Soundstage and image height, does it exist?

I guess the Cowboy Junkies on Trinity Sessions were just an artifact of the recording engineer and their positions had nothing to do with what I hear concerning their placement on the soundstage?

They used just one mike and sat or stood around it while playing. Any decent setup will show their position and height differences. This is old news.

Sounds to me that whoever said that doesn't have a good enough system to show a proper soundstage. That's not accounting for what an engineer can do by moving performers (and instruments) around the soundstage and even then, the height can vary.

There are omnidirectional (picks up from all directions), unidirectional (mostly from one direction) and bidirectional (from two opposite directions) mikes that when nothing is done to alter their intake, will allow playback of approximately what they heard. That includes height.

All the best,
Nonoise

I will atempt to explain why a  FR is superior form of speaker in all classical music vs a  xover box design With my dual FR drivers at 92-95db and dual tweeters at 91 db , the most subtle,  hush instrumentaion/ notes can be detected without having to crank up the vol on the amplifier. Now when the cresendos crash in, sure  SPL can go up a  bit, but not near as loud as a  xover box design in these fq peaks. 

After listening to my dual FR  + dual Tweeter  design, (no other in the world, I am the only audiophile employing this unique design), I could never go back to any xover box style speaker. 

My local tech here in new orleans bangs away at my design saying ** YOu still have a xover,,its not xover-less** true and not true. 

A single 8.2 Mundorf Silver cap on each tweeter acts as NOTHING MORE THAN A FILTER. THe **woofers** = FR, have no xover components./

If you wish to call a  single cap a  xover, feel free. He demands  I confess I employ a xover. I refuse to do so. 

Itsa  filter of the barest minimum. Vs say Troels Gravesen's xover designs which employ at least a  dozen components in each speaker. 

The dual FR are really 80% of the sonics, completely free of any xovers. The dual T's kick in at 4-5K hz, and carry minimal sonics as most classical music  falls below 5k hz. 

The dual T;'s are acting more for a  lil **Pizzaz** and ambience. 

A single FR w/o a  T is not going to deliver the goods. A tweeter is a  absolute must.

But a  tweeter will not save a  xover/box type. 

Wilson can stack as many drivers they wish ina  cabinet and hope to copy the sonic fq range which a  high end FR can accomplish. Its not going to work. What you get with Wilson is more sound, a  true  LOUD-speaker.

Attacking is the code word. vandersteen's, Tektons, ZU's all attack with LOUDNESS. 

Buts thats not high fidelity Its low fidelity which is nothing more than distortion which equates to fatigue. My speakers are fatigue free. On a   scale of 1 to 100, they are a  zero. vs your avg box/xover types, , which offer fatiguing and tiresome to endure for any length of time.

Wish I had known this extential facts decades ago, would have saved me  some sufferings.

One considertion to ponder here in this discussion of xover box types trying to compete with a  higher end FR design is the evident fact that woofers are not so good at fq's above 1500hz and Tweeters not so good at below the critical 3k hz range.

There is this huge   gap, falling within the heart and soul of the musical image. 

Which is the reason for Dali, Wilson and countless other designs have evolved into complex multi driver designs. 

Creating a  big problem. A 2 way has always sounded better than a  3,4,5 way. 

With each added driver the musical image gets more crop, splice, sliced and butchered. Chop Suey.

Yeah sure its **full range**  but full of e xactly what, its not easy to say. 

LOL Oh brother,

Uh,,

“Creating a  big problem. A 2 way has always sounded better than a  3,4,5 way.”

not been my experience at all.