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

[Folsom]

I found MBLs stunningly realistic and dynamic for the first few hours I listened to them. I found them amazing sonically in many ways.

I still find them amazing sonically in many ways, but, after the initial euphoria wore off, I began to find them bright and slightly metallic sounding. Because of this they are not my cup of long-term tea.

For lucky people who don't hear them this way, MBLs are many audiophiles' top choice in loudspeakers.

Really? The weird breathy sound isn't a bigger factor than what might even just be paranoia about the drivers material? Maybe they do sound metallic, I'm not sure, as there's no way for me to get past the breathiness.

 

[tima]

IMHO gear comparisons are an extremely unreliable, biased and unfair way of influencing the consumers.

Straightforward expository comparisons (I heard this from X and that from Y) are helpful and generally demanded - though not always fulfilled. Just look at the number of threads here asking for comparison.

 

[LL21]

Are you sure it is not just a set of improved headphone cables?

Hi Micro...no set of headphone cables is going to make my open-backed Sennheiser HD650s silent when sitting across from my wife at our partners desk while she studies for exams. If the Sony's are silent (and ideally a good deal better than the HD650s), then for £348, that is a great solution and a fun one for the audiophile in me.

 

[morricab]

You guys are just missing the softening of the treble that you are conditioned to from the tube amps that normally drive your speakers

If I heard that mettalic sound in up close live music (like a trumpet or violin at less than 6 feet) I would agree with you...as I do not hear that live...I do not agree with you...

 

[morricab]

I do not feel so, but the comment can be interesting. What is your definition of serious listener?

A serious listener is someone who is not looking for a "set it and forget it" system. Someone who is not overly biased by the visual aesthetics (and WAF) and cares about the quality of the sound beyond "That sounds nice". Someone who also appreciates the differences in recordings and cares to hear the difference.

I have done a fair amount of comparison with Devialet and on a primary level it sounds pleasant, has good apparent resolution and seems to get the notes in the right place at the right time. They are like a wine which has a nice nose and some body but no complexity and a short dry finish. The kind of wine a non-expert would like (easy to drink and no unpleasant aftertaste) but to one who has developed a sophisticated palette would find basic and boring.

Listen longer and deeper and you realize that decays are foreshortened, images a bit flat and some harmonic complexity lost (dryness). It might require comparison for those not that well versed in hearing those kinds of changes. Once compared with something that does these things well (a good SET, for example) it becomes clear what is omitted.

 

[Robh3606]

Hello Morricab

I agree with your definition of a serious listener except for a Set and Forget system.

What do you mean by that??

If you are constantly changing your set up to accomdate specific recordings as an example I see that as the tail wagging the dog and will lead to much confusion and anxiety

Once my system is setup unless I am changing something it stays as is regardless of the recording fidelity

Rob

 

[stehno]

Let's call it the bandwagon effect, since your feelings have been hurt. But it doesn't change the underlying fundamentals.

No matter what your walk of life, choose to ignore reality at your own risk. It will certainly assert itself.

But one clear reality in this hobby is that people say they want good information and say they think for themselves. But just as we find people on the right tuning into Fox News or people on the left tuning into MSNBC, people seek information that will support rather than undermine their existing beliefs.

Same for the wilson fanboys. There is very little intellectual curiosity or integrity in this hobby.

A man after my own heart, Caesar. And i especially appreciate your tone though the herd may find it offensive.

You are right on the money when you say the herd seeks only to further educate themselves with information that supports their already pre-defined narratives which originate from the herd. I like to think of it as the herd playing in a tiny sandbox. The herd cannot think outside that tiny sandbox and they despise those that do - unless of course it comes from within the herd. This is any herd's natural mentality and behavior regardless of industry.

As a result, the industry is overloaded with aimless wandering and folklore (chasing windmills) and as such performance improvements over the decades are limited to trickles rather than waterfalls. Simply because the herd cannot comprehend anything informative unless it comes from within the herd. Which rarely has anything significant to offer.

But then again, herds tend to wander aimlessly without real leadership. In this regard, I suspect the primary and ultimate force of leadership for other performance-oriented industries is derived from measured performance (and safety to minimize injury). Regrettably, high-end audio has no such performance measuring instrument other than our ears. Even more regrettably, far too many in this industry lack even basic listening skills.

For example. Take Formula 1 or Top Fuel drag racing. In either sport, participants' drive and determination is nothing short of balls-to-the-walls, pedal-to-the-metal efforts and in every case performance is ultimately determined by measured elapsed times, quickness, and top speeds. As a result, there are clear and few winners and many losers.

In sharp contrast, we find no such drive and determination in high-end audio (except for advertisements which are pedal-to-the-metal) and for the most part its particpants wander aimlessly (think all over the map with strategies, products, executions, and results) and many of our measuring instruments are severely compromised. In fact, I could go so far as to say that cost and aesthetics are the chosen targets / leaders for many while others will opt for potentially nonsensical measuring specs remain their primary targets / leaders. Nevertheless, these things have become the industry's targets / leaders and have taken the place of real leadership (performance).

With very very few exceptions, high-end audio does not and cannot use real performance as the ultimate measuring stick for the simple reason far too many of us have neglected our listening skills and even then many times we're listening for the wrong things. So the herd is left to wander following others in the herd and taking the word of others - also in the herd. As such, for many, editors-in-cheif and a few magazines are their best leaders. One of the problems there is that a couple of those editors-in-chief and mags sold us out decades ago yet to this day, the herd still doesn't realize it. In fact, if it were left up to a couple of these editors-in-chief, we'd all be listening to inferior MQA formatted recordings right now. Then again, it may not matter what they listen to because the herd has been told it's superior. Therefore, it must be.

Nevertheless, truth itself is a force of nature and in time it will become our final arbiter. Hopefully.

 

[PeterA]

There is very little intellectual curiosity or integrity in this hobby.

Caesar, how would you describe the process of investigation I have gone through the last year with my experiments with room treatments, isolation products, speaker positioning, the mass loading of my equipment rack, and the various comparisons of power cords and signal cables? The result was a complete rethinking of my entire room/system set up. Does none of that count as intellectual curiosity? Was my reporting on my experiments not done with a modicum of integrity? My whole approach to set up and what I listen for and how I describe it is changing. And I do not think I am alone in what I am doing.

Simply looking at the different systems belonging to my friends and even more so to those on this forum, I do not see the herd to which you keep referring. Sure there are some brands which have strong followings, but I simply do not see this mass herd behavior you keep discussing. I even let my Stereophile and TAS subscriptions lapse.

 

[cjfrbw]

Only thing worse than herd behavior is un-heard behaviour.

 

[Lagonda]

Only thing worse than herd behavior is un-heard behaviour.

But when it becomes un-heard enough , they become un-hearded

 

[microstrip]

Straightforward expository comparisons (I heard this from X and that from Y) are helpful and generally demanded - though not always fulfilled. Just look at the number of threads here asking for comparison.

I have still to find a comparative (X/Y) section of a review that is really helpful and not misleading. Unfortunately usually the system is optimized for just one of them , and aspects such as gain or effciency are not taken in account in the comparisons, that are not carried in controlled conditions. IMHO it is completely different giving an informal opinion on the sound of the XLF's compared to the Soundlab's on a forum or carrying reviews in magazines.

Unfortunately a comparison needs a lot of work - listening to many types of recordings using different techniques, and long explanations that are not compatible with the short reviews.

 

[bonzo75]

I have still to find a comparative (X/Y) section of a review that is really helpful and not misleading. Unfortunately usually the system is optimized for just one of them , and aspects such as gain or effciency are not taken in account in the comparisons, that are not carried in controlled conditions. IMHO it is completely different giving an informal opinion on the sound of the XLF's compared to the Soundlab's on a forum or carrying reviews in magazines.

Unfortunately a comparison needs a lot of work - listening to many types of recordings using different techniques, and long explanations that are not compatible with the short reviews.

Most of the compares are done in different systems either by the same people or different people with different set ups and different recordings. So you are consciously misrepresenting.

 

[microstrip]

A serious listener is someone who is not looking for a "set it and forget it" system. Someone who is not overly biased by the visual aesthetics (and WAF) and cares about the quality of the sound beyond "That sounds nice".

OK, 99.99% of our members.

Someone who also appreciates the differences in recordings and cares to hear the difference.

.01% of the audiophiles. Perhaps even less. Most people do not care for the technicalities of the recording process, just for the results.

I have done a fair amount of comparison with Devialet and on a primary level it sounds pleasant, has good apparent resolution and seems to get the notes in the right place at the right time. They are like a wine which has a nice nose and some body but no complexity and a short dry finish. The kind of wine a non-expert would like (easy to drink and no unpleasant aftertaste) but to one who has developed a sophisticated palette would find basic and boring.

Listen longer and deeper and you realize that decays are foreshortened, images a bit flat and some harmonic complexity lost (dryness). It might require comparison for those not that well versed in hearing those kinds of changes. Once compared with something that does these things well (a good SET, for example) it becomes clear what is omitted.

The Devialet is not my current preference, but if the "decays are foreshortened, images a bit flat and some harmonic complexity lost (dryness)" it means the source was not adequate or simply a poor set up. I said the same of the first units, the last version improved significantly in these aspects. It does not sound like a SET, but it is not a problem for most of us that do not consider that SET sound is our preference. One of the most revealing experiences I carried was connecting the Metronome Calypso transport to a Devialet - it was cheating, as a few friends said. Immediate fantastic improvement in decays and harmonics.

 

[microstrip]

Most of the compares are done in different systems either by the same people or different people with different set ups and different recordings. So you are consciously misrepresenting.

You should read the post sequence in the thread before posting, My post and Tim question addressed formal reviews of equipment. It was a followup to a Caesar comment.

 

[the sound of Tao]

So what can you do Join up my fellow dumb brothers... we are the great unheard (and yes I know you have herd dat before) for are we not sheep?? ... apparently

 

[stehno]

View attachment 70045
So what can you do Join up my fellow dumb brothers... we are the great unheard (and yes I know you have herd dat before) for are we not sheep?? ... apparently

Might this be an excellent example of the phrase "out of the mouth of babes" or are you trying to stir up the herd to join you in mocking another?

 

[the sound of Tao]

Only thing worse than herd behavior is un-heard behaviour.

Lol, yes and of course the pointless name calling of the few upon the many... and it seems nobody cares if our feelings are just being herd, uhmmm I mean hurt

So how can we establish our worth... we could be like many such as yourself and share what we have, contribute to do better and develop greater understanding OR we can just pointlessly sling off at many others like a few do and undermine the rest and pretend that therefore we know better and that we are up at the top. So simply topple all the others so that you can establish you are above the many. To me that’s just unhelpful bottom feeding behaviour. All the fallacies being used here to diminish the many, the disingenuous name calling is not a sign that the greater is coming for these few but that the tide of their kindness is just going out.

The majority here are people with great intellectual curiosity, who work with abstract ideas and have strong intentions on developing continuous improvement. Most are very invested in this (both in time and resources) and most are questioning and constantly seeking ways forward. Most here seem to then develop their own ways that best suit their particular needs. There is much diversity here which makes it a fertile place to explore the approaches of others. A handful of people just taking cheap potshots at the many is unlikely to mean anything much going forwards to any of us at all.

 

[stehno]

...

The majority here are people with great intellectual curiosity, who work with abstract ideas and have strong intentions on developing continuous improvement. Most are very invested in this (both in time and resources) and most are questioning and constantly seeking ways forward. Most here seem to then develop their own ways that best suit their particular needs. There is much diversity here which makes it a fertile place to explore the approaches of others. A handful of people just taking cheap potshots at the many is unlikely to mean anything much going forwards to any of us at all.

I'm curious if you include yourself in this so-called majority. If so, do you have any examples or evidence demonstrating a great intellectual curiosity who work with abstract ideas and have strong intentions on developing continuous improvements that you'd be willing to openly share?

 

[thedudeabides]

A serious listener is someone who is not looking for a "set it and forget it" system.

I did that for decades and figured out (at my age and hearing acuity) that the music is more important than the equipment. I'm two years plus on my "set it and forget it" system in my retirement home but it took me some six to eight months to get it to where it is.

With all due respect and I've said this before, some folks are obsessive / compulsive about their gear. As a result, they can become neurotic and negate the very reason that they began this hobby (to enjoy listening to music) in the first place. I hope they like it. I'm done chasing the rabbit. And I do consider myself (given the amount of time I spend listening to my system) a "serious listener" despite your feelings to the contrary.

Your generalization in the above quote, like most of its ilk, is silly and too simplistic.

 

[morricab]

I did that for decades and figured out (at my age and hearing acuity) that the music is more important than the equipment. I'm two years plus on my "set it and forget it" system in my retirement home but it took me some six to eight months to get it to where it is.

With all due respect and I've said this before, some folks are obsessive / compulsive about their gear. As a result, they can become neurotic and negate the very reason that they began this hobby (to enjoy listening to music) in the first place. I hope they like it. I'm done chasing the rabbit. And I do consider myself (given the amount of time I spend listening to my system) a "serious listener" despite your feelings to the contrary.

Your generalization in the above quote, like most of its ilk, is silly and too simplistic.

You contradict yourself. Your “set it and forget it” system took you an additional 6-8 months to “get it where it is” . Not sure if that involved gear changes, room treatments, power treatments, position changes or “tweaks” but that is quite a substantial amount of time to invest ...not set and forget I would say. I have no feelings regarding whether or not you are a serious listener. Since you clearly don’t understand what I mean by “set and forget” (hint: it doesn’t mean a system that is optimized to the listener and no longer evolving), your feelings sound more like a projection of something internal to you.

You say “with all due respect” but so far you haven’t afforded me any because rather than asking a simple question about what I meant by the term (and through your own statements show you clearly don’t know what I mean) you will attack my supposed “generalizations “ When you don’t even understand it.