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

Elliot G.

Industry Expert
Jul 22, 2010
3,286
2,958
1,360
Fort Lauderdale, Florida
www.bendingwaveusa.com
Hi Elliot,
Thanks for sharing that story, but how does all of this jive with practical reality? You sell Borressen now, I saw. Gorgeous design! Should work really well in Miami condos for those with class and modern taste. And, of course, you also have the Bending Wave design, as well the larger Göbels. If everyone listens to "real, live, unamplifed", shouldn't one of those win, instead of being purely subjective?
Caesar, It is my reality don't care about what is practical in your mind. Carrying different products is not a problem, just look at this site and the variety of likes and dislikes. I have stated very clearly what I like and I am happy to play my system for anyone interested.
You however are extremely opinionated and love to poke the hornet's nest. It makes for good posts but not sure what else.

We have two companies and we need to have a representation of quality products that people can choose and fit into their budgets and lifestyles.
I am not a hobbyist perhaps I should remind you that I do this professionally for a living. My credentials are no secret to anyone and I don't hide behind an avatar. Mike L and Marty for example have heard my stuff, many times, and I will be happy to play it for anyone willing to make the time.
Last item NO speaker is perfect, no system is perfect therefore individuals are going to have different points of view. I could not disagree more with you most of the time but I can't question your right to choose what you think is best for you.
Happy Holidays
 

caesar

Well-Known Member
May 30, 2010
4,290
767
1,698
Caesar, It is my reality don't care about what is practical in your mind. Carrying different products is not a problem, just look at this site and the variety of likes and dislikes. I have stated very clearly what I like and I am happy to play my system for anyone interested.
You however are extremely opinionated and love to poke the hornet's nest. It makes for good posts but not sure what else.

We have two companies and we need to have a representation of quality products that people can choose and fit into their budgets and lifestyles.
I am not a hobbyist perhaps I should remind you that I do this professionally for a living. My credentials are no secret to anyone and I don't hide behind an avatar. Mike L and Marty for example have heard my stuff, many times, and I will be happy to play it for anyone willing to make the time.
Last item NO speaker is perfect, no system is perfect therefore individuals are going to have different points of view. I could not disagree more with you most of the time but I can't question your right to choose what you think is best for you.
Happy Holidays
Hey Elliot,
No tricks here - I am just trying to understand the application of the Absolute Sound philosophy. Guys say they are comparing to "live, unamplified music", but as a practical reality it seems like it all goes back subjectivity and one's preference. Some guy will play a magnepan with under-powered audio research, another guy will pick a horn with SET, and another guy will play wilson with d;agostino, and yet another magico with soulution or spectral. They all listen to live, unamplified music and selected gear using that philosophy.... so it's just seems like a subjective free for all - it's just a cover to validate one's subjective gear choices.

Sincerely wishing you all the best with your businesses
 
  • Like
Reactions: valkyrie

ArnoFenn

Member
Oct 28, 2020
67
71
20
Just read Jeff's story and to me he's spot on.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PeterA

stehno

Well-Known Member
Jul 5, 2014
1,585
456
405
Salem, OR
Stehno, your snipey response to me and tbh everyone else you've sprayed insults with only harms yourself. Feel free to keep at it, but the only result you achieve is to keep digging yourself in a hole.
By now you should realize that when one goes out of their way to post a snarky comment toward another as you did above, chances are better than average that recipient will respond in like manner.

My question to you is, just how long ought one complain about so many inferior-engineered recordings before one realizes that in most every instance inferior recordings actually have little to do overall with what we hear? IOW, when you openly complain with frequency about inferior recordings in a seemingly erudite manner, have you ever considered the possibility that you're really just openly admitting that you lack the ability to assemble a reasonably pleasant / musical playback system? BTW, this can easily be demonstrated.

This is your private dealings with me writ large.
Private dealings? As I recall, perhaps 80 - 90% of our discussions transpired here in one or more WBF threads. That's hardly private. What I did and continue to keep private (even from you) are the reasons for my change of heart to not pursue matters further with you.

Others will come to their own conclusions.
You're stating the obvious here, are you not?
 

Elliot G.

Industry Expert
Jul 22, 2010
3,286
2,958
1,360
Fort Lauderdale, Florida
www.bendingwaveusa.com
Hey Elliot,
No tricks here - I am just trying to understand the application of the Absolute Sound philosophy. Guys say they are comparing to "live, unamplified music", but as a practical reality it seems like it all goes back subjectivity and one's preference. Some guy will play a magnepan with under-powered audio research, another guy will pick a horn with SET, and another guy will play wilson with d;agostino, and yet another magico with soulution or spectral. They all listen to live, unamplified music and selected gear using that philosophy.... so it's just seems like a subjective free for all - it's just a cover to validate one's subjective gear choices.

Sincerely wishing you all the best with your businesses
I would be happy to discuss this with you of you would like to talk. We all don't like the same food, cars, are attracted to the same person, choose to live in the same places etc. Part is choice and another part is what they are exposed to and when and where this happens.
 

Solypsa

Well-Known Member
Jun 7, 2017
1,811
1,399
275
Seattle
www.solypsa.com
Last year I had the pleasure of visiting a friend of my friends in the mountains in Japan. An old school audio guy. He had literally three to five systems in his dedicated listening room. I have always been of the mind to make each piece the best but his take was different. He has speakers for this and speakers for that. Ditto amps and preamps and turntables. Was a total mind bender for me. Still don't think I would replicate it but the night was very enjoyable!
 
  • Like
Reactions: hogen and vindixon

spiritofmusic

Well-Known Member
Jun 13, 2013
14,601
5,411
1,278
E. England
By now you should realize that when one goes out of their way to post a snarky comment toward another as you did above, chances are better than average that recipient will respond in like manner.

My question to you is, just how long ought one complain about so many inferior-engineered recordings before one realizes that in most every instance inferior recordings actually have little to do overall with what we hear? IOW, when you openly complain with frequency about inferior recordings in a seemingly erudite manner, have you ever considered the possibility that you're really just openly admitting that you lack the ability to assemble a reasonably pleasant / musical playback system? BTW, this can easily be demonstrated.


Private dealings? As I recall, perhaps 80 - 90% of our discussions transpired here in one or more WBF threads. That's hardly private. What I did and continue to keep private (even from you) are the reasons for my change of heart to not pursue matters further with you.


You're stating the obvious here, are you not?
Wow man, you have SO many issues. But please, carry on if you find this so therapeutic. I'm outta here, I certainly can't be a part of your craziness.
 
Last edited:

morricab

Well-Known Member
Apr 25, 2014
9,391
4,986
978
Switzerland
Hey Elliot,
No tricks here - I am just trying to understand the application of the Absolute Sound philosophy. Guys say they are comparing to "live, unamplified music", but as a practical reality it seems like it all goes back subjectivity and one's preference. Some guy will play a magnepan with under-powered audio research, another guy will pick a horn with SET, and another guy will play wilson with d;agostino, and yet another magico with soulution or spectral. They all listen to live, unamplified music and selected gear using that philosophy.... so it's just seems like a subjective free for all - it's just a cover to validate one's subjective gear choices.

Sincerely wishing you all the best with your businesses
I know guys who flip and flop between types of gear, box, panel or horn, SS, tube and digital and so on. Most guys I know who frequent live music bend towards tubes and high sensitivity speakers...it seems to be an evolution and in some some cases an unlearning.

I, like most, started with box speakers and SS amps. Tubes were not even in the picture. I read reviews where the reviewer went Gaga over the sound but the measurements were “atrocious “. I thought “what dummies so easily fooled”. Then I experienced good tubes and realized there was much more than meets the eye. I also never forgot the pair of Klipsch La Scalas I inherited in college that shocked me with their dynamics. It took 20+ years to come back to something like that but a maturing understanding of what makes live, live helped me rediscover that aspect of music.

I have been moving one direction the last 20 years once I read and accepted live, unamplified music as my core reference and goal. Having a professional violinist as a girlfriend for 4 years cemented my impressions. At first I thought I could achieve this with panels until I heard the gap in Dynamics between other designs and horns. I moved to no feedback, all tube systems even in my panel days because of natural tone. Horns bring the dynamics.
Some newer high sensitivity boxes can approximate horn dynamics with smoother resp
 

stehno

Well-Known Member
Jul 5, 2014
1,585
456
405
Salem, OR
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.
 

ArnoFenn

Member
Oct 28, 2020
67
71
20
Jeff is still spot on, for the one that can grab the essential bits of what he's pointing out. Don't take it religiously, it's a translation of his experience and perception. Key is that finding a reference of what is good, real or live, is partly factual and partly personal. Mind you, taste is involved as well. Main thing will be, if the soul and emotion that the musicians intended to share and record gets to the listeners heart, soul and emotion that moves them just as much (or more).
So, Jeff achieved what was needed. Starting a good discussion and re-thinking what good re-production actually means. You know that after decades of building my so-called high-end system (which it is, technically and acoustically), the most time I spent on getting the reproduction of the system to do what is non-technically (nor measurable in a lot of cases).
I will not share the whole path and deltas I made up to here (since it is also not finished for the coming decades but I am enjoying that journey as well). Small moments illustrated a lot (Satori if you like). One of the moments was playing a Gerry Mulligan record from the 50s (mono), absolutely no hifi, mono, chopped lows/highs but straight to the heart and it was not the music only. Apparently there seemed to be stuff more important, timing? phase? Anyhow, just a very thin slice of my audio-experience probably just as thin as Jeffs' slice....not being able to be complete...ever, but hopefully an inspirational view for others to rethink without judging, assuming, or having all the wisdom ;-) Enjoy music, be patient ...and respectful ;-)
 
Last edited:

the sound of Tao

Well-Known Member
Jul 18, 2014
3,620
4,838
940
Jeff is still spot on, for the one that can grab the essential bits of what he's pointing out. Don't take it religiously, it's a translation of his experience and perception. Key is that finding a reference of what is good, real or live, is partly factual and partly personal. Mind you, taste is involved as well. Main thing will be, if the soul and emotion that the musicians intended to share and record gets to the listeners heart, soul and emotion that moves them just as much (or more).
So, Jeff achieved what was needed. Starting a good discussion and re-thinking what good re-production actually means. You know that after decades of building my so-called high-end system (which it is, technically and acoustically), the most time I spent on getting the reproduction of the system to do what is non-technically (nor measurable in a lot of cases).
I will not share the whole path and deltas I made up to here (since it is also not finished for the coming decades but I am enjoying that journey as well). Small moments illustrated a lot (Satori if you like). One of the moments was playing a Gerry Mulligan record from the 50s (mono), absolutely no hifi, mono, chopped lows/highs but straight to the heart and it was not the music only. Apparently there seemed to be stuff more important, timing? phase? Anyhow, just a very thin slice of my audio-experience probably just as thin as Jeffs' slice....not being able to be complete...ever, but hopefully an inspirational view for others to rethink without judging, assuming, or having all the wisdom ;-) Enjoy music, be patient ...and respectful ;-)
Great perspective ArnoFenn.
 

PeterA

Well-Known Member
Dec 6, 2011
12,521
10,687
3,515
USA
I have been thinking about the Jeff Day listening window. I did not fully understand what he was getting at before. I thought it was simply about creating an audio system that allowed one to enjoy a broader range of music and not just fancy audiophile re-issue recordings. I now think I misunderstood the article. As I am getting to understand my new Micro Seiki table, i’ve reached a different conclusion.

Mr. Day is not suggesting that his system with vintage components is more forgiving so that more recordings sound better: a larger listening window. I now think it is about making ordinary recordings more enjoyable because they sound more engaging in a natural sounding system. The information is on many ordinary recordings, it just needs to be retrieved and presented uncorrupted by the system.

There seems however to be a downside. I took a re-issued Charlie Haden/Chris Anderson record with me when visiting ddk in Utah. It sounded terrible. The remastering seems to have exaggerated the bass lines and put a spot light on the piano. Now at home with my new Micro Seiki turntable, I clearly hear that quite often re-issues and audiophile recordings embellish the recording, highlighting aspects to sound more intense and exciting. I now hear these recordings as drawing one's attention to sonic attributes. They often sound spectacular, but not so natural. My Sheffield Drum Track and Reference Recordings sound spectacular, but not really convincing and real the way some very ordinary standard recordings sound now on my system. I think Mr. Day is sharing his view that a natural resolution system allows a broader range of ordinary recordings to sound more enjoyable.

I interpret Mr. Day's goal as being able to enjoy more of his record collection by expanding the number of LPs that sound good on his vintage system. His system seems to have good natural resolution. It does not highlight some sonic attributes while obscuring others so that it sounds exciting. I suspect he does not have "super black backgrounds" across all recordings, "super fast and tight bass", "pin point imaging", or super extended frequency extremes.

I now read this article from a different perspective. I had to hear it for myself in ddk's large listening window system. The extreme resolution of his system exposed for me the character of that Charlie Haden/Chris Anderson reissued (and remastered?) audiophile recording. I am now hearing more of this for myself because I have a more revealing front end in my own system. I think this is really what the listening window is about. It expands the number of ordinary recordings that are enjoyable while at the same time not encouraging one to listen only to the special audiophile recordings, some of which, I am discovering, really don't sound that natural anyway.

Here is how Mr. Day concludes his article:

"With each of those sets of electronics powering the "Stokowski" Altec loudspeakers I get an impressively wide listening window that allows me to listen to pretty much anything I want to and still get a completely convincing musical experience, all the way from 78 recordings (a revelation!), LPs, and CDs (another revelation!).

This is the sort of performance from a stereo system that I have been searching for all my life, and now it is a reality.

So what is it about the circuits and components used in those circuits that give them the ability to have a such a wide listening window, and how was it accomplished with those two very different - vacuum tube and solid state - components?

One might think that a less resolving, warmish sounding stereo system, would give a wide listening window. That's not necessarily the case though, as the "Stokowski" Altec loudspeakers, Audio Note (UK) components, and First Watt & Pass Labs components, are all quite resolving and transparent, yet maintain a natural tonality and musicality that is quite breathtaking on pretty much any music I choose to play, even from recorded media of varied quality.

Great recordings of good music are transcendent to listen to, and so are poor to average recordings of good music.

The exciting thing about a system with a wide listening window is that it encourages me (and I think you too), as a listener, to explore music that I would not otherwise listen to, and with great listening satisfaction being the result."
 
Last edited:

Lagonda

VIP/Donor
Feb 3, 2014
3,415
4,670
1,255
Denmark
I have been thinking about the Jeff Day listening window. I did not fully understand what he was getting at before. I thought it was simply about creating an audio system that allowed one to enjoy a broader range of music and not just fancy audiophile re-issue recordings. I now think I misunderstood the article. As I am getting to understand my new Micro Seiki table, i’ve reached a different conclusion.

Mr. Day is not suggesting that his system with vintage components is more forgiving so that more recordings sound better: a larger listening window. I now think it is about making ordinary recordings more enjoyable because they sound more engaging in a natural sounding system. The information is on many ordinary recordings, it just needs to be retrieved and presented uncorrupted by the system.

There seems however to be a downside. I took a re-issued Charlie Haden/Chris Anderson record with me when visiting ddk in Utah. It sounded terrible. The remastering seems to have exaggerated the bass lines and put a spot light on the piano. Now at home with my new Micro Seiki turntable, I clearly hear that quite often re-issues and audiophile recordings embellish the recording, highlighting aspects to sound more intense and exciting. I now hear these recordings as drawing one's attention to sonic attributes. They often sound spectacular, but not so natural. My Sheffield Drum Track and Reference Recordings sound spectacular, but not really convincing and real the way some very ordinary standard recordings sound now on my system. I think Mr. Day is sharing his view that a natural resolution system allows a broader range of ordinary recordings to sound more enjoyable.

I interpret Mr. Day's goal as being able to enjoy more of his record collection by expanding the number of LPs that sound good on his vintage system. His system seems to have good natural resolution. It does not highlight some sonic attributes while obscuring others so that it sounds exciting. I suspect he does not have "super black backgrounds" across all recordings, "super fast and tight bass", "pin point imaging", or super extended frequency extremes.

I now read this article from a different perspective. I had to hear it for myself in ddk's large listening window system. The extreme resolution of his system exposed for me the character of that Charlie Haden/Chris Anderson reissued (and remastered?) audiophile recording. I am now hearing more of this for myself because I have a more revealing front end in my own system. I think this is really what the listening window is about. It expands the number of ordinary recordings that are enjoyable while at the same time not encouraging one to listen only to the special audiophile recordings, some of which, I am discovering, really don't sound that natural anyway.

Here is how Mr. Day concludes his article:

"With each of those sets of electronics powering the "Stokowski" Altec loudspeakers I get an impressively wide listening window that allows me to listen to pretty much anything I want to and still get a completely convincing musical experience, all the way from 78 recordings (a revelation!), LPs, and CDs (another revelation!).

This is the sort of performance from a stereo system that I have been searching for all my life, and now it is a reality.

So what is it about the circuits and components used in those circuits that give them the ability to have a such a wide listening window, and how was it accomplished with those two very different - vacuum tube and solid state - components?

One might think that a less resolving, warmish sounding stereo system, would give a wide listening window. That's not necessarily the case though, as the "Stokowski" Altec loudspeakers, Audio Note (UK) components, and First Watt & Pass Labs components, are all quite resolving and transparent, yet maintain a natural tonality and musicality that is quite breathtaking on pretty much any music I choose to play, even from recorded media of varied quality.

Great recordings of good music are transcendent to listen to, and so are poor to average recordings of good music.

The exciting thing about a system with a wide listening window is that it encourages me (and I think you too), as a listener, to explore music that I would not otherwise listen to, and with great listening satisfaction being the result."
Peter, are you using your PassLabs phono, or the Lamm ? Is the TT the only thing you have changed at this point ? And yes something amazing happens once you get the source right, if the rest of the system can show those changes. The biggest single improvement i have had in my own system was a TT motor, i kept checking the volume setting, as dynamics ,bass articulation and shear realness/ naturalness of the music, even at much lower db levels was staggering. I even dug up a old iPhone that had not had app upgrades for years, because what i was hearing did no corespond with my db measurements on the audiotools app, thinking a upgrade had maybe changed the built in microphone settings. :eek:
 

Solypsa

Well-Known Member
Jun 7, 2017
1,811
1,399
275
Seattle
www.solypsa.com
Could be that these 'ordinary recordings' capture the musical event nicely and the 'special' recordings less so. Maybe the labels should be swapped :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: PeterA and Lagonda

PeterA

Well-Known Member
Dec 6, 2011
12,521
10,687
3,515
USA
Peter, are you using your PassLabs phono, or the Lamm ? Is the TT the only thing you have changed at this point ? And yes something amazing happens once you get the source right, if the rest of the system can show those changes. The biggest single improvement i have had in my own system was a TT motor, i kept checking the volume setting, as dynamics ,bass articulation and shear realness/ naturalness of the music, even at much lower db levels was staggering. I even dug up a old iPhone that had not had app upgrades for years, because what i was hearing did no corespond with my db measurements on the audiotools app, thinking a upgrade had maybe changed the built in microphone settings. :eek:

Hi Lagonda, I am using both phono stages and will soon be auditioning a third. The post above is based on listening impressions with the Micro Seiki and the Pass phono. They hold for the Lamm also.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Lagonda

ddk

Well-Known Member
May 18, 2013
6,261
4,040
995
Utah
I have been thinking about the Jeff Day listening window. I did not fully understand what he was getting at before. I thought it was simply about creating an audio system that allowed one to enjoy a broader range of music and not just fancy audiophile re-issue recordings. I now think I misunderstood the article. As I am getting to understand my new Micro Seiki table, i’ve reached a different conclusion.

Mr. Day is not suggesting that his system with vintage components is more forgiving so that more recordings sound better: a larger listening window. I now think it is about making ordinary recordings more enjoyable because they sound more engaging in a natural sounding system. The information is on many ordinary recordings, it just needs to be retrieved and presented uncorrupted by the system.

There seems however to be a downside. I took a re-issued Charlie Haden/Chris Anderson record with me when visiting ddk in Utah. It sounded terrible. The remastering seems to have exaggerated the bass lines and put a spot light on the piano. Now at home with my new Micro Seiki turntable, I clearly hear that quite often re-issues and audiophile recordings embellish the recording, highlighting aspects to sound more intense and exciting. I now hear these recordings as drawing one's attention to sonic attributes. They often sound spectacular, but not so natural. My Sheffield Drum Track and Reference Recordings sound spectacular, but not really convincing and real the way some very ordinary standard recordings sound now on my system. I think Mr. Day is sharing his view that a natural resolution system allows a broader range of ordinary recordings to sound more enjoyable.

I interpret Mr. Day's goal as being able to enjoy more of his record collection by expanding the number of LPs that sound good on his vintage system. His system seems to have good natural resolution. It does not highlight some sonic attributes while obscuring others so that it sounds exciting. I suspect he does not have "super black backgrounds" across all recordings, "super fast and tight bass", "pin point imaging", or super extended frequency extremes.

I now read this article from a different perspective. I had to hear it for myself in ddk's large listening window system. The extreme resolution of his system exposed for me the character of that Charlie Haden/Chris Anderson reissued (and remastered?) audiophile recording. I am now hearing more of this for myself because I have a more revealing front end in my own system. I think this is really what the listening window is about. It expands the number of ordinary recordings that are enjoyable while at the same time not encouraging one to listen only to the special audiophile recordings, some of which, I am discovering, really don't sound that natural anyway.

Here is how Mr. Day concludes his article:

"With each of those sets of electronics powering the "Stokowski" Altec loudspeakers I get an impressively wide listening window that allows me to listen to pretty much anything I want to and still get a completely convincing musical experience, all the way from 78 recordings (a revelation!), LPs, and CDs (another revelation!).

This is the sort of performance from a stereo system that I have been searching for all my life, and now it is a reality.

So what is it about the circuits and components used in those circuits that give them the ability to have a such a wide listening window, and how was it accomplished with those two very different - vacuum tube and solid state - components?

One might think that a less resolving, warmish sounding stereo system, would give a wide listening window. That's not necessarily the case though, as the "Stokowski" Altec loudspeakers, Audio Note (UK) components, and First Watt & Pass Labs components, are all quite resolving and transparent, yet maintain a natural tonality and musicality that is quite breathtaking on pretty much any music I choose to play, even from recorded media of varied quality.

Great recordings of good music are transcendent to listen to, and so are poor to average recordings of good music.

The exciting thing about a system with a wide listening window is that it encourages me (and I think you too), as a listener, to explore music that I would not otherwise listen to, and with great listening satisfaction being the result."
An important part of all this is system resolution and by that I mean information density, naturalness, and specifically tonal range and tonal depth but not what many audiophiles think is resolution which is just hifi and pseudo information. With an unencumbered high resolution system can how good older LPs can be. I've expressed my thoughts on heavy vinyl and so called "audiophile" pressings many times and don't really want to get into it again, just that they're mostly acceptable :rolleyes: in low rez and/or high coloration systems which by definition equals low rez.

david
 
Last edited:

PeterA

Well-Known Member
Dec 6, 2011
12,521
10,687
3,515
USA
An important part of all this is system resolution and by that I mean information density, naturalness, and specifically tonal range and tonal depth but not what many audiophiles think is resolution which is just hifi and pseudo information. With an unencumbered high resolution system can how good older LPs can be. I've expressed my thoughts on heavy vinyl and so called "audiophile" pressings many times and don't really want to get into it again, just that they're really acceptable :rolleyes: in low rez and/or high coloration systems which by definition equals low rez.

david

David, your choice of the word "unencumbered" is excellent. It summarizes much of what I have learned over the past year or so as I increasingly understand what you mean by natural resolution and a larger listening window.
 

Folsom

VIP/Donor
Oct 25, 2015
6,024
1,490
520
Eastern WA
An important part of all this is system resolution and by that I mean information density, naturalness, and specifically tonal range and tonal depth but not what many audiophiles think is resolution which is just hifi and pseudo information. With an unencumbered high resolution system can how good older LPs can be. I've expressed my thoughts on heavy vinyl and so called "audiophile" pressings many times and don't really want to get into it again, just that they're really acceptable :rolleyes: in low rez and/or high coloration systems which by definition equals low rez.

david
^^^

Anything originally made on a tube recording setup or at least analog seems much more likely to have tonal range even if it's not perfect in other ways. A lot of other stuff just sounds FLAT. (I've heard good new albums, too, but they aren't the majority, and not often impressive by any rate)

Example some DGG's are far from being uncompressed and high quality but are still more listenable with tonal layering etc.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ddk and Lagonda

microstrip

VIP/Donor
May 30, 2010
20,806
4,698
2,790
Portugal
I have been thinking about the Jeff Day listening window. I did not fully understand what he was getting at before. I thought it was simply about creating an audio system that allowed one to enjoy a broader range of music and not just fancy audiophile re-issue recordings. I now think I misunderstood the article. As I am getting to understand my new Micro Seiki table, i’ve reached a different conclusion.

Mr. Day is not suggesting that his system with vintage components is more forgiving so that more recordings sound better: a larger listening window. I now think it is about making ordinary recordings more enjoyable because they sound more engaging in a natural sounding system. The information is on many ordinary recordings, it just needs to be retrieved and presented uncorrupted by the system.
(...)

So we can admit that the ultra heavily tweaked Jeff speakers sound "natural" ?

Quoting Jeff "To kick off the project we removed the stock Westminster Royal SE's internal low & high frequency crossovers, and all of the internal wiring and connectors. "

And then he replaced everything with cursed tweaks :) "including beautiful walnut & maple isolation platforms to mount the Duelund CAST components on" See https://positive-feedback.com/audio-discourse/duelund-coherent-audio-from-denmark-the-duelund-wrse-project-part-2-duelund-cast-silver-capacitors-and-duelund-cast-silver-copper-autotransformers/
 

andromedaaudio

VIP/Donor
Jan 23, 2011
8,350
2,730
1,400
Amsterdam holland
As taken from my website .

a real full range soundmachine , with virtually no loss of output at 20 HZ and extending to well above 20 kHz , no subwoofers needed with this model , it will play at very high SPL s without noticeable distortion, which was/is a design goal.

Meaning a loudspeaker should be reproducing the audible frequencies flat across the audioband , resulting in a neutral reproduction of whatever music it has to play .

Ps Micro regarding modification as long as you keep the components value the same in the X over , you kinda keep the balance the same.
It will indeed sound different , likely more natural with Duelund components i use it myself too , good stuff :)
 
Last edited:

About us

  • What’s Best Forum is THE forum for high end audio, product reviews, advice and sharing experiences on the best of everything else. This is THE place where audiophiles and audio companies discuss vintage, contemporary and new audio products, music servers, music streamers, computer audio, digital-to-analog converters, turntables, phono stages, cartridges, reel-to-reel tape machines, speakers, headphones and tube and solid-state amplification. Founded in 2010 What’s Best Forum invites intelligent and courteous people of all interests and backgrounds to describe and discuss the best of everything. From beginners to life-long hobbyists to industry professionals, we enjoy learning about new things and meeting new people, and participating in spirited debates.

Quick Navigation

User Menu

Steve Williams
Site Founder | Site Owner | Administrator
Ron Resnick
Site Co-Owner | Administrator
Julian (The Fixer)
Website Build | Marketing Managersing