Yes, our subjective opinions can become objective data if we document them with PET scans ... 
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/12/201228101801.htm
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/12/201228101801.htm
"Emotionally Engaging"
- Thread starter Ron Resnick
- Start date
-
- Tags
- emotionally engaging
I am very much relieved to hear that, my friend Uwe Wruck there will be glad to hear that as wellThey have been talking about switching off since 2015, I watch calmly and enjoy my radio
In Germany there is a law that says that you have a right to information and news. there are people who have no television, so radio is their main source of information. as long as this law is not removed i am not worried.
Interesting study of the perception of sounds, what kind of listener are they. that will be the reason why everyone perceives music or speakers differently. I only hear the melody from vocal example 2 onwards
I don't know whether an overtone or fundamental hearer is more emotional, it's exciting.
The same tones can be perceived very differently by different people. The reason for this lies in the brain. Because how a tone sounds depends on structures in the cerebrum: Whoever hears more overtones and thus rather long, sustained, deep sounds, has more gray nerve cell substance in the "auditory center" of the right cerebral cortex, the so-called Heschl's transverse spiral. Those who hear the fundamental tone more strongly or who prefer short, sharp tones have this peculiarity in the left hemisphere.
These are the results of a study that will be published online on August 21, 2005 by Nature Neurosciences and in the September print edition. Scientists from the Biomagnetism Section of the Heidelberg University Clinic for Neurology, together with colleagues from the Universities of Liverpool, Southampton and Maastricht, examined a total of 420 people, the majority of whom were music students and orchestra musicians.
www.oberton.org
I don't know whether an overtone or fundamental hearer is more emotional, it's exciting.
The same tones can be perceived very differently by different people. The reason for this lies in the brain. Because how a tone sounds depends on structures in the cerebrum: Whoever hears more overtones and thus rather long, sustained, deep sounds, has more gray nerve cell substance in the "auditory center" of the right cerebral cortex, the so-called Heschl's transverse spiral. Those who hear the fundamental tone more strongly or who prefer short, sharp tones have this peculiarity in the left hemisphere.
These are the results of a study that will be published online on August 21, 2005 by Nature Neurosciences and in the September print edition. Scientists from the Biomagnetism Section of the Heidelberg University Clinic for Neurology, together with colleagues from the Universities of Liverpool, Southampton and Maastricht, examined a total of 420 people, the majority of whom were music students and orchestra musicians.
Can you hear the melody? - Take the Hearing Test – I love overtone singing - Wolfgang Saus
With this 3 minute listening test you enter a new dimension of hearing. 95% of musicians do not know this form of listening yet.
www.oberton.org
Yes. I can engage with music coming from the car radio - no fancy resolution required.
I appreciated your story about the Corea/Hancock performance. I've had moments like that as well.
The thread also does not make sense to me that I don't see any person liking a component or system that is not emotionally engaging. When was the last time someone said "Wow. I love this sound. There is absolutely no emotional engagement. I must have it. How much?"
This thread is just another way of asking what do you like? Tube guys will say tubes, vinyl guys vinyl, and so on.
It is obvious that if you play music that normally moves you, and in this system you sit like this guy through the ups and downs of the piece, you should kick that system/component out
A question I'll ask: is there music that engaged you emotionally only after you heard it on a high-end system?
I do think a lot of complex classical requires a good system to appreciate outside of live, else it sounds flat. Try listening to classical only on the phone, for example. It could sound cacophonic in parts. So the better a system gets, the more you hear and appreciate plus you can play better recordings.
But my point is actually the reverse of your question - would you have a high end system that does not engage you musically? Of course not. When you say you like B better than A, is B ever less emotionally engaging? Of course not.
Yeah, I don't have a portable phone but I don't think I'd buy one for listening to classical music. But there are a ton of people walking around with earbuds and boping their heads.
I know your earlier point was the reverse of my question - that's why I asked it. The answer to your question was obvious. I don't think you need to be an audiophile to engage with music, but some (in a forum for audiophiles) may think that. Unless they struggle to play their instrument, musicians engage with music during practice and performance.
I am not even saying that. Mine is a different point. As an audiophile, would anyone choose something that they did not find engaging? Two audiophiles could differ on what's engaging, but neither would select something they found not engaging to themselves.
Perhaps that is why people seem to have such radically different systems. What is engaging to one person is not engaging to someone else.
Engagement must be fleeting because some people change their systems or specific components fairly regularly.
I think it’s more complicated than that. As with resolution, people seem to lose interest and move on once their references have changed.
Karen Sumner suggested in a different thread that we need a new vocabulary. With Ron’s recent threads, it seems as though he is on a mission to discover that vocabulary.
Why people change is more complex than just sonic choices.
so let's just focus on sonics. even here, when people change, they don't change to what they themselves at that point consider a non-emotionally engaging choice.
Karen's thread to me was just a summary of what's already discussed in various WBF posts many times over.
Is it possible to be on a mission behind a laptop? I don't see Bond, Bourne or Bauer spending THAT much time contesting definitions.
I find Bauer the most emotionally engaging, then Bourne in the Ultimatum movie, and Bond never seems emotional about his women he is a box swapper. I would say Liam Neeson in the first Taken is more emotionally engaging than Bond. If there is a right definition, he has a special set of skills to find it
i think really that many audiophiles don't know, or are not confident, exactly what sort of presentation is emotionally engaging......for them. they like music, especially music they know, but are seeking the gear that takes them to that higher place. at what point do you know where you want to be? it's very complicated. like developing any skill set or competence, it takes time and some personal growth. for a time you follow other's advice assuming it's taking you toward it, but then at a point you get off that path onto your own. you find the combination of elements that touch you on most/all music. sometimes not understanding why everyone does not go where you went.
so it's easy to understand how a seeking audiophile is unsure what is emotionally engaging for them at their spot on the path. developing your own reference sound is not trivial.
the positive thing is that the path at all points is still fun mostly 100%.
just my 2 cents.
Last edited:
Sure I agree, but at any point in time it is emotionally engaging for them based on their knowledge at that point in time. So we are better off discussing what they find good and why rather than if they find it EE. To me, I do not see any person choosing something he does not consider EE based on his knowledge at that time.
I think we have seen that "engaging" (not "emotionally engaging") means very different things to different people. In contrast to your likely feeling about "engaging" some audiophiles who listen to music forensically and break sound down into discrete audiophile analytical terms and sonic attributes (Chuck, for example, I believe) are engaging in a different way than you and I engage.
I think that's how they describe it because it is the hobby. When you watch an edge of the seat movie or match, you watch it with that intensity but later when discussing it with fellow fans, the players, the moves, are all analyzed and debated. The thing is, EE is a given, the rest is not, for something one likes. You could hear an EE electrostat system, horn system, or cone system. They will all have some differences, but if you like them, neither will be not EE
I don't think it is. Sure the more it happens the better and an engaging system certainly won't hurt. My MP3 playing IPod can just as easily get me there as my main systems and car as well. For me mood and circumstances has a lot to do with it than just audio/system quality. Who hasn't had one of these moments!
Rob
I agree that we engage emotionally with the music, not the system. So logic would have it that the better the system the more we will immerse in the musical magic.
If so, resolution is a necessary attribute to the "right" system: by bring low-level details to the audible surface, resolution helps makes the audible experience more complete, i.e. we hear more of what the musicians did and we understand their interpretation better.
(By the way, horns, being very sensistive, easily give us details that may otherwise disappear in box speakers under the ambient noise floor (or distortion).
That said, how come a valve-based desktop radio can play a tune well enough to move the listener?
Hi Tima,
Yes, on one occasion my car audio system did almost reduce me to tears…..that was the first time I heard it playing a selection of MP3 files I’d downloaded especially for a long trip. The same trip I learned to appreciate BMW’s piped-in exhaust note, with its glorious howl
Joking aside, I’m not sure that ‘emotional involvement’ isn’t a valid audiophile description for a system’s performance. Since about 2 years I have been refining and optimizing my network feed and I recently finished the exercise with every single component chosen to balance, refine and enhance the musical performance. At the beginning of the exercise I was clearly making gains in the classical sense of wider, deeper sound stage, greater focus, extended and more believable frequency extremes, greater tonal accuracy and refinement etc. But towards the end of the exercise, when the system was breaking new ground in terms of fidelity, purity, rhythmic drive, musical message and musicianship, the gains profoundly changed and it became the strength, depth and extent of my reaction to the music that continued to be enhanced. By the time the last improvement was in place and the system run in, the emotional response and feelings generated by some music bordered on overwhelming In their intensity. Particularly rhythmical music makes every part of my body want to join in with the creation of the music. And why i think this a suitable term to describe performance is that it is quantitative as well as qualitative. The emotional reaction and involvement is certainly a quality of the system, but the degree to which this happens and the fact that this quality can be markedly enhanced in terms of its intensity and ability to involve and almost overwhelm the listener makes it an extremely addictive attribute.
Last edited:
Similar threads
