Strange phenomona this hobby.

Respect for difference of opinion aside, I could not disagree with Stringreen more. Recorded music very seldom comes anywhere near close to conveying the subtleties of the emotional content of music. And isn't the conveyance of emotion what music is all about? I am always perplexed when some discuss aspects of the live music experience with the usual audiophile lingo only. Yes, there are seats in all major (and minor) concert venues that don't do certain aspects of SOUND particularly well. But, I can think of few live experiences that have not trounced recorded sound as concerns MUSIC. The immediacy of the music, the unadulterated harmonic content of the instruments' (or voices') timbre, the hard-to-describe absence of all those resistors, caps, transformers, and wire. One can appreciate a lot of those qualities sitting on the toilet at the local jazz club. What I am talking about has nothing to do imaging or soundstaging; although in the right seats, the concert experience is unequaled in those respects. It's the difference between a drink of cool mountain spring water and city tap water.

Dcstep is correct, one doesn't have to use live sound as a reference to enjoy music. If one hears live music on a regular basis, however, it's difficult to not have it be part of one's reference. To "forget live", as has been suggested, is to miss out on a deeper appreciation of the stuff that is at the core of music making. And there really are components that reproduce those qualities much better than others. It's not always easy to determine why some do it better than others. If we are not intimately familiar with what those qualities are (live sound), how are we to recognize them, or their absence. Think of it this way: When we need to communicate with a person about something really important, wether it is to discuss an important business matter, or talk to a loved one about a deeply personal issue, what is the best way to do it? Is it best to send an email, send a recorded message, make a phone call, or do it in person?

Pedrillo, I agree with that there is some mysticism to all this; although I would not necessarily call it that. The word mysticism, to me, opens the door for the experience to be less than real, and verifiable; perhaps I misunderstand the meaning of the word. I encourage you to continue to focus on those things that you tried to describe; components that engage you, not components that do this or that piece of sonic soup better than some other component. I also use a Singer-modified EAR 834P, and I completely agree with you about it's ability to make music. It seems to let the music pass through it with minimal alteration to what I feel is at music's core. The fact that it is an inherently simple circuit probably has a lot to do with it.

Mepearson, your experience listening to that Mariachi band is exactly what a lot of audiophiles miss, and unfortunately don't have as a reference, when judging the MUSIC-expression qualities of audio gear. It really is thrilling to hear those sounds live. A couple of thoughts:

The thrill of hearing that trumpet sound is not just a question of the loudness of it. So, the ability of a component to reproduce that thrill is determined but much more than number of watts, and speaker efficiency. This is a perfect example of numbers telling only part of the story. The thrill you hear is not just because of the instrument's loudness; not because it might read 98 dbs (?) on an SPL meter. It's because of everything that happens between of 0 db and 98 dbs. It's the stuff in between that causes the excitement. The tension, the speed of the air, the extremely subtle little dynamic changes that occur between the point at which the player first starts to form the embouchure, and that very first little bit of air rushes into the instrument; all the way to when he really opens up his diaphragm, and the instrument literally becomes an extension of his breathing apparatus. The human element. This is not "descriptive pornography" as some have called it. This is what really takes place. And if we think that number of watts, distortion figures, etc., can fully explain what is going on, I think we are kidding ourselves. But, to key into this stuff is the best way to appreciate musical expression, and the ability of equipment to let it happen, or not. Experiences such as yours are the only way to have a better understanding.

I lived with the Counterpoint SA5.1 for a few years, and given what you have written about how you listen to music, I completely understand why you like it so much. I did too. I remember taking it to a local dealer to compare to the just released AI Modulus 3, which was all the rage at the time, and being perplexed. The Counterpoint had much better musical flow, and dynamics, of the kind that we are talking about; as well as better tone colors. The Modulus sounded bleached out tonally, and a little dead sounding in comparison. The only area in which the Modulus beat it was in stability of images. That was the only area where the Counterpoint was, for me, less than stellar. But then again, this has little to do with music anyway, and I have been tempted over the last few years to try one again. BTW, mine was modified by George Kaye of Moscode fame, when he was still in the NYC area right after the demise of NYAL. I never tried the SA2 with it. As far as the EAR goes, what I can tell you is that IMO it is easily as good or better in the areas discussed as the SA5 phono section was. But, in a general sense, very similar sounding units: great tonal colors, very dimensional, and with a both easy and exciting dynamic flow. I am listening to Wayne Sorter's "Atlantis" as I write, with a Azden YM-P50VL moving magnet cart. So no step-up transformers in use, and yes it does sound better without the transformers. But still retains those musical qualities with the transformers, when I want the higher resolution of a good MC, for more audiophile jollies.

BTW, that record is fantastic, and easily available. One of the best examples of interesting composition in a contemporary jazz-fusion bag, from one of the geniuses of jazz.

Hope you like it. For a great example of Shorter's earlier work, featuring trumpet, try "The All Seeing Eye" with the great Freddie Hubbard on trumpet.

Mepearson, I'm glad you like it. It really is, as you say, a great sounding record; not to mention, great music. There are a lot of vinyl gems out there for little money. For something different, try Phoebe Snow's self-titled first album. Phil Ramone production, with fantastically natural acoustic piano, bass, guitar, drums, and the unique vocal stylings of Phebe Snow. A wonderfully open soundstage with excellent imaging, and the added bonus of the legendary Zoot Sims on tenor saxophone. I recently bought a NM second copy for $1.90 (!!!). If you like acoustic rock with a folksy vibe, this one is a winner.

Stevecham, I couldn't agree with everything you say more. But, using the absolute sound as a reference does not necessarily mean being on an endless, and neurotic churning of equipment, in the quest of an absolute. It simply means familiarizing oneself with the sound of live sound as much as possible to help one make choices when buying equipment. I never understand the implied argument in some audiophiles' argument against using live sound as a reference, that because the absolute is not achievable (it is not), that we should simply throw in the towel, and not even consider the only true reference.