"I am there" vs. "They are here"

Spotted this one again as I was going through my old threads looking for something else. I've changed my mind somewhat on this question lately. I now think "I am there" is too impossible as a realistically achievable goal to be worth pondering over. (Yes, I still think an idealized multichannel/DSP/room setup could come close, but the bigger obstacle would be the recording-end standardized process required, and I just don't believe this is workable on a generalized scale for a variety of reasons.) I propose a third choice beyond the incorrect "They are here" or the unattainable "I am there": "They are there". To me this much better encapsulates what we're all trying to accomplish and what we actually base our sonic opinions on. What do you think guys?

Wow, what a post Zaikesman! I read it three times.
I agree a "standardized" recording on our LP's and CD's would really help, but then this hobby would be too easy !
Unfortunately we must split decisions with how we like to percieve our "sound".
My system sounds about half way between "they are here" and "they are there".
Then again, this boils down to personal preference and paticular type of music being played.
The "I am there" sound might prove a little too up-front for me.
Hope this made some sense. I am here !

The best I have been able to achieve in my system is the 'window onto another place': A window, about 11 feet wide and 3 feet high, which opens not onto the end of my room but into wherever the performers were. Perhaps this is equivalent to 'they are there'.

Yes Calanctus, the 'window' onto the original performance analogy is conceptually closely related to my "They are there" formulation. The metaphor of the window has often been used to describe the system itself, i.e., how transparent the glass is, how free of distortion it can transmit the image, how large or small it is, etc.

Rx8man: Glad you're where you are if you are, my friend. ;^) My point about 'standardization' has to do with the theoretical necessity for a perfectly complementary encode/decode process to be adopted for both the recording and playback ends of the chain, if you're hoping to closely approach faithfully recreating the impression of being present at the original performance. But beside being totally impractical, IMO it's also fundamentally technically impossible to ever achieve, even on the basis of an all-out, one-off attempt - much less some kind of standardized system applicable for widespread use by sound engineers and music consumers. What we'll always have, to my mind, is what we have now: a haphazard, largely arbitrary, technically chaotic approximation, but one that can be made more than occasionally pleasing, and maybe even slightly reminiscent of some flexible notion about what 'accuracy' might be if you're willing to stretch your imagination.

About your system sounding halfway between "They are there" and "They are here", you're stressing an important point. We can never eliminate a large dose of the "They are here" syndrome from the reproduction, because our systems and rooms always impose themselves inappropriately upon the recreated original signal. Things like acoustic treatment and DSP technology can reduce this undesired effect, but they can't ameliorate it entirely. I've always figured that for even the most scrupulously put-together home systems - well beyond what even most audiophiles (myself included) have, especially in terms of room design - you're still going to be hearing a huge contribution of spurious info superimposed by the playback chain and environment. That's a contribution which has no relation whatsoever to the original performance event, and that remains the same across every recording replayed. It's that constant quality which constitutes the "Here", and we can't ever completely get rid of it.

"They're here" is the mark of good playback.

"I'm There" is the response to great emotional connection.

In my book, the latter is the much stronger compliment.