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

[the sound of Tao]

Don’t forget the Harbeth‘s for the bathroom system and Your Maggie for the bedroom Mr. Minimalist !

That bathroom system would be very flash Milan. However I’m thinnin I’ll be needin to be sellin somethin or two to be fundin it all.

I’m planning to have something fun and creative to do in the form of a diy build in my later years. Radian 951 berylliums and RK1505 multicells plus folded ob subs are the start of that plan.

 

[PeterA]

Sure.

But there is a here and now. That language has some fixity can be an advantage when everything is in a state of change. In the carnival world of audiophilery we find sound can be really difficult to describe. Sure some say keep it simple, just listen, no talk, no need for fancy words. Then someone asks "What's Best", or "what do you like about the Altc 817?" or "what's this natural sound people are talking about? - I thought all sound was natural." Having words in common can really help when shared understanding is a goal. Some suggest we've been spoonfed an audiophile vocabulary that leads us in the wrong direction. Sorting that out might be painful and confusing, but perhaps worth a try.

Tim, I agree that we should use terms that are understood and whose meanings have some consensus. A few people have now quoted directly Mr. Day’ definition of his term “Listening Window” and how he uses it. He is introducing the term to the discussion. You do not seem to accept this for some reason. Would you prefer to offer a different definition to his term? Or is it something else that does not appeal to you about the article?

It is becoming increasingly unclear to me what exactly it is you are objecting to? The article is the here and now at least as far as this thread is concerned. We are here on this thread to discuss the article. I started this thread to discuss a number of ideas raised by Mr. Day in this article. But for some reason we seem to be stuck on definitions of the listening window and circular arguments and disagreements. David even agreed to move on after you asked him to.

MikeL joined in the middle of the thread and shared his views. I find his comments about the room/speaker/amplifier versus the source components to be quite interesting. There is an implied balance to his weighting of the influence of these system parts. He and also Ron seem to understand what Mr. Day means by the listening window as they respond to his ideas.

What is it that you do not understand about the way Mr. Day is using the term?

 

[caesar]

Hi Peter,

I hope you are doing great. Just read the first post in this thread, the linked article, and the last post.

Having read the last post, I thnk there is a log of audiophile masturbation in this thread - using sandpaper.. sorry, I got a migraine today , so I will be using less flowery language than usual and get straight to the point ....

As I really enjoy the Grateful Dead, Phish, Henrdix, badly recorded live blues, old Jascha Heifetz, etc., and a lot of other music that's recorded like SH!T, having a wide listening window is one of my goals. this has been the goal of my audiophile journey. not to listen to some obscure shIt that was recorded well. the stuff that's recorded well will sound "good" on the crappiest system in the crappiest room . Watching that snooty, arrogant mother fuyer, "haughty" peter mgrath give wilson demos at shows with his "perfect", unobtainable recordings makes me want to throw up ...



- unless guys sit down and listen together, disect the experiences, and understand what they are talking about, many posts here are all a bunch of garbage

- after sharing a number of experiences, people can start to develop a shared vocabulary. I can't get myself to read the stuff in between the first and last post, although I know there are some huge nuggets of gold and jewels among the garbage from some excellent and experienced people in between the garbage

- understand your preference

- if you enjoy box speakers that measure well, and are featured as expensive luxury items in stereophile and TAS, and are audiophile approved, they will sound good only with the best recordings but will sound like crap with what the guy is talking about. You are so Fukked!

I think you have a thread called sublime sound about your vinyl - magico system. If you streamed, your thread wouldn't be called that. A friend who is older, sicker, and just wants to enjoy more music got into streaming. He replaced his magicos (and his ipad screen) as his finger was hurting from tapping the Next button

- Find someone who is experienced with this type of thing that you can trust to shorten your learning curve. Pray for lady luck on this one! These individuals are extremely rare these days.... Sam Tellig types are long gone....

- control what you can: your room (to a certain extent with treatments) for so it doesn't interfere with the music , tone , and dynamics. That means get a high efficiency system / highly dynamic system that Jumps. User tube gear with Rich tone. But again, if your preference is for boxes, change your preference or be damned to listening to bad music . Don't use expensive cables like Nordost or Kielbasa Sosna or Cardas that fukk up the proper tonal balance or kill dynamics and make the system more cloudy

- be prepared to have several systems, and vary those systems with different amps (300B, 845, etc.) and DACs

Sorry for being so straight forward. I do sincerely wish you all the best on your audio journey

 

[microstrip]

But surely micro people will adopt or adapt ideas and language as they will. There is no one language nor perfect translation. There is also no copyright in word usage in the abstract. Just because three or four people used some words like this doesn’t mean they own them nor the idea they see generated off them... nor will the fact that a handful of people deciding that they do or don’t agree with meaning make any difference either.
Language and culture are both alive and relevant to those that use it successfully with others but it’s simply not necessary nor perhaps desirable that everyone agrees. It would be illogical to expect language to remain static or fixed when everything is in a state of change.

There has been way more clarification now and if some people feel comfortable using the term all good and if some don’t equally all good. If it causes confusion for any not sure that really is an issue. We can’t own life nor can we limit how people then perceive it or the way they define their experiences and understandings.

There is no universal rule in this... we are a handful of people making this incredibly small niche stuff up as we go on a planet approaching 8 billion... all of whom who will exist here for less than a breath in time compared to the 200,000 years in time in the development of our Hominin species... or the 3 billion years it took earlier for single cell life to get to multi-cell life on this planet to allow all this stuff to happen in the first place. The people who used these words before are probably gone already. What you and I or any here decide is right in this means truly nothing at all really. These rules just simply aren’t.

We have different opinions. IMHO the important aspects are not the nice semantics, but the concepts and what is behind them. A confusing and ambiguous non standard nomenclature only means we will spend our time in posts trying to clarify the meaning of obscure terms and never debate the interesting why's and how's.

The word windows in sound reproduction has subjectively been associated with transmission and transparency. Only objectively it has been associated with boundaries, such as listening areas or levels, such as a window comparator.

You consider that there has been some clarification - yes, you are correct IMHO no one has presented a valid argument defending the "listening window" term, except Jeff Day's freedom of speech.

BTW, your words on language evolution are nice and I agree with most them. I recently used similar ones when addressing the issue if we should accept some new words concerning the new information techniques that come from english words universally used, just slightly modified to adapt to our language. They now seem to sound horrible, but in a few years they will be standard language.

 

[PeterA]

Hi Peter,

I hope you are doing great...

Sorry for being so straight forward. I do sincerely wish you all the best on your audio journey

Welcome back Caesar. You are the straightest arrow in the quiver. It is your nature. I wish you and your the same.

EDIT:

Just read the first post in this thread, the linked article, and the last post.

.... many posts here are all a bunch of garbage

Caesar, with respect, perhaps you are not being so straight with us. How can you claim to have read only the first and last posts and then comment on the content and quality of the many posts in between the two?

 

[Al M.]

We have different opinions. IMHO the important aspects are not the nice semantics, but the concepts and what is behind them. A confusing and ambiguous non standard nomenclature only means we will spend our time in posts trying to clarify the meaning of obscure terms and never debate the interesting why's and how's.

Except that the standard nomenclature does not deliver any better results in communication. As we have recently seen, people cannot even agree on what pin-point imaging means. And things like bass quality, clarity, resolution, dynamics, etc., not to speak of "grain" and "glare", mean different things to different people as well. So what's the point of "standard" audiophile language when it does not even set a perceived standard of communication?

On the other hand, it seems that many here intuitively understand very well the meaning of some of the "confusing and ambiguous non standard nomenclature".

 

[Lagonda]

That bathroom system would be very flash Milan. However I’m thinnin I’ll be needin to be sellin somethin or two to be fundin it all.

I’m planning to have something fun and creative to do in the form of a diy build in my later years. Radian 951 berylliums and RK1505 multicells plus folded ob subs are the start of that plan.

A folded dual purpose horn sub, with high water pressure plumbing for purpose number 2 in the bathroom maybe ?

 

[caesar]

Welcome back Caesar. You are the straightest arrow in the quiver. It is your nature. I wish you and your the same.

EDIT:



Caesar, with respect, perhaps you are not being so straight with us. How can you claim to have read only the first and last posts and then comment on the content and quality of the many posts in between the two?

If by post 300 something guys are still arguing about definitions, one can deduce what’s in between. As Socrates advised, “the beginning wisdom is the definition of terms.” ...

It’s the typical platonic audiophile garbage due to a lack of a fundamental understanding that high end audio is a subjectII’ve experience ... and needs to be looked at from an Aristotelian perspective that is based on reality instead of platonic imagination of reality.

again sorry for being extra to the point today due to my nasty migraine

 

[DaveC]

Tim, I agree that we should use terms that are understood and whose meanings have some consensus. A few people have now quoted directly Mr. Day’ definition of his term “Listening Window” and how he uses it. He is introducing the term to the discussion. You do not seem to accept this for some reason. Would you prefer to offer a different definition to his term? Or is it something else that does not appeal to you about the article?

It is becoming increasingly unclear to me what exactly it is you are objecting to? The article is the here and now at least as far as this thread is concerned. We are here on this thread to discuss the article. I started this thread to discuss a number of ideas raised by Mr. Day in this article. But for some reason we seem to be stuck on definitions of the listening window and circular arguments and disagreements. David even agreed to move on after you asked him to.

MikeL joined in the middle of the thread and shared his views. I find his comments about the room/speaker/amplifier versus the source components to be quite interesting. There is an implied balance to his weighting of the influence of these system parts. He and also Ron seem to understand what Mr. Day means by the listening window as they respond to his ideas.

What is it that you do not understand about the way Mr. Day is using the term?

It seems to me Mr. Day is simply re-hashing an old subject in new terms. Who can blame him, there's only so much to write about and massive pressure to continue to come up with new content on a subject where there isn't all that much new going on, unless you're really into talking about new DAC and amplifier chips and their implementations. We don't even have audio shows to help with content anymore.

As far as terms, while it's true that language evolves, that is different from using it willy-nilly however you see fit at the time, the goal of language is to communicate a concept, and while writing can be a form of art, I'd argue that it's not as effective once it stops serving it's primary purpose, and those who choose to use it that way are more self-gratifying than anything else.

 

[PeterA]

It seems to me Mr. Day is simply re-hashing an old subject in new terms. Who can blame him, there's only so much to write about and massive pressure to continue to come up with new content on a subject where there isn't all that much new going on, unless you're really into talking about new DAC and amplifier chips and their implementations. We don't even have audio shows to help with content anymore.

As far as terms, while it's true that language evolves, that is different from using it willy-nilly however you see fit at the time, the goal of language is to communicate a concept, and while writing can be a form of art, I'd argue that it's not as effective once it stops serving it's primary purpose, and those who choose to use it that way are more self-gratifying than anything else.

Instead of simply rehashing an old subject, perhaps Mr. Day is simply rediscovering what was once known in the past and going back to a time when we reveled in the enjoyment of music rather than dissecting our hi-fi systems. I see this article as an admission of his rediscovery and change of direction, though I have not read much of his ratings.

 

[DaveC]

...Mr. Day is simply rediscovering what was once known in the past and going back to a time when we reveled in the enjoyment of music rather than dissecting our hi-fi systems.

Sounds like the beginning of a fairy tale.

...A time when everyone had the best Altec VOTT speakers and DHT amplification systems, when recordings sounded just like the live experience, and the meanings of words and language precisely communicated exactly what the person uttering the words intended.

Ahhh, those were the times...

 

[stehno]

....

There is no universal rule in this... we are a handful of people making this incredibly small niche stuff up as we go on a planet approaching 8 billion... all of whom who will exist here for less than a breath in time compared to the 200,000 years in time in the development of our Hominin species... or the 3 billion years it took earlier for single cell life to get to multi-cell life on this planet to allow all this stuff to happen in the first place. The people who used these words before are probably gone already. What you and I or any here decide is right in this means truly nothing at all really. These rules just simply aren’t.

I think you detoured when you injected your manifesto here. 3 billion years, eh? I thought the official number was 18 billion years. Oh, well. What's a few billion years amongst a bunch of relativists?

Sorry but relativism only works for the those who don't care, have no purpose, and nothing matters - least of all performance from our playback systems because there are no absolutes. Come to think of it, I suppose I can see a certain percentage of high-end audio enthusiasts embracing your same philosophy.

Relativsim is where everybody's opinion has equal weighting and value to everybody else's opinion. IOW, everybody's opinion is just as right as everybody elses and the relativist is forbidden from telling anybody their opinion is wrong because there is no wrong. Also, a relativist cannot be certain of anything. In fact, the relativist is 100% certain of that.

In contrast, since I live in the world of absolutes where there are absolute rights and wrongs, I can freely demonstrate all the day long how wrong you are in this and perhaps every other matter of significance. You, on the other hand, being a relativist, cannot respond to me in any negative way nor is it within you to tell me I'm wrong. For the simple reason that from your perspective all truth is relative. My truth is not your truth and your truth is not my truth and since according to you, there are no absolutes we're free to make up our own truths and nobody can tell us we're wrong. For example. 2 + 2 = whatever you want it to be. Relativism leads to the most outrageous thinking where nobody can hold anybody accountable for anything.

You want proof? Try your relativistic philosophy on the cop who pulls you over next time you commit a traffic violation and see what that gets ya.

Go ahead. I triple-dog-dare you to tell me I'm wrong.

p.s. This hobby may be 100% subjective but by no means does that imply it's 100% relative.

 

[PeterA]

Sounds like the beginning of a fairy tale.

...A time when everyone had the best Altec VOTT speakers and DHT amplification systems, when recordings sounded just like the live experience, and the meanings of words and language precisely communicated exactly what the person uttering the words intended.

Ahhh, those were the times...

It well might be a fairly tale Dave, but my NOS ten year old cheap Chinese hospital grade power cords sound better in my system to me than all four of the fancy expensive current power cords I tried and owned with their fancy connectors. Go figure. Rose colored glasses and all. I don't need the precise language to explain it to others. They just have to listen.

 

[Al M.]

I think you detoured when you injected your manifesto here. 3 billion years, eh? I thought the official number was 18 billion years. Oh, well. What's a few billion years amongst a bunch of relativists?

Before you complain about relativism and do some grandstanding, you should better inform yourself. Graham is right, it took 3 billion years for single cell life to develop into multicellular life. And what's up with 18 billion years? The universe is 13.7 billion years old.

 

[DaveC]

It well might be a fairly tale Dave, but my NOS ten year old cheap Chinese hospital grade power cords sound better in my system to me than all four of the fancy expensive current power cords I tried and owned with their fancy connectors. Go figure. Rose colored glasses and all. I don't need the precise language to explain it to others. They just have to listen.

I'm dumbfounded how it always seems to come back to power cables when you or ddk disagrees with anything I say.

You and ddk seem to want to perpetuate past disagreements with personal attacks and in ddk's case, blatant falsehoods and defamatory statements.

Why not just stop it? This is getting to be ridiculous and I don't think ANYONE here, including myself wants to go through this groundhog day BS anymore. Every single thread!!!... just give it a rest!

 

[jeff1225]

Sounds like the beginning of a fairy tale.

...A time when everyone had the best Altec VOTT speakers and DHT amplification systems, when recordings sounded just like the live experience, and the meanings of words and language precisely communicated exactly what the person uttering the words intended.

Ahhh, those were the times...

They were the times. Where entire families and friends spun records and enjoyed a lively system in the living room. Now lonely men sit in their dedicated rooms and attempt to pick out what row of the symphony they are sitting in.

Over the last 10 years you’ve seen a return of the use of golden age audio equipment (speakers and tables especially) in the hobby. I don’t think you’ll see that trend change anytime soon.

 

[bonzo75]

They were the times. Where entire families and friends spun records and enjoyed a lively system in the living room. Now lonely men sit in their dedicated rooms and attempt to pick out what row of the symphony they are sitting in.

Over the last 10 years you’ve seen a return of the use golden age audio equipment (speakers and tables especially) in the hobby. I don’t think you’ll see that trend change anytime soon.

It was always there. When audio asylum was more active, before it died down due to poor software, and then there were more specialized Lansing heritage forum, DIY audio, Altec user board, many on audio karma, hifi haven, in France there is a dedicated forum called Melodiya to vintage horns, and the Nordic and Scandinavian forums are pretty active on that front. The UK forums too have more respect for sensitive and efficient systems though more low budget.

It's just that on this forum the awareness of horns and SETs was low because this forum respected retail price. So now that there are some heavy spenders on modern TTs and horns people started paying more attention. Also it is difficult for some to appreciate how a direct cost without retail and marketing margin can have better quality parts and design and experience behind it than current production retail that costs much more because of margins embedded in it for retail and sustenance.

Here the good thing now is both sides can mix while on others it gets too specialized with no exposure to the other side

 

[Mike Lavigne]

It well might be a fairly tale Dave, but my NOS ten year old cheap Chinese hospital grade power cords sound better in my system to me than all four of the fancy expensive current power cords I tried and owned with their fancy connectors. Go figure. Rose colored glasses and all. I don't need the precise language to explain it to others. They just have to listen.

Peter; your experience proves exactly what?

all it is is a data point. to be inserted into everyone's views according to the weight they attach to it.

 

[morricab]

Before you complain about relativism and do some grandstanding, you should better inform yourself. Graham is right, it took 3 billion years for single cell life to develop into multicellular life. And what's up with 18 billion years? The universe is 13.7 billion years old.

As far as we know...

 

[DaveC]

They were the times. Where entire families and friends spun records and enjoyed a lively system in the living room. Now lonely men sit in their dedicated rooms and attempt to pick out what row of the symphony they are sitting in.

Over the last 10 years you’ve seen a return of the use golden age audio equipment (speakers and tables especially) in the hobby. I don’t think you’ll see that trend change anytime soon.

Yeah, I know there was a lot of that as audio was high tech then, we didn't have video or internet... but otoh the golden age of audio came about precisely because audio was more popular and companies like Western Electric, Altec, Siemens, etc. invested in it, there were a lot of audio nerds and engineers putting a ton of effort into designing audio gear. And I think there were a lot of consumers that could be considered audiophiles, just like there are today.

And today, there are far more people casually into audio than there are audiophiles obsessed with gear. This forum has nothing to do with the average audio consumer.

I also don't see that "golden age" type gear being absent at any point in time.