resolution and imaging

Imaging live is different than imaging from 2 speakers but there is imaging occurring nonetheless in both cases.

I have heard systems morph as Wavetrader describes. I often wonder though how much of it is the system itself changing as opposed to our ears adapting and tuning in to the new sound? I suspect it is some of both in most cases.

>>it sounds more like mono, than stereo<<

How is that surprising? Stereo by definition is 2 separate and distinct sources. Everything you hear emanates from 2 source points.

In a concert hall every instrument is a source point. Your ears cannot process dozens of points as precisely as they process 2.

It's no wonder your preferences are so bizarre.

Back to live music and imaging. I've lived in Ann Arbor, Mi. environs my entire life. Living so near the University Of Michigan has allowed me the opportunity to hear countless musical performances by UM music school students.

The music is generally classical, groupings cover the whole gamut, all the way from orchestral to soloist. There are many venues to choose from, with acoustics ranging from world class to hopeless. Since most are free, I can choose to sit wherever I like, I'm pretty sure I've sat in nearly every possible position. Sound reinforcement varies from minimal miking to natural acoustic.

The variability in imaging at these concerts is astounding! Yes, there can be more of a flat perspective with the large symphony playing very dense and dynamic pieces. But with smaller ensembles, and even the symphony playing more intimate pieces, there is a multitude of imaging effects. Live music can cover the broad spectrum of imaging effects, from holographic to dead flat, it is all there.

For anyone to say audio reproduction should not try to mirror these imaging effects is preposterous! You are simply missing out on part of the musical event with lesser imaging.

As to what Learsfool hears as far as tonality and image specicifity, I hear the exact same thing. I do think one has to train themselves to hear these things. My early training came from Jimmy, my audiophile/sound reinforcement friend, and later on, music appreciation courses at UM.

"For anyone to say audio reproduction should not try to mirror these imaging effects is preposterous! You are simply missing out on part of the musical event with lesser imaging."

It should try to but the results will never be exactly the same though because there are too many variables.

You can throw as much money as you want at this problem and it will still always exist.

Better to accept this fact and live with the reproduction that sounds good to you. If its flat and lacking imaging or dimensionality, so be it.

Learsfool, Thanks for the clarification regarding what I percieved as a superhuman hearing ability mostly achieved after the signal hit the grey matter. :-)

FWIW, my use of the word timbre in that context was not from ignorance of common usage so much as I can't imagine that anyone at an audiophile level would accept speakers in the first place that couldn't resolve differences between mic'd violins and cellos (for example) playing in the same register. Its just not that subtle, I think.

I think this has been said somewhere (probably in this thread) but all of the discussion about a live acoustic and imaging is IMHO nothing more than the ability of the forces to drive or overdrive a room, not much different that what a stereo system does in your home.

As evidence, listen to Mahler in a small auditorum - listen to some Bosendorfers in a small chamber. Either could put you off your lunch. Now move them to appropriate space and you get to hear a lot more inner detail. Remove the room factor entirely, i.e. outside, and Mr T would (at least I would argue he could) hear all of that imaging that he does not hear in his home or in a symphony hall in his favorite seat even if the distance to the orchestra was identical. But I suspect most would find the sound a bit sterile, being acoustomed to the reverberations added by the room. I do.

So, in the final analysis I tend to agree with Mapman's last sentence, and like Goldylocks I have chosen to set up a system which is not overly analytical, yet has enuf overall resolution so that I can get very good imaging including front to back 'depth of image'. Not because I think that this is 'real' so much as it is just the sound I like most.

FWIW.