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

I would believe that "you are there" would be what to strive for. It is not easy to put together a system that can give you the feeling that you are at the actual venue.

Personally, I find the "you are there" sensation a bit disorienting. I know where I am when I'm listening, and it's not in a jazz club, concert hall, or stadium. So when I hear the cues that suggest those places, I find them distracting and they distance me from the music. Maybe that's why I prefer studio-recorded material: it sounds like the music is there with me for my personal enjoyment.

In my case, the acoustic treatment is easy: just make the room a bit on the acoustically dead side. For the "you are there" experience, I'd think you'd want to make your room's acoustics a bit like the venue of interest (without getting carried away). A jazz venue is small and a bit bright, a concert hall is cavernous, a stadium is, well, an acoustic nightmare. So I think you could probably tailor your room in one way or another to maximize a particular kind of venue, but that might have consequences for other types of recordings and venues.

Maybe Hesson11 is on to something. Maybe the best answer is a processor (that reproduces the ambience), and a few surround speakers. Many surround processors have this capability, and have settings for various venue effects. One could fork one's 2-channel line outs into a processor or receiver, and use it for its surround capabilities only. A lot of people are already effectively doing the same thing with their subs (substitute "low pass filter" for "processor"). Hmm, an easy enough experiment to try...

Thanks for the responses. The majority of posters so far have a preference for the experience of "you are there." I have a pet theory about what creates that experience:

Whether a system sounds like “they are here” or “you are there” is principally determined by AMBIENT CUES during playback. The presence/characteristics of ambient cues during playback is itself largely determined by the following, in descending order of importance:

(1) RECORDING: Ratio of direct to reflected sound.

(2) LISTENING ROOM: Resemblance to the recording space.

(3) EQUIPMENT: Relative neutrality or coloration.

RE: (1) RECORDING. Recordings that contain ambient cues are more likely to provide the experience that “you are there.” Those that lack them are more likely to provide the experience that “they are here.” The presence of ambient cues is mostly a consequence of the ratio of direct to reflected sound contained in the recording.

The ratio of direct to reflected sound is itself largely a consequence of microphone type and placement: The (a) more directional the pickup pattern of the microphone; and (b) the closer the microphone is placed to the acoustical event, the higher the ratio of direct to reflected sound on the recording. The (a) less directional the pickup pattern of the microphone; and (b) the farther the microphone is placed from the acoustical event, the lower the ratio of direct to reflected sound on the recording.

Since ambient cues about the acoustical environment are disproportionately contained in the reflected sound, recordings that have a lower ratio of direct to reflected sound will have more ambient cues, and consequently, sound more like “you are there.”

RE: (2) LISTENING ROOM. Listening rooms that resemble the recording space are more likely to provide the experience that “you are there.” That is because, when the listening room resembles the recordings space, they have similar ambient cues. As a result, the ambient cues of the listening room will naturally augment the ambient cues of the recording space contained in the recording, enhancing the experience that “you are there.”

Resemblance is a matter of size, shape, quantity/placement/ratio of absorption and diffusion, reverberation time, and so on. The more your listening room resembles the recording space in each of those characteristics, the more it will sound like “you are there.”

RE: (3) EQUIPMENT. Equipment that is neutral, in the sense of ‘degree of absence of coloration’ is more likely to provide the experience that “you are there.” That is because colorations frequently conceal, corrupt, or eliminate the ambient cues of a recording, thereby reducing the experience that “you are there.”

Some colorations, it could be argued, add “ambient cues” of the own, thereby increasing the likelihood of the experience that “you are there.” I have doubts about this, since the “ambient cues” added by colorations are largely constant, whereas the ambient cues of recording spaces are infinitely variable. Hence the chances of the two resembling each other across a wide range of recordings seems unlikely. Therefore, colorations that add "ambient cues" of their own may often enhance the experience that "you are somewhere," but seldom that "you are there."

Fire away.

'They are here'. I want them to perform for me.

Hi Bryon,

As someone who listens primarily to classical music, my goal is to duplicate as closely as possible the experience of hearing a live performance from a good seat in a good hall (less extraneous sounds from the audience or other sources, of course). Therefore I am in the "you are there" camp.

I particularly second the comments by CWLondon, and, for the most part, the excellent analysis in your previous post.

The one exception I would take concerns item no. 2. I doubt that it is typically possible for the acoustics of the listening room to resemble those of the recording space in any meaningful way (assuming the recording space is a hall), because the dimensions (and hence the delay times between direct and reflected sound) are so vastly different.

I would therefore comingle your references to listening room characteristics (under item 2) with the thoughts you expressed regarding equipment, under item 3. In other words the overall combination of room acoustics and equipment should be as neutral as possible, to make the listening experience as "you are there" as possible.

Best regards,
-- Al