used to read Absolute Sound for! IMO, he has thought carefully about this and has the right approach. It is why I go regularly to hear unamplified music in real spaces...and of course it becomes interesting the contrast with recordings...very few recordings will sound like one hears live in real space due to manipulations by engineers.

One thing I have found though that helps to bridge the gap is go to hear small ensembles or large concerts and sit as close as is reasonably possible. As most recordings are recorded much closer than one hears live typically, you get a better sense of what a recording projects when you sit very close to a live event. One will find that auditory localization, for example, improves dramatically much in the way it is artificially done in a lot of recordings. Tonality is often a bit brighter as well (ok horns at the back of the orchestra still sound like they are at the back and thus less sharp than a trumpet up close...like I hear when my daughter is practicing) compared to mid-hall and again a lot more like a lot of recordings.

I have one recording in particular where I know the exact parameters of the production. It is a recording of Prokofiev's Romeo and Juliet and it was made with a single stereo ribbon microphone standing about 6 meters from the stage. There is no compression applied and only a tiny bit of EQ (forget the exact amount now but it was really small). It was given to me by the engineer who produced it.

It has probably the most natural perspective, relative to a live performance sitting about the same distance from the stage, of any recording I have. The dynamic range is also enormous (over 50dB I think). I know that this recording is close to the perspective of real because I was fortuneate enough to hear this same piece of music performed at Tonhalle in Zurich sitting in row 10, which was probably 5-6 meters from the stage, and was struck by how similar the tonality, soundstage and imaging were compared to the recording (listened to before and after the concert). Dynamics were greater live but this of course will also depend on the system for the playback. A larger system than mine might get this aspect more correct (but could be worse at other aspects relative to live) but of course the recording is probably not capturing the true dynamic of a full orchestra live. IMO, this engineer was able to capture the feeling of being in a live concert better than any other recording I have but it is an extremely demanding recording on the system and I have found that most simply fall apart due to the dynamic range and maintaining the correct "visual" perspective at all sound levels (once the system starts to compress the sound the whole soundstage can fall apart making a congealed mess).

Nice post. I agree with a lot of it; I also usually try to sit close live.

One thing about auditory localization: yes, it is much better than further back, because reflected sound has not yet overtaken direct sound. But while you can localize performers, the image is still rather large and diffuse, not small and with sharp outlines as in pinpoint imaging.

I would add that transients are often more incisive close up live, and flow is less 'liquid'. This should also be reproduced as such in a home system, if the recording was made up close.

 

[morricab]

Nice post. I agree with a lot of it; I also usually try to sit close live.

One thing about auditory localization: yes, it is much better than further back, because reflected sound has not yet overtaken direct sound. But while you can localize performers, the image is still rather large and diffuse, not small and with sharp outlines as in pinpoint imaging.

I would add that transients are often more incisive close up live, and flow is less 'liquid'. This should also be reproduced as such in a home system, if the recording was made up close.

If you put you sit, in a home enivronment, very close like I do with my daughter playing trumpet or my ex- playing violin the image is not so large or diffuse and very incisive. Not sure what you mean by less "liquid"...do you mean smoothed out because of the loss of some high frequency energy? If you think about where microphones are likely placed and you have sat as close as that then you have some idea what to expect from a studio style recording. THere are exceptions where the engineer has added some reverb or other effects to create a sense of space and depth which is not there naturally due to the close miking.

 

[Al M.]

If you put you sit, in a home enivronment, very close like I do with my daughter playing trumpet or my ex- playing violin the image is not so large or diffuse and very incisive. Not sure what you mean by less "liquid"...do you mean smoothed out because of the loss of some high frequency energy? If you think about where microphones are likely placed and you have sat as close as that then you have some idea what to expect from a studio style recording. THere are exceptions where the engineer has added some reverb or other effects to create a sense of space and depth which is not there naturally due to the close miking.

Many times I have sat at chamber concerts just a few feet away from the perfomers, and the sound image was never small, defined or incisive; certainly with eyes closed. -- The sound was incisive, yes.

I meant that close up the sound is less liquid, so further back the greater liquidity could indeed be do to a smoothing out because of the loss of some high frequency energy. Also, a greater contribution of reflected sound further back may also contribute to make the sound less incisive and thus seem to be more 'flowing'.

 

[ddk]

THis is the kind of thinking that I used to read Absolute Sound for! IMO, he has thought carefully about this and has the right approach. It is why I go regularly to hear unamplified music in real spaces...and of course it becomes interesting the contrast with recordings...very few recordings will sound like one hears live in real space due to manipulations by engineers.

One thing I have found though that helps to bridge the gap is go to hear small ensembles or large concerts and sit as close as is reasonably possible. As most recordings are recorded much closer than one hears live typically, you get a better sense of what a recording projects when you sit very close to a live event. One will find that auditory localization, for example, improves dramatically much in the way it is artificially done in a lot of recordings. Tonality is often a bit brighter as well (ok horns at the back of the orchestra still sound like they are at the back and thus less sharp than a trumpet up close...like I hear when my daughter is practicing) compared to mid-hall and again a lot more like a lot of recordings.

I have one recording in particular where I know the exact parameters of the production. It is a recording of Prokofiev's Romeo and Juliet and it was made with a single stereo ribbon microphone standing about 6 meters from the stage. There is no compression applied and only a tiny bit of EQ (forget the exact amount now but it was really small). It was given to me by the engineer who produced it.

It has probably the most natural perspective, relative to a live performance sitting about the same distance from the stage, of any recording I have. The dynamic range is also enormous (over 50dB I think). I know that this recording is close to the perspective of real because I was fortuneate enough to hear this same piece of music performed at Tonhalle in Zurich sitting in row 10, which was probably 5-6 meters from the stage, and was struck by how similar the tonality, soundstage and imaging were compared to the recording (listened to before and after the concert). Dynamics were greater live but this of course will also depend on the system for the playback. A larger system than mine might get this aspect more correct (but could be worse at other aspects relative to live) but of course the recording is probably not capturing the true dynamic of a full orchestra live. IMO, this engineer was able to capture the feeling of being in a live concert better than any other recording I have but it is an extremely demanding recording on the system and I have found that most simply fall apart due to the dynamic range and maintaining the correct "visual" perspective at all sound levels (once the system starts to compress the sound the whole soundstage can fall apart making a congealed mess).

Highlighting a soloist in some recordings might not be exactly how it is in every concert but if the system has a natural presentation and the overall pressing is decent it doesn't raise any red flags for me and I can still connect on an emotional level suspending reality. If this is an issue for some then there are many mono recordings that do not highlight the musician.

david