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.

There are some interesting thoughts here. For many of us, our goal is to have our stereo system come as close as we can make them into fooling us that we are hearing live music. We can argue whether that means we are being transported to the recording venue or if the musicans have set up in our listening room. I am fine with either argument, but for the record, I do feel like I am being transported to the venue where the recording was made.

Last Wednesday I was in Old Town in San Diego having dinner with my uncle and his main squeeze at a Mexican restaurant. There was a Mariachi band that seemed to be fixated on the table in front of me as they played there quite awhile. This Mariachi band wasn't what I have experienced before in Mexican restaurants. These guys were real damn good. Both their abilities to play their instruments and sing in harmony was really top notch. What really blew me away (and I don't mean that as a pun) was the trumpet player. I was impressed with not only how good of a trumpet player he was, but also how damn loud a trumpet is when you are only feet away from it. The sound of that trumpet was just thrilling to hear. I also thought about how hard it would be to capture the sound that I was hearing and reproduce it faithfully. I think if the sound of that trumpet was captured faithfully and played back at a realistic level (i.e. at the same level the guy was actually playing it live), most amplifiers would be driven to clipping very quickly. I think it would take wheelbarrows of watts and/or really sensitive speakers to come close to pulling that off. The only recording that I can think of right now that I own that comes close to capturing what I heard last Wednesday is the 12" version of Lionel Ritchie's "All Night Long." There is a trumpet blast in that song that will separate the men from the boys in the amplifier department.

I haven't heard the EAR 834P and I am not aware of what Singer does to them. I assume they swap tubes. I believe the EAR uses transformers for the MC input which is a deal killer for me. Oh, I hates me some mc transformers. I want an active gain stage for low output mc cartridges. I am pretty much at the point now that if someone has a phono stage that they think can beat my Counterpoint SA-2/SA-5.1 combo, they need to bring it over to my house and lash it up and prove it to me. The SA-2/SA-5.1 sounds so good it could bring tears to the eyes of man with no tear ducts. I am done chasing wild geese.

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.

Frogman-I agree with what you said with regards to the thrill of hearing the trumpet was not only related to how loud it was. It was everything else involved as you said. The sound was just so pure and dynamic.

With regards to the Counterpoint SA-5.1, mine has been back to Mike Elliot and has had the line stage and phono stage upgraded with better caps and resistors then were available at the time it was first built. The SA-2 has also been back for a new power transformer as the original gave up the ghost. IMO, the SA-5.1 is the biggest steal in the high end used market today (if you can find one). Forget about the SA-5000. They cost more money and are not in the same league as the SA-5.1. My brother had an SA-5000 and wanted to dump it for an SA-5.1. We found some guy in Canada who was willing to trade his 5.1 for the 5000. My bro had been searching in vain for a 5.1 for awhile but none were available. The SA-5000 trade smoked one out at a bit of a cost to my bro. He could have sold the 5000 straight out for more money than 5.1s sell for when they are available.

I will check out Wayne Sorter's Atlantis.