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

It seems to me that this 2 imaginary locations are not always completely disjointed one from another.... They are related to the recording engineering but also like what has been said already to the peculiarity of our room( the explanation of audiokinesis is very clear)....

Sometimes yes they are perceived very clearly and distinctly like almost 2 different experiences....

My system is able to gives me something of this 2 locations different in some different files ….For example listening Walcha playing the Organ works of Bach, I listen like if I was in the space where the organ is....

I listen to a files of Muddy Waters "folk singer" and in the contrary I had the clear impression that Muddy waters is in my room with the musicians...

One file is recorded in a big church, the other is recorded in a small studio....
 For some " live event" recording it is the same like with the church, I listen to the living space and I feel like I was there....

In near listening field or in regular distance listening from my speakers the differences between these 2 files are the same...Except that in near listening field the space of the church is more present than in regular listening field because of the partial elimination or mitigation of the room peculiarities....But the difference between " I am there" or "they are here" subsist in the 2 positions...

In other files there is some no mans land between this 2 options that is not clear cut.... This is linked to the recording engineering peculiarities... It is impossible to decide for one or the other, because there is no space physical unity where all the musicians are together for example in some case, the mind is then mixed about that and recreate an artificial experience without any real link to some real space be it a church, a live event, or even a regular studio........It is more like a virtual totally imaginary space....

kenjit

800 Hz down covers a broad spectrum of instrument fundamentals but those same instruments will never sound real without their 2nd and 3rd order harmonics.  Instruments are not one pitch wonders and need every overtone to create their timbre.  As Duke noted above your definition of tonality is different than the rest of us which makes it hard to understand what you are referring to or eluding to.  You can’t make speakers sound right if only the fundamentals are addressed.  In turn the upper frequencies are crucial to the accurate portrayal of timbre.  

In my opinion, most of it is recording centric. If you want a true "You are There" feeling get great headphones and biaural recordings. 

There next best is anything recorded with ambient mics adding some concert hall reverberations and audience noise. 

In my opinion dipoles give the best liveness to recordings. I don't dampen rear walls but I do move them into the room some. 

Back in the day a pair of Infinity 4.5's and a large room with biamplification and massive amps was one path that consistently got me there. Another was a pair a Maggie IIR's with a pair of Duntech Thor subs. This was also in a very large space. 

I recall playing Roger Waters Raido Chaos and consistently stopping my host to ask if his dog was ok when the dog on the album barks. He said it was the biggest compliment anyone ever gave his system. It happened multiple times. I just couldn't distinguish the bark from reality. It sounded like a dog in distress. (this happened on the Maggie's)

If you close your eyes there should be no difference whatsoever between “you are there” and “they are here.” At the same time most systems are so well, unrevealing - is that too harsh a word? - that the question is actually moot. You’re certainly not there for recordings that are not recorded live. There is no there there. Hel-loo!