resolution and imaging

I love Roger Waters but I would hesitate to use "Amused To Death" as a reference disc, no matter how well recorded it may be.

Agreed. It is just an extreme example of spacious sounds versus tightly focused centered vocals. Not a reference but one of many tracks.

All I am saying is that some systems give you a wide expansive sound permanently - nothing ever becomes tightly focussed and shrunk to a point. In essence the tighter and more shrunken the image the sharper and more precise "the lens".

A sharp lens can still throw out a large soundstage IF that is on the recording.

A blurred lens will simply always throw out a large soundstage even if the vocalist is very tightly focussed and shrunk to small size.

These points are worth considering when selecting components. In A/B comparisons of equipment it is often likely that the bigger soundstage is preferred (more musical - more live concert sound - a "bigger" sound - less "Hi-Fi"). However, there is a trap here - one may be simply projecting one's subjective preference for how the recording best sounds. In these A/B's - it is the most tightly focussed equipment that is performing most accurately - no matter how "artificial" or "hi-fi" the particular recording may be - Amused to Death being extremly artifical to the extent of being a novelty or amusement! The point is that anything that tightens up the imaging between the speakers must necessarily be better performance (in accuracy).

Caveat: Collapsing of the soundstage to either one speaker or another or giving the distinct impression that sound is coming from the speakers is BAD and not at all what I mean by tight focussed narrow image between the speakers - speakers should, as they say, "disappear".

Speaking of live performance and imaging. I have a friend of 30 plus years who owns a sound reinforcement company and does some recording studio engineering. Jimmy was the first audiophile I ever encountered, this back in high school, 1970's. He remains perhaps the most anal retentive audiophile I've ever met, nothing misses his attention. Anyway, he constantly berates the sound reinforcement and recording establishment, poor equipment and poorer technique. The sound of his concerts and recordings is beyond reproach, I hear much more in the way of imaging cues at his live concerts, I suspect most of the live music events most of us attend sound less than stellar.

Jimmy does most of his sound reinforcement these days for reggae artists in the Caribbean, also some periodic jazz dates up here. An example of his work can be found on the Winston Walls with Jack McDuff release, "Boss of the B-3", on Schoolkids Records. This is live recording done at the Ark in Ann Arbor, Mi. and the SerenGeti Ballroom in Detroit. Jimmy does sound from an audiophile's standpoint, ultra rare in the concert and studio business.

Wavetrader, you hit the nail on the head. SET amps and coherent speakers go a long way in presenting these sonic virtues. Not to say other amp designs can't do the trick.

I also agree the more resolution, the less it sounds like a recording, maybe not live, perhaps we could call it palpable and/or organic?

In my experience the amplifier has a lot to do with all three. Not to leave out the speakers either

Indeed everything plays a roll - source and amplifier too. Room plays a huge roll too - the less cluttered the midrange and treble sound from near reflections or baffle edge diffraction then the more tightly in focus the image will be.

Sns,

Thanks for the music tip - here is another - get Rebelution "Courage to Grow" - stellar recording of reggae music.