Does your system have jump?

Mt10425, I saw your first post as smug. If that was not your intention, I am sorry for misinterpreting.

But labeling a statement you made as silly is not a personal attack.

Just like if we were conversing in person and I told you you had a booger hanging out of your nose does not necessarily translate to a personal attack either. Or does it?

As for Rsbeck, that's a whole nuther story. The man pops up in every cable thread attempting to sound like some cable authority. Yet, by his own admission, he cannot tell any sonic differences between cables. Go figure.

I don't go looking for him, but if he pops up in a thread I've participated in, rather than engage in meaningful monologue, I now simply ask him what his personal experience is. And of course he never responds to the question. Except in the third person and hypothetically.

-IMO (I'm just as entitled as the next guy to be wrong)

Good morning Stehno-
I'm all for a truce and clarification of any misunderstandings. It seems that when somebody puts a label on someone else's opinion, it's taking a shot at that belief and, intentions aside, putting that belief down. As far as using longevity and experience as a validation for advice, I'm 52 and music listening and audio started for me seriously when I was about 15. So, when I state that the equipment is less important to me than the music, I mean it. Truck, transistor or clock radios, it doesn't matter, although my home systems are preferences. If it doen't make me and my family dance, allow us to sing along or set a mood, then I've got my priorites screwed up because I have to do "serious " listening on "serious" equipment for enjoyment. I always read your posts and usually learn something useful and I expect to continue to do so. I can be serious (reluctanly), but I'm allergic to REALLY serious. ;))

So far, I agree with Mt10425.
The music is what makes the 'jump'.
If I had a system that made all the stuff I play 'jump', no matter what, I would say that system was a bit unrealistic in it's presentation. And would become rather tiring after awhile.
So maybe we don't actually all agree on what 'jump' means.
As I could see other ways of looking at the term, and maybe agree taht some sort of 'thing' a system has IS important.
The squabble between Stehno and Mt10425 WAS STARTED by Stehno "JUMP'ing on Mt10425 statement. So maybe "jump" is something to be avoided? At least in posting!
Please better define what you mean by "JUMP" and we can all start over, in a way Miss Manners would approve of.

Some systems can not jump no matter what. A typical stereo is washed out in comparison to the real thing having only a fraction of the dynamic range found in live music.

To me this is what is meant by jump.

It is hard to find the proper words to describe these effects and I think we should try to answer posts in the spirit and respect to the original poster and their intents and stop the squabbles.

Mt10425, Elizabeth is correct as I did jump on you. I am sorry for that.

Thanks for your kind words and for not responding in like manner.

As for defining 'jump', Philjolet seems pretty accurate and I think I stated something like that in my previous post above.

I would define 'jump' as having everything to do with the macro-dynmaic reproduction of music, but with some serious weight behind the punches.

-IMO