Never Forget Our Ears-An Essay About Attentiveness

[karma]

Our Ears and Brain Add Up To Attentiveness

Ears, what about our ears? Since high school, I have been involved in formal hearing studies as a test subject. In all the studies, my hearing has been the best the researchers have ever tested. I always amazed them. These tests are a little frustrating for me because I did not understand the relationship between their frequency response and low level sound pressure tests and "hi fi hearing" which is what I was interested in. The question I had was: is formal hearing and hi fi hearing related? Now, many years later, I think I know the answer.

Having great formal hearing is a wonderful ability. But hi fi hearing is more complex and involves more mental abilities. Hi fi hearing uses physical hearing to develop a new skill. I call it attentiveness. I believe attentiveness is a learned skill; at least it was for me.

Perhaps some people naturally have attentiveness built in but they may lack formal hearing abilities. Or, they may have good formal hearing but never develop attentiveness. Of the two hearing types, I believe that attentiveness is the most important as long as one has at least decent formal hearing. These personal differences may, in large part, account for what we hi fi types refer to as “taste”. There is no doubt that there are large variations in hearing ability between individuals.

Now, I want to define attentiveness. The way I experience attentiveness involves dissecting the audio information into its component parts as a conscious activity. This more than listening to check list of such audiophile items such as "sound staging", or "high frequencies" or "detail", or "resolution", though these terms are useful to describe our experiences. Instead, it's more akin to being a human analyzer program that gives as its data output the results of the brains analysis of the sonic activity. It is close, or maybe identical, to having a diagnostic program running that can access the real time aural activity of the brain. Once this done, the results are then stored and categorized by our brains language facilities for either further analysis or communication. It is also committed to memory.

To start the attentiveness program I need to make a conscious effort. It’s not hard. I need a quiet and still place, closed eyes, and good music, music I enjoy. I then enter a state of mind that is identical to meditation. My attention is totally directed to my mental aural experience. The idea here is to not force the brain into multitasking with our other senses, thus, allowing complete concentration on the audio experience. I become essentially oblivious to all activity around me except the sound and my reactions to it. That’s why I need a still space to do this. Outside activity can defeat me.

Using the meditative state to listen to music has become so ingrained to my listening experience that I always use it at live music activities. Any performer who uses physical activity and dancing, etc. as part of their show, is lost on me. Fortunately, classical (my favorite) concerts are not that way except for some of the more active conductors. They need not bother, my eyes are closed.

Another discipline I use is the development of audio vocabulary. This was inspired by J. Gordon Holt (RIP) as he struggled with a way to describe what he heard and to inculcate his words into the hi fi community. His efforts are totally taken for granted today but many of our descriptive words were introduced by Mr. Holt. I always try to put a descriptive name on the details of my attentiveness reports. Sometimes I use standard words and other times I get inventive. I prefer standard words because it is easier for others to understand what I am talking about. But, often they do not suffice. So, I invent. I have found that vocabulary is a useful adjunct to attentiveness. The two tend to feed on each other.

I said earlier that attentiveness is a learned skill. Like all skills, it can be maximized. How can it be honed to a fine edge like an Olympic athlete maximizes their performance? Practice, practice, practice. How do we get this practice? I mean, we are always using out hearing, right? No, that’s not practice; that’s just survival. Practice must involve the meditative state. It must be a conscious activity and it must be single-tasking.

I had an ideal way to practice. My hi fi repair shops that I operated for 13 years offered near the ideal situation. With hi fi repair, we have many useful instruments and test equipment to determine the performance excellence of the equipment on the test bench. They are used a lot. In my case, formal THD distortion testing, at selected frequencies, under full load, was a standard report I gave to my customers. If they understood the meaning, they appreciated the service. Such testing also kept me honest and objective.

However, the tests I performed did not define the sound in the best possible way. Why? Because such tests did not use the best piece of test equipment I had available. And what is that best equipment? MY EARS, always, my ears.

Consider: An average hi fi tech is potentially using their ears in a critical listening mode 8 hours a day, every day. At least they should be. I do not think that all hi fi techs take advantage of this incredible learning opportunity. Why? Because, I believe, they are not hi fi fanatics. They have not developed attentiveness. All one has to do is to visit their homes and listen to their hi fi systems. What you find is better than average systems (they appreciate good equipment) but not great and certainly not high end. If you are in the industry you will come across decent equipment that can be repaired cheaply and so they are latched onto. It is obvious they are not fanatics. Rather, they are businessmen making a living doing something they are good at; electronics repair. Please understand I do not intend to denigrate hi fi techs. I’m just trying to underline the differences between fanatics and those who are not even though they may be in the industry. Many techs are excellent at what they do and I respect them.

I was different. I had been into hi fi since twelve years old and had put together many good systems over the years. I was (am) a fanatic. One must be so to pursue the Holy Grail of “a straight wire with gain”. It’s not easy or cheap or fast. And I had great formal hearing and was developing attentiveness. Every day, whether the object of my attention was an amplifier, a tape recorder, a preamp, a equalizer, or whatever, I was conscious of developing my attentiveness as an ultimate way to quantify what I heard. 8 hours a day, every working day. This became ingrained to the point that I listened to natural world in the same way. I could pop into the meditative state instantaneously. This is what practice brings. I was not so facile at first. As I said, attentiveness for me was a learned skill. My repair shops allowed me to optimize the skill.

Now that I no longer have a repair shop, have my skills diminished? In some ways, yes; in others, no. I can’t move into the meditative state as quickly and easily. I am more easily distracted. Once I am in the meditative state, nothing has changed. My formal hearing is not as good as it once was but it is still much better than average. My recognition and enjoyment of great sound has not changed at all.

One thing has changed for the positive. My increased income has allowed me to acquire a better system, one that satisfies my responses to my attentiveness reports.

One last thing. Be sure to take good care of your hearing. The world we live in can be very destructive to our hearing. I keep hearing protection with me at all times. This may seem to be a little over the edge but you never can predict when you might need a good set of ear plugs. I’ve been doing this since I was a teen ager. Consequently, my hearing is still good not showing typical environmental damage that hearing researchers very often measure.

I truly hope I have not bored you. I wrote this with the assumption that you have never seen hearing described this way before. I believe everyone that is enthusiastically into high end will recognize at least portions of what I try to describe. I hope you will respond to this post with your analysis. And it is very possible that you are naturally more skilled at attentiveness than I was. If so, I applaud you. You truly do have Golden Ears.

Sparky

 

[JackD201]

When I was studying sound for film we were made to listen extremely attentively to every element (solo'ed) and switch over to the main busses as the tracks were built up. It got to a point where for some time after graduation, I had a difficult time just watching a film because it was as if I was still working. My brain was still focusing on how the sound was achieved rather than what it was supposed to achieve, that being just telling a story. Today I can switch in and out of both modes much more easily and I am thankful for that. I agree though that one must run the gauntlet of getting the little details right so that when done, the value of the casual listening experience will be fully maximized and be rewarded with enjoyment.

 

[fas42]

A very interesting take on the listening process. Would you say that as a result you were very fussy and uncompromising in your assessment of a particular system's performance as regards sound quality? In other words, using the terms I started a thread here off with, would you require both truth and tonality, or as another pair of terms, accuracy and musicality? And am I making sense with this question?

Frank

 

[karma]

Hi Jack and Frank,
Jack:
I'm not sure how our listening methods compare because you did not describe yours in detail. But, in general I think you are going in the same direction but with, perhaps, a different purpose. The main point is a total absorbsion in the audio experience. You seem to focus on the "hows" rather than the final sonic result. There is nothing wrong with that but I'm not certain it really applies to hi fi sound. But, the Attentiveness aspect is certainly there and I think it is great that you have learned the skill. You know what I am talking about.

I would like to know how you apply your skill to hi fi.

Frank:
I truly try to avoid the use of the more subjective terms like "musical" or "tonality". I believe, for me, the listening experience is at a very deep level a scientific exercise. I don't use those terms because I don't know what they mean and I think others don't know either. They are very personal and have no meaning that is generally accepted and understood. In fact, I detest those romaticized terms. I think the SET movement was born and is sustained by such personalized thinking. I'm not a fan of the SET movement.

Am I super critical, uncompromising and fussy?. You bet. But, unlike much of the current trends, I try to have a reference point that I use to judge systems and remove the experience from my likes and dislikes. It is real, live music, hopefully not amplified. This is the attempt to attain the "straight wire with gain" ideal. But we don't live in an ideal world and the ideal is only an idea which is not possible with an audio system. And, since most of use don't have a live music group sitting in our listening room for comparison we must use our audio memories. The experts think our audio memories are very short and, thus, not reliable. Generally, I think this is true.

However, cultivation of Attentiveness has the nice side effect of vastly improving our audio memories making it possible to build a mental data base of our audio experiences that is reliable.

Thanks to both of you for your responses.

Sparky

 

[JackD201]

Hi Sparky,

For me it starts with being in the mood to really do nothing but listen. That means I have to make time for it because when I get going, I can go for hours and hours at a time. I average at least 2 hours per session. So it means I have to have attended to every other responsibility. I like forums because I can just peak in and out. I start out by selecting a short play list of possible session starters. Make sure the room is conducive, proper temp, proper lighting, a soda, sometimes a beer (I very ,very rarely drink alone). I choose album and run with it. I usually play entire sides of an LP and about half of a digital equivalent. A passage from one song might remind me of another so I choose that after the album has had a bit of a run. Choosing what's next up could be a backstory or certain memories evoked leading to songs from that period in my life. It's very free flowing. I'm a serial genre hopper. I think I could drive anyone tied up with me pretty batty. Anyway, on we go to my listening habits.

As I mentioned while I have a recording background, it wasn't for music. Well, sound is sound and the processes are pretty much identical. You just add sync to frame on top of syncing tracks with each other. They both have the same basic toolboxes. While I've always been into music, I bought my first album from saved up allowance when I was around 10 or 11, I got into building up a 2 channel system via the HT route. Rambling........ Anyway, it's actually relevant because the reason I went into Hi-Fi was that I noticed that I was listening to music a lot more than I was watching Laserdiscs (age giveaway ) I could listen to an album many times over, even a not so great album, but there were very few films I'd watch again within periods measured in years. It's because of the way I listen to music which also led me to study recording. My mind works funny in that I'm constantly looking for patterns and how things fit and interact. I'm like that with everything.

So when it comes to listening to music, I'm the same way. What fascinates me most about music is the interplay of the different sounds. The reason I can listen to something over and over is that I listen to individual musical lines at differing times while also listening for how other lines intersect or run parallel with them until patterns become clearer and eventually I feel I'm satisfied with the whole. Most of my friends, the far greater majority, perhaps I can call them the "normal" ones usually stick to the main melody or are centered on the front man or soloist and the lyrics and enjoy the occasional run, riff or drum solo. It's also a reason these same folks don't like classical music where the majority of the time there seems to be no clear thing to follow and thus suggests a lack of direction. Come to think of it they usually don't like instrumental pieces at all. They get bored. I on the other hand love it because there is a direction, it just isn't obvious. Sometimes you can find someone by following the crowd he's in. Being a stalker of musical lines, sonically my goal has always been to remove whatever gets in their sometimes divergent but ultimately common ways.

This may suggest that sonically I am a detail oriented. Well, yes and no. I want to be able to hear everything so that literally means everything. When following low level accompaniment you're really following the more audible harmonic structures rather than transients. A system that over hypes dynamic contrasts by highlighting transient snap will get in the way of these. A system that smoothens transients too much and adds or emphasizes harmonics turns the collective into a 4 fruit glass of Jamba Juice. I'm Asian so culturally the pursuit of harmony and balance is pretty much hardwired.

In this puzzle called audio, I see soundstaging as a very useful tool, so I usually play around with this as well. I'm not locked in to a set position/presentation. I selected loudspeaker with casters fer cryin out loud when audiophile dogma says I should be using spikes The way we know the ear works is that we are able to localize positions because of the differences in arrival times. What is seldom if ever talked about is the differences of pressure level in any single summing point of the two loudspeakers. An image isn't just dead center because the loudspeakers' outputs arrive at your ears at the same time, it is also because at that center position that summing amounts to 3dB higher SPL than either source alone. That is so Cool right?! We've got actual points in space we can use to enhance separation by manipulating the summing areas of the loudspeaker's common dispersion patterns by actually separating and placing the lines in these spaces. When someone says, "wow, my speakers finally have room to breath" this is actually what they're talking about. If a musical line has got space all to itself, it is physically less easily masked. Holy smokes. I'm really rambling now. Sorry about that. In sound for film we consciously spread out the sounds because any congestion would distract the watcher. I was just so excited that I could do the same thing (manipulate spatial information) albeit more limitedly via speaker positioning alone without having a pan pot, a fader or reverb. I can then, like a camera, choose a tight sharp focus and get the focal points the same way or take a wider shot with greater depth of field but the usual focal points are sunk into everything else. With the latter extreme, you'll still get the detail but you'll have to be more attentive, with the former extreme, the picture is so in your face, you just tend to look at it and be done with it oblivious to what might be in the background. I like playing between both presentations.

I guess this means I'm attentive, however, I think anybody interested in any particular topic tends to be attentive when that topic is up. I think I should stop now. I've gone on too long already and I can keep going. I got too excited. I think this the first time I've ever really described the central reasons behind the choices I've made, how I listen and what I listen for.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

A reclining chair; a darkened room; a pair of near field monitors or headphones: I gotcher back, Sparky. The trouble is, no matter how hard I try, it never takes more than a few minutes before "dissecting the audio information into its component parts" gets washed away by the beauty of the music and I forget what it was I was listening for. I guess my problem isn't attentiveness, but attention span.

Tim

 

[fas42]

Way to go, Jack, you inadvertently pressed the James Joyce enhancement button of the forum software!

It's obvious that everyone listens a different way, but I would think for audio enthusiasts the Attentiveness factor would always be leveraged up pretty highly in some way or another. My way of listening would be very different from most, as I mentioned just recently in another thread: I think I would use the term, "listening out of the corner of my ear". Which sounds like using music as background fill in!

But not really. For me the question is whether the sound is "right" or not. Live music is always right, be definition, and in one sense this is also correct for a performance going through a PA, because the latter has become part of the performance -- in the same way an electric guitar's sound is always intrinsically wound up with the sound of the amp it's running through. So the way I "attend" to music being replayed is highly dependent on how closely it mimics that "live" sound. The closer it comes to being like the real thing the less I pay obvious, direct attention to it, the contrary cuss I am! I think that's because I have always instinctively tuned into the "colour" or texture of sound, for want of better terms, and so in one sense I am always listening to the echo, or "aftertaste" of what the sound is doing in the space it's being generated in. I know that if a real person is playing a musical instrument like a piano or classical guitar that I am very aware of the overall effect that is being created in the space, I would surmise this is a combination of the overtones and the response of the acoustic environment adding to the obvious notes being produced.

Which leads back to my only "partially" listening: I am actually listening quite intently, but I am also doing something else and it is the blend of those two activities that determines whether I feel OK about the experience. A not good system forces me to drop doing something else and totally concentrate on the sound, because in one sense my brain will overload trying to do the two things: process the sound not being quite right, and the focus on another, very different activity.

A simple example of my overall stance: a real piano being played in the house generates a certain "vibe" as you wander through the various rooms of the house. That's what I look for in audio playback: the same vibe happening as a recording is being played, which means the volume levels would be at natural levels ...

I won't do a Jack , so that's it!

Frank

 

[JackD201]

Isn't the mind a strange and wonderful thing? I think getting washed away IS the pinnacle of attention! The term "rapt attention" comes to mind. This state is probably the hardest thing to describe. I'd bet if a neuroscientist did a study of anybody getting high on music they'd easily find some sort of difference in brainwave patterns as well as chemical releases. Serotonin maybe?

I got excited about describing things for one because nobody ever really asked. A billion and one questions about the gear or the recordings but never exactly how I process/appreciate what they do. Also, knowing how difficult it is to describe because of so many seemingly contrary aspects I knew I was likely going to make a mess of it, like I just did. I mean, Frankie just might have gotten the impression that when I am following musical lines that I've got the look of Michael Ironside playing the Revok character in the movie Scanners. If you are unfamiliar with Cronenberg's cult classic B-movie check out the trailer on youtube Okay, yeah, maybe a little bit when I'm trouble shooting and I can't figure out what's wrong. Hahahaha! Watch the clip!

Sparky calls it a meditative state and for someone outside looking in, a rapt listener really would look like he was in some sort of trance. Eyes closed, muscles relaxed. From the inside looking out though, I find the two states very different. Did I mention that that first album I bought was a Prog Rock album? Meditation is used to silence the outside world, this other mental state focuses two sensory input mechanisms, hearing and touch. Remember I'm asian and Catholic. Jesuit educated to boot. Every school day began with a 15 min. meditation period. The Jesuits knew how to settle down rowdy kids and prep them for a day of what they like to call mental gymnastics. It sounds a bit creepy I know but really it was just a way of saying "Okay boys shut the f*** up, sit down and don't so much as move within the next 15 mins!". It worked like a charm. First periods always took off from the gates without any hitches. Add up the minutes settling kids down at the beginning of first period adds up to a lot of hours of instruction time.

So what I described is how I generally listen. When trouble shooting, it's not that I am more intense. The purpose is just different. In fact if I'm too intense it means it's time to just take a break from that, flip that switch and just go on my happy musical line following ways. That switch is usually a thought like "screw it, I'll fix that later" followed by a thought like "DAMN, Kogan sure can play!" and everything goes right in the world again.

I think it's time I defined what I call musical lines. I say musical lines because to me these can be provided by single or groups of performers. To say I follow the performers per se, would not be accurate. For example in Pop, Rock and Jazz, a bass line is definitely a musical line, but a bass line in concert with a kick drum and rhythm guitar together provides the song's primal drive. I zoom in and out clustering and compositing as I go along. I'm sure you guys all do this, you just never thought about it. Heck, I never thought about it until this thread came up. It's really akin to a background operation.

While a musical signal is nothing but voltage deviations from a reference, the music itself is multi-layered with dimensions and scale. As the amalgam plays out together in time we have the option of dissecting or grouping any of all the recognizable elements or not do anything at all. Doing so however is a key element for my interpreting the music and appreciating it in more than the most basic level of like or dislike thereby gaining appreciation for the skills of those that wrote it, played it, recorded it and yes all the way to the folks that made the gear that I am hearing all of this through.

In other words if asked to go into detail as to why I like a song or performer, this is basically how I believe I've been going about it and when asked what I like about components it will always have to be within the context of how they deal with the music I have become familiar with to be of any practical value.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

A couple of great posts there, Jack. But even great has highs. This one is simply brilliant:

A system that over hypes dynamic contrasts by highlighting transient snap will get in the way of these. A system that smoothens transients too much and adds or emphasizes harmonics turns the collective into a 4 fruit glass of Jamba Juice.

A Jesuit-educated Asian Catholic? Lordy. Don't drink alone? I'd drink with you, brother. That would be a damned interesting drink.

Tim

 

[fas42]

There, there, Jack, I know you really enjoy your music. I also know meditation, used to do it religiously (hah!) some years ago. Listening to music with enjoyment is certainly a form of mediatation, irrespective of what you are doing physically. Wouldn't you know it, we've just been listening to the original 3 tenors recording at full bore, that's my wife's test; it's just been blasting the end of the house off while she was making up some lovely home brewed vegie soup -- as she says, you can just soak up the sound and the power of the musical moment doing something else, you don't have to sit in the right chair to "get" it ...

Frank

 

[fas42]

While a musical signal is nothing but voltage deviations from a reference, the music itself is multi-layered with dimensions and scale. As the amalgam plays out together in time we have the option of dissecting or grouping any of all the recognizable elements or not do anything at all. Doing so however is a key element for my interpreting the music and appreciating it in more than the most basic level of like or dislike thereby gaining appreciation for the skills of those that wrote it, played it, recorded it and yes all the way to the folks that made the gear that I am hearing all of this through.

That a goodie, Jack, I like it!!

Frank

 

[JackD201]

Can you imagine what would happen between the four of us and two bottles of Whiskey? THAT would be a HOOT for sure!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Ron Party]

Did I mention that that first album I bought was a Prog Rock album?

Smart man!

 

[karma]

HI All,
First, I'm really glad I started the thread. It's an idea that has been buzzing around in my head for a long time but I had no place to express it. This forum offers that opportunity.

A couple of things come to mind. Since we are discussing listening techniques, one detail seems to be missing from all the posts; one I think is really important. Do you listen with your eyes closed? I do all the time. I find that my brain works better when there are no competing inputs. Multitasking is highly overrated. What about you?

I did not discuss hardware or music in my initial post. It is beside my initial point. Maybe now is the time since you all seem to want to go there. I demand that my system not call attention to itself. When it does, something is wrong. My preferred sound is highly detailed, highly resolving, excellent dynamics, both macro and micro, very honest, grain free, and no signature. My system is very close to this goal. Of course, perfection is not possible. That's why I dislike systems that folks describe as "musical", whatever that means. To me it means colored, the exact opposite of what I am trying to achieve. Why someone would try to optimize a romantic, musical sound is totally beyond me.

When the system calls attention to itself, that tends to remove me from the musical experience. My preferred music is classical with jazz a distant second. But I really do have eclectic tastes and I enjoy music from many genre's. I believe classical music is the most difficult for reproduction for several reasons. First, it usually is not amplified in the venue. Thus, you get the real sound of the instruments and voices and not the house PA or guitar amps. Second, the dynamic demands can be extreme. The frequency range can be extreme all the way from a 32 foot organ pipe (16 Hz) vibrating the doors and shaking ash trays to the most extraordinary delicacy of the treble end. Many classical composers obviously loved sound for its own sake and used this love in their work.

You want to talk about musical lines, how better to demonstrate this than with a Bach organ fugue or a Vivaldi Seasons. A symphony orchestra is capable of such complexity that only a great system can keep things sorted out. This type of music pushes a system to its max. It is also music to soothe the savage soul.

I wish to make something clear. I know for a fact that my listening methods are not common. Most folks do not listen with this kind of intensity. Yet, I'm convinced that if one is going to be a critical listener, my method is the way to get there. So, I'm not offering just ideas for you to bash and bat around. Do that if you wish, but that's not my purpose. Rather, I wish to teach you a better way. I want you to read this thread, walk away scratching your head, think about it, then implement a plan intended to cultivate Attentiveness. I hold that this will make you a better listener and increase your enjoyment of music.

Sparky

 

[Steve Williams]

Great thread Sparky

I'm catching up on the last 4 days as I sit in the airport on my way back to California. Terrific read. I also agree with your definition of "musical".

 

[JackD201]

Smart man!

Moving Pictures

 

[Ron Party]

Moving Pictures

Very smart man!

 

[fas42]

Okay ...

First of all, I never listen with my eyes closed. As I have already indicated, for me, the ability TO multitask while listening is an excellent indicator that the system is working correctly.

Of course, perfection is not possible. That's why I dislike systems that folks describe as "musical", whatever that means

My goal IS perfection and if so, the automatic corollary is that it is musical. For me musical is never, ever syrupy and all the rest of that terminology, it's all about intensity of musical expression. The interesting thing is that recordings that have been very deliberately engineered or arranged to sound "nice", the ones marketed to people for giving on Mother's Day say, if played on a system that is well setup will deliver quite dramatic musical tension and release, they will have all the characteristics of powerful, creative intent -- I'm thinking here of James Galway "Meditations" and Kitaro. Now, there ain't any such thing as perfection(!), so the next best thing is to get the sound good enough that the ear/brain is happy with it, and the mind accepts the experience as valid ...

The trouble for a lot of systems, of course, is their ability to be able to fully deliver the intensity of a symphonic crescendo, without harshness intruding into the subtle treble lines. If they can't do that then your ability to listen in a meditative way will be compromised, I believe ...

Frank

 

[microstrip]

So when it comes to listening to music, I'm the same way. What fascinates me most about music is the interplay of the different sounds. The reason I can listen to something over and over is that I listen to individual musical lines at differing times while also listening for how other lines intersect or run parallel with them until patterns become clearer and eventually I feel I'm satisfied with the whole. Most of my friends, the far greater majority, perhaps I can call them the "normal" ones usually stick to the main melody or are centered on the front man or soloist and the lyrics and enjoy the occasional run, riff or drum solo. It's also a reason these same folks don't like classical music where the majority of the time there seems to be no clear thing to follow and thus suggests a lack of direction. Come to think of it they usually don't like instrumental pieces at all. They get bored. I on the other hand love it because there is a direction, it just isn't obvious. Sometimes you can find someone by following the crowd he's in. Being a stalker of musical lines, sonically my goal has always been to remove whatever gets in their sometimes divergent but ultimately common ways.

This may suggest that sonically I am a detail oriented. Well, yes and no. I want to be able to hear everything so that literally means everything. When following low level accompaniment you're really following the more audible harmonic structures rather than transients. A system that over hypes dynamic contrasts by highlighting transient snap will get in the way of these. A system that smoothens transients too much and adds or emphasizes harmonics turns the collective into a 4 fruit glass of Jamba Juice. I'm Asian so culturally the pursuit of harmony and balance is pretty much hardwired.

In this puzzle called audio, I see soundstaging as a very useful tool, so I usually play around with this as well. I'm not locked in to a set position/presentation. (...)

Jack,
Did I guess you really appreciate Mahler?

 

[JackD201]

Funny you should mention that. With Mahler, every section gets a major workout eh? I'm late to Mahler and went on a Mahler streak late last year. Our partner's Dad turned me on to the Adagietto of No.5 in C sharp minor and it was jaw droppingly gorgeous. I'm continuing my Mahler explorations. IMO he's underrated, if that's possible. I'm still trying to get into Bartok, but I find his works to be still on the heavy side for me. Classical Death Metal Still trying though, still trying.

Oh to stay on topic. Dim lights, usually eyes closed for me. Not a concert though. I'm paying to see as well as hear. I go to concerts just as much to appreciate the stagecraft as I am the music.