"They are here" vs. "You are there"

Hi Al. Thanks for your comments. Some thoughts…

The one exception I would take concerns item no. 2. 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.

To a large extent, I agree with this. Item (2) - the idea that resemblance between the listening room and the recording space enhances the illusion that “you are there” - was intended to describe a correlation that is largely theoretical. In the real world, the listening room rarely resembles the recording space, except in a very approximate way. As you point out, this is especially true for certain kinds of recording spaces, such a halls.

Having said that, I would stop short of concluding that it is impossible for the listening room to resemble the recording space “in any meaningful way.” It seems to me that sometimes the listening room can resemble the recording space in a meaningful way, in the sense that there are characteristics of the listening room that, to the extent that they approximate the recording space, will contribute to the illusion that “you are there.” For example…

Imagine for the moment that your preference in classical music were confined to orchestral music. In that case, I believe that you would be more likely to create the illusion that “you are there” with a large listening room with a high level of diffusion and a medium to long-ish reverberation time. In contrast, Cbw723’s preference for “studio-recorded material” would be better served with a medium or small sized listening room with plenty of absorption and a comparatively short reverberation time ("acoustically dead," as he describes it). In either case, the resemblance of the listening room to the recording space is only a very rough approximation. But it seems to me that it is a meaningful approximation, in the sense that it will contribute to the illusion that “you are there.”

Of course, all this assumes that the system is playing back recordings with similar recording spaces. In reality, most people listen to a wide range of recordings with vastly different recording spaces. Because of that, I completely agree with your view that, for the audiophile who listens to a wide range of music...

…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.

My view is that...

1. If an audiophile listens predominantly to one type of music, he should design his listening room (when possible) to approximate the typical characteristics of the recording spaces for that type of music, so as to promote the illusion that "he is there" for the music he usually listens to.

However...

2. If an audiophile listens to a wide range of music, he should design his listening room (when possible) to be neutral, so as to promote the illusion that "he is there" for as many kinds of recording spaces as possible, acknowledging that the more neutral the room, the less likely it is to approximate the recording space of any particular type of music.

Bryon writes:

1. If an audiophile listens predominantly to one type of music, he should design his listening room (when possible) to approximate the typical characteristics of the recording spaces for that type of music, so as to promote the illusion that "he is there" for the music he usually listens to.

I think this depends not only on the venue of preference, but the recordings. I alluded to this before when I suggested one not get carried away. In situations where the ambience cues are subtle or absent, having room reinforcement would likely be beneficial. But in cases where the cues are already strong, reinforcement could become excessive.

2. If an audiophile listens to a wide range of music, he should design his listening room (when possible) to be neutral, so as to promote the illusion that "he is there" for as many kinds of recording spaces as possible, acknowledging that the more neutral the room, the less likely it is to approximate the recording space of any particular type of music.

Again, I think this works in the case of strong cues, but with weak or absent cues, and hard-to-duplicate room acoustics, electronic enhancement may be the way to go. Surround speakers could produce concert hall acoustics even in a smallish room.

In summary, the electronic approach could provide reinforcement that varied by degree, depending on how much was needed, and could support a variety of venue configurations. You could, for example, put a studio-recorded session in a big concert hall (but, of course, at some point you are going to start creating distortions that can't be ignored).

Finally, I'm not sure how much the playback system's coloration is an issue. Assuming the system is good enough to produce playback with a convincing live or nearly live sound (as judged by the system's owner/primary listener), it seems unlikely that the ambience cues are going to be distorted to a point that they become an impediment to a "you are there" experience.

i've always found the recording itself plays the major role.

In situations where the ambience cues are subtle or absent, having room reinforcement would likely be beneficial. But in cases where the cues are already strong, reinforcement could become excessive.

Cbw – This is a good point. To the extent that the ambient cues of the listening room resemble those of the recording space, playback in the listening room will reinforce the ambient cues of the recording. It is certainly possible that, for some recordings, that reinforcement could be excessive. In the worst case, the ambient cues of the listening room would, in effect, "double" the ambient cues of the recording. In light of this, designing a listening room with the intention of reinforcing the ambient cues of one type of recording space must be approached judiciously.

…with weak or absent cues, and hard-to-duplicate room acoustics, electronic enhancement may be the way to go.

The idea of creating listening room ambience by electronic means is appealing in theory. In practice, however, the limited experience I have had with professional reverb processors from high end manufacturers was not favorable. Although they were much better at creating ambient cues than the DSP processing typically found in consumer components, they were nevertheless, to my ears, artificial sounding. Because of that, I am skeptical of the electronic approach to creating ambience, at least with the current state of technology. I have far more confidence in the results of controlling ambient cues through listening room design.

I'm not sure how much the playback system's coloration is an issue. Assuming the system is good enough to produce playback with a convincing live or nearly live sound (as judged by the system's owner/primary listener), it seems unlikely that the ambience cues are going to be distorted to a point that they become an impediment to a "you are there" experience.

I agree that the equipment is less important than either the recording or the listening room in determining ambient cues during playback, as I indicated in the “descending order of importance” in the OP. However, I believe that colorations in equipment can be a real obstacle to the presentation of ambient cues during playback. I became convinced of this when making component changes in my own system that simultaneously resulted in (1) greater neutrality, judged by independent criteria; and (2) greater audibility of the ambient cues of recordings.

The idea of creating listening room ambience by electronic means is appealing in theory. In practice, however, the limited experience I have had with professional reverb processors from high end manufacturers was not favorable.

I don't disagree that state of the art processing would not hold up to close scrutiny if it were examined on its own. My thinking is that it may be sufficient when limited to surrounds. As long as the bulk of the sound is coming from the (unprocessed) mains, the processing may not be audible. Given that the cues are themselves the subjects of "analog processing" (i.e., they are things like reflected sounds and room reverb), it may be possible to find a good balance. This approach is, of course, done with movie soundtracks all the time. But, not having tried it with two-channel music, I can't say if the results would be satisfactory. It's just a hypothesis.

However, I believe that colorations in equipment can be a real obstacle to the presentation of ambient cues during playback. I became convinced of this when making component changes in my own system that simultaneously resulted in (1) greater neutrality, judged by independent criteria; and (2) greater audibility of the ambient cues of recordings.

"Coloration" as we've discussed in the past, is a broad category. Since the ambience cues tend to be subtle (except for things like applause), the thing most likely to make them more audible is detail. But detail is a two-edged sword: coloration can obscure it, and coloration can enhance it. So:
1. Some colorations may only have negative effects on the cues. Reducing the noise floor of the system may be an example of an approach that is always positive.
2. Some colorations may be neutral with respect to ambience cues (at least within the usual constraints of high-end systems). THD may be an example. Limited dynamics may be another.
3. Some colorations may enhance the cues. Excessive brightness comes to mind. You get lots of detail in bright systems -- to the point that the ambience cues will practically jump out of the speakers and punch you in the head -- but such systems are not particularly neutral (though they are preferred by some listeners).