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

douglas_schroeder

I pay zero attention to distinctions such as "you are there" versus "they are here". It is a nebulous concept ...

Agreed. It's all an illusion and this discussion is really about semantics.

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. :)