One speaker observation from the New York Hifi show.

If you have a dedicated listening room, understand the physical properties of sound reproduction, and have access to sound conditioning materials, it is almost always possible to gain "three dimensional" imaging. And it is spectacular when so achieved. But it is also "false" since we do not hear that type of imaging when listening to a concert ... whether pop, jazz, chamber, or orchestral.

I’m always amazed by people who say live music doesn’t image. I have completely the opposite experience.
Like any good audiophile, I’ve been obsessed with live vs reproduced sound forever. I’m AWAYS comparing. Whether it was jazz in a nightclub, at the symphony, happening upon a street musician, playing my own music, or listening to friends and family play instruments, etc, I very often close my eyes and take note of the experience - tone, dynamics, imaging etc.

And I find live acoustic sources certainly image and "soundstage!"Now, of course, that depends on a variety of details. We aren’t talking about amplified rock or pop, and if the jazz musicians are amplified, then that’s not what we’d be talking about I presume.


But unamplified? Hell yes I get good imaging and localization!

At the symphony I’ve sat in many different seats, distant, mid, close.In all seats I get imaging commensurate with what one would expect from the distance. Even the more distant seats, while imaging is not as acute as close up, I can easily point to whatever instrument or section is playing "on the soundstage" with eyes closed. And distantly mic’d symphonic recordings can soundstage in a very similar fashion on my system.
I have always preferred close seats to the symphony because I love hearing the really distinct details of voices and instruments, and I get very strong localized imaging for the instruments.

A few days ago stopped in front of some street performers - sax, drums, bass. Closed eyes - wickedly dense imaging.

Even just now I had my son speak from about 8 - 10 feet away from me, my eyes closed - and the "image" of his voice was pretty much precisely what I get from my system with a good vocal recording.
This aspect of live sound is actually one reason why I gravitated to my current speakers (Thiel) which are particularly good and "lining up" the sound for really specific imaging. It re-creates the type of image density I enjoy from real life sounds, vs the more ghostly or diffuse swaths of sound from a system that doesn’t image that way.

Also, in many cases real acoustic sounds have a 3-dimensionality that surpasses most audio systems. In many audio systems the sound often seems to start at the plane of the voice or instrument, and move towards you from there. So you get all the conditionality "from the front of the sound source onward." But in live sounds, there is often (due to room acoustics) a more 3 dimensional character, like I can hear "all around" the object, a sense of "behind" the object as well, which gives that 3D aspect. In this case, my MBL omnis do much better at re-creating this aspect of live imaging than any other speaker I’ve owned. (They also image in a more precise way than many give credit to omnis).

Now, can the imaging in many recordings depart from reality? Sure. Of course. In many artificial recordings you can hear placement with precision that wouldn’t mimic if everyone were playing in a room in front of you. Often the soundstage can be squeezed smaller too.

But in general terms, from my own experience, I utterly reject this trope that "live music doesn’t image with precision" and that imaging/soundstaging from a good high end system is a departure from live sound. For me, good, precise, tonally dense imaging...even if not always a precise recreation of the event....nonetheless mimics an aspect of live sound.

That is, after all, why imaging/soundstaging tends to make things sound "more real" to us, than just a flat sound blasted from dorm-room speakers up against a wall, or whatever.

"I have electrostatic highbred speakers (Martin-Logan Summitt X) - any thoughts on distance from The wall behind the speakers or the side walls?"

Put them as far as esthetically possible from the wall behind them. You’ll get a much deeper soundstage. As for the side wall, in my experience they don’t need to be very far, a foot or two is more than enough. The panels don’t seem to interact much with the side walls but the woofers do a little.

prof - well, at least we agree on the Thiels.  I'm a twenty-five plus year user of same, and their coherence and attention to diffraction elimination do pay imaging dividends, for sure.

I also agree that the Thiels, in a decent acoustic environment successfully admit a bit of "roundness" to the sound .... call it "body" if you will.  But I stand by my guns in saying you simply don't hear much roundness when listening to live music from a normal venue seating position, nor can you pinpoint directionality.that precisely.  In an orchestral recording you can generally sense the cellos and bass on the right, and the first violins on the left, but that is about it.  Brassy horns will have a semblance of directionality as will percussion, but not pinpoint definition.  As I said before, I can create it in a dedicated listening room ... it is a matter of placement and sound treatment, one way or the other, but unless you prefer sitting in the conductors chair, or on the edge of the stage, the "hologram" effect we audiophiles strive for is just not realistic.  But more importantly, IMO it is far less important than realistic dynamics and tonal accuracy in conveying the musical import.

Again, I agree with harrylavo. At live concerts, of which I attend many, I generally sit close up where one may hear the most directionality (certainly in the middle to rear of the auditorium, you hear very little.) But even in that position I don’t hear precise directionality, and still less front to back imaging.  Indeed, perhaps because of microphone placement, I get more exact imaging listening to good recordings than I do  sitting at my seat in the auditorium.