"They are here" vs. "You are there"

Rather than relying on equipment colorations to enhance ambient cues, it seems to me that there is far better way to hear the ambient cues on a recording, and thus to contribute to the illusion that “you are there,” and that is by increasing RESOLUTION.

Increasing resolution is not the same thing as increasing “perceived detail,” since the latter may be increased, as you pointed out, by changing a system’s frequency response (i.e. making the system brighter). Increasing resolution is a matter of increasing either (1) format resolution, or (2) equipment resolution. Which brings me back to my view on the relation between equipment colorations and ambient cues...

I believe that equipment colorations tend to reduce equipment resolution, and hence to obscure ambient cues. Conversely, the reduction of colorations tends to increase resolution, thereby increasing the perceptibility of ambient cues and contributing to the illusion that “you are there.”

I am in basic agreement with this, and with respect to the reproduction of classical music as recorded in a hall, I would add more specifically that a very key factor seems to me to be what might be referred to as resolution in the time domain.

A notable example would be a speaker having sloppy transient response, whose output tends not to stop as immediately as it should when a sharp transient concludes. Such a speaker will tend to obscure the reflected energy that had been picked up by the microphones some tens of milliseconds after the arrival of the directly captured sound.

Which leads me to suggest, with respect to this comment:

Imagine for the moment that your preference in classical music were confined to orchestral music. In that case, I believe that you would be more likely to create the illusion that “you are there” with a large listening room with a high level of diffusion and a medium to long-ish reverberation time.

... that perhaps the reason such a room would enhance the "you are there" illusion for classical music is not because its large dimensions produce room reflections that begin to mimic those of the hall (which in turn is far larger still), but rather because its large dimensions REDUCE the amplitude of those reflections, as heard at the listening position, thereby reducing the degree to which room acoustics obscure our ability to hear the reflected energy that the mics had captured.

In principle the same thing might be accomplished by heavily damping a small room. However, that would seem likely to result in a very different overall frequency response than would result from the large room approach, possibly introducing or affecting colorations other than the time domain effects that my comments have focused on.

Best regards,
-- Al

This is a good, intelligent discussion.

IMO the original question is another example of overstating the importance of soundstage/imaging in high end audio. As a system's resolution increases you'll hear more soundstage information, but in and of itself that information isn't really important to the enjoyment of listening to music. As an example, hearing Harry Belafonte's voice bounce off the different surfaces at Carnegie Hall is at most interesting. It's a good test of the lower level resolution of a system. But what does it have to do with Belafonte's performance?

As a practical matter very few recordings actually have real ambient cues. This is true even in classical recordings. The current trend in studio recordings is to completely suppress the acoustics of the recording site and to synthetically create an ambiance at a later stage in the recording chain. Literally there's no real there to be transported to.

With my rant out of the way, "you are there" is a my preference and I consider it more accurate.

As a practical matter very few recordings actually have real ambient cues. This is true even in classical recordings.

That's probably true for many or most releases by the larger classical labels, whose recordings are generally heavily multi-mic'd and heavily processed. However in my experience it is usually not true in the case of smaller labels that are either audiophile-oriented or are otherwise high quality. See my post in this thread for a list of some of these labels.

As a system's resolution increases you'll hear more soundstage information, but in and of itself that information isn't really important to the enjoyment of listening to music.

FWIW, my own experience suggests otherwise. Whenever I attend a classical concert in a good hall, I am IMMEDIATELY struck by the ambient "aura" that surrounds each note, for many if not all instruments. (Perhaps "aura" isn't the best word to use, but it seems to capture what I'm trying to relate). And its absence on many recordings, or inaccuracies in its reproduction, are major factors that distinguish live music from reproduced music, in my experience.

Best regards,
-- Al

Al, I agree with you about the purist recordings, but then we're talking about what amounts to probably less than .1% of recording output.

Your point about the sound aura. There are venues and types of music where the acoustics of the venue are part and parcel of the performance. I'm thinking choral or organ works in cathedral type settings. In a more typical concert hall I too hear that cushion of air that accompanies the music, but I don't think of that sound as integral to the musical performance. As audiophiles we focus so much on the sound of things even when some of those sounds are purely extraneous to the music.

Bryon says:

But I wonder whether those colorations would contribute to the illusion that “you are there.” My suspicion is that the answer is often 'no.' That is to say, colorations that enhance ambient cues might nevertheless fail to contribute to the illusion that “you are there” because they might also make the music sound less “real.” I, for one, have a hard time experiencing a bright system as one in which “I am there.”

I considered this when I posted, but I think it is probably very listener-dependent. I have a preference for tonal balance even if it comes at the expense of some detail. But others have a preference for detail. This explains the existence of equipment that makes me want to run screaming from the showroom (and, I suppose on the flip side, equipment that makes the detail-lovers want to fall asleep). For the detail-lover, the increase in detail may add to the realism and the "you are there" experience, despite what you or I might think is an unnaturally colored system. But, of course, I'm talking about two points in what is almost certainly a continuum of listeners, and everyone likely has their own idea where realism starts and ends, and how they weight the various tradeoffs in putting together a system.

Increasing resolution is not the same thing as increasing “perceived detail,” since the latter may be increased, as you pointed out, by changing a system’s frequency response (i.e. making the system brighter). Increasing resolution is a matter of increasing either (1) format resolution, or (2) equipment resolution.

I guess that depends on how precisely you define your terms and how you measure the results. If you define resolution in purely technical terms, then you could increase the resolution of your source, and thereby your system, but that could have no audible result (because, for example, the signal-to-noise ratio of your overall system may be the limiting factor). So "resolution" then says something about your gear, but nothing about your sound, and is therefore disconnected from realism, ambience cues, and the "you are there" experience. But if you appeal to audible results, then "perceived detail" is one potential measure of resolution, and therefore may contribute to realism, etc.