Ultra high resolution

By the way: A system that WILL reproduce a vocalist's breath and the resonance of their chest will also reproduce breath over the reed of a sax, or the texture of the bow rosin across the strings of a 1715 Klotz Bass AND the woody resonance of it's huge body. To some of us, this is part of the gestalt of music, and the art of the recording engineer. If the information is present on the recording, I want my system to deliver it to me accurately and without adulteration. I can focus on individual voices(whether human or instrumental), or the entire performance as I choose. Generally speaking- I find music too enthralling to sleep to. BUT- I WILL let Jathintha, Diana or Norah lullabye me to sleep from time to time.

Dazzdax,

A TRL (Tube Research Labs) amp, either their monster tube designs (there is an ad for one on Audiogon right now) or their solid state designs will deliver ultra resolution and transparency, but will not sound aggressive and will actually be very musically accurate (see the recent thread by Grannyring on the ST-225). I have been using the D-225 solid state amp in my system for 2 years now.

hi dave:

as i understand, music is pitch, timbre and dynamics.

breath is not music.

yes, my tastes have been documented and i admit to them.

the notion of reality has to take into account where you are sitting in relation to where musicians are playing.

in a concert hall setting, filled with people, a rear hall perspective is accompanied by attenuated treble and some homogenization. while such a listening position may not be preferred, it is real for those of us who sit there. it may be perceived as boring for some or pleasant to others.

04-28-08: Mrtennis said:
"hi dave:

as i understand, music is pitch, timbre and dynamics.

breath is not music.

yes, my tastes have been documented and i admit to them."

You say that with such certainty. As with religion, when I hear someone speak with such absolute certainty I can't help but question their judgement. (BTW, I AM religious, just not absolutely certain about anything). It's one thing to say you'd prefer not to hear this or that, but to say that "breath is not music" is to impune those of us that hear it as inevitable part of a performance.

Do you attend operas? If so, can you hear when a performer switches between head and chest voice? Do you sometimes hear the resonance that a truly great artist can create by virtue of their incredible breath support, stress free throat and projection into the head? If not, you're missing something that opera virtuousos work decades to perfect. IMHO, it what takes them from being mere "singers" to being truly great artists, that and their interpretation.

BTW, my favorite perspective is as conductor. I didn't focus on that path, so I don't get to do it much at all, but it's incredible when working with a good band or orchestra. There ARE some recordings that give you this perspective, particularly the stuff Sheffield put out in the '70s and '80s. The first trumpet on the LA Phil/Wagner stuff will part your hair. Duck...

Your position in valid, but you're way of arguing it is flawed, IMHO. Some people, no doubt including you, prefer the sound from the back of the hall and want their 2-channel systems to mimic that. You just seem to be saying that the opposite is not right and the things that others of us listen for (somnetimes) are not part of the music. Instead, I'd say, anything that adds to the emotional impact of the music is part of it and for me, that includes Diana Krall smacking her lips and resonating her chest to get that husky sound.

Dave

Dave,

As talented and generous a musician as you are, I'll wager that you wouldn't mind helping Diana Krall learn to play your trumpet. ;-)