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

FWIW, I sort of agree with Byron's last paragraph, but mostly wherein he stresses the importance of 'resolution'. Not so much neutrality, which for me is as much about tonality as anything else, but this is a can of worms not worthy of discussion at this time. And for me, resolution is found in the absence of distortions in the equipment and set up, assuming the capability of the speakers and electronics to actually reproduce the micro information in the recording in the first place. "Detail" is to me a false god for the tyro who might think that enhanced information in the high(er) frequencies is really balanced. Just MHO of course.

And, FWIW, I agree with most all of Learsfool's observations. Unfortunately all of the professional musicians I know have little interest in high end audio, just like most of my friends.

I also agree with those near the beginning of the thread (I think Newbee was one) who stated that the recording itself is the very biggest factor in creating a "you are there" experience - a far bigger factor than these other factors under discussion for most of the thread.

I was one of the people who suggested this earlier in the thread. In my view, the illusion that "you are there" is created by ambient cues during playback. The biggest determinant of ambient cues during playback is the recording. Then the listening room. Then the equipment.

I suspect the reason so much discussion has focused on listening rooms and equipment is because the characteristics of recordings are outside the audiophile’s control, except in the sense that he can make an effort to find recordings with interesting ambient cues, as Al pointed out. On the other hand, listening rooms and equipment are inside the audiophile’s control. So, while they have a lesser role in creating the illusion that “you are there,” discussions about them may lead to conclusions that are more actionable.

It is simply not a high priority for most engineers now to recreate the actual sound of the hall. The engineer…adds digital reverberation to create a false ambience…

As you seem to imply, recordings of this kind DO contain ambient cues, but they are not ambient cues of REAL recording spaces. They are ambient cues of VIRTUAL recording spaces. I suppose there is no reason why, in theory, a virtual recording space couldn’t be as interesting as a real one. In practice, the best recording spaces I have heard have always been the real ones. So it is regrettable that they are becoming less and less common.

I want to hear what that orchestra sounds like IN THAT SPACE…For me, [there] are much more important traits for a system than "neutrality," though I don't propose to start that discussion all over again. I am merely trying to explain why musicians place such a high priority on soundstaging and imaging. They are crucial to creating a "you are there" experience.

I agree that, for many recordings, creating the illusion that “you are there” greatly enhances the listening experience. I also agree that soundstaging and imaging are crucial to creating the illusion that “you are there.”

However, I believe that soundstaging, imaging, and the illusion that "you are there" are all connected to the characteristic of neutrality. I am hesitant to mention this, because I don’t want us to get trapped back on the infinite staircase of our neutrality discussion. So, leaving the term ‘neutrality’ out of it, and using the somewhat less controversial term ‘coloration,’ I would say that many colorations diminish the illusion that “you are there.” Here is an argument that expresses one of the reasons why:

(1) Decreasing colorations tends to increase resolution.

(2) Increasing resolution increases the audibility of ambient cues in the recording.

(3) Increasing the audibility of ambient cues in the recording enhances the illusion that “you are there.”

(4) Therefore, decreasing colorations tends to enhance the illusion that “you are there.”

(5) Therefore, increasing colorations tends to diminish the illusion that “you are there.”

There are various qualifications and exceptions I would make to the argument above, but it captures the spirit of my view.

Hi Bryon - we are generally in agreement here. Where I would differ with you would be on the subject of the listening room being much of a factor at all in picking up what you are calling "ambient cues" in the recording. The listening room is of course a big factor in the sound of a system as a whole, however I would disagree that it has much effect on this specific issue, depending of course on the type of recording. The equipment would have a much greater effect on it in general, particularly if we are speaking about vinyl (which I almost always am). If we are speaking of digital, then there are much less "real" "ambient cues" on the recording, but there are many more of them on orchestral recordings up until they became mostly digital in the late 80's. Particularly up until the mid 60's or so, just about all of the "ambient cues" on an orchestral recording will be "real" rather than "virtual." After that, even the good labels started using more and more mikes, though there were notable exceptions, such as Decca London's ffrr stuff, which sounds better than anything else done in the 70's (speaking very generally, of course) as far as regards this specific issue.

What you say about the room having more of an effect would be true, however, in the case of some of the multi-channel recordings out there which some others mentioned earlier on in the thread. Then you have more speakers to deal with, and the whole would be more influenced by the room itself. However, they have yet to make a multi-channel recording that any professional classical musician I know has ever thought sounded at all realistic, so I remain very skeptical about such recordings. Frankly, most of them end up sounding quite similar to a Bose -type system, where the music sounds like it's traveling in all sorts of crazy directions, which I guess some think sounds cool, but it certainly doesn't sound like a "real" acoustic space. But that's really not part of this discussion.

Newbee, I would say to you that it has always puzzled me when people state that musicians are not interested in good sound. As another fellow musician who contributes here on audiogon, Frogman, recently stated in a different thread, there are probably many more audiophiles proportionately among musicians than there are in any other single profession. It must be admitted that audiophiles are a VERY small percentage of the general population - the percentage of musicians interested in good sound is MUCH larger in comparison, even if it isn't a majority, a point I am not sure I would concede. A great many musicians simply cannot afford a high-end system - (I am one of the lucky ones with a full-time job with decent benefits, and my system is certainly nothing to brag about cost-wise compared to much of the folks hanging out on this site!) but that doesn't mean they don't appreciate a good system when they hear it. Most professional musicians have to put at least as much money into their instruments alone as many folks on audiogon put into their systems, not to mention other costs, and there just isn't enough left over for most to justify buying a high-end audio system. The total dollar value of the instruments you are listening to if you attend a professional orchestral concert would stagger you, and that is of course where our priorities must lie.

Learsfool, FWIW, I did not say that musicians, or for that matter non-musicians, didn't have some interest in audio. I referred to 'high end' audio in the context that we use that term.

In my mind, those that use the term high end, myself included, are 'audio' hobbyists. Amongst my friends, family members, and guests, I can find no one really interested in the hobby aspect, beyond making a socially correct observation about my system or music collection, although we will often discuss music itself or the music scene.

My comment was of course nothing more than a personal observation based on personal experience, and I should have known better than to have trotted out what amounted to an old canard in the presence of a professional musician who also happens to be an audio hobbyist. My apologies. :-)

Where I would differ with you would be on the subject of the listening room being much of a factor at all in picking up what you are calling "ambient cues" in the recording. The listening room is of course a big factor in the sound of a system as a whole, however I would disagree that it has much effect on this specific issue…

Learsfool – I have some thoughts that bear on your view that the listening room doesn't have much effect on creating the illusion that “you are there.”

As I mentioned in a previous post, my view is that ambient cues are the principal determinant of the illusion that “you are there.” The ambient cues of the recording are the most important. But the ambient cues of the listening room are, in my view, quite significant. Before I say exactly how, I should say…

A FEW WORDS ABOUT AMBIENT CUES:

So far, I have not defined ‘ambient cue.’ Here’s a stab at it:

Ambient cue: Audible information about the features of a physical space.

Ambient cues provide information about features of a physical space like: size, shape, materials, and object position. Ambient cues are contained in the relations between direct and indirect sound, including: relative amplitude, relative duration, relative phase, relative frequency content, relative harmonic content.

In an anechoic chamber, there is (virtually) no indirect sound, and hence (virtually) no ambient cues. In the real world, there are an abundance of ambient cues. So much so, that animals, and to a lesser extent humans, can use those ambient cues to echolocate. The point is that, in virtually all physical spaces, ambient cues are ubiquitous and highly informative. This brings me to…

THE IMPORTANCE OF AMBIENT CUES IN THE LISTENING ROOM:

Every listening room contains an abundance of ambient cues. The specific characteristics of those ambient cues are relevant to the audiophile, for the following reason:

During playback, the ambient cues of the recording space are COMBINED with the ambient cues of the listening space.

The combination of the ambient cues of the recording space with the ambient cues of the listening space creates, in effect, a NEW SET OF AMBIENT CUES. I will call this new set of ambient cues the “playback space.” In other words:

Recording space + Listening space = Playback space

The playback space is what the audiophile actually hears at the listening position. It is the combination of the ambient cues of the recording space and the ambient cues of the listening space.

When trying to create the illusion that “you are there,” an audiophile tries to create a playback space whose ambient cues are as close as possible to the ambient cues of the recording space. As I see it, there are two possible ways to go about this:

1. Construct a listening space whose ambient cues resemble the ambient cues of the recording space.

2. Construct a listening space that minimizes ambient cues.

The first approach is largely impractical, especially for those who listen to a wide array of music with vastly different recording spaces. However, I did read about one Rives audio customer who approached Rives with the request to build 4 different listening spaces, each optimized for one of four different types of music - symphonic, jazz, vocals, and rock. The far more practical approach is to minimize the ambient cues of the listening space. But this can be done only up to a point, since ambient cues in the listening space are essential for creating a realistic soundstage, another crucial factor in creating the illusion that “you are there.” This creates something of a dilemma for the audiophile:

To the extent that he constructs a listening space whose ambient cues resemble the ambient cues of a particular recording space, his listening room will be optimized for only one type of recording. To the extent that he constructs a listening space that minimizes ambient cues, he will diminish the realism of his soundstage.

The way out of this dilemma is some kind of balance between the two approaches. The exact nature of that balance probably varies from room to room, recording to recording, and listener to listener. But I suspect that there are some generalizations to be made. Otherwise companies like Rives wouldn't be in business.

Regardless of which approach is taken, the inescapable fact is that the ambient cues of the recording space will always be combined with the ambient cues of the listening space, to create the ambient cues the listener actually hears at the listening position (what I am calling the “playback space”). The only way to escape this fact is to listen through headphones or in an anechoic chamber, both of which are great for hearing the ambient cues of the recording, but lousy at creating the illusion that “you are there.”