Does your system take you there or...?

I guess I need to clarify. Both systems are in my listening room at the moment. I bought the new system for my office, but break-in is occurring in my listening room. Same source, same cables, same speakers, same rack, same recordings. While there is some variation from recording to recording, the overall effect is that the AES equipment is much more likely to transport you to the event and the Manley equipment brings the essence of the event to my room.

The effect is especially interesting with some of my Ani DiFranco recordings.

On the AES gear, it is like I am at one of the local clubs listening to her perform. I can "see" the room and where the music is in the space. There is a real sense that music is being performed.

On the Manley gear, the essence of the performance appears in my room. You can still get an idea of the space, but the experience is like the performance is in the room-- in front and behind the plane of the speakers. Like you can walk around in the music.

My wife prefers the AES presentation. She describes it as being able to pick out more layers of the music. I generally prefer the presentation of the Manley where it's slightly fewer layers (all the important ones are there), but more intense layers.

I'm curious if others have had a similar experience. None of my previous solid-state gear did what either of these do. On my solid-state gear, I had great imaging and soundstaging, but there was a definite sense of the listening to a recording rather than a performance-- even if I didn't realize it at the time.

PMB

Thanks for the interesting commentary so far. I used Ani as an example because it's easier for me to visualize walking around in a small ensemble rather than walking around in an orchestra.

As I said, I prefer having the performance in my room, but that's not saying that the cues regarding the original venue are missing. It's more of an experience of my room being partially transformed. On Ani's recording, there is a living, breathing invisible person in my room. It's more like I can walk around in the performance. The same thing happens with larger works like Mozart's Requiem, but to a lesser degree. For me, this presentation is more "real" but not necessarily as "accurate" at reproducing the original performance. There is a real experience that a performance is happening rather than listening to a recreation of a performance.

Some may not like it that way-- my wife, for example. She likes being able to see the details of the venue like she is there but looking over the railing from a balcony seat. But there is a boundary that can't be crossed.

PMB

I respectfully disagree with some of you that think going "there" is better. I very much prefer being able to turn off the lights and "feel" the performers in my room. That's not to say, though, that my room remains the 12*16*8 space that it is. The area beside and behind and sometimes in front of the speakers dissolves to differing degrees depending on the recording.

The effect that I am talking about though is still is like there are living breathing persons in the room that you can hear, smell, touch. It may not be some person's ideal, but it sure is captivating.

Wolf, I may just pick up some pachouli oil and other "scents". Although, when I listen to certain live performances, I can also hear/smell bourbon and cigars.

At any rate, I am always excited to listen to my rig. For me, that's the very essence of good hifi.

PMB