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.
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.