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

[PeterA]

IDK man, my system sounds like live, unamplified acoustic instruments and vocals at all times. It's what I'm calling "Natural". That's with a capital N, not that pseudo-natural sound with a lower case n.

That is pretty funny Dave but far removed from what anybody here is claiming. It does read like some of the marketing prose out there though.

This actually does remind me of how one of my friends describes a very engaging listening experience. He describes it as “Musical“ with a capital M. He uses this term very sparingly and it was his highest compliment.

 

[Robh3606]

IDK man, my system sounds like live, unamplified acoustic instruments and vocals at all times.

Hello Dave

OK when appropriate, I should sound like the conditions the music was recorded under and of course the music. What I am talking about is dropping on Hard Days Night and then Abbey Road. If they sound the same something is amiss.

Rob

 

[the sound of Tao]

I've also been trying 6sn7 varieties - VT 99, the red military 5692, 6F8, and an unique unnamed tennis ball one in the destination audio 45 amps

View attachment 69523

Now that looks like my kinda tweak
Psvane also have a premium release S6N7 as a globe now as well. Look forward to your findings but very much on the 45 amps especially.

 

[PeterA]

Jeff Day has posted some responses to questions in the comment section in the link to the article. It adds further context to this discussion.

Of particular note are some comments about the importance of set up to achieving a wide listening window. He also references Jim Smith and his upcoming new book.

I find this all very interesting because I hired Jim Smith to voice my system about seven years ago and learned a lot from him. David Karmeli and Jim Smith both speak about how important set up is. The former describes it in terms of achieving a natural sound while the latter talks about achieving an emotionally engaging listening experience.

These two experienced audiophiles have had a big impact on my thinking about my audio system. It is all starting to make sense to me. Jeff Day‘s article is bringing it all together. Even Kent English, the designer of my pre-up and phonostage is involved in the article’s comment section.

 

[the sound of Tao]

The word natural as a descriptive term is an abstract. What is it about us that we need to box it in and turn it into an acronym. Subjectivity is about experience through the human filter. It has by its nature latitude and it’s validity comes from the authenticity of the reporting of that experience. It serves its purpose best also as an abstract.

To reduce it to the boundaries of strict written definition is however fine as long as we find a way to differentiate that from the traditional original way of using the word as an abstract concept to identify that perhaps we find clear correlations that more align with our non-synthesised experiences of the real world and in the sound of the types of instruments created out of natural materials. ie that they resonate in a way that is familiar with the real thing.

If people want to make a special NS standalone audio category and give it a more exact framework so people can then be right or wrong then all good I figure.

So it might be good to get some consensus on a way forward to differentiate whether we are using natural as its purest most broad abstract usage eg. when I made changes to my system it sounded more natural (ie the instruments sounded more natural) and then also when people want it to be a strictly definable audio term we could then make it something like Natural or Naturalistic Sound (NS) and so then those who then want to apply it in that specific way can do so without confusion. So for those who see it as a definition of a fixed audio descriptor could then move forwards to then develop the core of its meaning and give it their best set of boundaries.

That way we can clearly avoid the ongoing confusion of whether someone means natural as an abstract subjective descriptor of an experience or whether someone wants to use it as say NS (Natural Sound)... some new framework of a system paradigm definition that can then stand alongside AS (Absolute Sound) or SAYLI (Sound As You Like It) SARS (Sounds As Recorded Sonics) SBM (Sounds By Measurement) SWWG (Straight Wire With Gain) etc or indeed any other text book audio definition that people can then chose to adopt.

Life isn’t static, we need to adapt and adopt to keep ourselves alive and resilient and in touch. A static book of rules where we can only be right or wrong will just serve to increase the approaching tiring sense of hobby senescence and perhaps the ultimately re-tired end for us all

Could also save us mountains of Groundhog Day moments as a group. We are all old (even the younger ones among us are happily under way getting fossilised) and need to be more joyously efficient with our time (and words) lol

 

[stehno]

I came upon this article this morning and find it fascinating reading. Mr. Day makes a compelling case for seeking out gear with which one can enjoy a large variety of music, the "Listening Window". He describes his own system, a mix of vintage and new components, as sounding "musical". I also find interesting the claims about how far or not, high end audio has come over the years.

Here is a link to his article: https://jeffsplace.positive-feedback.com/the-mysterious-case-of-the-listening-window/

What do you think? Should systems be able to play all kinds of music? The broader the window the better? Are some vintage components still better than what is available today? I think he brings up some very interesting topics in this article which might be worth discussing here.

I really didn't care for much of anything the author said. But I think he's basically suggesting we not be shortsighted when choosing product. Especially amps and speakers e.g. full-range, etc.

IMO, if a playback system cannot play all genres of music, there's some significant and audible shortcoming going on that's being overlooked. To think otherwise is to imply that our playback systems discriminate between music genres and I doubt anybody wants to argue that perspective.

 

[Folsom]

If he actually designs his gear according to psychoacoustic models of human perception and his design of choice overall is SET because of his ability to match his models more readily with such a design, that is rather telling, no? His SETs measure well in alignment with other model predictIons from the likes of Cheever, Geddes and even Crowhurst. Also Jean Hiraga made some observational predictions regarding distortion patterns being monotonic and Lamm ML2 largely meets this criteria.

When are you going to join this century? You think any amp designer hasn’t heard of any of them? You’re stuck on amp design 101 class.

I’d love for you to attempt to explain any deeper meaning to Lamm’s marketing words. They imply significantly more depth than exists in the way people think it does.

 

[Lagonda]

The word natural as a descriptive term is an abstract. What is it about us that we need to box it in and turn it into an acronym. Subjectivity is about experience through the human filter. It has by its nature latitude and it’s validity comes from the authenticity of the reporting of that experience. It serves its purpose best also as an abstract.

To reduce it to the boundaries of strict written definition is however fine as long as we find a way to differentiate that from the traditional original way of using the word as an abstract concept to identify that perhaps we find clear correlations that more align with our non-synthesised experiences of the real world and in the sound of the types of instruments created out of natural materials. ie that they resonate in a way that is familiar with the real thing.

If people want to make a special NS standalone audio category and give it a more exact framework so people can then be right or wrong then all good I figure.

So it might be good to get some consensus on a way forward to differentiate whether we are using natural as its purest most broad abstract usage eg. when I made changes to my system it sounded more natural (ie the instruments sounded more natural) and then also when people want it to be a strictly definable audio term we could then make it something like Natural or Naturalistic Sound (NS) and so then those who then want to apply it in that specific way can do so without confusion. So for those who see it as a definition of a fixed audio descriptor could then move forwards to then develop the core of its meaning and give it their best set of boundaries.

That way we can clearly avoid the ongoing confusion of whether someone means natural as an abstract subjective descriptor of an experience or whether someone wants to use it as say NS (Natural Sound)... some new framework of a system paradigm definition that can then stand alongside AS (Absolute Sound) or SAYLI (Sound As You Like It) SARS (Sounds As Recorded Sonics) SBM (Sounds By Measurement) SWWG (Straight Wire With Gain) etc or indeed any other text book audio definition that people can then chose to adopt.

Life isn’t static, we need to adapt and adopt to keep ourselves alive and resilient and in touch. A static book of rules where we can only be right or wrong will just serve to increase the approaching tiring sense of hobby senescence and perhaps the ultimately re-tired end for us all

Could also save us mountains of Groundhog Day moments as a group. We are all old (even the younger ones among us are happily under way getting fossilised) and need to be more joyously efficient with our time (and words) lol

And where is Ron when we need him ?

 

[microstrip]

I have to admit that the item that has made me most skeptical of Lamm was his claim that he had the one and only real psychoacoustic model, and that he could incorporate it into his electronics without even listening to them. That struck me as a bit of a reach in the marketing department. It was like he was forcing you to acknowledge his guru status: "Look, Ma, no hands!"

Nothing new, these are exactly the repetition of Peter Walker famous words on his ESL63 speaker many years before. But PW used vectorial math, not a psychoacoustic model.

The interviews with Vladimir Lamm are interesting. As most of the high-end designers he always hides the most relevant aspects of his research and uses his technical skills more for marketing purposes than for really explaining his theories, but he makes a few interesting comments on some taboo subjects. For example on power conditioners - in his opinion in general we should use them as mains is very dirty and polluted, except with Lamm products as he incorporates very powerful mains filters in his equipment. Or his opinion on why Wilson Audio speakers sound good, and that XLFs are used for the final quality check of assembled Lamm equipment ...

 

[the sound of Tao]

And where is Ron when we need him ?

We could go excellent new definitions for system strategy like SLID (Sounds Like I’m Drunk), SLAM (Sounds Like A Mistake), SLAGTTGFATW (Sounds Like A Great Time To Go For A Three Way), SIBNTIREMTWSHTYFTKO (Sounds Interesting But No Thanks I’m Really Enjoying My Two Way Speaker, However Thank You For The Very Kind Offer)...

A happy future audio new world awaits us all

 

[Lagonda]

We could go excellent new definitions for system strategy like SLID (Sounds Like I’m Drunk), SLIMABM (Sounds Like I Made A Big Mistake), SLAGTTGFATW (Sounds Like A Great Time To Go For A Three Way), SIBNTYIREMTWHSTFTVKO (Sounds Interesting But No Thank You I’m Really Enjoying My Two Way Speaker, However Thanks For The Very Kind Offer)...

A happy future audio new world awaits us all

LOL Graham ! You still have it Sir 5 min later and i am still laughing

 

[the sound of Tao]

LOL Graham ! You still have it Sir

Too early to SLID I spose goin for comedy is my default salvation move thanks Milan

 

[DaveC]

Too early to SLID I spose goin for comedy is my default salvation move thanks Milan

IME, most go for the SLIMABM right after the SLAGTTGFATW.

 

[Folsom]

Nothing new, these are exactly the repetition of Peter Walker famous words on his ESL63 speaker many years before. But PW used vectorial math, not a psychoacoustic model.

The interviews with Vladimir Lamm are interesting. As most of the high-end designers he always hides the most relevant aspects of his research and uses his technical skills more for marketing purposes than for really explaining his theories, but he makes a few interesting comments on some taboo subjects. For example on power conditioners - in his opinion in general we should use them as mains is very dirty and polluted, except with Lamm products as he incorporates very powerful mains filters in his equipment. Or his opinion on why Wilson Audio speakers sound good, and that XLFs are used for the final quality check of assembled Lamm equipment ...

He’s not exactly wrong about power conditioning. But he obviously hasn’t tried very many to see how bad most are. He uses some mil-spec units in his. They aren’t particularly strong, but aren’t garbage like you find on a LOT of gear.

 

[tima]

I am surprised that using the term "natural" to describe sound and removing audiophile accessories from one's system is so controversial.

Yes, I'm also surprised the word is controversial. But I may understand why, or at least speculate why. I believe you disagree with me about the reasons for this, but that's okay as those may be sidebar issues and not core. (Like Bolshevik committee meta-discussions about rules in the movie 'Reds'. )

Perhaps drawing out some explanation for the controversy will clarify it.

A big part of the swirl around natural is its lack of precision, or put differently, its need of explanation or examples. I touched on this in post #96 of this thread. The need for precision and clarity is not to change the direction of the audio industry (you) or change attitudes of the past 30-40 years (@ddk), but rather to facilitate the discussion here - one that has been going on for a while now - and to learn from creating that precision. You observe your own surprise at the reaction to it.

As David suggests, the word is sufficient to some here, however, imo, left in that state the controversy shall remain. Imo, those who find it sufficient should welcome the opportunity to clarify it for others. Though at the end of the day I suspect natural is too generic to carry a special, distinct definition on its own.

(Fwiw, the preferences built on the HP/Holt vocabulary find that vocabulary to blame - the claim is it is misleading. Well .... we can keep saying that and bitching about it or try to make in-roads on it or at least some revisionisms.)

Another possible reason for controversy is the tendency that artificial has to be an antonym of natural. The unconscious syllogism could go something like: "If my system or my preferences are not natural (in the way those guys describe it) it must be artificial and neither my system nor my music is artificial." Or something like that.

People did not care for the term 'synthesist' because of its root in 'synthetic' despite preferring their own sound. Whatever is the opposite of natural is grounded on nothing - there is no indepedent reference point for the non-naturalist - as if a justification is needed. While people make their own choices, they generally like to think those choices have some rationale attached to them, a rational that is not theirs alone. I don't think such reactions are calculated but their unpleasantness is taken out on 'natural'.

Lastly, some dislike 'natural' because they feel that imposing a specialized definition on it is presumptuous, even dictatorial. "Who are these people that arrogate themselves upon what had been a good common word?"

All this? Idle speculation on my part.

 

[Folsom]

What do you mean precision? @tima And why is it tied to clarity?

 

[ack]

We could go excellent new definitions for system strategy like SLID (Sounds Like I’m Drunk), SLAM (Sounds Like A Mistake), SLAGTTGFATW (Sounds Like A Great Time To Go For A Three Way), SIBNTIREMTWSHTYFTKO (Sounds Interesting But No Thanks I’m Really Enjoying My Two Way Speaker, However Thank You For The Very Kind Offer)...

A happy future audio new world awaits us all

All these acronyms sound natural to me

 

[tima]

What do you mean precision? @tima And why is it tied to clarity?

A precise definition of a word or concept distinguishes it from other words or concepts. A clear definition of such is not ambiguous and is easy to understand.

 

[Bobvin]

IDK man, my system sounds like live, unamplified acoustic instruments and vocals at all times. It's what I'm calling "Natural". That's with a capital N, not that pseudo-natural sound with a lower case n.

 

[Tango]

Why would anyone design a system with a narrow listening window as defined in the article? It makes no sense! There is do much variety in music not to mention the recordings themselves I would think you would go as wide as you can. Not wide in a euphoric sense where it all the same but as a window into the recoding to alow you to hear whats there. There are differences in tracks on the same album to suit the song so unique is what it's all about

Rob

Ahh. Thank you for steering the subject back to the "window" thing.

Like I commented earlier, my window is narrow. In the past two years I actually have been constructIng my system to achieve an A+ in certain aspects while in the process gave up certain aspects to slide to even B+. hence a narrow window. I know exactly what I want from my window. If I one day I want more, I will not enlarge my window but instead build another A+ window for that.

Tbh, I am not intellectual enough to understand what Mr.Day wrote without misinterpreting his meaning. What he wrote about the window is ambiguous to me and I think it is ambiguous by intent. Many things Mr.Day wrote on Positive Feedback do not go along the commercial stream. He is a very wise writer imo. His humbleness escape him from "issues" we are seeing in this thread.