Soundstaging and imaging are audiophile fictions.


Recently I attended two live performances in one week--a folk duo in a small club and a performance of Swan Lake by a Russian ballet company. I was reminded of something I have known for many years but talked myself out of for the sake of audiophilia: there is no such thing as "imaging" in live music! I have been hearing live music since I was a child (dad loved jazz, mom loved classical) and am now in my 50s. I have never, NEVER heard any live music on any scale that has "pinpoint imaging" or a "well resolved soundstage," etc. We should get over this nonsense and stop letting manufacturers and reviewers sell us products with reve reviews/claims for wholly artificial "soundstaging"

I often think we should all go back to mono and get one really fine speaker while focusing on tonality, clarity and dynamics--which ARE real. And think of the money we could save.

I happily await the outraged responses.
Jeffrey
128x128Ag insider logo xs@2xjeffreyfranz
A very valid point is that made by Stuartbranson: all the senses work together so that, ultimately, there is nothing like the live experience. Most significant is the visual aspect. Another good point IMHO is that the missing ingredient in home reproduction of music is ambiance. The knee-jerk reaction by a lot of audiophiles to multichannel is just that. So you will always have your proponents of obscure forces at work trying to get it right with vinyl, stereo, analog, magic cables of all kinds, vibration dampening devices and a myriad of other cures to non existent problems. The future lies squarely in multichannel systems, properly implemented, playing well recorded/mixed material. People are free to listen to whatever they want and to opine to their heart's delight, including rambling on about the miseries of digital, the shortcomings of Redbook CD reproduction, the battle between SACD and DVD-A as carrying the seeds of multichannel destruction, of Quadraphonics in the 70s, of the analogy with Betamax, of nature and the little tweety birds, I just hope that enough people will be interested in MC audio to make it work.
Any animal's ear (including a human's) should have no trouble to very accurately identify the direction and distance of sounds. It's survival.
One thing that hasn't been clearly stated is that for an acoustic performance (e.g., orchestral) the microphones are usually placed closer to the performers than the vast majority of the audience. By being closer to the microphones the relative distances of the individual performers to the microphones is greater thereby emphasizing (exagerating?) the depth and width. My experience at the symphony is width and depth are there but not near as prominent as on recordings. While this is a nice effect, I think getting tonality correct is the real secret to a good audio system.
Comparisons to live music are subjective but should be looked at as objectively as possible. Amplified music at a live event usually comes across as mono. Unamplified music has a soundstage depending upon where the listener sits. Sit far enough away from your two channel home speakers and they will be perceived as mono.

Some of the best recordings I have heard are mono. Early audiophiles thought stereo was a gimmic and many of the early stereo pressings supported that notion by the album title.

I enjoy a good stereo image and stage depth but other aspects are more important to me. It's just this man's opinion but I'd rather listen to music that has staying power than continually search for sounds that shows off my system. It's wonderful when everything is right though.