The “They are here” vs “You are there” sound topic


Hi all,

I want to start a topic about the “They are here” vs “You are there” type of sound. I have read that different audiophiles usually fall in one of either categories, but what does it actually mean? So here a few questions:

- what is the definition of “They are here” vs “You are there” in your opinion?
- what is the main difference in sound? E.g. soundstage
- which kind of sound do you prefer?
- which type of speakers fall in one or the other category in your opinion?
- what type of sources, amplifiers or even cables fall in one or the other category in your opinion?

For instance, I believe the Esoteric products from Japan fall in the they are here type of sound. Do you feel the same?
128x128richardhk
The following thread from 2010 may be of interest, in which the same question was discussed at length:

https://forum.audiogon.com/discussions/quot-they-are-here-quot-vs-quot-you-are-there-quot

I provided several detailed responses in that thread, but the following excerpt perhaps captures the bottom line IMO:

Almarg 9-5-2010
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 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.... 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.

(Note that my use of the word "neutral" in this context connotes accuracy, not blandness as the term is sometimes interpreted).

Thus, when it comes to this issue I second the comments by Mijostyn, Douglas_Schroeder, and others emphasizing the overriding importance of the recording, and how it was mic’d and engineered.

Regards,
-- Al

Often things are neither here nor there. Kaitty should realize that things traveling at far less than "near" light speed have been proven to age differently...an atomic clock experiment proved that theory years ago by simply orbiting a clock around the earth with its time compared to an earth bound clock. No where near the speed of light.
It's all an illusion and this discussion is really about semantics.

Semantics is the study of language with respect to meaning. The very first response, mine, clearly and succinctly lays bare the distinction in meaning between the two terms. Therefore the discussion is about anything BUT semantics.   

People can, and often do, ignore the points raised. That's not semantics either. That's just plain old poor reading comprehension and weak reasoning.


What is in a recording? What is the data present in it?

The musicians and the venue.

So, I think if we ignore the musicians for a bit, this question really can be re-written this way:

How much of the recording environment comes through the sound system?

That is, the entire difference between the two questions posed by the OP is really the same as this question, above.  To be clear, unless we were present, this really is going to be an unknown quantity. Lots of ways to give the illusion of being in a performance, but that doesn't make the illusion accurate. So I think the answer to this feeling, not necessarily truth, is in the speaker dispersion and room acoustics.

Is the room transparent enough to let the recording of the venue reach our ears with clarity?  Does the speaker work with or against the room? Does the speaker have rear ambience drivers?

Now, which do we like... that's another story. :)
I agree Cleeds, it is just looking at different sides of the same coin. However, there are some important distinctions here. Duke and I illustrated why dipoles such as Maggies are so effective in presenting the venue captured in the recording. I related that dipole line sources radiate very little energy to the sides, up and down which minimizes early reflections and Duke related that enough energy comes of the back side that if the speaker is set up correctly this energy, mostly in the mid range bounces around the room arriving at the ear late simulating the acoustics of a much larger room. The early reflections represent the acoustics of your room. Dipole line sources minimize these reflections better than any other design with the exception of a properly designed bipole horn system. With horns you have much more control over the radiation pattern again giving you the ability to minimize early reflections. To simulate a larger room (increase late reflections you have to add a rear firing midrange driver. With either a horn or Dipole the only early reflection you have to deal with is the two off the front wall aimed at the listening position. As far as bass is concerned instead of decorating your room with ugly bass traps and panels just add several more subwoofers.