I don't feel that these descriptive terms are limited only to audio, and feel that what your are hearing at the actual event is more diffuse, because you are further away, further back into the reverberent field than microphones usually are when most recordings are made. Look, if you're really as curious about this as you think you are, you should buy a portable recorder like a DAT, and a one point condensor microphone. You could then ask if you could make your own recording the next time you go to a performance. That way, you could listen to it later on your system, and see what differences there are. You'll never really know until you do this.
Sound-stage, imaging, focus......
I would like to get some facts and opinions about sound-stage, imaging and focus as presented by a system. When I began my system purchasing process, I listened for a sound which came close to a live acoustical performance. For me, that meant instruments sounded real. I was not listening for sound-staging, imaging, etc., because, try as I might, I have not been able to comprehend sound-staging, exact placement of instruments (re: two chairs to the left of the pricipal trumpet), micro-dynamics, etc. at a live performance. That just doesn't happen for me from any position in an auditorium or club. I have never commented after a concert that "the focus and depth were spectacular". Are these descriptions applicable only to reproduced sound or am I missing something?
- ...
- 10 posts total
- 10 posts total