"Breathing" of the air

my reference is live music. when attending a symphony orchestra concert, i don't consider the word "air" applicable to my experience of listening to music in the audience.

the term "air" brings to mind the distinction between "audiophile" terms , listening to a stereo system ,and the expoerience of listening to live music.

many terms used to describe the performance of stereo systems are irrelevant to the live music experience.

Of course you hear what we describe as air here in a live concert, Mr.T. Nobody has ever implied that you can hear the air we breathe. When I opened up Audiogon just now I saw your name on top for this thread and wondered what you would have cooked up now. You have not disappointed me. Ever the inventive mind and good for a laugh.

Well, a few random thoughts from the peanut gallery.........

Q 'Air' - Is it additive? That is does it come from the design or implementation of equipment/set up. Or subtractive? That is does it come from the source and does it pass through the system un-changed?

IMHO, being a pin-point imaging nut, with some emphasis on depth of image, I conclude that the only important 'air' I want to hear is in the recording. This information can be masked by the system/set up.

I conclude 'Air' and 'Depth of Image' can, and actually only do, exist, in relationship to the system's resolution/transparency. Dull system - no air. Bright system, maybe some 'air' but lots of long term fatigue. If you have a transparent system, including no 'noise', you might well hear something folks call air, I think.

I sort of agree with Ralph re speed - too much speed usually means fast rise times (good) combined with fast decay (bad) or slow decay (also bad). You have to put on your Goldilock's hat. Appropriate decay time can make a huge difference and IMHO isn't often discussed in relationship to its importance to the naturalness of the sound. But too me that is just one of the issues involved in 'resolution'.

FWIW.

"Air" is one of those audio terms that means different phenomena to different people. That's why I prefer S.H.'s term "breath of life" and even then, some think he's referring to the human voice which he isn't necessarily.

Steve's bottom line for system sonics is: if you don't have lifelike midrange, you've got nothing. If you think about it, that's why, for example, the Quad 57 ESL is still considered one of the great speakers of all time and a standard for perfect midrange. Though it lacks extension (in both directions!) that midrange just hooks you and you forget about its shortcomings.

Is dimensionality different than air? If so, how? Old mono recordings of limited frequency bandwidth can have good dimensionality, especially on vocals.