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

[microstrip]

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

No it makes them individually very useful and meritorious - I often do it for my own system and listening. But insufficient to analyze other efforts and denigrate the 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

Sorry, everything is straw man argument for some one who is not following debates and reading whole thread about the subjects being debated. What I am addressing is the merit and the connection of JD article with Peter remarks and IMHO also the connection between Peter type of sound and the Listening Window - an interesting subject that implies analyzing JD writings.

 

[PeterA]

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

I already answered that Marc. My system used to be less natural than it is now and I’m trying to get my system to sound even more natural than it does now.

 

[spiritofmusic]

My Q is not directed at you, Peter. It's that "natural" is such a naturally obvious thing to want/aspire to/expect anyway. I can't imagine anyone changing anything in their system would say they didn't have "natural" uppermost in their mind.

A long term friend of mine prefers my old "wall of sound" dirge. He says that's what he hears when he goes to big arenas to take in Muse or Coldplay etc. Playing Miles Davis or Kate Bush with greater natural timbral realism means nothing to him.

God knows what he would do if he heard a top notch Wilson or Magico, or Alsyvox or Cessaro demo?

For me, I can't go back to a greyer sound with less instrumental realism. Timbral accuracy, tonal colours and saturation, instrumental texture...these are the changes I've wrought to make Eric Dolphy and Larry Coryell come alive in my room.

 

[ddk]

No it makes them individually very useful and meritorious - I often do it for my own system and listening. But insufficient to analyze other efforts and denigrate the industry.

????? You said people can claim anything they want and my question to you was does that make people who actually understand and achieve their goals insignificant? "It makes them individually very useful and meritorious"? What does this even mean that everyone is a useful idiot?

Disagreeing with individuals or finding some products defective or bad doesn't denigrate an entire industry. You tend to judge all of us from your own level, you personally might not have enough the experience to question products but there are those of us do have sufficient knowledge, experience or just the understanding to make judgements.

Sorry, everything is straw man argument for some one who is not following debates and reading whole thread about the subjects being debated. What I am addressing is the merit and the connection of JD article with Peter remarks and IMHO also the connection between Peter type of sound and the Listening Window - an interesting subject that implies analyzing JD writings.

You were replying directly to Tang and not Peter or anything related to his comments! The only time I mentioned straw man was to your reply to Tang, I don't think I've ever used that term before in this forum.

david

 

[microstrip]

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

Curiously I realize what you consider a "natural" sound from your many posts, opinions, preferences and experiences I did. It is not what 99% of people in the high-end industry call "natural".

What I can't understand is how other people can approach such sound quality simply with a few changes in conventional high-end equipment, introducing a blessed piece of equipment or just operating them in a way the designers did not intent.

 

[ddk]

Curiously I realize what you consider a "natural" sound from your many posts, opinions, preferences and experiences I did. It is not what 99% of people in the high-end industry call "natural".

What I can't understand is how other people can approach such sound quality simply with a few changes in conventional high-end equipment, introducing a blessed piece of equipment or just operating them in a way the designers did not intent.

Maybe Francisco it's not the term but expectations of what it should be. Natural sound, at least in my definition isn't confined to Lamm or the Bionors they're only my choices of superior equipment. Not using powercords with high coloration isn't against any manufacturer that I know of. Straightening speakers gives a different wider presentation more of a natural experience interacting with the space than a focused sound narrowly beamed at your head. You might prefer one over the other or a speaker manufacturer might suggest setup procedures that are simpler hoping to achieve at least a minimum standard in the field. None of this is written in stone.

Everything I've written about and shared in this forum and in person is knowledge that already existed before I was born. I grew up reading the same magazines and reviewers as many here and followed advice of the modern media rewriting the past, I just happen to disagree with them based on existing wisdom by people who invented the high end. The fact that many clueless morons became overnigh authorities because they write in a magazine or move boxes as dealers doesn't give me any confidence in the 99% you're thinking of.

david

 

[microstrip]

????? You said people can claim anything they want and my question to you was does that make people who actually understand and achieve their goals insignificant? "It makes them individually very useful and meritorious"? What does this even mean that everyone is a useful idiot?

No, you are the one who thinks most of this industry - designers, manufacturers and dealers are idiots, misguided or malevolent people. I just said what is well known - individual judgments on stereo are opinions and must be weighted.

Disagreeing with individuals or finding some products defective or bad doesn't denigrate an entire industry. You tend to judge all of us from your own level, you personally might not have enough the experience to question products but there are those of us do have sufficient knowledge, experience or just the understanding to make judgements.

Nice to know that the individuals, defective of bad are just a few (some in your words) inside the whole industry. I expect that those who make judgments can support them!

It seems you are reversing the statistics - most of the audiophile community uses the Holt/HP/magazine glossary on sound quality and shares my questions and concerns. BTW, I am always ready to learn, but IMHO avoiding questions and vagueness was never a source of knowledge.

You were replying directly to Tang and not Peter or anything related to his comments! The only time I mentioned straw man was to your reply to Tang, I don't think I've ever used that term before in this forum.
david

Again, the post should be read as a general comment inside the thread.

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

Mark asked the million-dollar question. Let us see if anyone answers ...

 

[microstrip]

Maybe Francisco it's not the term but expectations of what it should be. Natural sound, at least in my definition isn't confined to Lamm or the Bionors they're only my choices of superior equipment. Not using powercords with high coloration isn't against any manufacturer that I know of. Straightening speakers gives a different wider presentation more of a natural experience interacting with the space than a focused sound narrowly beamed at your head. You might prefer one over the other or a speaker manufacturer might suggest setup procedures that are simpler hoping to achieve at least a minimum standard in the field. None of this is written in stone.

OK, as long we just use Ching Cheng powercords or similar and straight speakers we get "natural" sound.

Everything I've written about and shared in this forum and in person is knowledge that already existed before I was born. I grew up reading the same magazines and reviewers as many here and followed advice of the modern media rewriting the past, I just happen to disagree with them based on existing wisdom by people who invented the high end. The fact that many clueless morons became overnigh authorities because they write in a magazine or move boxes as dealers doesn't give me any confidence in the 99% you're thinking of.

david

Now comes the most interesting part. Can you nominate the several people who " invented the high end" you are referring and their writings from where you learned?

BTW, we probably agree on more than you think, however I often ask questions about my beliefs.

 

[Folsom]

OK, as long we just use Ching Cheng powercords or similar and straight speakers we get "natural" sound.

I don’t think natural has to be defined as on or off.

 

[ddk]

OK, as long we just use Ching Cheng powercords or similar and straight speakers we get "natural" sound.

LOL Francisco! You know well that it's not about using CC but against using heavily colored powered cords ! I find that when speakers are setup properly firing straight forward the overall effect is more natural and closer to a real venue than beaming it at your head. But like @Folsom said it's not on/off and only limited to this, it'a start of a path.

Now comes the most interesting part. Can you nominate the several people who " invented the high end" you are referring and their writings from where you learned?

BTW, we probably agree on more than you think, however I often ask questions about my beliefs.

There are thousands of articles and books written on the subject going back to the 30's on various aspects of music reproduction and by the 50's the subject was already mature and everything related to the field of sound reproduction we know today had come together. Including recording technics and acoustics. Pretty sure you're familiar with many of them and you're just busting my chops here! Of course along the way I learnt from more experienced audiophiles and people like Vladimir Lamm who have more than a passing understanding and interest of the subject.

david

 

[Folsom]

I’ve always wondered, what speakers does V Lamm use?

 

[ddk]

No, you are the one who thinks most of this industry - designers, manufacturers and dealers are idiots, misguided or malevolent people. I just said what is well known - individual judgments on stereo are opinions and must be weighted.

I asked what you meant by your comment but instead you tell me what I think which I already know and don't need you to make it up.

Nice to know that the individuals, defective of bad are just a few (some in your words) inside the whole industry. I expect that those who make judgments can support them!

It seems you are reversing the statistics - most of the audiophile community uses the Holt/HP/magazine glossary on sound quality and shares my questions and concerns. BTW, I am always ready to learn, but IMHO avoiding questions and vagueness was never a source of knowledge.

Did you take a survey to know that most of the audiophile community use the those magazines glossaries? Do you even know what percentage of the vast audiophile community have even heard of it? Which statistics am I reversing? I agree with your point on vagueness please answer the questions I asked in the other posts.

Again, the post should be read as a general comment inside the thread.

I did read it along with all the other posts but Tang's comment was his own and your reply was specific to his comment!

Mark asked the million-dollar question. Let us see if anyone answers ...

Was that ever a serious question ?

david

 

[ddk]

I’ve always wondered, what speakers does V Lamm use?

Wilson Maxx something currently.

david

 

[tima]

I’ve always wondered, what speakers does V Lamm use?

For some time he used Wilson MAXX 3s. The ML2 / ML3 amps drive them.

I don't know if that is current as of today as there are no recent shows.

 

[DaveC]

...

Hahaha, Sorry, but debating ddk is an exercise in futility. Rules and goalposts are everchanging, valid arguments are called "straw men" or dismissed in inappropriate ways, and overall not much makes sense in ddk-land. IMO it's best to give up on challenging the "natural" god and his disciples, it always goes the same way. OTOH, it seems to pervade every thread on WBF so maybe it's unavoidable, but IDK, the merry-go-round makes one sick after long enough... I just wait until ddk makes one of his really long posts full of indignancy that ramble and make little sense, then I I know it's time to quit.

 

[tima]

It seems you are reversing the statistics - most of the audiophile community uses the Holt/HP/magazine glossary on sound quality and shares my questions and concerns.

Partly because of the relative clarity they brought to the various words and concepts they espoused. (That's a description not an endorsement.) Partly because of the quasi-rebelious reaction on people's part to the 'good specs = good sound' perspective. JGH and HP gave audiophiles a language and framework for talking about their systems to which audiophiles could relate versus an otherwise vacuum. It was new and developing at the time of HP & Holt's heyday. Now it is somewhat entrenched and few are bringing alternative concepts to the community with the same degree of clarity and structure.

David (@ddk) says the ideas behind his discussion of natural sound were worked out years ago. He's right of course and his example from Klipsch bears that out. @PeterA and David say we really only need the one word 'natural'. "I know it when I hear it".

But Klipsch is not here. It's fine to talk about one's personal experience. But referring to past purveyors and "my journey" are alone not sufficiently effective to change or overthrow or rethink the past 30+ years of Holt/HP thinkspeak . Especially if the effort to do so is predicated on a single word: natural. One word is not enough to overcome those 30 years. Look at how much effort is spent here explaining a relatively specialized meaning of its use.

This is why a soley holistic approach is inadequate to the job of changing attitudes and changing vocabulary and the way we think about our systems and our preferences. And why I argue the need to spell out (with at least as much vigor as early TAS and Stereophile) what is behind that specialized meaning of natural - to put it on firm ground (grund). And do so in not just a way ("there are no black backgrounds in the concert hall.") that is reactionary to Holt-Pearson.

While acknowledging that reproduction is not reality, look to the concert hall, look to the live music experience as a place to start. HP talked about his absolute sound but he failed to tie his vocabulary back to it - that's where things went astray. If our stereos are the shadows on the wall of the live experience, let us be clear about what they are shadows of. Saying they are natural shadows is not enough.

 

[DaveC]

Of course along the way I learnt from more experienced audiophiles and people like Vladimir Lamm who have more than a passing understanding and interest of the subject.

david

I find it interesting that V. Lamm designs his gear from a purely objective point of view. He doesn't do listening tests. This is exactly the same design process I use, of course I listen to make sure it works as expected and often times it exceeds my expectations because it's objectively designed properly.

Sort of the polar opposite of loading up an Alibaba cart with random power cables and then subjectively choosing one of them as best.

How do you reconcile the fact you think an objectively designed piece of gear is superior, one that is designed WIHOUT ANY KIND OF LISTENING TESTS, yet your entire basis for building a system is to subjectively listen for what sounds most "natural"?

 

[ALF]

I find it interesting that V. Lamm designs his gear from a purely objective point of view. He doesn't do listening tests. This is exactly the same design process I use, of course I listen to make sure it works as expected and often times it exceeds my expectations because it's objectively designed properly.

Sort of the polar opposite of loading up an Alibaba cart with random power cables and then subjectively choosing one of them as best.

How do you reconcile the fact you think an objectively designed piece of gear is superior, one that is designed WIHOUT ANY KIND OF LISTENING TESTS, yet your entire basis for building a system is to subjectively listen for what sounds most "natural"?

Dear Mr. DC,

Mr. DK, if you have been to his den, listens to his speakers at very, very high dB levels...after your visit, your ear(s) will buzz for a week, or so.

Most likely, years of exposure has compromised his hi-frequency hearing; hence, the Lamm Industries folks tell him that their designs are accomplished without listening...he says, “cool, many thanks for the info!”



vbw,
-a

 

[tima]

How do you reconcile the fact you think an objectively designed piece of gear is superior, one that is designed WIHOUT ANY KIND OF LISTENING TESTS, yet your entire basis for building a system is to subjectively listen for what sounds most "natural"?

Go back a bit further in Lamm's approach to when he was in the USSR and running the Lvov factory while doing his research into how people hear with the ears they have. Hundreds and hundreds of hours of listening tests with the employees he had along with many professional musicians and artists. There's the data on which Lamm's topologies and formulas were built. VL is an designer, engineer, and scientist but first he is an empiricist.

 

[DaveC]

Go back a bit further in Lamm's approach to when he was in the USSR and running the Lvov factory while doing his research into how people hear with the ears they have. Hundreds and hundreds of hours of listening tests with the employees he had along with many professional musicians and artists. There's the data on which Lamm's topologies and formulas were built. VL is an designer, engineer, and scientist but first he is an empiricist.

The listening tests you describe are not directly related to the engineering design of his amplifiers.