[andyr]

Don't think this was posted here before ... but I was put onto (somehow!) a really great article in the Jan 2000 Stereophile, by Marcus Sauer - "God is in the Nuances".     (I think you can find it by Googling the phrase?)

Fascinating comment (37 pages!  ) about how basically the emotional experience when listening to music is the key to what is a "good" system.  Trouble is ... you can't measure this! 

I thoroughly recommend it - and it goes to the heart of what Hugh is all about! 

Regards,

Andy

[kyrill]

Helaas there are nations who do NOT support this, they belong to the side:
"Der Teufel steckt im Detail" unnecessary to explain this is not true

[stvnharr]

Don't think this was posted here before ... but I was put onto (somehow!) a really great article in the Jan 2000 Stereophile, by Marcus Sauer - "God is in the Nuances".     (I think you can find it by Googling the phrase?)

Fascinating comment (37 pages!  ) about how basically the emotional experience when listening to music is the key to what is a "good" system.  Trouble is ... you can't measure this! 

I thoroughly recommend it - and it goes to the heart of what Hugh is all about! 

Regards,

Andy

.

I have a completely opposite view on this. 
You the listener may have an emotional experience, but your system does not. 
If all things are operating perfectly, you the listener may tend to vary, maybe not, in your "persona" every time you listen to music.
Your music system will be the same every time unless you make changes within the system.
You the listener have emotions.  The music system does not.
If you have an emotional experience while listening to music, it's all about YOU.
It's nice to have an emotional experience while listening, for sure. 
But I think it's more a measure of you the listener than anything about your music system.

[PeteG]

Don't think this was posted here before ... but I was put onto (somehow!) a really great article in the Jan 2000 Stereophile, by Marcus Sauer - "God is in the Nuances".     (I think you can find it by Googling the phrase?)

Fascinating comment (37 pages!  ) about how basically the emotional experience when listening to music is the key to what is a "good" system.  Trouble is ... you can't measure this! 

I thoroughly recommend it - and it goes to the heart of what Hugh is all about! 

Regards,

Andy

.

I have a completely opposite view on this. 
You the listener may have an emotional experience, but your system does not. 
If all things are operating perfectly, you the listener may tend to vary, maybe not, in your "persona" every time you listen to music.
Your music system will be the same every time unless you make changes within the system.
You the listener have emotions.  The music system does not.
If you have an emotional experience while listening to music, it's all about YOU.
It's nice to have an emotional experience while listening, for sure. 
But I think it's more a measure of you the listener than anything about your music system.

I agree 100%.

[Geardaddy]

Andy, thanks for the thoughtful post.  That article is poignant and a nice counterpoint to all the boneheaded and one-dimensional "analysis" in equipment reviews and the subsequent parroting of that same analysis in threads. 

I have a completely opposite view on this. 
You the listener may have an emotional experience, but your system does not. 
If all things are operating perfectly, you the listener may tend to vary, maybe not, in your "persona" every time you listen to music.
Your music system will be the same every time unless you make changes within the system.
You the listener have emotions.  The music system does not.
If you have an emotional experience while listening to music, it's all about YOU.
It's nice to have an emotional experience while listening, for sure. 
But I think it's more a measure of you the listener than anything about your music system.

What did you think of the experiments performed by Ackermann?  From a psychoacoustic point of view, there is no separation between the listener and system, and thus emotion or the stimulation of an emotional response is a valid variable in the evaluation of hi fi equipment.  It may be influenced by system engineering, but it is still remains an inextricable part of this whole goofy equation.

[emac]

Ackermann's findings are good example of why I was a psych major undergrad.  There's a whole lot going on with our emotions and behaviors, a lot of which we aren't even aware of. 

Anyway, what I'm going to write is completely my opinion.  If you agree that's fine, and if you don't, then that's fine too.   For me, the emotional angle is what's most important when listening to music.  Being accurate, having a wide and deep soundstage, etc, adds to the music, but in the end, they are just gravy.  It's more about the feelings the equipment conveys to me.  For example, I had a pair of Onix Reference 1.5's that were clean and accurate.  But they always seemed somewhat lacking.  I later put in a pair of Hawthorne SI's, which are not the most accurate speakers in the world.  Afterwards, I couldn't go back to the Refs.  Whether it was the open baffle sound, the coloring, or whatever, it was more fun.  The music was just more engaging.

It's about what moves you, not the specs.  And your emotions can be tainted by outside things, like what's going on in your life and how much you paid for the equipment.  Being an objective listener rather than a subjective one is fine, but it's not always representative of real life nor most of the time that you spend listening to music.

Music is spiritual, which often means that it's personal.  And for myself, as long as I've found what stirs me, then it doesn't really matter what the measurements are or if anyone else likes it. 
 

[TONEPUB]

I don't know if this makes any sense, but your system has to get to a certain
point (and it's different for everyone) where you really are emotionally
engaged and you'd rather sit in your chair or on your couch and listen
to more music instead of doing something else...

That's where the emotional component enters into it for me.

[Geardaddy]

Music is spiritual, which often means that it's personal.  And for myself, as long as I've found what stirs me, then it doesn't really matter what the measurements are or if anyone else likes it. 
 

word....another interesting tidbit from Sauer's article was the experiment where despite anesthetizing the auditory portion of the brain (temporal lobe), an effect was still evident in the subjects mood post-music.

I don't know if this makes any sense, but your system has to get to a certain
point (and it's different for everyone) where you really are emotionally
engaged and you'd rather sit in your chair or on your couch and listen
to more music instead of doing something else...

That's where the emotional component enters into it for me.

Makes perfect sense and is a logical and balanced way to spin this whole debate...

[emac]

word....another interesting tidbit from Sauer's article was the experiment where despite anesthetizing the auditory portion of the brain (temporal lobe), an effect was still evident in the subjects mood post-music.

The scientist part of me wants to see the methods for their study because something about it doesn't jive with me.  The psychologist part of me says, "Aha, there's the evidence". 

I don't know if this makes any sense, but your system has to get to a certain
point (and it's different for everyone) where you really are emotionally
engaged and you'd rather sit in your chair or on your couch and listen
to more music instead of doing something else...

That's where the emotional component enters into it for me.

That sounds reasonable as well.  It's just hard to define what that point is because it differs between people.  Or even in different systems.  My living room and listening room systems use different types of speakers with different strengths and weaknesses.  They both engage me, but for different reasons.  (Man, how many times can I use the word different in a paragraph?)

[Geardaddy]

The scientist part of me wants to see the methods for their study because something about it doesn't jive with me.  The psychologist part of me says, "Aha, there's the evidence".

I agree with your comments above....I come from a biomedical science background and so my knee-jerk response is to question methods.  But, at the same time, there is an intuitive level of plausability....that there are different quadrants of our gnoggin that perform separate but simultaneous functions.  Who knows...this whole dialogue makes me think of the experiment where they subjected plants to heavy metal and it appeared to be damaging...

[konut]

  But, at the same time, there is an intuitive level of plausability....that there are different quadrants of our gnoggin that perform separate but simultaneous functions.  

Shouldn't that be knoggin? Anyway, for me there is no direct correlation between the vortex and the apex relative to my mojo meter and my bullshit meter. Mood is everything, gear is fun. And, the devil is in the details.

[Geardaddy]

   
Shouldn't that be knoggin? Anyway, for me there is no direct correlation between the vortex and the apex relative to my mojo meter and my bullshit meter. Mood is everything, gear is fun. And, the devil is in the details.

You are correct...I had the word "gnosis" on the brain and it fused with knoggin to become gnoggin

You have some pithy verbage in your statement which I do not "grok"....would you care to elaborate?

[konut]

Of course! An example is in order. At work we have a crappy little stereo CD/AM/FM player. Sometimes something comes on which causes me to either exibit my air guitar skills or dance moves, much to the amusement of my coworkers. Mostly its just a device to fill the void of silence to allay the boredom. The combination of program material and mood will cause me to be engaged to the point of physical action. At home my beloved stereo, at times, just plays backround material. Other times I'm focused on critical listening. Depending on mood, my buns are bouncing, other times its just an intellectual excercise. I still appreciate the SQ, regardless.

[Geardaddy]

Of course! An example is in order. At work we have a crappy little stereo CD/AM/FM player. Sometimes something comes on which causes me to either exibit my air guitar skills or dance moves, 

Word....as emotive variables go, spontaneous air guitar may on the top of the list.  If a reviewer in Stereophile feels the irrepressible urge for air guitar, you know beyond a shadow of a doubt that a Class A product is at hand....

[AKSA]

I'm really enjoying this.......  thanks for the input, guys.

There are two schools of thought, engineering, lowest distortion, etc, and subjective, with all the unmeasureable emotive jargon behind it.  Daggers drawn, yada yada....

Particularly enjoyed this one:

Word....as emotive variables go, spontaneous air guitar may on the top of the list

Certainly, the way we feel at the time has huge bearing on just how our 'systems' appear to be travelling.

Cheers,

Hugh

[andyr]

Word....as emotive variables go, spontaneous air guitar may on the top of the list

Certainly, the way we feel at the time has huge bearing on just how our 'systems' appear to be travelling.

Cheers,

Hugh

My take on that was different to yours, Hugh.

I took it to mean, if system A doesn't make you get up and do "air guitar" then it is worse (and by "worse", I mean "does not deliver the same emotional content") as system B, which does.

Regards,

Andy

[AKSA]

Andy,

I have no problem with your interpretation - to me it is obvious our opinions are both valid!!

However, words here are woefully inadequate, hence the obvious need for objective measurement.  In any case, our attitudes (and the words we choose to express them) tend to change with time anyway.

Thank you for teasing out this very interesting article!

Cheers,

Hugh

[Ericus Rex]

I agree with EMAC overall.

For me, the emotional angle is what's most important when listening to music.  Being accurate, having a wide and deep soundstage, etc, adds to the music, but in the end, they are just gravy.  It's more about the feelings the equipment conveys to me.  It's about what moves you, not the specs.  And your emotions can be tainted by outside things, like what's going on in your life and how much you paid for the equipment.  Being an objective listener rather than a subjective one is fine, but it's not always representative of real life nor most of the time that you spend listening to music.

Music is spiritual, which often means that it's personal.  And for myself, as long as I've found what stirs me, then it doesn't really matter what the measurements are or if anyone else likes it. 
 

I would add that (what I call) a great system will PUT me in that state of mind where I'm emotionally connected to the music.  I've listened to lots of very expensive systems that could not put me in that state.  And in the end, I would rather be connected to the music emotionally than to hear every little bit on the disc.

[soundbitten1]

Why can't you have both ?

[emac]

Why can't you have both ?

You certainly can.  It's just that what measures the best doesn't always mean that it's emotionally engaging.  And engagement is not something that is directly measurable and can vary from person to person.