Hello Stehno,
You have quoted a bunch of my comments that were responding to Caesar's earlier post, but I will try to answer the questions you asked.
Hi, Peter. Yes, I may not have taken your context entirely into account.
First, I was responding to Caesar's comment and the approach he seemed to be advocating which is to get out, listen to as many available options as possible to reach an informed opinion, and then to select the components/system that satisfy him the most. This seems to be what member Bonzo is doing when he flies around to visit various systems. Bonzo seems to be narrowing his search and focusing on specific typologies and components. He indicates that this will eventually lead to him buying and setting up a system.
Appreciate the clarification. From the many in-room videos Bonzo posts from his travels I'm still not seeing how his efforts will help him realize anything of significance but thanks.
Second, "my approach" is perhaps similar or inferior to most approaches, and certainly not superior in any way. I have never suggested that it is superior. I refer to it as my approach because it has changed from the way I used to make decisions about my system. That is all. Nothing special, and this is not the thread to discuss what I am doing.
Again, thanks for the clarification. I remember several times you asking in other threads what others thought of your approach and I had no idea what you were talking about.
Third, traveling around to hear different components is no different and I am not suggesting it is. Where one goes to listen does not change this.
Got it.
Fourth, if you think Jeff Day's article is sophomoric at best, why are you reading this thread and posting comments?
Interesting question. Peter, I know you like to be frank so let's be frank. Why did you ask this question? Are you implying one ought not comment unless their opinion is like everybody else's? Or are you implying anybody with a varied opinion is straying a bit too far from the fold and therefore, that opinion should be discounted?
Why did I choose to participate in this thread? Because, frankly, it seems nobody else really gave any of this much consideration and I would hope others would at least appreciate a varied opinion. IMO, the article is a big nothing burger and it's chasing windmills as Day appears wont to do and I thought others might like to at least hear a different perspective because frankly, his article is just running laps. In fact, it's pretty much the same reasons why in late 2014 /early 2015 right after reading the first few MQA articles, their outrageous performance claims, and interviews with Bob Stuart, I immediately posted in WBF to warn others MQA was nothing but a hoax.
Near as I can tell, the only thing Day accomplished with his many words was establish a new coinage "Listening window" for an age old dilemma.
BTW, didn't you just say above that you wanted exposure to new ideas (presumably concepts, strategies, etc)? What could anybody possibly gain in posting threads if the feedback is pretty much as anticipated?
Lastly, it is fine that you see nothing new here. To me, your approach is about clamping components to provide a pathway through which vibrations can exit the components and to mass load the components. That seems like an interesting approach. You seem to shun isolation. I have recently removed all pneumatic isolation platforms from my system. However, I do not understand what any of that has to do with this thread about Jeff Day's article in which he discusses expanding his listening window.
Seem to shun isolation? If I wasn't clear before I'll try to be here. IMO, at least in high-end audio, isolation is straight from the pit of hell as this methodology induces by far the greatest sonic harm on every last playback system. But the topic is Day's article.
I hoped to avoid this but I suppose I should clarify why I think Day's article is sophomoric. Just one of numerous questionables. Early in the article Day said, "
I have a pretty good idea of what Stokowski thought equipment should be like to sound "live", given I own the last pair of the personal loudspeakers Stokowski owned before he moved back to the UK from the USA, the custom "Stokowski" Altec loudspeakers that were probably built around the time the drivers were produced, 1961 to 1964..."
Upon aquiring Stokowski's speakers, it seems clear Day has convinced himself that he has a pretty good idea of what Stokowski thinks "live" should sound like. But near as I can tell, Day did not put much thought into his statement. For example.
- Day's interpretation of what he hears will not be identical to Stokowski's and in fact, for all anybody knows there could exist a huge gulf separating their interpretations.
- Day's definition and understanding what "live" does, could, or should sound like will not be identical to Stokowski's.
- Day's room will not be identical to Stokowski's and could even be vastly different. Same goes with either's ability to locate a superior speaker placement / position within their assigned rooms. Hence, the entire bass region (what some consider the foundation for all music) of the Altec speakers might be just as different.
- Day's room furnishings, flooring systems, listening chair positioning, etc. will not be identical to Stokowsky's
- Day's playback system, as much as he tried, will not be identical to Stokowsi's.
- Day's AC power coming in from the street is not going to be identical to Stokowsi's including Romex wiring, outlets, circuits, service panels, wiring circuits on same vs opposing phases / legs. If only one or both lacked any type of superior AC filtering / conditioning, then appliances, digital products, dimmers, etc could impact the sonics differently.
- Day's choice in fine-tuning products including their designs, materials, implementations, and various other related activities will not be identical to Stokowski's.
- Day's subwoofer most likely will not be identical to Stokowski's as well as the tuning required thereof. That's assuming one or both owned a subwoofer.
- The list of potential differences could go on including things like different atmospheres, hemispheres, whatever.
IOW, besides Day's and Stokowski's different listening interpretations, they never hear just the speaker. Rather what both hear at the speaker is the culmination of everything up the chain, the speaker's coordination with the room, as well as the speaker itself. This fact alone should have caused Day to think twice before writing this paragraph but it didn't.
Most any combination of 2 differences listed above will potentially induce a significant sonic impact and perhaps even a "game changer". Add in a few sonic impacts from other differences listed above and the results are potentially nothing like the "live" sound Day boasted or Stokowski supposedly claimed.
Taking these and other potential differences into consideration, does anybody besides Day really think since Day purchased Stokowski's speakers he now has a pretty good idea of what Stokowski thought equipment should be like to sound "live"? For all anybody knows, Stokowski may have despised his Altec speakers and that's how Day ended up with them. After all, there's usually only a couple of a reasons why somebody might sell parts of their playback system. Lack of pleasure / finding something better seems to be far and away the most common reason.
Do you see where I'm getting at here? I don't know much about anything and I certainly don't know a thing about Day nor Stokowski, but we're not talking rocket science. Rather with just some basic knowledge/experience and thought, simple reasoning and logic dictate that everything about the scenario Day paints above is most likely just a bizarre fantasy he's trying to live out and boast that he and Stokowski are in unison when it comes to equipment sounding "live" and wearing it like it's some type of badge of honor. All because he purchased Stokowski's speakers.
There are numerous other controversies in Day's article but my point being that when we don't give or put much thought into something, we're likely to believe most anything and that's been proven throughout the centuries.
But this is just one example why I find Day's article to be rather sophomoric and why I posted my concerns - because it seemed obvious nobody else was going to.
