I have often talked of emotional involvement with the music as an attribute
I look for and had difficulty finding other than vinyl until SACD came
along. I had an incident this morning that drove the point home to me once
again.

I was working on a section of the system that I hadn't tested since last
reconfiguring the system. That entailed work with my reel-to-reel and my
"convenience" LP player, a Dual 601 belt drive system with a Shure Hi-Track
cartridge, which I feed through an Audionics BT-2 preamp into the one
remaining auxiliary input on my Audio Research preamp. After changing the
wiring, I put on my prerecorded tape of the Verdi Requiem. My intention was
to just test the connections, volume levels, before moving the system back
into place. I ended up listening to the tape all the way through both sides
(it has auto-reverse). Then I tested the phono system by putting on a
well-used copy of Walter's Beethoven Fourth Symphony. A favorite of mine
which I also have on CD. Again, I could not tear myself away and listened
to it straight through. And this was on a decidedly "consumer grade"
turntable system. (And BTW, these are pieces I have listened to on digital
media at least twice each in the last year).

I realized afterwards that in the days before I added cd, when LP's and tape
were my mainstays, this used to happen a lot when I worked on the system.
To the best of my recollection, I do not *ever* recall reacting to a CD (new
or old favorite) this way. I did have some of this with SACD, but even so
in every comparison I have done (mostly compared to LP's; in the case of the
Verdi to the tape) I have found the analog sound more compelling (in the
sense of drawing me into the music) than the digital media. I know this has
been discussed here many times, and I know that the objectivist contingent
scoffs at any such differentiation. I know also that for me it is very
real. One manifestation is my purchases. Over the past two years I have
purchased over 100 SACD's and over 40 used LP's. That accounts for more
purchases than I made of CD over the entire decade from 1992 to 2002, after
my CD system had become "listenable" and because of convenience, my main
medium.

I continue to wonder if the relegation of music to "background status"
during the last twenty years might not have a lot to do with this
phenomenon, often remarked upon by those who continue to find vinyl
compelling, and by SACD aficionados who feel some "link" in that medium back
to their analog days.

I'd be interested in others POV on this phenomenon.

I'd be interested if others here have experienced this same reaction.

--
Harry Lavo
"It don't mean a thing if it aint got that swing" - Duke Ellington

There is no way to know what prompted the responce you relate (nostalgic
recollections of times past etc.). On the other hand, we can suggest that
in order to answer the question more generally we need to exclude factors
which exist outside the gear being used, namely the perception process of
the brain which is known to be strongly related to emotional responces of
the kind you report. There are any variations of tests that could be
done, but you know where this is going, that would tend to exclude the
non-physical parts of the question. In specific answer to your question,
yes music does cause an emotional responce in myself, but almost
regardless of the gear in use. There is a local am radio station that has
a show which uses a bit of music as an intro which drives me almost to
tears each time I hear it.

I have often talked of emotional involvement with the music as an attribute
I look for and had difficulty finding other than vinyl until SACD came
along. I had an incident this morning that drove the point home to me once
again.

I was working on a section of the system that I hadn't tested since last
reconfiguring the system. That entailed work with my reel-to-reel and my
"convenience" LP player, a Dual 601 belt drive system with a Shure Hi-Track
cartridge, which I feed through an Audionics BT-2 preamp into the one
remaining auxiliary input on my Audio Research preamp. After changing the
wiring, I put on my prerecorded tape of the Verdi Requiem. My intention was
to just test the connections, volume levels, before moving the system back
into place. I ended up listening to the tape all the way through both sides
(it has auto-reverse). Then I tested the phono system by putting on a
well-used copy of Walter's Beethoven Fourth Symphony. A favorite of mine
which I also have on CD. Again, I could not tear myself away and listened
to it straight through. And this was on a decidedly "consumer grade"
turntable system. (And BTW, these are pieces I have listened to on digital
media at least twice each in the last year).

I realized afterwards that in the days before I added cd, when LP's and tape
were my mainstays, this used to happen a lot when I worked on the system.
To the best of my recollection, I do not *ever* recall reacting to a CD (new
or old favorite) this way. I did have some of this with SACD, but even so
in every comparison I have done (mostly compared to LP's; in the case of the
Verdi to the tape) I have found the analog sound more compelling (in the
sense of drawing me into the music) than the digital media. I know this has
been discussed here many times, and I know that the objectivist contingent
scoffs at any such differentiation. I know also that for me it is very
real. One manifestation is my purchases. Over the past two years I have
purchased over 100 SACD's and over 40 used LP's. That accounts for more
purchases than I made of CD over the entire decade from 1992 to 2002, after
my CD system had become "listenable" and because of convenience, my main
medium.

I continue to wonder if the relegation of music to "background status"
during the last twenty years might not have a lot to do with this
phenomenon, often remarked upon by those who continue to find vinyl
compelling, and by SACD aficionados who feel some "link" in that medium back
to their analog days.

I'd be interested in others POV on this phenomenon.

I'd be interested if others here have experienced this same reaction.

--
Harry Lavo
"It don't mean a thing if it aint got that swing" - Duke Ellington

wrote:

In specific answer to your question,
yes music does cause an emotional responce in myself, but almost
regardless of the gear in use. There is a local am radio station that has
a show which uses a bit of music as an intro which drives me almost to
tears each time I hear it.


One of my favorite recordings is so, I suspect, because I first heard it on
a Clarion cassette deck in a Chevy Nova--driving down Middle Road toward
Chilmark one May. It is a recording I always associate with wisteria, for
some reason.

I do not understand why anyone, moved by a piece of music, would attribute
that to the gear. Perhaps this is yet another thing that separates the
subjectivists from the objectivists.

bob

__________________________________________________ _______________
MSN Toolbar provides one-click access to Hotmail from any Web page – FREE
download! http://clk.atdmt.com/AVE/go/onm00200413ave/direct/01/

wrote in message
...
There is no way to know what prompted the responce you relate (nostalgic
recollections of times past etc.). On the other hand, we can suggest that
in order to answer the question more generally we need to exclude factors
which exist outside the gear being used, namely the perception process of
the brain which is known to be strongly related to emotional responces of
the kind you report. There are any variations of tests that could be
done, but you know where this is going, that would tend to exclude the
non-physical parts of the question. In specific answer to your question,
yes music does cause an emotional responce in myself, but almost
regardless of the gear in use. There is a local am radio station that has
a show which uses a bit of music as an intro which drives me almost to
tears each time I hear it.


I really am not talking about that kind of emotional response. I'm talking
about being "drawn into" a piece of music in general on a consistent basis,
versus not being drawn into much the same (or the same) music using another
source component.

snip

If if it aint got that swing" - Duke Ellington

"Harry Lavo" wrote in message ...
I have often talked of emotional involvement with the music as an attribute
I look for and had difficulty finding other than vinyl until SACD came
along. I had an incident this morning that drove the point home to me once
again.

.... details deleted ...

I'd be interested in others POV on this phenomenon.

I'd be interested if others here have experienced this same reaction.

Well, Harry, I do know the phenomenon. But for me it has happened most
often when re-arranging my room (thus moving my speakers), or most
recently when getting my z-Systems digital equalizer "dialed in."
Here's a hypothesis: when you do something that results in listening
to familiar recordings with a changed frequency response (due to
changing format, room, or equalizer), you focus on things in the music
that are a little different than what you've recently paid attention
to, hence the renewed emotional involvement ...

Rich

"Harry Lavo" wrote in message
...
*snip*
I continue to wonder if the relegation of music to "background status"
during the last twenty years might not have a lot to do with this
phenomenon, often remarked upon by those who continue to find vinyl
compelling, and by SACD aficionados who feel some "link" in that medium
back
to their analog days.

I'd be interested in others POV on this phenomenon.

I'd be interested if others here have experienced this same reaction.

Not to offer a glib answer, but I've never found vinyl to be any more
"musically involving" than CD, and I certainly don't find SACD "analog
like." (I've offered my thoughts on SACD previously and find it (in
uncontrolled listening) extremely satisfying, subjectively more so than
standard CD, but definitely un-analog.) For those that do find vinyl more
"involving", however, I've often theorized that the need to listen through
the higher noise floor of vinyl might contribute to a feeling of greater
involvement. It is a more active listening experience.

It would be an interesting excercise to overlay the surface noise signature
of a clean LP onto a digital recording to see if my theory holds water. I'd
think such an excercise could be fairly easily accomplished with Cool Edit,
or Soundforge or some such animal.

"I really am not talking about that kind of emotional response. I'm
talking
about being "drawn into" a piece of music in general on a consistent
basis,
versus not being drawn into much the same (or the same) music using
another
source component."

Ah, but I'm talking about emotional involvement in my am radio example,
and the source of the music on the radio is a cd the host uses an I have
every reason to think it would also move me to tears on my system from
that same cd without the restrictions of am radio; that was my point.
The being "drawn in" part is all in the brain and is evoked by many
possible reasons not related in any way to the gear being used, or in
spite of it; which was my point. The host plays other music as part of
the show and my emotional involvement is right there, it's what the brain
overlays on the experience, not what the gear lets through; for the most
part. All the more reason to test to really exclude these brain created
states.

Harry,

I guess our reactions differ ...

I would define "involvement" as one's being drawn into the reproduced
musical performance so much that you will indeed listen to track after
track with continuing anticipation (i.e.,wanting to keep on
listening). I think our definitions would be similar based on the
description of your experience.

In my experience, assuming I am using good input material,
"involvement" in a reproduced musical performance seems to fall into
one of two categories:

a) a temporary novelty (usually due to a system change) where
involvement is reproduceable over the short term, but not the long
term (e.g., I've encountered this when replacing a phono cartridge)

b) a persistent phenomena (usually due to getting things right) where
involvement continues over the short and long term (e.g., I've
achieved this by paying close attention to listening room acoustic
treatment, listener-loudspeaker positioning, and loudspeaker radiation patterns)

If you find that your "involvement" continues week after week, then I
would say that is a good thing (actually, I've found it in my case to
be bliss). As to why you do not achieve "involvement" with CDs is not
clear. I have found that both CD and LP performances can be very
"involving" (CD more so because of longer play times with the absence
of those occassional LP crackles and pops). I've not yet had the
pleasure to listen to SACD, but I don't currently have the sense that
I'm missing out on some potential for even more "involvement". In
fact, my situation differs quite a bit from yours as I've given up on
used LPs (due to condition variability) and buy only CDs now (over 150
CDs in the last two years ... plus more media shelving .

Your experiences in "involvement" appear to be media format dependent,
while mine are not. I'm not sure why that would be. It could be that
we listen to very different types of music and you've just not had
good luck with the performances on CD. It could be that only part of
your system (i.e., the LP or SACD part) is "right" (long term
involvement). It might be that most of your system changes tend to be
on the LP or SACD side rather than the CD side (that is, the semblance
of long term involvement though a series of temporary involvement
episodes). It might be that LP noise or SACD noise shaping artifacts
are generating some type of downstream euphonic reaction in the rest
of your system that CD does not. It might be (given your purchasing
stats) that you simply avoid CD performances in general for whatever
reason (e.g., a potential bias).

My opinion - if you prefer LP and SACD over CD, that's your
perogative, but my experience suggests that "involvement" can be
equally had in both LP and CD formats (and I have no reason to believe
that SACD could not be comparably involving as well).

Best regards,

Terry

Harry Lavo wrote:

I realized afterwards that in the days before I added cd, when LP's and tape
were my mainstays, this used to happen a lot when I worked on the system.
To the best of my recollection, I do not *ever* recall reacting to a CD (new
or old favorite) this way. I did have some of this with SACD, but even so
in every comparison I have done (mostly compared to LP's; in the case of the
Verdi to the tape) I have found the analog sound more compelling (in the
sense of drawing me into the music) than the digital media. I know this has
been discussed here many times, and I know that the objectivist contingent
scoffs at any such differentiation. I know also that for me it is very
real. One manifestation is my purchases. Over the past two years I have
purchased over 100 SACD's and over 40 used LP's. That accounts for more
purchases than I made of CD over the entire decade from 1992 to 2002, after
my CD system had become "listenable" and because of convenience, my main
medium.

I continue to wonder if the relegation of music to "background status"
during the last twenty years might not have a lot to do with this
phenomenon, often remarked upon by those who continue to find vinyl
compelling, and by SACD aficionados who feel some "link" in that medium back
to their analog days.

I'd be interested in others POV on this phenomenon.

I'd be interested if others here have experienced this same reaction.

--
Harry Lavo
"It don't mean a thing if it aint got that swing" - Duke Ellington

Bruce Abrams wrote:
"Harry Lavo" wrote in message
...
*snip*
I continue to wonder if the relegation of music to "background status"
during the last twenty years might not have a lot to do with this
phenomenon, often remarked upon by those who continue to find vinyl
compelling, and by SACD aficionados who feel some "link" in that medium
back
to their analog days.

I'd be interested in others POV on this phenomenon.

I'd be interested if others here have experienced this same reaction.

Not to offer a glib answer, but I've never found vinyl to be any more
"musically involving" than CD, and I certainly don't find SACD "analog
like." (I've offered my thoughts on SACD previously and find it (in
uncontrolled listening) extremely satisfying, subjectively more so than
standard CD, but definitely un-analog.)

I have listened to half a dozen or so SACD's now, and I find them very
CD-like . That is, extremely clean and clear. None of them reminds me
of LP's at all.

For those that do find vinyl more
"involving", however, I've often theorized that the need to listen through
the higher noise floor of vinyl might contribute to a feeling of greater
involvement. It is a more active listening experience.

I agree there. And I also believe that the on-rush of surface noise when
the needle is dropped somehow prepares the listener better for the
musical experience about to start. On some CD's, it is possible to be
startled if the music starts abruptly at a high level.


It would be an interesting excercise to overlay the surface noise signature
of a clean LP onto a digital recording to see if my theory holds water. I'd
think such an excercise could be fairly easily accomplished with Cool Edit,
or Soundforge or some such animal.

Bruce Abrams wrote:
Not to offer a glib answer, but I've never found vinyl to be any more
"musically involving" than CD, and I certainly don't find SACD "analog
like." (I've offered my thoughts on SACD previously and find it (in
uncontrolled listening) extremely satisfying, subjectively more so than
standard CD, but definitely un-analog.) For those that do find vinyl more
"involving", however, I've often theorized that the need to listen through
the higher noise floor of vinyl might contribute to a feeling of greater
involvement. It is a more active listening experience.

I think the reason I find vinyl more "involving" at times is because I
feel a need to "actively listen" due to the playback process and its
limitations. When using my computer or a CD for music, I feel like I can
ignore the playback without any consequences. There's no end of a side to
worry about. If I want to re-listen to a song or piece that I ignored for
a bit, I can simply and quickly go back to the song. With vinyl thats
cumbersome and damaging to the vinyl. So when I put on a record, I
actively listen. I sit in the chair or couch and just listen. MP3s and
CDs allow me to more easily do something else (like posting to this
newsgroup) and so I often end up doing something else.

--
Jason Kau
IS FOR EMAIL
IS FOR SPAM
http://www.cnd.gatech.edu/~jkau

Terry Zagar
wrote:

....snip to content .....

My opinion - if you prefer LP and SACD over CD, that's your
perogative, but my experience suggests that "involvement" can be
equally had in both LP and CD formats (and I have no reason to believe
that SACD could not be comparably involving as well).

That's been my experience. It's the music and not the media that makes for the
involvement. Today I became mezmerized by Shania Twain and Aaron Neville
recordings, both on Dvd-A, but was also completely un-involved by a remastered
Doobie Brothers and Bobby Womack in the same format. This came after I finally
forced Ruthie Foster (on straight cd) out of my disc slot.

Lately I've been listening to XM radio 50s and 60s Decade channels and have
been held spellbound by the complexity of the arrangements; mostly I'm guessing
because I remember the songs from listening to them on AM home and car radios
from the era.

The music remains compelling; but the media only makes me appreciate it AGAIN
with more mature reference. I'd never suggest that I didn't appreciate it
emotionally enough the first time.

As Harry says it 'don't mean nothin' if it ain't good in the first place'
.......goddamnit!

wrote in message ...
There is no way to know what prompted the responce you relate (nostalgic
recollections of times past etc.). On the other hand, we can suggest that
in order to answer the question more generally we need to exclude factors
which exist outside the gear being used, namely the perception process of
the brain which is known to be strongly related to emotional responces of
the kind you report. There are any variations of tests that could be
done, but you know where this is going, that would tend to exclude the
non-physical parts of the question. In specific answer to your question,
yes music does cause an emotional responce in myself, but almost
regardless of the gear in use. There is a local am radio station that has
a show which uses a bit of music as an intro which drives me almost to
tears each time I hear it.


This may explain why I have something of a preference for my older CD
player, even though I know it does not sound as good...

"Bob Marcus" wrote:

wrote:

In specific answer to your question,
yes music does cause an emotional responce in myself, but almost
regardless of the gear in use. There is a local am radio station that has
a show which uses a bit of music as an intro which drives me almost to
tears each time I hear it.


One of my favorite recordings is so, I suspect, because I first heard it on
a Clarion cassette deck in a Chevy Nova--driving down Middle Road toward
Chilmark one May. It is a recording I always associate with wisteria, for
some reason.

I do not understand why anyone, moved by a piece of music, would attribute
that to the gear. Perhaps this is yet another thing that separates the
subjectivists from the objectivists.

bob

Ain't that the truth. One of my favorite recordings (Phil Philips "Sea of
Love") dates back to the early 60s and the recording was pure crap, at least on
all the reissues I've heard, but every time I hear it I recall wonderful times.

I just heard a Zydeco tune by Chubby Carrier (I'm Conin' Home) on the WEMU
Sunday late blues FM show. It was great but it encouraged me to call the show
and ask for the CJ Chenier version that is even better :-)

It don't mean a thing if it ain't got that swing ..... media be damned :-)

wrote in message
news:iHq7c.55874$Cb.869729@attbi_s51...
"I really am not talking about that kind of emotional response. I'm
talking
about being "drawn into" a piece of music in general on a consistent
basis,
versus not being drawn into much the same (or the same) music using
another
source component."

Ah, but I'm talking about emotional involvement in my am radio example,
and the source of the music on the radio is a cd the host uses an I have
every reason to think it would also move me to tears on my system from
that same cd without the restrictions of am radio; that was my point.
The being "drawn in" part is all in the brain and is evoked by many
possible reasons not related in any way to the gear being used, or in
spite of it; which was my point. The host plays other music as part of
the show and my emotional involvement is right there, it's what the brain
overlays on the experience, not what the gear lets through; for the most
part. All the more reason to test to really exclude these brain created
states.


I'm sorry, Bob, but I do not have that kind of attachment to this music. I
like it..the Beethoven is my favorite of his symphonies, but that's as far
as it goes. It could be a pop record, a jazz record, a blues record. I'm
talking about the music "taking hold" so that I unconsciously stopped doing
what I was doing (reconfiguring the system) and turning it into a listening
session. I've had it happen many times in the past when I had an all analog
system. What made this special was that it hadn't happened in a long time,
since I swung over to CD. Rarely even with SACD, except on first listen.
And that doesn't count...that's a different (planned) circumstance.

Thanks, Terry for a thoughtful response. See my few comments below.

"Terry Zagar" wrote in message
...
Harry,

I guess our reactions differ ...

I would define "involvement" as one's being drawn into the reproduced
musical performance so much that you will indeed listen to track after
track with continuing anticipation (i.e.,wanting to keep on
listening). I think our definitions would be similar based on the
description of your experience.


Actually, that's exactly what I mean't. Perhaps my associating it with
emotion is what throws people off here, but I don't believe you can have the
"involvement" you speak of without the emotions being fully engaged with the
music. But "involvement" is ultimately the phenomenon you describe.


In my experience, assuming I am using good input material,
"involvement" in a reproduced musical performance seems to fall into
one of two categories:

a) a temporary novelty (usually due to a system change) where
involvement is reproduceable over the short term, but not the long
term (e.g., I've encountered this when replacing a phono cartridge)


Yes, I've had that two...but usually that is an analytical, investigative
involvement in trying to figure out what the impact of the change has done.

b) a persistent phenomena (usually due to getting things right) where
involvement continues over the short and long term (e.g., I've
achieved this by paying close attention to listening room acoustic
treatment, listener-loudspeaker positioning, and loudspeaker radiation
patterns)

If you find that your "involvement" continues week after week, then I
would say that is a good thing (actually, I've found it in my case to
be bliss). As to why you do not achieve "involvement" with CDs is not
clear.

You may be on to something here. For I've had no compunction to change my
tape deck, tuner, turntable/arm/cartridge, preamp, or amps for twenty years.
My first set of Thiel speakers goes back 15 years

But I've gone through four changes of CD playing equipment since 1988. And
it hasn't been because I started at the bottom of the heap. My first was a
Phillips 880, a $1500 high end unit from 1988 that was considered one of, if
not, *the* best sounding units of its day. (There was an Audio mag review
of this unit, if anybody is a mag collector). Then I added a Proceed PDP
which added a bit more transparency at best, but was prone to jitter until I
also added an AA DTI Jitter-buster. That turned the Proceed into a clone of
the Phillips but with added transparency (a bit later I added a Marantz 63SE
as transport, so I could have two complete systems. But it made little, if
any, difference to the sound. Two years ago I added SACD via a Sony
CS222ES, which basically matched the Marantz/DTI Pro/Proceed in sound on CD
and played SACD's, which to me have a musical presentation that is more
analog-like (greater definition and micro-dynamics in the bass, smooth
treble, open and holographic mid-range). The improvements immediately
generated greater involvement, but I then went through an analytical stage
where I listened, took notes on, and compared the same music/mixes on LP,
CD, and CD. While there were individual exceptions, in general I found LP
favored slightly over SACD and SACD substantially over CD. Now recently
I've added another player..the Panasonic S55 that plays upsampled CD as well
as DVD-A and is more transparent (but also more colored) than the Sony or
the DTI-Pro/Proceed combo, which I still have.

So so far, CD nirvana has escaped me. Once in a while I thing perhaps its
just my equipment, but in all honesty when I visit dealer salons and listen
to their setups, or visit friends systems, my conclusion is always the
same...my CD sounds as good/better than any I've heard so far.

The upshot, I guess, is for me I am still reacting negatively to something
in the CD reproduction, despite it being "good enough" to be my main medium
for a decade or so.

I have found that both CD and LP performances can be very
"involving" (CD more so because of longer play times with the absence
of those occassional LP crackles and pops). I've not yet had the
pleasure to listen to SACD, but I don't currently have the sense that
I'm missing out on some potential for even more "involvement". In
fact, my situation differs quite a bit from yours as I've given up on
used LPs (due to condition variability) and buy only CDs now (over 150
CDs in the last two years ... plus more media shelving .

I agree to performances. But I get involved in performances when I
consciously sit down to listen to music...and that can be in any format.
However, "involvement" in the sense of being drawn in unexpectedly while
trying to do another task is a different beast, IMO.

Your experiences in "involvement" appear to be media format dependent,
while mine are not. I'm not sure why that would be. It could be that
we listen to very different types of music and you've just not had
good luck with the performances on CD. It could be that only part of
your system (i.e., the LP or SACD part) is "right" (long term
involvement). It might be that most of your system changes tend to be
on the LP or SACD side rather than the CD side (that is, the semblance
of long term involvement though a series of temporary involvement
episodes). It might be that LP noise or SACD noise shaping artifacts
are generating some type of downstream euphonic reaction in the rest
of your system that CD does not. It might be (given your purchasing
stats) that you simply avoid CD performances in general for whatever
reason (e.g., a potential bias).


Well, as noted above, you may be right, although it is hard for me to see
where my CD might be lacking.
As to noise, I don't think so. Completely quiet surfaces are one of the
real benefits of digital technology, and at least a bit of surface noise is
something you put up with LP. But that wouldn't explain why my analog
pre-recorded reel-to-reel tapes still sound best of all to me...most of
which have little audible hiss and some of which have none (those with Dolby
B noise reduction).

As the King (and I) would say, "Tis a puzzlement".

My opinion - if you prefer LP and SACD over CD, that's your
perogative, but my experience suggests that "involvement" can be
equally had in both LP and CD formats (and I have no reason to believe
that SACD could not be comparably involving as well).

Best regards,

Terry

As above, thanks Terry, for a though-provoking response.

"Nousaine" wrote in message
news:s_u7c.55802$1p.937352@attbi_s54...
Terry Zagar
wrote:

...snip to content .....

My opinion - if you prefer LP and SACD over CD, that's your
perogative, but my experience suggests that "involvement" can be
equally had in both LP and CD formats (and I have no reason to believe
that SACD could not be comparably involving as well).

That's been my experience. It's the music and not the media that makes for
the
involvement. Today I became mezmerized by Shania Twain and Aaron Neville
recordings, both on Dvd-A, but was also completely un-involved by a
remastered
Doobie Brothers and Bobby Womack in the same format. This came after I
finally
forced Ruthie Foster (on straight cd) out of my disc slot.

Lately I've been listening to XM radio 50s and 60s Decade channels and
have
been held spellbound by the complexity of the arrangements; mostly I'm
guessing
because I remember the songs from listening to them on AM home and car
radios
from the era.

The music remains compelling; but the media only makes me appreciate it
AGAIN
with more mature reference. I'd never suggest that I didn't appreciate it
emotionally enough the first time.

As Harry says it 'don't mean nothin' if it ain't good in the first place'
......goddamnit!

I've been meaning to give XM a listen, but have put it off due to early
reports of poor sound quality. However, you are the third person who has
extolled it's programming benefits to me, so time is getting close, I
suspect.

But again, Tom, that's a different kind of involvment because you are
engaged actively in the process of listening to music...not getting caught
unawares.

"Bruce Abrams" wrote in message
news:maq7c.54385$J05.425959@attbi_s01...
"Harry Lavo" wrote in message
...
*snip*
I continue to wonder if the relegation of music to "background status"
during the last twenty years might not have a lot to do with this
phenomenon, often remarked upon by those who continue to find vinyl
compelling, and by SACD aficionados who feel some "link" in that medium
back
to their analog days.

I'd be interested in others POV on this phenomenon.

I'd be interested if others here have experienced this same reaction.

Not to offer a glib answer, but I've never found vinyl to be any more
"musically involving" than CD, and I certainly don't find SACD "analog
like." (I've offered my thoughts on SACD previously and find it (in
uncontrolled listening) extremely satisfying, subjectively more so than
standard CD, but definitely un-analog.) For those that do find vinyl more
"involving", however, I've often theorized that the need to listen through
the higher noise floor of vinyl might contribute to a feeling of greater
involvement. It is a more active listening experience.

It would be an interesting excercise to overlay the surface noise
signature
of a clean LP onto a digital recording to see if my theory holds water.
I'd
think such an excercise could be fairly easily accomplished with Cool
Edit,
or Soundforge or some such animal.

Easier than that, simply listen to a digital recording released on LP. There
must be tens of thousands of them.

"Michael Scarpitti" wrote in message
...
wrote in message
...
There is no way to know what prompted the responce you relate (nostalgic
recollections of times past etc.). On the other hand, we can suggest
that
in order to answer the question more generally we need to exclude
factors
which exist outside the gear being used, namely the perception process
of
the brain which is known to be strongly related to emotional responces
of
the kind you report. There are any variations of tests that could be
done, but you know where this is going, that would tend to exclude the
non-physical parts of the question. In specific answer to your
question,
yes music does cause an emotional responce in myself, but almost
regardless of the gear in use. There is a local am radio station that
has
a show which uses a bit of music as an intro which drives me almost to
tears each time I hear it.


This may explain why I have something of a preference for my older CD
player, even though I know it does not sound as good...

That is certainly possible.

But is it also possible, Michael, that your older CD player gets some aspect
of the music "right" that your newer player, while sounding better overall,
does not? PRAT, perhaps? Transparency? Timbre? Does the older player
possibly have a better suspension? Multibit chips? Symmetrically paired and
balanced chips? In what ways is the new better sounding than the old, in
other words?

The reason I ask is that my older Phillips 880 out of the box actually
outperformed any later CD player I compared it to (about a half dozen). It
had a better power supply and output stage, a much better suspension, a cast
aluminum base to the cabinet, and Phillips premium multibit chips. However,
good as it was it lacked transparency compared to later players. So while I
could tweak the later ones to achieve good results, the Phillips unmodified
and untweaked continued to give me much musical please right up until the
time its laser stopped reading properly. So much so, that I am exploring
whether Phillips could repair the unit despite it being fifteen years old.

So all I'm saying is: perhaps there is a reason other than nostalgia that
you have a fondness for that old unit. And if so, you would be well served
to try to figure out why.

"Jason Kau" wrote in message
...
Bruce Abrams wrote:
Not to offer a glib answer, but I've never found vinyl to be any more
"musically involving" than CD, and I certainly don't find SACD "analog
like." (I've offered my thoughts on SACD previously and find it (in
uncontrolled listening) extremely satisfying, subjectively more so than
standard CD, but definitely un-analog.) For those that do find vinyl
more
"involving", however, I've often theorized that the need to listen
through
the higher noise floor of vinyl might contribute to a feeling of greater
involvement. It is a more active listening experience.

I think the reason I find vinyl more "involving" at times is because I
feel a need to "actively listen" due to the playback process and its
limitations. When using my computer or a CD for music, I feel like I can
ignore the playback without any consequences. There's no end of a side to
worry about. If I want to re-listen to a song or piece that I ignored for
a bit, I can simply and quickly go back to the song. With vinyl thats
cumbersome and damaging to the vinyl. So when I put on a record, I
actively listen. I sit in the chair or couch and just listen. MP3s and
CDs allow me to more easily do something else (like posting to this
newsgroup) and so I often end up doing something else.

But how about the involvement as I described it, Jason, of being drawn into
a listening session when you set out simply to reconfigure the cables /
physical arrangement of the equipment. Have you ever had that happen with
vinyl? with CD? with MP3?

I agree with you in part about the active listening protocol for LP's....but
I fail to see how that would differentiate the "unconscious involvement"
that I described.

At any rate, thanks for the response.

"Nousaine" wrote in message
news:t0v7c.58458$po.546716@attbi_s52...
"Bob Marcus" wrote:

wrote:

In specific answer to your question,
yes music does cause an emotional responce in myself, but almost
regardless of the gear in use. There is a local am radio station that
has
a show which uses a bit of music as an intro which drives me almost to
tears each time I hear it.


One of my favorite recordings is so, I suspect, because I first heard it
on
a Clarion cassette deck in a Chevy Nova--driving down Middle Road toward
Chilmark one May. It is a recording I always associate with wisteria, for
some reason.

I do not understand why anyone, moved by a piece of music, would
attribute
that to the gear. Perhaps this is yet another thing that separates the
subjectivists from the objectivists.

bob

Ain't that the truth. One of my favorite recordings (Phil Philips "Sea of
Love") dates back to the early 60s and the recording was pure crap, at
least on
all the reissues I've heard, but every time I hear it I recall wonderful
times.

I just heard a Zydeco tune by Chubby Carrier (I'm Conin' Home) on the WEMU
Sunday late blues FM show. It was great but it encouraged me to call the
show
and ask for the CJ Chenier version that is even better :-)

It don't mean a thing if it ain't got that swing ..... media be damned :-)


Those old Elvis tapes and 'Fifties Hits' do it for me.

"Norman Schwartz" wrote in message
...
"Bruce Abrams" wrote in message
*snip* quoted text

It would be an interesting excercise to overlay the surface noise
signature
of a clean LP onto a digital recording to see if my theory holds water.
I'd
think such an excercise could be fairly easily accomplished with Cool
Edit,
or Soundforge or some such animal.

Easier than that, simply listen to a digital recording released on LP.
There
must be tens of thousands of them.

All I was trying to do was to impose the noise signature of vinyl playback
on a CD. In the case of an LP release of a digital recording there exists
all manner of additional variables; the (sometimes) multiple A-D and D-A
conversions, the vinyl mastering and manufacturing processes along with
their inherent flaws, etc.

Harry...

Yes, I've had similar incidents occur. Many years ago, perhaps the
late '70's I got tired of the bad LP's coming out (noise surface). A
bit later they improved..I purchased a turntable made of wood from
England and put the "Black widow" arm on it. This change made things
notably better. I went through some of the long playing sessions you
discussed. Enjoyed things greatly, pops,clicks and all. I still had a
tendency to withdraw from the hobby...listened less. Went to CD's
early in the game.

As to your putting on tapes and getting hooked on the sound again. I
would have that happen on an old Teac and later an Ampex unit..there
was always a superority there. But, as one gets older there is a
tendency to let this hobby slide.

I think we all go through these "burnout" phases...
..then you come back. I returned for sure in the
early '90's..and found myself, on occasion, on
a rainy friday nite, sitting down and listening to some of the old
CD's that were terrible at one time..with a certain degree of
enjoyment. Rummaging through CD's in the floor.

Having been at this for a long time, I've noted that I go through
physical and mental cycles with enjoying the music. I've found at
times the system reproduction sounded really good..but, somehow my
mental appreciation of the music was down miserably. Some mental or
physical cycle that we all go through.

As to the element that pulls me to the music it is usually the
memories it tends to evoke based on a given melody. It tends to give
your tummy a sinking feeling...rich memories. This having been
said...it can be evoked by any passing radio.. 3 inch speaker and
all. So I do not relate all
these emotions to a specific component, but the full blown system
adds some factor to this nostaltia. However, I do remember the
tape system and its "rightness", hiss and all.

Also, I do find the old ,80's CD now sound
"listenable" on todays equipment. I listen to
the CD's mostly...a few SACD's. Dabbling with the XM radio
lately.

So to end this diatribe...I do, at times find I can listen and
enjoy the music..prefer the big system...but the emotional
involvement is there on limited portable radios...not necessarily
related to a component change..etc.

Keep up the good entries here! Appreciated!

Leonard...

__________________________________________________

On Sun, 21 Mar 2004 18:26:45 +0000, Harry Lavo wrote:

I have often talked of emotional involvement with the music as an
attribute I look for and had difficulty finding other than vinyl until
SACD came along. I had an incident this morning that drove the point
home to me once again.

I was working on a section of the system that I hadn't tested since last
reconfiguring the system. That entailed work with my reel-to-reel and
my "convenience" LP player, a Dual 601 belt drive system with a Shure
Hi-Track cartridge, which I feed through an Audionics BT-2 preamp into
the one remaining auxiliary input on my Audio Research preamp. After
changing the wiring, I put on my prerecorded tape of the Verdi Requiem.
My intention was to just test the connections, volume levels, before
moving the system back into place. I ended up listening to the tape all
the way through both sides (it has auto-reverse). Then I tested the
phono system by putting on a well-used copy of Walter's Beethoven Fourth
Symphony. A favorite of mine which I also have on CD. Again, I could
not tear myself away and listened to it straight through. And this was
on a decidedly "consumer grade" turntable system. (And BTW, these are
pieces I have listened to on digital media at least twice each in the
last year).

I realized afterwards that in the days before I added cd, when LP's and
tape were my mainstays, this used to happen a lot when I worked on the
system. To the best of my recollection, I do not *ever* recall reacting
to a CD (new or old favorite) this way. I did have some of this with
SACD, but even so in every comparison I have done (mostly compared to
LP's; in the case of the Verdi to the tape) I have found the analog
sound more compelling (in the sense of drawing me into the music) than
the digital media. I know this has been discussed here many times, and
I know that the objectivist contingent scoffs at any such
differentiation. I know also that for me it is very real. One
manifestation is my purchases. Over the past two years I have purchased
over 100 SACD's and over 40 used LP's. That accounts for more purchases
than I made of CD over the entire decade from 1992 to 2002, after my CD
system had become "listenable" and because of convenience, my main
medium.

I continue to wonder if the relegation of music to "background status"
during the last twenty years might not have a lot to do with this
phenomenon, often remarked upon by those who continue to find vinyl
compelling, and by SACD aficionados who feel some "link" in that medium
back to their analog days.

I'd be interested in others POV on this phenomenon.

I'd be interested if others here have experienced this same reaction.

Bruce Abrams wrote:
"Norman Schwartz" wrote in message
...
"Bruce Abrams" wrote in message
*snip* quoted text

It would be an interesting excercise to overlay the surface noise
signature
of a clean LP onto a digital recording to see if my theory holds water.
I'd
think such an excercise could be fairly easily accomplished with Cool
Edit,
or Soundforge or some such animal.

Easier than that, simply listen to a digital recording released on LP.
There
must be tens of thousands of them.

All I was trying to do was to impose the noise signature of vinyl playback
on a CD. In the case of an LP release of a digital recording there exists
all manner of additional variables; the (sometimes) multiple A-D and D-A
conversions, the vinyl mastering and manufacturing processes along with
their inherent flaws, etc.

Then just transfer an LP to CD. It's a digital recording with the noise
signature of vinyl.

--

-S.

"They've got God on their side. All we've got is science and reason."
-- Dawn Hulsey, Talent Director

"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message
news:0rL7c.62222$J05.457605@attbi_s01...
Bruce Abrams wrote:
"Norman Schwartz" wrote in message
...
"Bruce Abrams" wrote in message
*snip* quoted text

It would be an interesting excercise to overlay the surface noise
signature
of a clean LP onto a digital recording to see if my theory holds
water.
I'd
think such an excercise could be fairly easily accomplished with
Cool
Edit,
or Soundforge or some such animal.

Easier than that, simply listen to a digital recording released on LP.
There
must be tens of thousands of them.

All I was trying to do was to impose the noise signature of vinyl
playback
on a CD. In the case of an LP release of a digital recording there
exists
all manner of additional variables; the (sometimes) multiple A-D and D-A
conversions, the vinyl mastering and manufacturing processes along with
their inherent flaws, etc.

Then just transfer an LP to CD. It's a digital recording with the noise
signature of vinyl.

Let me try to explain this one more time. Harry has suggested that he finds
LPs somehow "more musically involving" than CDs. I suggested that I've not
found that to be so, but theorized that the need to listen through the noise
floor of an LP might contribute to the "more involved" feeling. To prove
the point, I suggested an experiment wherin we could take the isolated noise
from a clean LP and overlay it onto a good CD.
--

-S.

"They've got God on their side. All we've got is science and reason."
-- Dawn Hulsey, Talent Director

Harry Lavo wrote:

I have often talked of emotional involvement with the music as an
attribute I look for and had difficulty finding other than vinyl until
SACD came along. I had an incident this morning that drove the point
home to me once again.

....snip....

I continue to wonder if the relegation of music to "background status"
during the last twenty years might not have a lot to do with this
phenomenon, often remarked upon by those who continue to find vinyl
compelling, and by SACD aficionados who feel some "link" in that medium
back to their analog days.

I'd be interested in others POV on this phenomenon.

I'd be interested if others here have experienced this same reaction.

I'll add my $0.02 by saying that this does happen less frequently to me now.
But that's directly related to my professional role in listening and my long
experience.

In the olden days, manager/economist/father/HOH, I sometimes longed for times
to find listening moments. And no excuse was too flimsy to initiate a listening
'experience.'

These days I listen professionally 3-5 days a week and I own more music than I
can possibly hope to listen to in my life and I've listened to most of my
favorite programming enough to know that none of it will make Nicole Kidman
think I'm attractive.

Over the weekend I did acquire a Shania Twain DVD-A and by playing it in a
Acura TL with the ELS DVD-A system on a trip to Chicago I was astounded at how
much I liked it. It's a modern highly-compressed record but the songs, the
production and her voice and the sound was, well ...., captivating. It did get
Ruthie Foster out of my mind (just for a little while.)

But, at home, I no longer need to budget or steal time for entertainment
listening and while I'm guessing that I spend about the same time (in
non-professional-mode) listening as I did before it just seems like less.

By the way there isn't anything better than a Doo-Wop re-issue in Lexicon
Music-Logic mode to make you feel like a kid again. Those Amazing Rhythm Aces
transfers to cd-r will also fill out a good night and makes me realize that
extended listening usually involves a non-related event (sometimes an argument
with a friend or a soundtrack clip from a movie ("Since I Met You Baby" in
english and later in spanish on Lone Star) that initiates a reason to start ...
then the rest evolves.

Or "goin' sauna" (Yes I'm a Finn, and have one in my home) with the Pachelbel
"Canon in D-Major" and the "Loons on Lake" nature recordings preloaded in the
sauna system will spur an upstairs relaxed session of my favorite classical
material.

But, keeping to the thread, I can't remember the last time that an equipment
change or adjustment begat an extended listening session. Perhaps that's
because I have a complilation of evaluative program material that no longer
inspires extended listening.

I guess that comment bears explanation. Using the Listening Technology
technique demands a set of program material that challenges audio systems (63
tracks; 20-200 second segments) and I've used it on every evaluation I've
conducted for the past 3 years ..... and the previous version of 53 tracks that
I used for the prior 10 years... so I no longer have an emotional attachment to
the music and can concentrate 100% on the "sound" being delivered.

Harry,
Reading through some of the responses you got to your anecdote, I guess I'm not
surprised some people don't understand what you're saying.

There is a big difference to "hearing music you like and tapping your foot" to
"being drawn into a musical performance to the extent you forget about the task
you were doing". I'd have to say that analogue certainly has it all over CDs
in that regard, but I'd go a step further and say that you're more likely to
have that experience listening through tubes instead of solid state.

It's not about measurements or 'accuracy' in objectivist terms. It's about
being drawn into the music. I suspect there may be those audiophiles listening
to CDs on average solid state equipment who have forgotten how 'seductive' the
sound of LPs (especially through good tubed equipment) can be.
Regards,
Mike

Harry Lavo wrote:

I agree to performances. But I get involved in performances when I
consciously sit down to listen to music...and that can be in any format.
However, "involvement" in the sense of being drawn in unexpectedly while
trying to do another task is a different beast, IMO.

I can think of numerous times that I have turned on my audio system
and just thrown a random CD on, intending it to be background music,
and then sat down to book/newspaper/magazine reading or note writing.
And I'd say 9 out of 10 times, I've found myself putting the reading
material/notepads aside and just listening. It's gotten so that I
tend to put off powering up my system till later if there is something
else I really need to do in the meantime. Not sure if that's a good
thing or a bad thing, but I definitely can't fault my system/music.

But, near as I can tell, I react the just same way when I
intentionally sit down to listen exclusively. I just get pulled into
the music. Even when I get the hankering to listen to only one
specific track on a CD/LP, I'll usually end up listening not only to
that track but to the remaining tracks as well, even though that
wasn't my original intention. In fact, it's when I don't do this that
I figure something is amiss. For example, did you ever start
listening to something, enjoyed the beginning of a track, but quit
before the end of the track and moved on to something else? Did you
have a nagging sense in the back of your mind that something was not
quite right?

Perhaps the degree of "involvement", or lack thereof, that one
experiences is a good personal metric for assessing the
"high-ended-ness" of one's playback system (or one's musical tastes).
It's definitely a good test when at an audio salon to gauge whether
there is something of value there. My experience here has been that
only about 1 out of 5 stores (if that many) appear to get it right.

On the other hand, when encountering "background" music at a store, I
find myself getting "involved" in that music maybe only 1 time out of
100. For example, one time I was walking around Border's Books,
looking at the latest sci-fi paperbacks when I heard a particular song
playing in the background that just caught my attention. In that
case, I made a bee-line for the music department and asked to buy a
copy of what was playing. So perhaps "performance" can be a factor as
well, but I'm not sure how easily separable it is from "involvement".

In any event a thought-proking thread. Thanks for initiating it, Harry!

Best regards,

Terry

Bruce Abrams wrote:
"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message
news:0rL7c.62222$J05.457605@attbi_s01...
Bruce Abrams wrote:
"Norman Schwartz" wrote in message
...
"Bruce Abrams" wrote in message
*snip* quoted text

It would be an interesting excercise to overlay the surface noise
signature
of a clean LP onto a digital recording to see if my theory holds
water.
I'd
think such an excercise could be fairly easily accomplished with
Cool
Edit,
or Soundforge or some such animal.

Easier than that, simply listen to a digital recording released on LP.
There
must be tens of thousands of them.

All I was trying to do was to impose the noise signature of vinyl
playback
on a CD. In the case of an LP release of a digital recording there
exists
all manner of additional variables; the (sometimes) multiple A-D and D-A
conversions, the vinyl mastering and manufacturing processes along with
their inherent flaws, etc.

Then just transfer an LP to CD. It's a digital recording with the noise
signature of vinyl.

Let me try to explain this one more time. Harry has suggested that he finds
LPs somehow "more musically involving" than CDs. I suggested that I've not
found that to be so, but theorized that the need to listen through the noise
floor of an LP might contribute to the "more involved" feeling. To prove
the point, I suggested an experiment wherin we could take the isolated noise
from a clean LP and overlay it onto a good CD.

Which is doing it very much the hard way. If CDs qua CDs are uninvolving,
then a transfer of an LP to a CD will suddenly become 'uninvolving'. If they don't
then there's nothing inherent in digital recording or playback that's
'uninvolving', it's just that Harry likes noise. Of course,
Harry will be required to test it under proper conditions for his results to
mean anything to me.



--

-S.

"They've got God on their side. All we've got is science and reason."
-- Dawn Hulsey, Talent Director

(Mkuller) wrote:

.....snip to content....


It's not about measurements or 'accuracy' in objectivist terms. It's about
being drawn into the music. I suspect there may be those audiophiles
listening
to CDs on average solid state equipment who have forgotten how 'seductive'
the
sound of LPs (especially through good tubed equipment) can be.
Regards,
Mike

It's also easy to forget that playing lps required survelliance. I seldom
played lps for background to both avoid accidental damage (cats and the like)
and to avoid wear.

"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message
...
Bruce Abrams wrote:
"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message
news:0rL7c.62222$J05.457605@attbi_s01...
Bruce Abrams wrote:
"Norman Schwartz" wrote in message
...
"Bruce Abrams" wrote in message
*snip* quoted text

It would be an interesting excercise to overlay the surface noise
signature
of a clean LP onto a digital recording to see if my theory holds
water.
I'd
think such an excercise could be fairly easily accomplished with
Cool
Edit,
or Soundforge or some such animal.

Easier than that, simply listen to a digital recording released on
LP.
There
must be tens of thousands of them.

All I was trying to do was to impose the noise signature of vinyl
playback
on a CD. In the case of an LP release of a digital recording there
exists
all manner of additional variables; the (sometimes) multiple A-D and
D-A
conversions, the vinyl mastering and manufacturing processes along
with
their inherent flaws, etc.

Then just transfer an LP to CD. It's a digital recording with the
noise
signature of vinyl.

Let me try to explain this one more time. Harry has suggested that he
finds
LPs somehow "more musically involving" than CDs. I suggested that I've
not
found that to be so, but theorized that the need to listen through the
noise
floor of an LP might contribute to the "more involved" feeling. To
prove
the point, I suggested an experiment wherin we could take the isolated
noise
from a clean LP and overlay it onto a good CD.

Which is doing it very much the hard way. If CDs qua CDs are uninvolving,
then a transfer of an LP to a CD will suddenly become 'uninvolving'. If
they don't
then there's nothing inherent in digital recording or playback that's
'uninvolving', it's just that Harry likes noise. Of course,
Harry will be required to test it under proper conditions for his results
to
mean anything to me.


Well, if to be properly measured against my previous experience, it must be
Walter's Beethoven Fourth Symphony noise and music, on a silver disk, placed
in my Sony while I am working to reconfigure the system. I'm having trouble
trying to figure out how to reconfigure the system blindfolded, however.
;-)

Nousaine wrote:

But, keeping to the thread, I can't remember the last time that an equipment
change or adjustment begat an extended listening session. Perhaps that's
because I have a complilation of evaluative program material that no longer
inspires extended listening.

I guess that comment bears explanation. Using the Listening Technology
technique demands a set of program material that challenges audio systems (63
tracks; 20-200 second segments) and I've used it on every evaluation I've
conducted for the past 3 years ..... and the previous version of 53 tracks that
I used for the prior 10 years... so I no longer have an emotional attachment to
the music and can concentrate 100% on the "sound" being delivered.

This is interesting. I wonder if this method of evaluation is definitely
superior, or if the material growing stale and uninteresting diminishes
your ability to really hear what the new components are doing. After a
while, you "know" what that recording sounds like, so maybe you are
filling in the blanks. Conversely, if system B doesn't sound just like
system A, then you think it is wrong.

I don't really know the answer to this. Just wondering if you have some
additional insights on it.

Gary Eickmeier

Nousaine wrote:
I guess that comment bears explanation. Using the Listening Technology
technique demands a set of program material that challenges audio systems
(63
tracks; 20-200 second segments) and I've used it on every evaluation I've
conducted for the past 3 years ..... and the previous version of 53 tracks
that
I used for the prior 10 years... so I no longer have an emotional
attachment to
the music and can concentrate 100% on the "sound" being delivered.


Gary Eickmeier wrote:
This is interesting. I wonder if this method of evaluation is definitely
superior, or if the material growing stale and uninteresting diminishes
your ability to really hear what the new components are doing. After a
while, you "know" what that recording sounds like, so maybe you are
filling in the blanks. Conversely, if system B doesn't sound just like
system A, then you think it is wrong.


In my experience I've found there are two ways to evaluate audio equipment with
music. Using shorter segments of music and paying attention to your first
impressions - I would call 'intellectual evaluation'. Using whole pieces of
music and listening for longer periods of time - hours to days - I would call
'emotional/subconscious evaluation'. You hear and are aware of very different
qualities in the music and component with each type of evaluation.

Since I'm looking primarily for "musicality" and 'faithfullness to live music"
in the equipment I evaluate, the first type of listening has not worked well
for me. More often than not, my first impressions of a component's sound -
whether positive or negative - do not hold up over long term listening. It is
only through long term, relaxed, evaluative listening (and matching levels
carefully when I switch components) am I able to reliably identify the
component's sonic signature on a multi-dimensional basis. But that's just my
experience.
Regards,
Mike

Gary Eickmeier wrote:

Nousaine wrote:

But, keeping to the thread, I can't remember the last time that an
equipment
change or adjustment begat an extended listening session. Perhaps that's
because I have a complilation of evaluative program material that no longer
inspires extended listening.

I guess that comment bears explanation. Using the Listening Technology
technique demands a set of program material that challenges audio systems
(63
tracks; 20-200 second segments) and I've used it on every evaluation I've
conducted for the past 3 years ..... and the previous version of 53 tracks
that
I used for the prior 10 years... so I no longer have an emotional
attachment to
the music and can concentrate 100% on the "sound" being delivered.

This is interesting. I wonder if this method of evaluation is definitely
superior, or if the material growing stale and uninteresting diminishes
your ability to really hear what the new components are doing.

For one thing it levels the playing field for everybody. I keep a copy in my
brief case so it travels with me ready for any occasion and stops me from
having to base judgments on systems using different programs for each.

It also detaches me from the program itself as a biasing factor. There is some
music that is so good that one cannot be expected to realistically assign
ratings to any system when using iy except for those at the extremes. This is
one reason pink noise is so effective at disclosing difference (there is no
program so everybody is emotionally detached). It also has all the sound all
the time which is a limitation of any given musical selection.

After a
while, you "know" what that recording sounds like, so maybe you are
filling in the blanks.

That can be a limitation, of course. But that limitation would apply to any but
brand new recordings that you've never heard before. Deep knowledge of the
material is important; as is regular attendance at live acoustical event.

Conversely, if system B doesn't sound just like
system A, then you think it is wrong.

That's why I use a reference system and assign numerical ratings relative to
that. Of course, we all would like to use "live music" as a reference but it
physically cannot be accomplished in any practical manner.


I don't really know the answer to this. Just wondering if you have some
additional insights on it.

Gary Eickmeier

I just completed a personal evaluation of the Acura TL with the Panasonic ELS
DVD-A system in it. It's quite good and even spectacular with some of the new
specially produced DVD-A such as Shania Twain's "Up". However with more
difficult material, such as that found on my compliation it's comparable but no
better than the best existing systems on the road.

The use of identical material in comparative evaluations is almost required for
fair assessment.

(Mkuller) wrote:


Nousaine wrote:
I guess that comment bears explanation. Using the Listening Technology
technique demands a set of program material that challenges audio systems
(63
tracks; 20-200 second segments) and I've used it on every evaluation I've
conducted for the past 3 years ..... and the previous version of 53 tracks
that
I used for the prior 10 years... so I no longer have an emotional
attachment to
the music and can concentrate 100% on the "sound" being delivered.


Gary Eickmeier wrote:
This is interesting. I wonder if this method of evaluation is definitely
superior, or if the material growing stale and uninteresting diminishes
your ability to really hear what the new components are doing. After a
while, you "know" what that recording sounds like, so maybe you are
filling in the blanks. Conversely, if system B doesn't sound just like
system A, then you think it is wrong.


In my experience I've found there are two ways to evaluate audio equipment
with
music. Using shorter segments of music and paying attention to your first
impressions - I would call 'intellectual evaluation'. Using whole pieces of
music and listening for longer periods of time - hours to days - I would call
'emotional/subconscious evaluation'. You hear and are aware of very
different
qualities in the music and component with each type of evaluation.

Since I'm looking primarily for "musicality" and 'faithfullness to live
music"
in the equipment I evaluate, the first type of listening has not worked well
for me. More often than not, my first impressions of a component's sound -
whether positive or negative - do not hold up over long term listening. It
is
only through long term, relaxed, evaluative listening (and matching levels
carefully when I switch components) am I able to reliably identify the
component's sonic signature on a multi-dimensional basis. But that's just my
experience.
Regards,
Mike

There is one major problem with extended term evaluation. Humans acclimate to
acoustical stimuli relatively quickly (you already know how fast a people in a
room will acclimate to the sound of a fan when its turned on or off) and
because other potentially contaminating elements (ergonomics, spousal
acceptance, contact with others, styling, health, weather et al) can influence
judgements it's much more likely to be influenced by non-acoustical factors.

The other factor Gary Eickmeier raised 'filling in the blanks' may also be more
likely. IME a compilation of demanding material allows the most efficient, most
reliable and most valid platform for sonic evaluation no matter what the length
and whether other bias-control elements are used.

Nousaine wrote:


It's also easy to forget that playing lps required survelliance. I
seldom played lps for background to...avoid accidental damage (cats
and the like)



Off topic but amusing...does anyone remember the display ad in High
Fidelity, Stereo Review, etc. in 1961 (well, maybe some of us weren't
born yet), for the then-new Shure M99 phono cartridge, which came
premounted in a head shell for the also-new Garrard Type A turntable?

It had a retractile cartridge body counterbalanced by springs; so it
actually rode on a softly sprung suspension like a big, wallowing 1960's
land-yacht automobile. The advertisement featured a white cat, mashing
down on the Garrard/Shure's head shell with its paw. Never mind that
the sprung cartridge assembly was undamped, causing horrific flutter as
it bobbed up and down, combined with the high warp-wow of the Garrard
Type A due to its arm pivots being so high above the record surface; and
that the cartridge and arm masses and the springs created a resonance
which just happened to coincide with the primary vibration frequency of
the Garrard's four-pole induction motor; what I want to know is, how did
they get that darn cat to just push the arm up and down, and not
sideways? :-) :-)

-Gene Poon

Nousaine wrote:

I just completed a personal evaluation of the Acura TL with the Panasonic ELS
DVD-A system in it. It's quite good and even spectacular with some of the new
specially produced DVD-A such as Shania Twain's "Up". However with more
difficult material, such as that found on my compliation it's comparable but no
better than the best existing systems on the road.

Yes - I see what you mean. An initial impression based on a new piece of
music - usually a "demo" or favorite piece - can put a definite glow on
a system that somehow diminishes when you get it home, or when you put
more familiar music through it. A variety is called for, some new, some
familiar, in order to try and listen for the sound quality.

The use of identical material in comparative evaluations is almost required for
fair assessment.

This is part of the curse of audiophilia. If I haven't been listening to
my system for a while, I tend to put in a familiar recording first, to
see if it and my ears are still performing as expected. Then, if there
is still time, I can put in the new CD and listen to the actual MUSIC.

Actually, if you think about it, the performance tends to get in the way
of our testing of the sound. Some damn fool has written a new song, and
insists on playing it for us. I wish they would just pick up a variety
of instruments and play them while walking back and forth on the stage,
so I could test my frequency response and soundstaging. Sheesh.

Pink Floyd and Pink Noise forever!

I deny I ever said that...

Gary Eickmeier

From: Gary Eickmeier

An initial impression based on a new piece of
music - usually a "demo" or favorite piece - can put a definite glow on
a system that somehow diminishes when you get it home, or when you put
more familiar music through it.

Not sure I understand. What is more "familiar" than a "favorite piece"?

Farrell8882 wrote:
From: Gary Eickmeier

An initial impression based on a new piece of
music - usually a "demo" or favorite piece - can put a definite glow on
a system that somehow diminishes when you get it home, or when you put
more familiar music through it.


Not sure I understand. What is more "familiar" than a "favorite piece"?

Something that YOU own. If you go to a store and the salesman puts on a
particularly well-recorded piece or sound spectacular, or one of his
favorite pieces, then that would be unfamiliar to you. Then you get home
and put something on that you ARE familiar with, and you hear the new
system playing something that you have heard on other systems before,
and it kind of puts it in perspective. That is Tom's methodology.

But yes, if it was one of YOUR favorite pieces, then that would be
familiar to you. Although the room would not.

Gary Eickmeier