@mahgister I enjoyed your post about how the many factors combine to incline us one way or another, depending on variables that are not usually taken into account -- especially the room. And, we can agree that a good comparison should try to exclude using magic words like "physical" (or "analog" or "natural") and it should also avoid the "fetishism" of touch. (Though some might argue that since music is a total experience, why should we exclude any other senses participating in the experience?)
Yet despite all that you said, I’d only point out there are people here who have tried both formats *in their rooms, keeping variables constant and avoiding the prejudices of magic words and fetishes* -- and yet they still testify to a difference. As much as you want to direct us to the many factors which are in common and to create "peace" between the "camps," there is a difference here which is not borne of obstinacy or anger, but of listening experiences. Personally, I have not had these experiences -- but that’s because I don’t have a turntable now.
@madavid0 Thank you for your excellent post. I think you push toward at least a plausible answer as to what the difference is. In some of the better videos by P.S. Audio’s Paul McGowan (and other folks), I’ve hear discussions about timing that make this seem to be a key element. And you’re right that we don’t have very firm answers to these questions, as far as I understand it.
@stringreen I like your analogy with shaving. It’s a good point about whether "the process" can ever really be separated into "pure listening" and the "overall experience of listening," which is broader. When I listen critically, am I listening in the same way as when I just sink into the music -- as Steve Guttenberg continually urges us to do in his videos? (cf. Is a job interview like any other conversation?)
@lastperfectdaymusic I recommend to everyone here a short piece by former Librarian of Congress entitled "Making Experience Repeatable," the second half deals with the conversion of music as a unique and unrepeatable experience into one which could be switched on at will. See: https://erenow.net/modern/the-democratic-experience/42.php
Yet despite all that you said, I’d only point out there are people here who have tried both formats *in their rooms, keeping variables constant and avoiding the prejudices of magic words and fetishes* -- and yet they still testify to a difference. As much as you want to direct us to the many factors which are in common and to create "peace" between the "camps," there is a difference here which is not borne of obstinacy or anger, but of listening experiences. Personally, I have not had these experiences -- but that’s because I don’t have a turntable now.
@madavid0 Thank you for your excellent post. I think you push toward at least a plausible answer as to what the difference is. In some of the better videos by P.S. Audio’s Paul McGowan (and other folks), I’ve hear discussions about timing that make this seem to be a key element. And you’re right that we don’t have very firm answers to these questions, as far as I understand it.
@stringreen I like your analogy with shaving. It’s a good point about whether "the process" can ever really be separated into "pure listening" and the "overall experience of listening," which is broader. When I listen critically, am I listening in the same way as when I just sink into the music -- as Steve Guttenberg continually urges us to do in his videos? (cf. Is a job interview like any other conversation?)
@lastperfectdaymusic I recommend to everyone here a short piece by former Librarian of Congress entitled "Making Experience Repeatable," the second half deals with the conversion of music as a unique and unrepeatable experience into one which could be switched on at will. See: https://erenow.net/modern/the-democratic-experience/42.php