Tubes vs Solid State - Imaging, Soundstaging, 3D

****would this not be a plus for imaging as it allows sounds to be more readily located? Also, is this not an inherent quality of three dimensionality as the purpose of 3D is to stand out in relief to a background?****

Yes, if one considers that to be a good thing even though it is accomplished at the expense of other things.

"Yes, if one considers that to be a good thing even though it is accomplished at the expense of other things. "

Frog, wondering what other things specifically?

Pinpoint imaging maybe?

I might agree with that but I tend to think of pinpoint imaging ability as a good omen, and maybe a good thing in some cases with recorded sound but not the end game.

Few listening scenarios in the real world are perceived in the absence of any surrounding acoustic context as a "pinpoint image" alone. More realistically there is a central focus and some spread around that.

Granted it is possible to set up lsitening and recording scenarios where each sound emitted is perceived as a "pinpoint" but that is just one scenario and a subset of all those possible.

I suppose this would boil down to the common question of whether reproduced sound does or should attempt to sound like a live performance. That one has been beat to death and I understand both perspectives.

I am in that says most things I hear I do not hear as pinpoint sources, so I do not want all my recordings to sound that way either. In some cases, that may be all there is to it, but that is the exception I think and not the rule.

I suppose the standards that are applied do correlate to some extent with human hearing rules. It would be hard to see how products could be sold if not.

What I am saying here in the last few posts is that for the most part, the measurement standards don't correlate all that well at all; about the only thing that gets much lip service is frequency response, based on the ear having response from about 20Hz-20KHz.

There is nothing in the measurements, for example, that acknowledges that the ear treats distortion as a tonality, other than 'low' distortion is supposed to be good. In practice though, it turns out that certain distortions must be very low, and others the ear does not seem to care about so much. There is no nuance in the specs!

I submit that there isn't[sic] any rules for human hearing. It's clear that very few audiophiles can agree on a regular basis when it comes to which piece of gear sounds the best, or even better.

You are confusing taste (for which there is no accounting) with actual perceptual rules, which vary over the entire population by about 1%. IOW there is a big difference here.

There are numerous examples, for example mp3s take advantage of the ear's masking rule (although not 100% successful in that regard) to reduce the amount of data storage.

"You are confusing taste (for which there is no accounting) with actual perceptual rules, which vary over the entire population by about 1%. IOW there is a big difference here."

Hmmm, not sure how far "rules" get you in lieu of "tastes" when it comes to people. I would expect one to reflect the other to some extent in general. Case by case, anything is possible.

I think another and more modern study might be called for. Technology has changed a lot over the years and peoples buying habits are the main driver. Maybe the rules get followed these days in more cases than one might thing otherwise.

I can only speak for my self. My system has NF applied and I am digging it! Then again, I am a bit of a rebel at heart. I might actually like breaking a rule or two now and then. :^)

Atmasphere, I suspect you are somewhat of a rebel at heart as well! I respect that!