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

[PeterA]

Are we just releasing the hounds in asking the question. Perhaps the question might more simply be when making a system change are we moving towards making the instruments sound more natural or less natural.

This may be a useful assessment strategy and could be combined with another simple question, does the system change make me more engaged in the music or less engaged.

More natural and more musically engaging are essential outcomes from my perspective.

Tao, when I was talking to David about my experiments and he was making suggestions to me about what to remove and what to try, he told me in very simple terms to listen for one thing only: Does it sound more natural to you or not. That was it. If it did, I continued, if it did not, I reversed. This was the litmus test for every single thing I did, down to how many rubber O rings I used under the steel plates to mass load my rack. That simple guidance helped me a lot.

 

[the sound of Tao]

Peter I’ve been trying out and exploring some different VT-231 6SN7 tubes in my amp, all of them are 1940’s NOS pairs and all sounded quite fantastic in many ways but also with varying inflections and shifts in characteristic but one pair in the context of my system just sounded more natural and more right. When I put them in there was a notable and immediate bringing to rightness that struck me by mostly how more natural the instruments and voice sounded. I didn’t have to break it down into any various criteria to get that conclusion.

But the more I listen to different music that essential rightness just keeps being affirmed. The music engagement is unwavering. My listening window is as nicely wide open as I’ve ever had it.

Interestingly now I can go back and evaluate the specific qualities that this tube brings but in the end all I really needed to know was (that as good as all the tubes were) there was just the one pair that was most right in this system (as it stands) and that was the pair of valves that simply sounded more natural in my system. Does this make them in any way best... no, just more the right mixer in the current cocktail of parts in my system.

I believe the more you use holistic assessment as initial and then also as final review (with any more particular or specific assessments being development of further understanding in between) the easier it then also gets to be able to identify that essential quality and when it is more absent.

 

[tima]

I believe the nature of overall sound he's alluding to is what I've been calling "natural" one needs to give it context as contrast to systems one deems "not natural".

With Day's use of "live musical experience" and "valid musical experience", I was pointing out the lack of that context, or a least the question raised by using two terminologies. He may indeed allude to what you've called "natural". This is just me being the critical editor in the context of the discussions we've had here.

In the two years that I lived with that system my listening had whittled down to Chesky test recordings and simplistic spatial titles from so called "audiophile" labels that were mastered in a such a way to make listening to such system tolerable even if totally fake sounding. I had to talk myself into appreciating the air, the climate, black background or some other nonsense to be able to sit and listen for half an hour. So no he's not putting down people's tastes in music, it's about the limitation imposed by the playback system forcing one into a peephole.

I wasn't suggesting he was "putting down" people's tastes in music. I was saying that a system tailored to the music one prefers may not be a system capable of playing every type of music which is his definition of a 'wide window'. Or as I put it, he should stick to his own experience without generalizing - I don't think that would hinder his case.

I believe the term is "natural" Tim and an experience that's not distant from the real thing.

Sure. I believe we do agree that the word is "natural" and we also agree that it can need fleshing out with further context to use it effectively when either introducing it into terminology or with people who are not familiar with our context of its use. "Natural" is an effective roll-up of a set of desirable characteristics and preferences. Mr. Day does not use it though he might mean exactly that. As a writer/reviewer I"m bound to think of my reader. I'll easily use the term here on WBF but I'm pretty sure I've not used it (much or at all) in my published writing because its use in the specific way you or I use it can - as many threads here demonstrate - be unclear, without a fair amount of explanation.

Natural. There's so many meanings and interpretations. Talk to me as a pianist and I'll say "yeah, the white keys". Talk to me as a woodwind player and I'll say "yeah, it (?)cancels out a previous sharp or flat". Talk to me as man on the street and I might say "yeah, something not man made". Talk to me as R.Crumb and I'll say "yeah, keep on truckin". But talk to me as an audiophile and I'll say "yeah, let's talk about that - what do you mean by 'natural"'. I'm less interested in advocating its use in a specific way than I am interested in drawing out what's behind it. Which the more we talk about it, the more we do. There may come a time when its meaning is as common as "soundstage". The adjectives are usually the most difficult to come to grips with.

 

[tima]

I’ve been trying out and exploring some different VT-231 6SN7 tubes in my amp, all of them are 1940’s NOS pairs[ ...

Yeah baby, thems the ones.

 

[tima]

My spanky listening room and (my wife says) silly expensive gear produce terrific sound for most of the music I play.

And aesthetically, you have a very nice room

 

[microstrip]

Marc, natural is not a difficult term to define. You spent a year listening to many live music events. You should know what the term natural means. (...)

In fact Peter, this is just the same reference that most reviewers, designers and audiophiles use - the "sound of actual acoustic instruments playing in a real space" - do you remember this definition?

IMHO our subjective perception of reality is so variable and stereo so limited that anyone can claim in a forum that is sound is extremely natural and much more natural than last year.

However pretending that someone who writes his preferences clearly:

"Musical elements like dynamics, beat, harmony, tempo, melody, timbre, tone color, and rhythm were superbly portrayed, and the impressive portrayal of audiophile-style visuospatial elements like soundstage, imaging, sense of recorded acoustic, all combined beautifully to provide a liquid, rich, natural, dimensional, and an emotionally charged presentation of the music. "

resonates with your findings seemed bizarre to me.

Reading more from Jeff Day in Positive Feedfback I found that, like me, he wants both - very fine imaging and musicality. He has no problem writing that a piece of equipment can sound natural and transparent and simultaneously have holographic imaging, treble ‘sparkle’ and tactile presence of fingers on instruments (quoting from one his reviews).

 

[microstrip]

I think Mr.Day just used the listening window thing as a trojan horse while actual key message is great sound has been there long in the past and we don't need to follow the high end industry to get it.

I don't think so. Surely some people still listen only in mono and claim that it is the best we can have. But if you read Mr. Day more carefully you will realize that even his DIY activities follow the high end industry. In fact, most of the "revivalist" audio incorporates the more recent developments and trends of the high end industry.

 

[Bobvin]

And aesthetically, you have a very nice room

Thank you sir, kind of you to say so. Should you find yourself in Portland it would be my pleasure to host. Mahler would have to be heard via digital, I’m sure I don’t have anything on vinyl.

 

[ddk]

IMHO our subjective perception of reality is so variable and stereo so limited that anyone can claim in a forum that is sound is extremely natural and much more natural than last year.

So what, does it make everyone' wrong or their efforts futile?

I don't think so. Surely some people still listen only in mono and claim that it is the best we can have. But if you read Mr. Day more carefully you will realize that even his DIY activities follow the high end industry. In fact, most of the "revivalist" audio incorporates the more recent developments and trends of the high end industry.

Straw man argument Francisco, what Tang says is that the values and great sound has been around for a long time what does that have to do with JD's DIY projects? Also haven't people been modifying their equipment for many decades, what recent development trends are you talking about? Is there a DSP crossover with some plate amp turning the Altecs into half active, that seems to be most recent high end trend?

david

 

[PeterA]

In fact Peter, this is just the same reference that most reviewers, designers and audiophiles use - the "sound of actual acoustic instruments playing in a real space" - do you remember this definition?

IMHO our subjective perception of reality is so variable and stereo so limited that anyone can claim in a forum that is sound is extremely natural and much more natural than last year.

However pretending that someone who writes his preferences clearly:

"Musical elements like dynamics, beat, harmony, tempo, melody, timbre, tone color, and rhythm were superbly portrayed, and the impressive portrayal of audiophile-style visuospatial elements like soundstage, imaging, sense of recorded acoustic, all combined beautifully to provide a liquid, rich, natural, dimensional, and an emotionally charged presentation of the music. "

resonates with your findings seemed bizarre to me.

Reading more from Jeff Day in Positive Feedfback I found that, like me, he wants both - very fine imaging and musicality. He has no problem writing that a piece of equipment can sound natural and transparent and simultaneously have holographic imaging, treble ‘sparkle’ and tactile presence of fingers on instruments (quoting from one his reviews).

Fransisco, I think you misunderstood me. I am not saying Natural is the same as "the sound of actual acoustic instruments playing in a real space." That experience is useful because it can be used by some as a reference when selecting audio gear and making decisions about set up. The live experience gives the listener an idea of what is meant by the use of the term.

I do indeed remember that description, but it is a definition of the "absolute sound" according to the folks at TAS, and is meant as a reference to something specific if one takes that approach when voicing his system. The "sound of actual acoustic instruments playing in a real space" is perhaps thought of as a definition of "the absolute sound", but it is NOT the definition of the term "natural", and I am not using it as such. An apple may be red, but it is not the definition of the color red. It is only an example of adjective.

My point to Marc, who attended many live concerts during a period of time a while back, was that he should know what the term "natural" means in the context of the sound of an audio system based on his experience of listening to all of that live music during that period of his life. The concerts can be used as a reference. That is all. There is no need to pick apart sound into parts like "beat" and "harmony", "tempo", "melody", "timbre" etc. Those are all highly variable and get us no closer to understanding the term "natural". Natural is more holistic and it is what one experiences when listening to live unamplified music precisely because one does not sit there and think about the parts. He sits there listening and experiences the whole.

The parts may in some cases be useful when describing and comparing the differences between two components where simply saying "one is more natural than the other" may not be enough to satisfy the curious.

Some want to burrow down, dig deeper and analyze minutia, others want to step back and see the whole picture. I once focused on the parts but came to realize I was missing the bigger picture.

 

[Bobvin]

Agh, but Peter, when you say “An apple may be red, but it is not the definition of the color” you hit on the problem myself and I am sure others see—describing “natural” in the context of listening to reproduced music may indeed be as difficult as trying to describe “red” to a blind person.

I do believe I understand, to a degree, what you and David are attempting to relate, but the term is nebulous and open to the interpretation of each person, making it difficult to use descriptively.

 

[PeterA]

Bob, I compare the taste of a glass of freshly squeezed orange juice to a glass of Tang. Is there any doubt to what the term natural means?

One understands this if he has eaten a real orange. In the context of our music systems I’m simply suggesting that attending live concerts gives one a reference point to understand what the term natural means when referring to the sound of instruments and the sound of our audio systems.

If that is still nebulous, I don’t know what to say. We are not describing the color red to a blind person nor are we trying to describe the sound of a violin to a deaf person. We are talking to audio files on an audio forum whom I presume have attended live music events.

Perhaps the problem is that we are talking to audiophiles. My mother when hearing Stille Nacht on my system understands what the term natural means because she listens to that song on Christmas Eve every year in church kneeling in candlelight.

 

[ddk]

Agh, but Peter, when you say “An apple may be red, but it is not the definition of the color” you hit on the problem myself and I am sure others see—describing “natural” in the context of listening to reproduced music may indeed be as difficult as trying to describe “red” to a blind person.

I do believe I understand, to a degree, what you and David are attempting to relate, but the term is nebulous and open to the interpretation of each person, making it difficult to use descriptively.

I realize “natural” as a term can be nebulous for some Bob but even when demonstrated not everyone will understand it the same way, it’s just the nature of things. I can’t come up with different word to mean the same thing.
david

 

[spiritofmusic]

Fransisco, I think you misunderstood me. I am not saying Natural is the same as "the sound of actual acoustic instruments playing in a real space." That experience is useful because it can be used by some as a reference when selecting audio gear and making decisions about set up. The live experience gives the listener an idea of what is meant by the use of the term.

I do indeed remember that description, but it is a definition of the "absolute sound" according to the folks at TAS, and is meant as a reference to something specific if one takes that approach when voicing his system. The "sound of actual acoustic instruments playing in a real space" is perhaps thought of as a definition of "the absolute sound", but it is NOT the definition of the term "natural", and I am not using it as such. An apple may be red, but it is not the definition of the color red. It is only an example of adjective.

My point to Marc, who attended many live concerts during a period of time a while back, was that he should know what the term "natural" means in the context of the sound of an audio system based on his experience of listening to all of that live music during that period of his life. The concerts can be used as a reference. That is all. There is no need to pick apart sound into parts like "beat" and "harmony", "tempo", "melody", "timbre" etc. Those are all highly variable and get us no closer to understanding the term "natural". Natural is more holistic and it is what one experiences when listening to live unamplified music precisely because one does not sit there and think about the parts. He sits there listening and experiences the whole.

The parts may in some cases be useful when describing and comparing the differences between two components where simply saying "one is more natural than the other" may not be enough to satisfy the curious.

Some want to burrow down, dig deeper and analyze minutia, others want to step back and see the whole picture. I once focused on the parts but came to realize I was missing the bigger picture.

Peter, it seems elementary school level stuff to say timbral accuracy is essential for a natural sound. I mean, if you asked me five years ago if a trumpet needed to sound like a trumpet, or a sax like a sax, of course I would have said yes. And if you asked me if my system did well here, I'd have said yes. But my answer then wasn't really based on "good intelligence" Lol.

With that couple of years of really regular live classical and jazz exposure (hoping they're not the last two years evermore), I got timbre into my bloodstream and cerebral cortex. Violins, violas, cellos, basses became alive and individual, not stringed instruments I thought I knew.

And thus my system evolved into true timbral accuracy and thus real appreciation of music way closer to the real thing. Most acutely realised on jazz with twin horns. Indeed the appreciation of this is not a subtle evolution, it's been a real lightbulb moment. When added to way greater tonal colours and less cloudy deep bass, my jazz/string quartet/solo piano LPs really do sound way more realistic and in this critical way, a great deal more natural.

 

[Folsom]

Agh, but Peter, when you say “An apple may be red, but it is not the definition of the color” you hit on the problem myself and I am sure others see—describing “natural” in the context of listening to reproduced music may indeed be as difficult as trying to describe “red” to a blind person.

I do believe I understand, to a degree, what you and David are attempting to relate, but the term is nebulous and open to the interpretation of each person, making it difficult to use descriptively.

Na

 

[marty]

Thank you sir, kind of you to say so. Should you find yourself in Portland it would be my pleasure to host. Mahler would have to be heard via digital, I’m sure I don’t have anything on vinyl.

Isn't Portland where I saw bumper stickers that said "Defund the Police but Fund Audiophiles" ?

 

[Bobvin]

For me, the term "natural" might be a bit challenging because 1) I listen to very little live music that does not include electrical pickups on the guitar and subsequent amplifier, microphones and amps, etc. 2) I don't attend classical music enough to have great aural memory of the events. I really, really dislike chamber music. My brother is a luthier
and I used to sit across a tiny kitchen table and listen to him play and sing, but I don't think I could describe the difference in the sound of one of his acoustical arch-top guitars make with sitka spruce vs maple soundboards unless I was there hearing one then the other. Both of course would be "natural".

Maybe I just don't have the same kind of discerning ear as other audiophiles (I'm sure of it.) Marc Cohen's piano is very convincing in my system, or Miles trumpet, or Dino's voice. Maybe I need a trip to visit David so that I can have a more clear understanding--I can be a little slow that way!

 

[spiritofmusic]

I'd love to know who DOESN'T consider their sound "natural", or working towards being "more natural".

 

[spiritofmusic]

Isn't Portland where I saw bumper stickers that said "Defund the Police but Fund Audiophiles" ?

My car should have a sticker that says "Audiophiles defund themselves".

 

[Bobvin]

Isn't Portland where I saw bumper stickers that said "Defund the Police but Fund Audiophiles" ?

Not on my car! But I'm very much in favor of the latter.

We live about 19 miles from the downtown core. No BLM or Antifa out this way.

Peaceful here now the fire evacuations have been rescinded, the smoke has cleared, and you can actually see blue sky again. We came within about a 1/2 mile of mandatory evacuation. And air quality index was at one point 560, with 300 being "hazardous".