"Emotionally Engaging"

[Mike Lavigne]

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.

people buy gear for many reasons, including that it's EE. EE might mean more bass weight to many, but i doubt you would view it that way. do you equate bass weight with EE. or they might buy it mainly because of who is selling the product.

so i disagree with your assumption.

i do think that once you develop a clear reference for what you view as connecting you to the music, that then yes, it becomes essential. but that step is not assumed at every level of hifi choices..

 

[K3RMIT]

For me emotional connection is very mood or time based. maybe it just me but I can be in good or bad mood in one of my cars and if it’s a song I like it takes me back to that time. head banging air drums and the like
now at home it’s another story unless I’m just sitting at my seat and just listening it’s not Mostly
I have a fairly big system in an open room. so a concert that’s live is just as good 20 feet back as my chair at 8 feet. in some ways a distance has some type of details that makes it even more emotional. Pure emotion is to me very complex in and out as I listen

 

[Robh3606]

people buy gear for many reasons, including that it's EE. EE might mean more bass weight to many, but i doubt you would view it that way. do you equate bass weight with EE. or they might buy it mainly because of who is selling the product.

so i disagree with your assumption.

i do think that once you develop a clear reference for what you view as connecting you to the music, that then yes, it becomes essential. but that step is not assumed at every level of hifi choices..

Hello Mike

I would say that you need a system that is capable of providing that bass weight when appropriate. A prime example for me was lust this past Sunday they live streamed Aurora from Webster Hall in Manhattan. They just remodeled the hall and the bass weight the PA system is capable of is damn impressive!

Well to my delight that bass weight came right into my basement with the live stream. It felt like I was in that hall. If my system wasn't capable of reproducing that weight it would have made a difference to me because I know what it sounds like being there during a live show and the bass weight was appropriate for the music performed.

Rob

 

[Rensselaer]

I often use the term "emotionally engaging" in connection with my evaluation and understanding of audio components and high-end audio systems.

Is "emotionally engaging" a useful part of our high-end audio vocabulary and of our descriptive system?

I don’t think there is any useful or sensical way to quantify “emotional engagement” between or among individual audiophiles. The “incomparability of interpersonal utility” is a fancy economics way of saying that there is no way to quantify that Fred likes vanilla ice cream more than Joe likes chocolate ice cream. I think emotional engagement is, unfortunately, uniquely personal, and only helps each of us as individuals to evaluate components and stereo systems according to our own idiosyncratic ears and our own spectrum of more or less emotionally engaging.

I understand the approach of audiophiles who break down what they are hearing and evaluate components and audio systems in terms of discrete audiophile sonic attributes like “microdynamics,” “high-frequency extension,” and “bass articulation.” I can apply this approach deliberately to evaluate components and audio systems, but it is not the approach which matters to me.

I prefer to evaluate components and audio systems according to how easily and quickly they allow my body and my mind to relax, to wipe my mind clear of forensic audiophile sonic attribute analysis, to connect me in a passionate way to, and to make me laugh or cry in reaction to, the music I love. This, to me, is the essence of “emotionally engaging.”

What do you think? Do you think in terms of "emotionally engaging" when you listen to and evaluate high-end audio systems?

Although I have unfortunately purchased a lot of less-than-satisfying gear in the past based upon what reviewers have said in their evaluations, never after reading a review in Mono and Stereo, so nothing personal. That being said, I wish there were agreed factor(s) (eg. emotionally engaging?) which would be both quantifiable and universal to all reviewers so that consumers are not misled by puffing, always supplied with the qualifier "in this price bracket".

Instead of the reviewer using their vast experience to describe the capabilities in ambiguous jargon (that neither informs the potential buyer nor insults the vendor) of a piece of equipment slipped into the reviewers' high end system, the highly experienced reviewer should instead advise on putting together a system or two (in that price bracket) around the reviewed item that would most likely show it off in it's best, adding a percentage of how close that system comes, in sound, to the finest they have heard at any price (40%, 75%, etc.) so that the buyer can put together the best system possible for their budget. This is what new-be's want from the more experienced reviewer, to get advice on what to buy to get the best-sounding system for their budget.

I'll step off my soap box now.

 

[tima]

Although I have unfortunately purchased a lot of less-than-satisfying gear in the past based upon what reviewers have said in their evaluations, never after reading a review in Mono and Stereo, so nothing personal. That being said, I wish there were agreed factor(s) (eg. emotionally engaging?) which would be both quantifiable and universal to all reviewers so that consumers are not misled by puffing, always supplied with the qualifier "in this price bracket".

Instead of the reviewer using their vast experience to describe the capabilities in ambiguous jargon (that neither informs the potential buyer nor insults the vendor) of a piece of equipment slipped into the reviewers' high end system, the highly experienced reviewer should instead advise on putting together a system or two (in that price bracket) around the reviewed item that would most likely show it off in it's best, adding a percentage of how close that system comes, in sound, to the finest they have heard at any price (40%, 75%, etc.) so that the buyer can put together the best system possible for their budget. This is what new-be's want from the more experienced reviewer, to get advice on what to buy to get the best-sounding system for their budget.

I'll step off my soap box now.

Kinda sounds like you want a numerical score based on quantified universal values to tell you what to buy?

 

[dcathro]

Although I have unfortunately purchased a lot of less-than-satisfying gear in the past based upon what reviewers have said in their evaluations, never after reading a review in Mono and Stereo, so nothing personal. That being said, I wish there were agreed factor(s) (eg. emotionally engaging?) which would be both quantifiable and universal to all reviewers so that consumers are not misled by puffing, always supplied with the qualifier "in this price bracket".

Instead of the reviewer using their vast experience to describe the capabilities in ambiguous jargon (that neither informs the potential buyer nor insults the vendor) of a piece of equipment slipped into the reviewers' high end system, the highly experienced reviewer should instead advise on putting together a system or two (in that price bracket) around the reviewed item that would most likely show it off in it's best, adding a percentage of how close that system comes, in sound, to the finest they have heard at any price (40%, 75%, etc.) so that the buyer can put together the best system possible for their budget. This is what new-be's want from the more experienced reviewer, to get advice on what to buy to get the best-sounding system for their budget.

I'll step off my soap box now.

I don't think there is a universal standard when it comes to the more emotional aspects of audio performance. For example, I personally don't think that most reviewers truly understand Pace, Rhythm and Timing.

A cynical outlook is that magazines exist to sell copy and make money through advertising and the reviewers job is to entertain and promote product.

Martin Colloms tried to provide a transferable reviewing score system in his reviews for both Stereophile and Hifi news. This lead to many products being given less than fantastic scores, and neither the manufacturers or the magazines liked that. Colloms lost his job writing for those magazines and has had his own independent, advertising free, magazine for the past 15 years - hificritic

Manufacturers don't like negative (honest?) reviews, and can threaten to withdraw advertising or in some cases lawsuits. Even with an advertising free mag like hificritic, a fine line has to be taken, as manafacturers may be reluctant to supply product for review and risk a negative outcome.

 

[tima]

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.

That would seem to make sense in theory though I suspect people are messier.

We see a fair amount of equipment churn, people trying one thing then another. Consider how much time someone spends on evaluating equipment by listening and consider depth of exposure to different types of components. It is much harder to evaluate equipment in person nowadays - especially given the various restrictions that have come upon us. Even if you do get to hear a piece of gear, how often do you hear it before purchase? A decision takes only an instant, satisfaction comes over time ... or not.

I'd agree that people select something on the hope it will be engaging over time. Initial thrill or infatuation may grow and evolve or it may be just that.

 

[andromedaaudio]

We see a fair amount of equipment churn, people trying one thing then another.

I guess thats what this hobby is all about for a lage number of audiophiles

Churn gear

If its not emotionally enagaging i put another tape or CD on and put the former on my second class audio storage shelf.
Unfortunately my second class shelf is bigger then the first class .

If you get a good impression of what the artist was trying to achieve with his / her music its fine for me

 

[tima]

Hi Tima,
...

Joking aside, I’m not sure that ‘emotional involvement’ isn’t a valid audiophile description for a system’s performance. ... 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. ... 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.

Thanks for your cogent reply.

I can understand someone saying: "My emotive enjoyment has been greater since I switched to the XYZ brand." The use of 'greater' suggests some sort of scale or quantity. I remain sceptical about such a measurement that is claimed as either universal or transferable and thus I am also sceptical of using it as what you're calling 'a valid audiophile description for system performance.'

Imo there is a distinction between description and judgement, between exposition and emotional response. I can imagine someone saying: "It hit all the check boxes but it didn't move me." That is a description of personal response about the person making the description, but is it a valid description of a component or system - would it sway you to make a decision one way or the other?

 

[andromedaaudio]

I can imagine someone saying: "It hit all the check boxes but it didn't move me

I can not imagine that.
I m not sitting with pen /paper in my hand .

If you get a good feeling regarding that what you hear is a good impression of the artists musical intention is all that matters .
I couldnt give a flying f**k ( george carlin lol )about price cables equipment used etc .

It usually takes no more then a minute to judge music or a system

 

[DasguteOhr]

a little experiment, you put the latest hifi magazine on the table, invite friends and acquaintances to listen to music at home.
Whoever listens to music with concentration is a sign that they loves your system listening to music with it. But if you prefer to reach after third or fourth song for the HiFi magazine, you know that this is not the case, that is psychology.
I just wanted to test if it works. it works. Don't mean it badly, you can tell everything among friends. that is what characterizes a good friend.

A wise person once said that comparing is the first step to dissatisfaction. just listen to music with your system and enjoy.

 

[Al M.]

Imo there is a distinction between description and judgement, between exposition and emotional response. I can imagine someone saying: "It hit all the check boxes but it didn't move me." That is a description of personal response about the person making the description, but is it a valid description of a component or system - would it sway you to make a decision one way or the other?

Yes, I have heard systems that I admired for their capabilities, but which I would not want to have as my own because they didn't sufficiently engage me on an emotional level.

However, if they hit all the check boxes, they would have been fine for me. Problem is, they hit only some, at best most -- but not all.

 

[tima]

Yes, I have heard systems that I admired for their capabilities, but which I would not want to have as my own because they didn't sufficiently engage me on an emotional level.

However, if they hit all the check boxes, they would have been fine for me. Problem is, they hit only some, at best most -- but not all.

When I talked about 'hitting all the check boxes', what I had in mind is the litany of categories the typical audiophile or audiophile vocabulary makes use of in an attempt to describe the sound of a component or system - such as coherence, dynamics, tone, detail, timing, articulation, extension, imaging, soundstage depth, etc. etc. Some magazines actually have the boxes where a reviewer grades a component on each attribute, and then sums up to a conclusion. Ron says using those words to evaluate do not matter to him, but emotional engagement does.

That got me thinking about where is "emotional engagement" in all that as an attribute or description. Is it simply a check box? Is it an adequate score across the board? Is it the whole that is greater than the sum of the parts? If the component grades well, is emotional engagement assured? If emotional engagement is uniquely personal can it be used to describe a system or component?

 

[Blackmorec]

At home I had a system built around the famous active Naim and Linn combination. At the time it did few of the things that the Absolute Sound was raving about at the time such as the ability to hear the walls of the recording studio but what it did do was to deliver huge rhythmic drive and listener involvement with the music. But I was keen to hear what those top of the line speakers, electronics and room treatments could deliver, so I arranged a demo of what at the time was being marketed as the 2 channel, 3 dimensional soundstage champion. For the demo I took along half a dozen of my favorite CDs which the previous evening had been bouncing me out of my listening chair.
What I heard ticked all the audiophile boxes for clarity and 3 dimensional imaging. We even had the dog barking behind the listening chair…..but my CDs were frankly an embarrassment in their inability to deliver anything worthwhile. They were, in a word, fabulously dimensional and as boring as hell . The system sounded slow and ponderous, as if it needed the time to build all those 3 dimensional images. That was the point I realised that audiophile attributes without the listener involvement and emotion were not a worthwhile proposition.

 

[Al M.]

When I talked about 'hitting all the check boxes', what I had in mind is the litany of categories the typical audiophile or audiophile vocabulary makes use of in an attempt to describe the sound of a component or system - such as coherence, dynamics, tone, detail, timing, articulation, extension, imaging, soundstage depth, etc. etc. Some magazines actually have the boxes where a reviewer grades a component on each attribute, and then sums up to a conclusion. Ron says using those words to evaluate do not matter to him, but emotional engagement does.

Again, I think hitting all the check boxes perfectly would be no problem. But that never happens, since no system is perfect.

Also, individual persons have different sensitivities. For example, for me a system must present the music in a very lively way (closely related to, but not identical with, dynamics). If that high level of liveliness and frankly, excitement, doesn't happen, it's not for me. For others, emotional engagement lies elsewhere. For example, someone who values a relaxed sound will hear things very differently.

That got me thinking about where is "emotional engagement" in all that as an attribute or description. Is it simply a check box? Is it an adequate score across the board? Is it the whole that is greater than the sum of the parts? If the component grades well, is emotional engagement assured? If emotional engagement is uniquely personal can it be used to describe a system or component?

Emotional engagement is uniquely personal, at least to a significant degree. I never simply describe a component as emotionally engaging. At certain moments I do explain why a component draws me closer into the music, but I don't use the term of emotional engagement.

 

[dcathro]

At home I had a system built around the famous active Naim and Linn combination. At the time it did few of the things that the Absolute Sound was raving about at the time such as the ability to hear the walls of the recording studio but what it did do was to deliver huge rhythmic drive and listener involvement with the music. But I was keen to hear what those top of the line speakers, electronics and room treatments could deliver, so I arranged a demo of what at the time was being marketed as the 2 channel, 3 dimensional soundstage champion. For the demo I took along half a dozen of my favorite CDs which the previous evening had been bouncing me out of my listening chair.
What I heard ticked all the audiophile boxes for clarity and 3 dimensional imaging. We even had the dog barking behind the listening chair…..but my CDs were frankly an embarrassment in their inability to deliver anything worthwhile. They were, in a word, fabulously dimensional and as boring as hell . The system sounded slow and ponderous, as if it needed the time to build all those 3 dimensional images. That was the point I realised that audiophile attributes without the listener involvement and emotion were not a worthwhile proposition.

I think you hit it on the head. To my mind, a bandwidth limited mono transistor radio can sound way more emotionally involving than a lot of uber high end stereos.

 

[Al M.]

I think you hit it on the head. To my mind, a bandwidth limited mono transistor radio can sound way more emotionally involving than a lot of uber high end stereos.

This.

+1000.

 

[tima]

Emotional engagement is uniquely personal, at least to a significant degree. I never simply describe a component as emotionally engaging. At certain moments I do explain why a component draws me closer into the music, but I don't use the term of emotional engagement.

Yes, I agree. I prefer to describe what I hear and let the reader take their conclusions from that. To say : "The XYZ cable gave me an emotional high" (or some such) tells the reader about me more than, imo, saying something useful about the component.

 

[Mikem53]

I become emotionally engaged with the music first. Be it in my head, car or at my work desk. Then I try to bring the best from it with my rig by making the music an “experience”. An experience that keeps me coming back for more. I also seem to prefer sitting at home listening in my private venue then dealing with crowds and other distracting noises at live events. My age has Changed my mode of musical engagement And I’m really enjoying it.

 

[Rensselaer]

I would love to see reviewers list all of the equipment of every system that ever brought to them an immediate and persisting real emotional engagement. Such lists would actually be useful when sorting out what to audition before purchasing.