Pin point imaging isn't for everyone

Adding extended and articulate deep bass to my system did indeed improve the sense of envelopment. Not by extending the sound stage per se, but by increasing the feeling of being in the room. The main performance is still up front with every instrument palpably positioned, especially bass and drums which are now even more palpably real than before. But there is now an additional sensation of deep bass that just feels like you are in the room. Even though the meat of the performance is still up front, its more like you are in it now.

erik:

I think you missed the point a little, Miller.

How natural is pin point imaging in acoustic music? Roy argued, as do I, that it’s really not.

Well, let's see. So Bruce is sitting right in front of me playing his acoustic guitar and singing. My eyes are closed but I can tell for certain right where he is. He's not some vague diffuse disembodied blob somewhere either. I can tell with my eyes closed to within a few inches exactly where he is. I can tell the guitar is just below his chest. I can tell all this with the same precision as when I drop a pencil and know where to look by sound alone.

I think you missed the point a little Squires. Might want to go read my post again. Pinpoint imaging is every bit as natural in music as it possibly can be because pinpoint imaging is part and parcel of reality. Deal with it.

The second question is whether you want it, and want it more than other features of reproduction.

Now here again it will help to go back and read again this time maybe with a little more comprehension. Since pinpoint imaging is inextricably interwoven in the reality of the original performance then it follows irrefutably that accurately reproducing that performance must necessarily entail replicating that information. Otherwise either your recording is crap, or your playback is crap.

Now granted you may have hit on the one thing that matters: some people, instead of wanting to hear what was recorded come what may, they prefer to impose their own preconceived notions on how their music should sound. They mess with it.

Or maybe they just don't care as much for accuracy, fidelity and realism as they let on.

Well, whatever floats your boat. 

Simple test: close eyes, hold still, drop pencil. Notice you can tell where to look by sound alone. Of course humans can locate by sound alone. Not gonna last long if you run towards the growling tiger, snarling wolf, hissing snake. Anyone unable to do this, find another hobby, you suck at this and always will.

So irrefutably it is natural. Next question: is it desirable?

Well now this depends. If you don't care at all about accuracy in any form then its a low priority at best.

Pretty much all recordings however, the whole reason they exist is to let all us who could not be there for the performance share and experience what it was like. Well since we already proved localization is part and parcel of perception then by extension reproducing the performance means capturing and reproducing that location information as well.

As for the Allison quote, he may be a famous speaker designer who knows about speakers but he could maybe stand to learn a little about human hearing. Trying to recreate the sound of a concert hall might make him happy when playing symphony recordings, but that diffuse sound is gonna just ruin any chance of getting palpable presence from one person singing.

So again it depends on what you want. Want to mess around? Then imaging is low priority. Want accuracy, truth, fidelity? Then imaging rules.