I see we are already into a pissing match between two elder posters about a topic that is entirely subjective. Another classic WBF thread. Time for some popcorn. I predict a minimum of 600 posts. 
Last edited:
The Mysterious Case of the Listening Window! By Jeff Day, Positive Feedback
- Thread starter PeterA
- Start date
Ok, gotcha... So there were listening tests, but mainly to confirm his previous research matched up with real life, but not to "voice" his amplifiers a certain way. This is a direct quote from the page you linked:
"I never do listening tests because I already know how it will sound."
But to be fair, he HAS done listening tests at some point. Now he doesn't need to.
The process he used to define his equations wasn't necessarily empirical, it ended up forming an objective psychoacoustical model, which was correlated to certain facets of audio amplification. Further, he's also very interested in the objective performance of his amps, as evidenced by the detailed specifications given on his product info pages.
In any case the only reason I brought it up is to contrast this approach with the ddk method: Do a tweak and ask yourself "Does the tweak sound natural?" It's pretty close to a polar opposite approach. One is totally valid and is imo also ideal, the other is well, idk... I can be generous and call it a more of an art form I guess.
...
In any case the only reason I brought it up is to contrast this approach with the ddk method: Do a tweak and ask yourself "Does the tweak sound natural?" It's pretty close to a polar opposite approach. One is totally valid and is imo also ideal, the other is well, idk... I can be generous and call it a more of an art form I guess.
I don't think designing amplifiers from scratch and tuning a system make for good comparators. Not sure I see the point to this. Both are creative/artistic endeavors in some respects.
I predict moderator interventionI see we are already into a pissing match between two elder posters about a topic that is entirely subjective. Another classic WBF thread. Time for some popcorn. I predict a minimum of 600 posts.
Well, I might fit that category. It is presumed that we all think we know what "natural" means, but I'm not so sure. Natural how? In timbre? immediacy? distorsion? frequency spectra? dynamics? noise level? I think I'd prefer to reference something I know. "Does that sound like piano?? works for me. I have a Steinway grand in my music room. I know what piano sounds like. I'm working to get my system to sound like that with the obvious caveat that it never can and never will. I also know what a human voice sounds like. I'm also working towards that but again, it's never gonna happen. First tier at Carnegie with the Philly Orchestra? Yeah, right. Don't be ridiculous. Why even bother trying? (Answer- because it's part of the hobby!) So it's really not "natural" I'm working towards, but a good facsimile. If you achieve that elusive facsimile, you might say it sounds as you expect it to sound if it were "live" or real time. So I suppose "natural" incorporates any number of sonic characteristics that comprise such a good facsimile if the recording engineer does a good job.
PS There's an editorial with some thoughtful observations on this and related matters such as imaging by Jon Valin in the latest TAS that's worth a read.
Last edited:
I personally suspect Lamm is a great designer and a even better marketing manOk, gotcha... So there were listening tests, but mainly to confirm his previous research matched up with real life, but not to "voice" his amplifiers a certain way. This is a direct quote from the page you linked:
"I never do listening tests because I already know how it will sound."
But to be fair, he HAS done listening tests at some point. Now he doesn't need to.
The process he used to define his equations wasn't necessarily empirical, it ended up forming an objective psychoacoustical model, which was correlated to certain facets of audio amplification. Further, he's also very interested in the objective performance of his amps, as evidenced by the detailed specifications given on his product info pages.
In any case the only reason I brought it up is to contrast this approach with the ddk method: Do a tweak and ask yourself "Does the tweak sound natural?" It's pretty close to a polar opposite approach. One is totally valid and is imo also ideal, the other is well, idk... I can be generous and call it a more of an art form I guess.
As for David’s tweaks, i see it exactly opposite, he is suggesting you de-tweak your system and thereby get back to a more neutral baseline. David did not really try to influence people on this forum to begin with, it was Tang and Peter describing his simple process and talking it up that got the ball rolling. David has since tried ( often quite undiplomatic and blunt ) to defend his simple ideas. As for the infamous CC power cord, my impression is that it is not David ultimate fix all problems cord, but more an example of a relative neutral cord that goes well with his other suggestions, he never tries to sell it, and i doubt he makes much of a profit on the cheap cords. For me they where something to try at almost no expense, i love the CC power cords, the IC‘s he sent me for free, i did not care for. I see the CC cords as a part of David’s excellent customer service not a money maker, use them if you like, if not, nobody gets offended.
Last edited:
Hi Peter,
To my way of thinking it really depends on what you mean by "Should systems be able to play all kinds of music". There is the "warts and all" school of accuracy that you should hear everything captured on the recording and there is the school of a system should make all recordings musical and enjoyable. There is also the school of all recordings should be well differentiated because indeed they do all sound different; however, it doesn't mean that the system renders most recordings "unlistenable" and only the top 1% of audiophile recordings comes through with some semblance of music.
Those who support the "warts and all" school of systems probably think their systems are extracting the most information from the recordings and that this is the best that can be hoped for in the real world. However, they have not stopped to think whether or not their systems are in fact editorializing the recording and placing undue emphasis on distortions in the recordings with distortions of their own. A kind of multiplier effect on emphasis of leading edges, for example, or pushing forward of soundstage (thus flattening and sharpening the effect). To think of this visually, look at some of the lower quality flat panel TVs out there. They have at first glance astounding resolution but the longer you look you see that there is an unnatural tilt to the way the images are portrayed. Most of that is some kinds of digital artifacts that creep into the picture (LG I find particularly offensive this way...and Sony one of the best at removing it). You can also see effects that become unnatural visually with things like Contrast and Sharpness tools with TV and/or computer graphics. This would be a system with a narrow listening window and to me encompasses a large % of commercial high end.
Once you overemphasize a particular effect this then has two impressions: 1) It LOOKS like more resolution but 2) It also have a distinctly over represented artificiality to the resulting image. This is also where I think DDK is getting his bias that pinpoint imaging is an artifact (sometimes it is and sometimes it isn't is my view...knowing which is which is an interesting challenge).
IMO, any system that makes a large number of recordings essentially an exercise in analytical dissection, is doing something incorrectly to overemphasize those analytical traits that may or may not be in the recording.
Those who support the "All recordings should sound musical and enjoyable" are deliberately detuning the replay to mask over any distinctions in the recordings themselves. Many vintage systems sound like this (but by no means all of them)...and many lower quality modern playback systems fall into this trap (cheap tube gear being one type of culprit). You will see inexperienced audiophiles swing into this camp after spending a long time in the "warts and all" school and fed up with the fact that a lot of music they used to enjoy is no longer accessible on such a system. So, they swing to the other extreme of low(ish) fidelity but at least initially more pleasant experience. Eventually, boredom will set in here though as the sameness to everything renders music listening uninteresting. This would constitute a wide listening window but not one that will bring long term satisfaction. It represents a much smaller % of the available high end but a lot of the inexpensive Chinese tube amps and digital I have heard would fit here...for example. Many vintage speakers also fit here, IMO, but by no means all of them.
The way that allows for a high degree of differentiation but doesn't throw the baby out with the bath water, is a hard balance to strike. The assumption here is that a system should be able to tell you clearly the differences in sound quality between recordings but that it has, shall we say, natural levels of resolving insight and not exaggerated forensic levels (that are largely from arifacts and/or emphasis on certain traits). It allows you to know that a lot of rock recordings are so-so to poor but you can still enjoy them without running from the room screaming. For sure, some recordings are still excrement and will sound poor on just about anything...that is the reality of life. But it shouldn't render you to where you have a few recordings that sound great and the rest difficult to sit through. When I talk about having a wide listening window, it would be this scenario that, IMO, is the most desireable as it allows you to hear more closely what is really going on in a recording without destroying the message and prevents boredom of sameness at the same time. This represents a very very small % of the gear/systems out there and IMO, is represented by the best tube gear, digital gear and speakers typically of high sensitivity (could be horn, dynamic or planar), where nuance, without exaggeration, results in an engaging but differentiated experience.
THere is a difference between sugar coating and simply not exaggerating traits that do the auditory effect of over sharpening the picture (to use a TV analogy).
I guess it needs that Trojan horse or else it would seem exactly like countless other similar musings on the subject.
While I'd agree it's true to some degree, otoh hand it's disappointing that the issues with correlating objective measurements with preference are still the same after many decades.
There has been quite a bit of work done this correlation but people either don't know much about it or dismiss it as practically difficult to implement it seems.
yes and no. I have highlighted a couple posts above that there are (at least) two different ways to get a "wide listening window", both of which, to the untrained audiophile, could be viewed as "natural" sounding. One is inherently a bit low rez and will likely lead to boredom (and also where those more analytical listeners would complain that "natural' sound is not a desired goal) and the other is indeed probably the best compromise available in the here and now.
Christoph definitely has a much bigger window than mine. Much better to look at too. My window is narrow. Luckily it gives me the fresh air I need. When I start to suffocate I will make a bigger window.
My window is narrow. Luckily it gives me the fresh air I need. When I start to suffocate I will make a bigger window.
...you got it David, sweet!
Jeff is a very interesting and inquisitive fellow with a real knack for articulating his audio adventures. There is a lot of interesting content to read both on his blog, past reviews on different platforms and his current reviews on PFO. I think you will him most humble with his approach and findings.
vbw,
alan
In any case the only reason I brought it up is to contrast this approach with the ddk method: Do a tweak and ask yourself "Does the tweak sound natural?" It's pretty close to a polar opposite approach. One is totally valid and is imo also ideal, the other is well, idk... I can be generous and call it a more of an art form I guess.
Dave, how would you suggest that the person at home assess whether or not a power cord or a tube trap or a particular footer, or the position and orientation of his speakers is worth using if not through the process of listening?
Are you describing that process of evaluation an art form? I suppose there are people out there who make their decisions by reading white papers and analyzing data and reading marketing pros, but most people I know make their decisions by listening. They might not ask themselves does this sound natural, but they certainly ask themselves if they like it or if it provides more resolution or lower noise or greater dynamics. Some might ask themselves if it sounds more or less real.
In previous post I made a distinction between the driver of an automobile and the manufacturer. To drive a car you don't need to know how it works, to choose a car for yourself doesn't require you to know much about cars, just how the car fits how you'll use it and your own preferences. Typically you go test drive the cars you're interested in and choose one based on what you prefer. The manufacturer or dealer otoh, should be able to answer technical questions about the car, and should have some understanding of it.
I personally suspect Lamm is a great designer and a even better marketing man
Your post is an excellent example of how it's possible to manipulate how people view things by the way they write. Ddk is an excellent writer and understands this much more than he understands audio, apparently.
De-tweak and natural are amazingly powerful in what they connote. But they are anything but accurate descriptions of what's going on. Your use of de-tweak is absolutely the opposite of what's going on.
If you simply remove all room treatments the result is going to be wildly variable from room to room. IMO, if you want to "de-tweak" a room acoustically you'll shoot for decay times that fall within a similar range as those used by the folks actually making the recordings. That would set a very "natural" baseline, and you could then change that to suit your preferences. And you'd actually know what's going on.
Same with having a "reference" power cable chosen by entirely subjective means. Perhaps it should be chosen by it's design and electrical characteristics instead? It doesn't have to be fancy, but it could certainly be objectively defined!
So these things are the very opposite of de-tweak. When you remove all room treatments the results are going to be totally undefined. When you declare a completely subjectively chosen piece of gear to be a "reference", this is also completely undefined and it's the very definition of a tweak. When you add steel shelves that ring like a bell, that's a TWEAK in all caps and in bold.
While I will agree there is an element of art, intuition, personal preference and more in audio systems, there are also some things that can be measured and defined, and while I don't think the owner of a system needs to be involved in this, a dealer or manufacturer should imo, especially when the results are going to be wildly different vs what the folks making the recordings are using, and the presentation is going to much different than what they intended. This is a super-ultra-mega-tweaky way of setting up a system that has nothing to do with the descriptors "natural" or "de-tweaked".
As someone who has designed amplifiers, I can tell you it's more similar than you might think.
It's similar because you're really dealing with the arrangement of known and standard parts. Unless you're designing a novel circuit or amplification device, you're simply using what's there. Just like when you setup a system you use what's there in terms of source, amplification, room acoustics, etc. When you design an amplifier it's about choosing topology, amplification device, types of resistors, capacitors, etc. In both cases there are both artistic and objective facets to the design process.
I know it's a bit like taking down the curtain in the Wizard of Oz... People like to think of the design process used by engineers making their components as something more than it is. But the truth is in a great majority of cases the design is defined primarily by the topology and amplification devices chosen, and in the circuits themselves there's nothing new. It's all been done before, so why reinvent the wheel?
So IMO, it's is very much like setting up a system. Anyone can do it by trial and error if they really want to, but I feel best results come when you have an objective basis for the design and a defined goal that is more precise than simply achieving a subjectively "natural" result.
I personally don’t advocate taking out all acoustic treatment and i don’t think David does either. But finding a balance where the room interaction/reflections are not being totally taken out of the equation can be done without destroying all imaging cues. A lot of us have over dampened rooms with cables designed to emphasize the frequency suppressed by the treatments, footers and shelves that add their own signature and power conditioning with its own questionable list of pros and cons. Listen too the more basic setup with less tweaking and then judging and adjusting the sound is all David advocates and i think Peters journey is a good example of it’s potential success
Indeed, well put.
But as regards Peter's questions, it seems to me that the belief that one is "tweaking" vs. "de-tweaking" is entirely moot, since the choice of components and room treatments (or removal thereof) in both cases is identically based on listening.
I suppose that if the determination of which components or actions to even consider is driven by a "philosophy" and leads to an a priori rejection of some possibilities, then it could have real consequences.
Similar threads
