Soundstage, Imaging, Detail & Presence??

I'll take a crack at it...

1. Imaging: The perception of individual instruments/voices in physical space, including their position, boundaries, and size.

2. Soundstaging: The perception of the overall layout of instruments/voices in physical space, including the spatial dimensions and ambient characteristics of the recording space.

3. Presence: The perception of "realism" or "lifelikeness" of instruments/voices, whether in the form of "they are here" or in the form of "you are there."

4. Detail: The perception of resolution, whether real or apparent.

As I have defined them, imaging and soundstaging are interrelated, and presence and detail are interrelated.

Bryon

We all speak the same language...don't we?

Soundstage: The illusion of looking at an actual stage, some are wide or deep, some may me very small, but your system should duplicate the actual stage.
Imaging: A systems ability to let you see where singers, instruments, etc are within the soundstage. Up close, far back, a bit to the left and so forth.

Detail: To hear the resonance on a violin bow, not just hearing the violin, to hear the air moving through a saxaphone and real detail is hearing going through the sax . Also very define edges on where placement of instruments are on stage, these all show detail.

Presence: To feel that what you are listening to is in your room, or if you can close your eyes and imagine your presence there. Presence is Realism.
Someones examples should click with you.....If not, time for some new gear.

Charles your post is full of contradiction,

No need for mysticism

and

god given ears

Doesn't the idea of god invoke mysticism?
Then you go on to suggest that our ears have evolved. Weren't they given to us by god? Or maybe the ears that god gave us millions of years ago were less than perfect and have improved through evolution.
Sorry I couldn't help myself!

One day Larry had a room and a SS amp, speakers, a sources, cables, power conditoners and whatever else. Then a sales rep shows up in his room with a tube amp. The amps are swapped, and the "presence" is improved as perceived by Larry. On this basis, the room does not come into question, nor do any of the other components of the system.

The problem is not that "Science" can't measure the subtle differences, the problem as I see it is that there are so many factors at play that are interelated that it becomes extremely difficult to setup an experiment or model that can test the effects of each and every factor in relation to all the others given all the possible permutations and combinations.

In the end Charles I agree with you it comes down to using your ears (the god given ones or the evolved ones) to determine your personal preference through a process more a kin to art than pure science.

Sebrof, in rereading my previous post I realize my verbiage was a bit confusing. What I had intended to convey is that there seems to be two camps. What I might call the the analog camp favors tubes and vinyl; the digital camp, along with those who don't give a damn, favor solid state and discs.

One can argue the merits of tubes/solid state or vinyl/discs as they perceive them, but the fact is that auditory memory for detail is quite poor; we're much better at auditory classification. That makes sense, because the prime purpose of our hearing throughout its development has been to distinguish between the sounds of organisms we might eat and those that might eat us. Music, on the evolutionary scheme is very new.

db

Hi,
Nick, the simple point is our ears are great and can perceive the many nuances and subtle characteristics in music that as of yet can`t be quantified with measurements. These characteristics are what attract us to music and evoke the emotional responses that are so enjoyable. I`ll leave the creation/evolution debate to you, as it`s irrelavant to this thread.
Best Regards,