"I am there" vs. "They are here"

"I am there" is of course the correct ideal model of what we want a music reproduction system to accomplish. But Sndsel and Danner (above) have gotten to the crux of our shared dilemma as critical listeners - what you might term the "Audiophile Condition". By far the two most important variables affecting a system's ability to approach this ideal are the recording itself and the room in which we listen to playback. Unfortunately, and paradoxically, these are precisely the areas in which we have the least amount of control: none, in the case of the recording; and usually very limited (and almost never to the ultimate degree) in the case of the room. If these starting conditions were effectively dealt with in our playback systems first, I strongly suspect that any competent (and competently assembled) high-end component chain could transmit the "I am there" sensation to near the limit that two-channel reproduction allows (although this may not be so high to begin with - theoritcally more so with some sort of multi-channel scheme, but this leads us back to the optimization of the recording process [and let us not forget the visual aspect, basically unaddressable but for to close one's eyes!]). Is this conundrum - our essential lack of control - what directly results in our becoming susceptable to "audiophilia nervosa"? I would like to able to think so, but I frankly doubt it. I suspect our preoccupation with gear would, alas, probably persist even if all our recordings and listening rooms were idealized tomorrow. This is because gear is just sexier, more of a status symbol, and upgrading and tweakage are more receptive (not more productive!) outlets for our neuroses, than purpose-built rooms and recordings bought "as-is" will ever be. But think about the further implication of all this: It also means that we may really prefer to wallow in our audiophile tendencies over and above what is, after all, the ostensible aim of any high-end system and its owner - to enjoy listening to music reproduced in our homes with as little distraction, and as much suspension of disbelief, as we possibly can! Let's put that in our peace pipes and smoke it a while.

Detlof, Great mention of a great Impulse recording. "Swing Low Sweet Cadillac" is Dizzy at some of his most memorable. Dont be afraid to get the remastered CD version in the LP styled box. It is very well done. Sorry to drift off topic, but this is very noteworthy music.
"You are there" was my preferred description when I had it all just so........Frank

Great post and replies. I tend to agree that the more resolving systems provide more of the “I am there”, but I am in the minority because what I ENJOY is the “they are here”. Maybe that is the reason every time I upgrade my system I can hear the improvement, but am somewhat not as satisfied. That probably has to do with my taste in music. I would imagine the majority of listeners here are classic/jazz fans. That FIM Pawnshop SACD is great and if all of my music was recorded like that I may feel differently. However the fun is sucked out of most of my studio recorded disks with my current system. Music like Floyd, Jewel, and Stevie Ray are shrunken down to a distant stage. My system is Sony/CJ/Virgo. What can I do to bring Jewel back into my room???

Joekras, tweak the system to death before upgrading again; power supply, direct power lines, cables off the floor, support/ coupling & de-coupling for source, speakers & electronics, speaker placement... you can have lots of fun -- and maybe bring the Vaughan Bros closer to home!

Cheers!

Great thread and posts, guys.
Since we're almost totally at the mercy of the recording,
is it the case that a moderately dead room with a near-field setup will ALWAYS tend to produce a "they are here", deeper perspective (using the room!), and PERHAPS a "you are there" to a lesser extent IF the recording has the info...; whereas that "live/dead-end" room treatment, especially with flush-mounted speakers (having NO ability to offer much less stage depth BEHIND the speaker plane, is limited to producing only "you are there" recorded depth IF there's any in the software? In other words I find that I get lucky a whole lot more often with a nearfield setup in a damped room. The recording provides what IT HAS, and the distant front wall anchors an automatic stage depth.
Similarly, isn't multichannel simply trying to synthesize the "we are there" without having to pull the speakers off the boundaries? The software AND hardware better be damned good to pull THAT off!.... Gordon Holt, my friend Tom Horrall all claim it's coming, but I've yet to hear a multichannel system that pleases me musically AND spatially then my 2 channel in the nearfield in a medium-sized deadish room. Sorry to be repetetive...it's late.