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

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).

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).

Cbw - This is an interesting point, and one that had not occurred to me. I think you may be right that some equipment colorations, like brightness, might enhance ambient cues, at least from a psychoacoustic standpoint.

But I wonder whether those colorations would contribute to the illusion that “you are there.” My suspicion is that the answer is often 'no.' That is to say, colorations that enhance ambient cues might nevertheless fail to contribute to the illusion that “you are there” because they might also make the music sound less “real.” I, for one, have a hard time experiencing a bright system as one in which “I am there.” In other words, I suspect that whatever gains are made by colorations that enhance ambient cues might be offset by the system sounding less real. And the less real a system sounds, the harder it is to believe that “you are there.”

All this highlights the fact that ambient cues, while a NECESSARY condition for creating the illusion that “you are there,” are not a SUFFICIENT condition. I have focused on ambient cues throughout this thread because I believe that they are the PRINCIPAL determinants of the illusion that “you are there.” The ambient cues of the recording are the most important, followed by the listening room, followed by the equipment. Which brings me to...

My view about equipment colorations and ambient cues:

Equipment colorations tend to conceal, corrupt, or eliminate ambient cues, though there may be some colorations that enhance ambient cues, at least psychoacoutically. But colorations that enhance ambient cues do not necessarily contribute to the illusion that “you are there,” for the reasons stated above.

Rather than relying on equipment colorations to enhance ambient cues, it seems to me that there is far better way to hear the ambient cues on a recording, and thus to contribute to the illusion that “you are there,” and that is by increasing RESOLUTION.

Increasing resolution is not the same thing as increasing “perceived detail,” since the latter may be increased, as you pointed out, by changing a system’s frequency response (i.e. making the system brighter). Increasing resolution is a matter of increasing either (1) format resolution, or (2) equipment resolution. Which brings me back to my view on the relation between equipment colorations and ambient cues...

I believe that equipment colorations tend to reduce equipment resolution, and hence to obscure ambient cues. Conversely, the reduction of colorations tends to increase resolution, thereby increasing the perceptibility of ambient cues and contributing to the illusion that “you are there.”

This is what I believe the MIT new generation 3 2C3D and MA series are trying to achieve with their new network boxes.Look at the MIT website and see if you don't agree.