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

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.

Al wrote:

…a very key factor seems to me to be what might be referred to as resolution in the time domain.

I completely agree with this. Though I failed to mention it, the same thing occurred to me during my discussion with Cbw about FREQUENCY response, which I believe is less important than TRANSIENT response when it comes to the retrieval of ambient cues that create the illusion that “you are there.”

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.

In light of this, I wonder whether, as a generalization, speaker designs that emphasize time-alignment are better at presenting ambient cues, all other things being equal. Do you think so?

…perhaps the reason such a [large] 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.

This is an interesting thought. When considering the value of a large listening room, I was thinking of the fact that larger rooms tend to have longer reverberation times, and hence the ambient cues of the listening room might naturally augment the ambient cues of recordings with large recording spaces. But you are certainly right that the AMPLITUDE of reflected sound at the listening position is just as important as the DURATION of reflected sound (i.e. reverberation time) in the listening room. Hence there seem to be two competing strategies for the presentation of a recording's ambient cues:

(i) The use of ambient cues of the listening room to augment the ambient cues of the recording.

(ii) The minimization of ambient cues of the listening room so as to reveal the ambient cues of the recording.

Since (i) will be helpful only for those who listen to recordings with similar recording spaces, (ii) is probably the more practical approach for most audiophiles.

Onhwy61 wrote:

IMO the original question is another example of overstating the importance of soundstage/imaging in high end audio.

If you look again at the OP, you will see that I didn’t say anything about the importance of creating the illusion that “you are there” relative to any other audiophile goal. In fact, in my subsequent posts, I haven’t even expressed a preference for the experience that “you are there” over the experience that “they are here.” The reason is because I enjoy both, depending upon the type of music, the quality of the recording, and the characteristics of an audio system, especially the listening room.

In addition, my comments have not been about soundstage and imaging. They have been about AMBIENT CUES, with respect to recordings, listening rooms, and equipment. The discussion of ambient cues is not equivalent to the discussion of soundstage/imaging, since the former is a considerably broader topic than the latter. For example, ambient cues on recordings can be heard through headphones, where soundstage and imaging are a non-factors.

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.

I am aware of this regrettable fact. Current recording trends being what they are, many (perhaps most) recordings do not contain ambient cues of REAL recording spaces. They do, however, contain ambient cues of VIRTUAL recording spaces, added during mixing. You may feel that a virtual recording space is not one worth visiting, and hence the effort to create the illusion that “you are there” for such recordings is a waste of time. I have some sympathy for that point of view. But I do think that some virtual recording spaces are worth visiting. Think: Pink Floyd. I also agree with Al that recordings that contain ambient cues of real recording spaces are out there to be found, though it takes some looking.

Cbw wrote:

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.

I do not think of resolution this way, and I don’t think most audiophiles do either. The term ‘resolution’ is used by audiophiles to describe both a characteristic of an individual COMPONENT and a characteristic of a whole SYSTEM. Hence the term ‘resolution’ says something about how a system sounds. I am not claiming ownership of the term ‘resolution.’ I am expressing what I believe to be the prevailing use of the term among audiophiles. For the purposes of this discussion, I will stipulate a definition of ‘resolution’: The absolute limit of information about the music that a format, component, or system can present.

I do not think of resolution this way, and I don’t think most audiophiles do either. The term ‘resolution’ is used by audiophiles to describe both a characteristic of an individual COMPONENT and a characteristic of a whole SYSTEM. Hence the term ‘resolution’ says something about how a system sounds. I am not claiming ownership of the term ‘resolution.’ I am expressing what I believe to be the prevailing use of the term among audiophiles. For the purposes of this discussion, I will stipulate a definition of ‘resolution’: The absolute limit of information about the music that a format, component, or system can present.

You kind of make my point while simultaneously avoid addressing it. If resolution is determined by audible metrics, then "perceived detail" is likely one of them. And ambience cues live in the detail.

If you take an information theoretic approach to resolution -- as you seem to imply with your definition -- then I think you will be unhappy. The overwhelming majority of the information is in the high frequencies. Given the way human hearing works, you would get vastly more information by dumping the low frequencies entirely in favor of enhancing the highs -- you'd maximize the information about the music, but the result wouldn't be music. So I think some other definition is in order.

Which gets us back to my earlier point: the experience (you are there) is subjective. For some people a brighter system might provide it better than a more neutral system. And for those people, the realism obtained might outweigh the realism lost.

You kind of make my point while simultaneously avoid addressing it.

I must confess, I do not get your point. What is it?

Hi Bryon - you have once again started a very interesting thread indeed, and while I have not yet been able to read all of it yet (which I will do as soon as I get a better chance), I do have one immediate comment on the recording aspect, something I don't think anyone has brought up yet.

The very biggest effect on the sound of the recording, even one where very few mikes were used, is the mixing, particularly in today's world of digital recording. Two different engineers (or the same one, for that matter!) can and will create a completely different sound from the exact same mike placement in the same hall from the same live session. I cannot emphasize this enough - most people, even audiophiles, have absolutely no idea how much the mixing has to do with the final sound, and how different it is from what the mikes are picking up. This is where the engineers love to get very creative, putting their own personal stamp on the recordings. There are times when this is a good thing, but unfortunately they are very few - most engineers nowadays create digital mixes that often sound nothing like the sound in the hall they recorded in. Sometimes the conductor will have a big input into the sound of the mix, sometimes not, and even if he/she does, there is still the limitation of the initial set-up in the first place, which usually the conductor doesn't get involved with, leaving it to the engineer. Which is almost never a good thing, IMO.

I am looking forward to reading the rest of this thread, looks like there are alot of interesting comments so far!