The language of Reproduction and the language of Music.

[cmarin]

Yes, of course, "suspension of disbelief" relates to the reproduction of music and not to live music.

I don't have a problem with hi-fi adjectives like "pinpoint imaging" and "inky black backgrounds" and "tight bass" because I think they describe effectively and intelligibly sonic artifacts created by electronic components of stereo systems. I don't happen to like it when stereo systems create these kinds of sonic artifacts, but I don't see the point in criticizing the existence of or the employment of these adjectives.

I think "suspension of disbelief" is not merely one of these hi-fi adjectives. I think "suspension of disbelief" is a concept which takes a different investigative and explanatory path, and evaluates holistically and in greater totality the success of a stereo system in recreating the sound of an original musical event (Objective 1) or in creating a sound that seems live (Objective 3).

If the concept of "suspension of disbelief" is not appealing I offer my alternative formulation of "emotional engagement."

I like 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.”

Both "suspension of disbelief" and "emotional engagement" are concepts and not adjectives. They are not helpful in allowing a reviewer to explain to his/her readers the sound he/she is hearing from a component or from a system.

I don’t think there is any useful or sensical way to quantify "suspension of disbelief" or “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 each of suspension of disbelief and 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 to our own linear spectrum of greater or lesser suspension of disbelief and more or less emotionally engaging.

Ron,

Thank you for your perspective.

I agree that it is difficult to define or measure musical engagement or other similar measures of emotional reactions to music because it is necessarily a subjective experience: we all hear and feel differently.

But many have offered proxies for engagement including being able to play entire albums of different musical genres and different recording qualities, instead of jumping around between audiophile tracks of different albums; to easily move away from the left brain analytical audiophile listening mode and conjure the right brain emotional mode as you describe in your post “allow my body and my mind to relax, to wipe my mind clear of forensic audiophile sonic attribute analysis”; or as DLS put it “the ability of my system to allow me to forget, even for just a few moments, that I'm trapped in this body on this imperfect world, and transport me to a world created by artists who perceive and audibly share the world they experience”

While these are not perfect, they may have a universal appeal that helps us, who are involved in this hobby, to reach a greater level of awareness of what we want out of our listening experiences.

For me, developing a langauge that allows us to better share our personal emotional experience with music is a very positive discussion. Not only in helping others access more easily how it feels, but how to listen in order to get the right brain experience more easily.

And in doing so, hopefully reach a higher level of enjoyment and appreciation for both live and reproduced music.

 

[thedudeabides]

I think the problem occurs when people try to use these terms when crossing over into the domain of musical enjoyment or the overuse (or misuse) of these terms.

Indeed. This thread proves that point rather well.

 

[the sound of Tao]

I'm still wondering where all these audiophiles are who obsess about black backgrounds, defined outlines, pinpoint imaging, etc. I haven't met any. A thread looking for justification.

They (us?) we’re definitely about in the day though I do believe it’s subsided quite a bit… maybe that’s because we’re trying stuff out and finding that it doesn’t always fit then moving into another framework for understanding. Inky black velvety backgrounds were definitely still more of a thing back in the noughties but times change… now where did I put my Justin Belieber tea towel set.

 

[spiritofmusic]

I think the measure of a great sound is "words fail me".
Just the phenomenon of music that just puts you in the moment and fully emotive.
It's the following day on trying to accurately recollect the sound you try to accurately collect your words.

 

[microstrip]

I'm still wondering where all these audiophiles are who obsess about black backgrounds, defined outlines, pinpoint imaging, etc. I haven't met any. A thread looking for justification.

Audio scholars have addressed suspension of disbelief and emotional content in the introduction of their writings - they are common concepts in sound reproductions. IMHO the tricky and challenging part is correlating the aspects of the physical sound reproduction with them. And for this you need an adequate language, shared by the participants.

 

[marty]

The language of music reproduction seems to me to be the province of writers whereas the language of music is best expressed by musicians and composers. One term that I have not yet seen in this thread is sonority, which was a favorite term constantly used by Leonard Slatkin in describing music and its performance. I was fortunate to be a regular attendee at the St. Louis Symphony when Slatkin conducted there from 1979-1996 (I moved there in 1990). He loved describing the pieces he was about to conduct with mini-lectures before many performances. The one word he used over and over to describe the composer’s intentions, his intentions and the musicians’ performance objectives was sonority. It’s such a rich word for the language of music. The timbre or sonority of an instrument or voice is the color, character or quality of sound it produces. ... a way of doing, being done, or happening; mode of action, occurrence, etc. The term sonority has more tentacles than an Octopus! It is the sonorities of what we hear that often contains the kernals of the emotions music elicits. If music reproduction is well done, the sonority of that (unamplified) music is as authentic as possible. But it can never be the equal of the original, regardless of the medium be it vinyl, digital or tape.

 

[Elliot G.]

Lots of great ideas on this thread. I’m not sure I can make much of a contribution in terms of the OPs specific question about language yet.

For me I would need to first distinguish whether we are talking about the physical characteristics of the audio we hear? Or the emotions we experience from what we hear?

In my personal preference, it’s about the latter. As I’ve heard it said before: “It’s not how it sounds, it’s how it makes you feel.”

So how do you measure the personal emotional energy experienced during a live (or reproduced performance), or develop a vocabulary to describe it? Especially when we all hear, and react emotionally to what we hear, differently?

Or are there universal commonalities amongst us in how experience the emotional energy of music, that lend themselves to measurement or description? As when Mike Lavigne referred to his listening experience as “human” or “humanistic” when the system allows the “suspension of disbelief”.

It’s not yet clear to me. But I do know that if I start thinking about what I hear (e.g., soundstage, or clarity or timbre, etc.) versus experiencing how the music makes me feel, then I’ve lost the emotional connection and I need to go in a different direction

I totally agree with you and Mike. Its not about the terms of how the music is described but rather the emotional and physical reaction and how the music touches you. If the music gives you Goosebumps and makes you tap your foot this is what it is all about to me. I personally find the "it has better depth" , "it has wider soundstage" "ohh the blackness" are terms more and more use to try to justify the gear and not to come closer to the music. I enjoy when I have non audiophile people in my room who never describe in those terms and always describe the emotional attachment not he terms of audio.
I often hear "well its not my cup of tea" it doesn't have good depth ,this to me is a BUNCH of CRAP. The system either gets out of the way and let's the music bring you in and get involved or it doesn't. Last week at Mike L home there was a collection of listeners over three days and the reactions of the entire crowd was always the same. The got lost in the music and found one product brought them closer and involved them emotionally and the other not so much.
Audio has become something IMO that hides behind the words created by a few, and specifically HP and JGH but have been twisted and perverted to have less and less meaning. Music is life, music is emotion, music can change your mood, change the way you feel, can create and physical and emotional response. Reading words about the sound to me is like looking of pictures versus the real thing, nice but not the same, not even close.

 

[Al M.]

The language of music reproduction seems to me to be the province of writers whereas the language of music is best expressed by musicians and composers. One term that I have not yet seen in this thread is sonority, which was a favorite term constantly used by Leonard Slatkin in describing music and its performance. I was fortunate to be a regular attendee at the St. Louis Symphony when Slatkin conducted there from 1979-1996 (I moved there in 1990). He loved describing the pieces he was about to conduct with mini-lectures before many performances. The one word he used over and over to describe the composer’s intentions, his intentions and the musicians’ performance objectives was sonority. It’s such a rich word for the language of music. The timbre or sonority of an instrument or voice is the color, character or quality of sound it produces. ... a way of doing, being done, or happening; mode of action, occurrence, etc. The term sonority has more tentacles than an Octopus! It is the sonorities of what we hear that often contains the kernals of the emotions music elicits. If music reproduction is well done, the sonority of that (unamplified) music is as authentic as possible. But it can never be the equal of the original, regardless of the medium be it vinyl, digital or tape.

Great post, Marty. Nice that you include "mode of action" in sonority.

Yes, in the search for authentic sonority I strive for color, richness and fine detail of tone as much as possible. Yet to me music means nothing without "action": liveliness, vividness, even drama. That is my personal first priority in home reproduction. I think liveliness somehow encompasses more than the dry term "dynamics".

I want excitement and life from music reproduction. I personally do NOT want a "relaxed sound". Yes, the sound should be effortless and not strained, it should be refined, and it should arise from a calm (not black!) background, but it should be full of life and excitement. I only want the sound to be relaxed when it reproduces emphatically relaxed music. Yet even relaxed music, when it is of high quality, usually has an explicit expressiveness that should be reproduced and that in itself produces excitement as well. Unfortunately, on some systems relaxed music sounds just dull.

Another thing that is really important is musical intelligibility. How well can you follow the diverse simultaneous strands in complex music? How well does the system reproduce musical phrasing by the performers, be it emphatic or delicate?

Without liveliness and musical intelligibility there is not sufficient emotional impact for me, regardless of how otherwise rich and saturated the sonorities may be.

 

[the sound of Tao]

The language of music reproduction seems to me to be the province of writers whereas the language of music is best expressed by musicians and composers. One term that I have not yet seen in this thread is sonority, which was a favorite term constantly used by Leonard Slatkin in describing music and its performance. I was fortunate to be a regular attendee at the St. Louis Symphony when Slatkin conducted there from 1979-1996 (I moved there in 1990). He loved describing the pieces he was about to conduct with mini-lectures before many performances. The one word he used over and over to describe the composer’s intentions, his intentions and the musicians’ performance objectives was sonority. It’s such a rich word for the language of music. The timbre or sonority of an instrument or voice is the color, character or quality of sound it produces. ... a way of doing, being done, or happening; mode of action, occurrence, etc. The term sonority has more tentacles than an Octopus! It is the sonorities of what we hear that often contains the kernals of the emotions music elicits. If music reproduction is well done, the sonority of that (unamplified) music is as authentic as possible. But it can never be the equal of the original, regardless of the medium be it vinyl, digital or tape.

I also love seminars by conductors and performers… it focusses us back in the appreciation of music and gives insight into the purpose in musical meaning and approach and in performance artistry.

I’d not necessarily want every performance explained because sometimes allowing music to talk for itself allows you to experience it the way the composer intended and analysis puts you into a bit of a different head space than the traditional context of the phenomenology of the composer, performer, listener relationship.

But performers’s seminars can be amazingly illuminating as well as building an extra layer to our understanding. I’ve seen and heard some brilliant recorded ones over the time from artists such as Leonard Bernstein and Bruno Walter… extraordinary musicians whose contributions can be more fully appreciated in terms of passing through meaning in music.

We all can have different priorities but connecting to great music and great artistry is more important to me than great recordings (as fabulous as they can be). Unfortunately many audiophile recordings are not often first tier musical performances. Pretty impressive sounds are never going to make up for OK artistry.

Greater connection with music is the core part of the journey for some. It’s by far the most important element for me. That’s why bringing the terminology of music is also important for some. It grounds us in the music which for me is the alpha and the omega for the journey.

Learning about the gear can be about creating potentials for even deeper connection to music and being able to hear great performances of music in their best light. The gear you have can reveal the different quality of the artistry in performance just as it can reveal the difference in the recordings. Gear that imbues a sameness in artist’s performance is like gear that makes recordings have sameness and is not necessarily in the best interest of the music or the lover of music.

Audiophile recordings are often great ways to hear your system but it’s like eating fast food all the time… just not necessarily very nourishing especially once the shine of impressive hifi wears off. That’s why I feel for people who have a connection to music at their core it is imperative that we constantly also refer back to music criteria is assessment in gear as well as the sonic criteria. Otherwise we’ll be focussing on training ourselves just to default our perception to sonic assessment rather than also embedding in the assessing a returning focus on the phenomenon of engaging fully in music.

If we train ourselves to listen for the sounds that’s what we’ll do, if we focus on listening to the music that’s what we’ll do. By incorporating a language based in music we return to music and ground ourselves in the phenomenon of our relationship to music and the comprehension of the meaning and purpose of music and not just focussing on the meaning and purpose of audio gear itself. For some the system can be an extraordinary means to a more fabulous end.

 

[tima]

Yes, of course, "suspension of disbelief" relates to the reproduction of music and not to live music.

I don't have a problem with hi-fi adjectives like "pinpoint imaging" and "inky black backgrounds" and "tight bass" because I think they describe effectively and intelligibly sonic artifacts created by electronic components of stereo systems. I don't happen to like it when stereo systems create these kinds of sonic artifacts, but I don't see the point in criticizing the existence of or the employment of these adjectives.

I think "suspension of disbelief" is not merely one of these hi-fi adjectives. I think "suspension of disbelief" is a concept which takes a different investigative and explanatory path, and evaluates holistically and in greater totality the success of a stereo system in recreating the sound of an original musical event (Objective 1) or in creating a sound that seems live (Objective 3).

If the concept of "suspension of disbelief" is not appealing I offer my alternative formulation of "emotional engagement."

I like 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.”

Both "suspension of the belief" and "emotional engagement" are concepts and not adjectives. They are not helpful in allowing a reviewer to explain to his/her readers the sound he/she is hearing from a component or from a system.

I don’t think there is any useful or sensical way to quantify "suspension of disbelief" or “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 each of suspension of disbelief and 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 to our own linear spectrum of greater or lesser suspension of disbelief and more or less emotionally engaging.

You are doing well in clarifying what you originally tried to say though we're probably not in sync on this topic.

I consider 'suspension of disbelief' to be a mental state one may be in where one is no longer aware of or less aware of listening to a stereo system. It is a state of little or reduced cognitive or ratiocinated activity. That one realizes one was in it occurs largely after the fact. Imo it is not a state one enters at will. Sometimes I will write: I like components that don't make me think about themselves when I use them - or similar.

Trying to parse it, the phrase 'suspension of disbelief' is odd or at least it makes me uncomfortable trying to think about it. On the one hand it sounds like an activity - suspension of my disbelief. On the other hand what is it that I disbelieve that for now I do not believe? Er...what? What it intends (I think) is: I no longer believe I am listening to a recording, or I no longer believe I am listening to a stereo.

Imo suspension of disbelief is not equivalent to or substitutable for "emotionally engaging" although I can be emotionally engaged with my disbelief suspended I can be emotionally engaged without my disbelief suspended.

 

[tima]

If we train ourselves to listen for the sounds that’s what we’ll do, if we focus on listening to the music that’s what we’ll do

Can't we do both, just (preferably) not simultaneously? When I am working on a review I have a pen and notebook and write down what I hear and think. Sometimes I put the pen down and let the music take me. Other times I have no pen or notebook. I think you can train yourself to keep the activities exclusive of one another although the 'audiophile nervosa' syndrome befalls some who cannot stop critiquing.

Wrt great music, great artistry and great recordings - the latter gives me access to the former two. It's the only way now that I'll get to hear Walter or Bernstein. A great conductor with a brilliant interpretation can generate an interest in a work that a lesser conductor may not and often? that means a specific recording. So called 'audiophile recordings' often have great sound and mediocre music; I'm wary of any offering that labels itself as an audiophile recording. But I do confess that Leonard Slatkin's Telarc recording of Mahler's Titan (10066) was what got me interested in Mahler; Telarc is/was an audiophile label, isn't it?

Learning about the gear can be about creating potentials for even deeper connection to music and being able to hear great performances of music in their best light. The gear you have can reveal the different quality of the artistry in performance just as it can reveal the difference in the recordings. Gear that imbues a sameness in artist’s performance is like gear that makes recordings have sameness and is not necessarily in the best interest of the music or the lover of music.

Yes. That's why many come here, to learn about gear and the characteristics of gear as described using words. For all our paeans to music there are far more posts about equipment than about music - why is that?

 

[the sound of Tao]

Can't we do both, just (preferably) not simultaneously? When I am working on a review I have a pen and notebook and write down what I hear and think. Sometimes I put the pen down and let the music take me. Other times I have no pen or notebook. I think you can train yourself to keep the activities exclusive of one another although the 'audiophile nervosa' syndrome befalls some who cannot stop critiquing.

Wrt great music, great artistry and great recordings - the latter gives me access to the former two. It's the only way now that I'll get to hear Walter or Bernstein. A great conductor with a brilliant interpretation can generate an interest in a work that a lesser conductor may not and often? that means a specific recording. So called 'audiophile recordings' often have great sound and mediocre music; I'm wary of any offering that labels itself as an audiophile recording. But I do confess that Leonard Slatkin's Telarc recording of Mahler's Titan (10066) was what got me interested in Mahler; Telarc is/was an audiophile label, isn't it?



Yes. That's why many come here, to learn about gear and the characteristics of gear as described using words. For all our paeans to music there are far more posts about equipment than about music - why is that?

I do believe we do both but yes not simultaneously. One is engaged in fragmentation and the other in synthesis… different phases of awareness perhaps. But also the weighting varies for each and also then for each of us as our needs change.

There was a phase for me where I spent a lot of time in analysis of sound, but now less so. As the parts of the puzzle become more revealed and as the system starts to kick in I spend less and less time in analysis. I feel I’m back to a point where I’m happy that what I have is doing the job of letting me explore music in the best ways that I can. It’s taken decades but eventually I found a way to get back to the core that began it all for me.

To the second part I’d just suggest Tim that most of us are here in a shifting series of phases and changing and evolving as we go. As we start to answer our own questions our needs change. Many of us come here to learn how to make a better system but then when we start to get there our focus can weight back into the music… or sport… or the periphery of great ideas and rich associations that can occur here. Words are useful for making distinctions and great analysis. Music is a language that brings on more immediate and whole synthesis and perhaps better at making more essential connections. Music for me is the conclusion to words.

I’d (very humbly) suggest that as an example PeterA seemingly has shifted in his phase in this last year or so (hopefully Peter will chime in to give greater insight and confirm or deny) and perhaps feels more essentially in the right place and less like that he needs great change… and so also possibly because of this that he now needs less focus on searching and so less need to engage in analysis as well.

Perhaps he’ll shift from searching to a more occasional monitoring of his circumstances but as the confidence grows in an essential rightness he also may shift perception focus and be more comfortable to go with the flow and kick back into an even greater focus on music. Spending more time pulling things together and less time pulling them apart. The greater the searching and the greater the need for change the greater the need for the focus on gear and for constant analysis. We are in a life cycle I’d suggest and as each of our puzzles resolve so does the shift in the kinds of assessment that we are then focussed on making.

Beyond this there are perhaps other factors… there are perceptual weightings based not just on state (temporary) but also of type (constant)… then there are kinds of perceptual focus that come of out of circumstance. Perhaps as a reviewer a need to engage in a good deal of analysis may always be a very essential part and parcel of your work… but this could also be a function of type as well. For me analysis is something of a necessary evil (joking) and something that I’ve forced myself to be better at because it’s so essential in design process. Detail and minutiae are also a challenge for me as is science and technology but circumstance works to constantly keep me working at my many and various Archilles heels. Gotta love a good constraint I figure.

 

[the sound of Tao]

Wrt great music, great artistry and great recordings - the latter gives me access to the former two. It's the only way now that I'll get to hear Walter or Bernstein. A great conductor with a brilliant interpretation can generate an interest in a work that a lesser conductor may not and often? that means a specific recording. So called 'audiophile recordings' often have great sound and mediocre music; I'm wary of any offering that labels itself as an audiophile recording. But I do confess that Leonard Slatkin's Telarc recording of Mahler's Titan (10066) was what got me interested in Mahler; Telarc is/was an audiophile label, isn't it?

Diving back in Tim… not to say also that the very great performances can’t be also be very great recordings… Decca, RCA, Blue Note, and many other labels with some of the great treasures of recorded music produce wonderful recordings and also that boutique audiophile labels can also have some of the very great performances… for example Channel Classic’s Ivan Fischer and the Budapest Symphony Orchestra Mahler’s 2nd and 4th Symphonies are among the best performances of these symphonies.

There are many boutique labels that push the boundaries with great recording standards that also occasionally produce some recordings of extraordinary performances but this is not then the most likely scenario. The great performances of music are perhaps more often found on the big record labels with the big rosters of best players and supported by the finest orchestras. Or at other labels with variable recordings but extraordinary performances in their vaults like Supraphon.

I also see audiophile posters at times recommend boutique audiophile labels broadly in general for their catalogue of classical music just like Channel Classics… but given their relatively small roster of the absolute top tier of performers that many of their absolutely great audiophile recordings aren’t then also the very best choice from a performance point of view… so if I was to recommend a performance of Rachmaninov’s 1st piano concerto I’d suggest someone would be much better off buying Leif Ove Andsnes on Warner (nice recording but not perhaps as stellar as Channel Classics) than a great recording but then not so great performance like Anna Federova and the Gallen Symphony Orchestra on Channel Classics. I’d look to Ashkenazy on Decca or Byron Janis on RCA or a range of other landmark performances on very good recordings before a lesser performance on a well intentioned boutique audiophile recording no matter how good it sounded.

Reality is that many of the great performances are on lesser recordings at various labels… and I’d always rather have a great performance on a good recording than the other way around. Sometimes the stars align perfectly but mostly I’d suggest there can be split choices on best classical performances and then best audiophile recordings.

 

[Cellcbern]

Why use the term “black background“ when we already have the term low noise floor? I think of the word background in the visual sense What is behind the instruments. Is it silent black space nothingness/ absence without border or is it a defined and energized space? I think of it as the latter. Hall ambience is even more specific to the particular recording venue and is used to describe the character of the specific space captured on the recording and presented by the system.

I want to hear a lack of noise floor or a low noise floor from the system across recordings but I do not want to hear a black background across all recordings.

just my opinion, which seems to be in the minority.

Why not? What's wrong with having more than one term to describe an absence of noise?

 

[MarkusBarkus]

...regarding the term "suspension of disbelief" that I believe is actually an abbreviation of a 19th c. Coleridge citation:

"The willing suspension of disbelief for the moment" regarding audience engagement iterary works.

Perhaps the "willing" and "for the moment" aspects of the concept are useful here/as applied to reproduced music?

I have heard music from my system that brings tears to my eyes, it's so beautiful.

Yet, even on those occasions, I do not really think I am in a concert hall, but nonetheless, the beauty of the music transcends my chair, the acoustic treatments and tiny LEDs I see before me.

Perhaps those moments arrive, even fleetingly, because I am willing to believe in the beauty and magic of music, of humanity.

 

[Ron Resnick]

TimA, Markus,

I think you both make good points. I am trying to reconcile our views.

Markus certainly is correct that when listening to a stereo we are never really fooled into believing that we are in a live concert hall. "Suspension of disbelief" is an aspirational concept, not a descriptively accurate one.

I also agree with TimA that "suspension of disbelief" is an inherently slightly convoluted concept. So let's continue to work on it. And suspension of disbelief might not even really be what I mean. I think I simply latched onto it as the closest approximation for what I had in mind.

Instead of a linear, one factor spectrum of more or less suspension of disbelief, or more or less emotional engagement, I suggest a linear spectrum with "audiophile analysis" (or audiophile mental state) on one end of the spectrum and "musical ecstacy" (or emotional or musical mental state) on the other end of the spectrum.

"Audiophile analysis" focuses on sound: analyzing clinically and dissecting sound from a stereo system using the hi-fi terminology. This mental state focuses on sound and the discrete components of sound, rather than on the holistic and emotional enjoyment of music.

"Musical ecstasy" is grounded in emotional engagement. This mental state can be realized when the beauty of and our involvement in the music allows our bodies and our minds to relax, to wipe our minds clear of forensic audiophile sonic attribute analysis, and to connect us in a passionate and emotional way to the music we love.

I concede that all I've really done here is rearrange the concepts and attach one to each end of the same spectrum. But maybe this sliding scale gets us more accurately and closer to the essence of the matter -- without the concept of "suspension of disbelief."

The closer the stereo system to which we are listening allows each of us to slide from the audiophile analysis side to the musical ecstasy side the higher we rate subjectively that stereo system.

 

[MarkusBarkus]

...and if asked whether the suspension of disbelief and emotional engagement increases with the quality of the system (define quality as you will), I would say it surely does, for me. That is, the "better" I made my system, the more access I had to the immediacy and flow of this emotional bloom.

Maybe I'm just a junky looking for a fix? Sweet rapture. Interesting conversation on a tricky topic. Thank you...

 

[Karen Sumner]

I was under the impression that imaging and soundstaging were artifacts of the recording process. You don't hear them at live performances. However for some audiophiles they add to the enjoyment of recorded music - enhance the illusion I suppose. Since they are not high on my list of sonic priorities I cannot explain why they are so important to some people, but I've had audio friends for whom pinpoint imaging was a critical criterion when selecting components.

I am not sure to what extent imaging and sound staging are artifacts of the recording process unless one is talking about electronic music that is recorded in a studio where creating spatial effects is intentional and considered to be a part of recording art. There are a lot of audiophiles out there who primarily use electronic music produced in a studio as their reference, and there is a tendency to pursue pin point imaging, spatial effects, and transients effects over all else in selecting components and setting up systems. It become the pursuit of hi fi, not music. Systems that have been assembled and set up to highlight these effects do not often do a great job at capturing acoustic instrumental timbres and low level harmonic reflections in natural acoustic space. Tipping the scale toward effects almost always robs a system of its ability to also deliver a believable level of fundamental foundation from the middle frequencies upward — the place where instrumental timbres and low level harmonic information reside. For example, a person who has heard a lot of live acoustic music and wants to create a highly enjoyable listening experience at home can find hi fi- effect sound rather off-putting, but ironically, a system that honors the sound of live acoustic instruments in natural acoustic space can also really rock — although there are WBF readers out there who rely almost solely on electronic music sources who have vehemently disagreed. I have had listening sessions in my listening room with musicians who play primarily electronic music listen to their music. Unlike the typical audiophile, they KNOW what the electronic music they produced should sound like because they were there. I have never had a listening session with a musician where there was any question about the ability of the system to capture what the artist wanted to achieve. I haven't spent much time yet reading these threads, but couldn't some of the disagreements that show up from time-to-time on this forum and others really amount to a basic misunderstanding regarding music references?

I think those who are primarily dedicated to electronic music have very different listening criteria than those who have a more eclectic perspective and have also listened to a lot of live acoustic music or play (an) acoustic instrument(s). I don't think we can force feed anyone to listen to more live acoustic music, but we could hold them a bit more accountable for what they have to say about sound. Otherwise, to avoid confrontation, the discussion becomes quite reductive to "I like what I like, and you like what you like."

 

[Karen Sumner]

I am not sure to what extent imaging and sound staging are artifacts of the recording process unless one is talking about electronic music that is recorded in a studio where creating spatial effects is intentional and considered to be a part of recording art. There are a lot of audiophiles out there who primarily use electronic music produced in a studio as their reference, and there is a tendency to pursue pin point imaging, spatial effects, and transients effects over all else in selecting components and setting up systems. It become the pursuit of hi fi, not music. Systems that have been assembled and set up to highlight these effects do not often do a great job at capturing acoustic instrumental timbres and low level harmonic reflections in natural acoustic space. Tipping the scale toward effects almost always robs a system of its ability to also deliver a believable level of fundamental foundation from the middle frequencies upward — the place where instrumental timbres and low level harmonic information reside. For example, a person who has heard a lot of live acoustic music and wants to create a highly enjoyable listening experience at home can find hi fi- effect sound rather off-putting, but ironically, a system that honors the sound of live acoustic instruments in natural acoustic space can also really rock — although there are WBF readers out there who rely almost solely on electronic music sources who have vehemently disagreed. I have had listening sessions in my listening room with musicians who play primarily electronic music listen to their music. Unlike the typical audiophile, they KNOW what the electronic music they produced should sound like because they were there. I have never had a listening session with a musician where there was any question about the ability of the system to capture what the artist wanted to achieve. I haven't spent much time yet reading these threads, but couldn't some of the disagreements that show up from time-to-time on this forum and others really amount to a basic misunderstanding regarding music references?

I think those who are primarily dedicated to electronic music have very different listening criteria than those who have a more eclectic perspective and have also listened to a lot of live acoustic music or play (an) acoustic instrument(s). I don't think we can force feed anyone to listen to more live acoustic music, but we could hold them a bit more accountable for what they have to say about sound. Otherwise, to avoid confrontation, the discussion becomes quite reductive to "I like what I like, and you like what you like."

For those of you who are taking this all together too seriously, here's a stab from the past that I hope will tickle you:

 

[MarkusBarkus]

...from the days when I could stay up that late to watch SNL. Now I have to "record" it to watch when I'm awake.