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

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.”

I am in basic agreement with this, and with respect to the reproduction of classical music as recorded in a hall, I would add more specifically that a very key factor seems to me to be what might be referred to as resolution in the time domain.

A notable example would be a speaker having sloppy transient response, whose output tends not to stop as immediately as it should when a sharp transient concludes. Such a speaker will tend to obscure the reflected energy that had been picked up by the microphones some tens of milliseconds after the arrival of the directly captured sound.

Which leads me to suggest, with respect to this comment:

Imagine for the moment that your preference in classical music were confined to orchestral music. In that case, I believe that you would be more likely to create the illusion that “you are there” with a large listening room with a high level of diffusion and a medium to long-ish reverberation time.

... that perhaps the reason such a room would enhance the "you are there" illusion for classical music is not because its large dimensions produce room reflections that begin to mimic those of the hall (which in turn is far larger still), but rather because its large dimensions REDUCE the amplitude of those reflections, as heard at the listening position, thereby reducing the degree to which room acoustics obscure our ability to hear the reflected energy that the mics had captured.

In principle the same thing might be accomplished by heavily damping a small room. However, that would seem likely to result in a very different overall frequency response than would result from the large room approach, possibly introducing or affecting colorations other than the time domain effects that my comments have focused on.

Best regards,
-- Al

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.

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.”

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).

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.

i've always found the recording itself plays the major role.

Bryon writes:

1. If an audiophile listens predominantly to one type of music, he should design his listening room (when possible) to approximate the typical characteristics of the recording spaces for that type of music, so as to promote the illusion that "he is there" for the music he usually listens to.

I think this depends not only on the venue of preference, but the recordings. I alluded to this before when I suggested one not get carried away. 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.

2. If an audiophile listens to a wide range of music, he should design his listening room (when possible) to be neutral, so as to promote the illusion that "he is there" for as many kinds of recording spaces as possible, acknowledging that the more neutral the room, the less likely it is to approximate the recording space of any particular type of music.

Again, I think this works in the case of strong cues, but with weak or absent cues, and hard-to-duplicate room acoustics, electronic enhancement may be the way to go. Surround speakers could produce concert hall acoustics even in a smallish room.

In summary, the electronic approach could provide reinforcement that varied by degree, depending on how much was needed, and could support a variety of venue configurations. You could, for example, put a studio-recorded session in a big concert hall (but, of course, at some point you are going to start creating distortions that can't be ignored).

Finally, 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.

Hi Al. Thanks for your comments. Some thoughts…

The one exception I would take concerns item no. 2. 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.

To a large extent, I agree with this. Item (2) - the idea that resemblance between the listening room and the recording space enhances the illusion that “you are there” - was intended to describe a correlation that is largely theoretical. In the real world, the listening room rarely resembles the recording space, except in a very approximate way. As you point out, this is especially true for certain kinds of recording spaces, such a halls.

Having said that, I would stop short of concluding that it is impossible for the listening room to resemble the recording space “in any meaningful way.” It seems to me that sometimes the listening room can resemble the recording space in a meaningful way, in the sense that there are characteristics of the listening room that, to the extent that they approximate the recording space, will contribute to the illusion that “you are there.” For example…

Imagine for the moment that your preference in classical music were confined to orchestral music. In that case, I believe that you would be more likely to create the illusion that “you are there” with a large listening room with a high level of diffusion and a medium to long-ish reverberation time. In contrast, Cbw723’s preference for “studio-recorded material” would be better served with a medium or small sized listening room with plenty of absorption and a comparatively short reverberation time ("acoustically dead," as he describes it). In either case, the resemblance of the listening room to the recording space is only a very rough approximation. But it seems to me that it is a meaningful approximation, in the sense that it will contribute to the illusion that “you are there.”

Of course, all this assumes that the system is playing back recordings with similar recording spaces. In reality, most people listen to a wide range of recordings with vastly different recording spaces. Because of that, I completely agree with your view that, for the audiophile who listens to a wide range of music...

…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.

My view is that...

1. If an audiophile listens predominantly to one type of music, he should design his listening room (when possible) to approximate the typical characteristics of the recording spaces for that type of music, so as to promote the illusion that "he is there" for the music he usually listens to.

However...

2. If an audiophile listens to a wide range of music, he should design his listening room (when possible) to be neutral, so as to promote the illusion that "he is there" for as many kinds of recording spaces as possible, acknowledging that the more neutral the room, the less likely it is to approximate the recording space of any particular type of music.

Hi Newbee,

Interesting questions.

My understanding has been that "forward" vs. "backward" is essentially a different issue than "they are here" vs. "you are there."

My understanding has been that "forward" and "backward" are primarily matters of emphasis or de-emphasis of mid-range frequencies, relative to highs and lows. That is why in the old days mid-range tone controls were commonly labeled "presence" controls.

While "they are here" vs. "you are there" is primarily a matter, as Bryon indicated, of the proportion of direct vs. reflected sound, which brings time relationships (as opposed to frequency response) heavily into play.

Therefore I agree with the ideas that have been expressed about mic placement and mic characteristics. Those factors, and their relationship to the hall size and its acoustic characteristics, would figure to be the key factors in how realistically hall ambience is reproduced. Assuming, that is, that subsequent processing is not overdone to the point of messing up what the mics have captured.

Best regards,
-- Al

Al, I think your comments make a lot of sense. However how do you think this plays out for folks who want to use horn, panel, or line speakers? For example I've heard some folks say that some horn speakers can be 'forward' compared to well designed cone/box speakers, etc.

Because of this I tend to agree with Ballan. IMHO the degree that recordings are forward or accurate (or backward :-)) has far more to do with the practices of the recording engineer than the natural acoustics of the hall, the recording studio or the home environment. Pushing a few sliders around can change everything including the relationship between direct and reverberant sounds and usually does.

1. As much as Lowell Thomas and later, Walter Cronkite were big proponents of the "you are there" news reel and then TV show... I'm more into having the entertainers standing in front of me... saves on parking, trip times, traffic, gas, etc.

It also makes for easier virtual autograph getting!

2. It's the recording! That is of course once the level of equipment is up to snuff.

Hi Bryon,

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 particularly second the comments by CWLondon, and, for the most part, the excellent analysis in your previous post.

The one exception I would take concerns item no. 2. 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.

I would therefore comingle your references to listening room characteristics (under item 2) with the thoughts you expressed regarding equipment, under item 3. In other words 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.

Best regards,
-- Al

'They are here'. I want them to perform for me.

Thanks for the responses. The majority of posters so far have a preference for the experience of "you are there." I have a pet theory about what creates that experience:

Whether a system sounds like “they are here” or “you are there” is principally determined by AMBIENT CUES during playback. The presence/characteristics of ambient cues during playback is itself largely determined by the following, in descending order of importance:

(1) RECORDING: Ratio of direct to reflected sound.

(2) LISTENING ROOM: Resemblance to the recording space.

(3) EQUIPMENT: Relative neutrality or coloration.

RE: (1) RECORDING. Recordings that contain ambient cues are more likely to provide the experience that “you are there.” Those that lack them are more likely to provide the experience that “they are here.” The presence of ambient cues is mostly a consequence of the ratio of direct to reflected sound contained in the recording.

The ratio of direct to reflected sound is itself largely a consequence of microphone type and placement: The (a) more directional the pickup pattern of the microphone; and (b) the closer the microphone is placed to the acoustical event, the higher the ratio of direct to reflected sound on the recording. The (a) less directional the pickup pattern of the microphone; and (b) the farther the microphone is placed from the acoustical event, the lower the ratio of direct to reflected sound on the recording.

Since ambient cues about the acoustical environment are disproportionately contained in the reflected sound, recordings that have a lower ratio of direct to reflected sound will have more ambient cues, and consequently, sound more like “you are there.”

RE: (2) LISTENING ROOM. Listening rooms that resemble the recording space are more likely to provide the experience that “you are there.” That is because, when the listening room resembles the recordings space, they have similar ambient cues. As a result, the ambient cues of the listening room will naturally augment the ambient cues of the recording space contained in the recording, enhancing the experience that “you are there.”

Resemblance is a matter of size, shape, quantity/placement/ratio of absorption and diffusion, reverberation time, and so on. The more your listening room resembles the recording space in each of those characteristics, the more it will sound like “you are there.”

RE: (3) EQUIPMENT. Equipment that is neutral, in the sense of ‘degree of absence of coloration’ is more likely to provide the experience that “you are there.” That is because colorations frequently conceal, corrupt, or eliminate the ambient cues of a recording, thereby reducing the experience that “you are there.”

Some colorations, it could be argued, add “ambient cues” of the own, thereby increasing the likelihood of the experience that “you are there.” I have doubts about this, since the “ambient cues” added by colorations are largely constant, whereas the ambient cues of recording spaces are infinitely variable. Hence the chances of the two resembling each other across a wide range of recordings seems unlikely. Therefore, colorations that add "ambient cues" of their own may often enhance the experience that "you are somewhere," but seldom that "you are there."

Fire away.

Personally, I find the "you are there" sensation a bit disorienting. I know where I am when I'm listening, and it's not in a jazz club, concert hall, or stadium. So when I hear the cues that suggest those places, I find them distracting and they distance me from the music. Maybe that's why I prefer studio-recorded material: it sounds like the music is there with me for my personal enjoyment.

In my case, the acoustic treatment is easy: just make the room a bit on the acoustically dead side. For the "you are there" experience, I'd think you'd want to make your room's acoustics a bit like the venue of interest (without getting carried away). A jazz venue is small and a bit bright, a concert hall is cavernous, a stadium is, well, an acoustic nightmare. So I think you could probably tailor your room in one way or another to maximize a particular kind of venue, but that might have consequences for other types of recordings and venues.

Maybe Hesson11 is on to something. Maybe the best answer is a processor (that reproduces the ambience), and a few surround speakers. Many surround processors have this capability, and have settings for various venue effects. One could fork one's 2-channel line outs into a processor or receiver, and use it for its surround capabilities only. A lot of people are already effectively doing the same thing with their subs (substitute "low pass filter" for "processor"). Hmm, an easy enough experiment to try...

I would believe that "you are there" would be what to strive for. It is not easy to put together a system that can give you the feeling that you are at the actual venue.

I don't think we're in Kansas anymore

"She's Not There" is a great song by the Zombies. ;)

"I'm Not There" is an interesting movie about Bob Dylan. :)

"You Are There" was a great TV show!

To me, "you are there" is the whole point. I love live classical music, and my entire aim is to come as close as possible to that at home. The single most important addition to my system in helping me achieve this was my JVC XP-A1010 Digital Acoustic Processor, along with its associated four ambiance speakers.

Not only does this do an amazing job of extracting and synthesizing concert-hall ambiance, it also somehow makes the instrumental tone colors much more natural. It's but a slight exaggeration to say that the difference it makes is analogous to the difference between seeing a painting of actors on a stage and seeing real actors on a real stage. It's absolutely amazing. And many years out of production.
-Bob

Bryoncunningham,

You make a very interesting distinction.

I would think the correct answer is clearly "you are there" at least for live or minimally processed, high quality recordings, where we start with the idea that the goal is recreating the illusion of the original event, in the same space in which it was recorded.

Therefore, a listening room which is fairly neutral, and a system's ability to image would be the key technical considerations.

Any system able to do this should not have any problems playing multitrack studio recordings either.

I think this has more to do with the recording methods and process, and because of that, I prefer to allow the artist and engineer to make that decision. I have a hard enough time trying to decide between cake or brownies for desert. :)

I prefer "they are here". Since I have never been to most concert halls, recording studios, etc. I don't know how they are supposed to sound. I do know my own sound room and acoustic space and how it performs.

Just my opinion...

I prefer you are there.

Recording has a huge affect on this, as do room acoustics.

Of course it takes a certain level of quality in speaker and associated equipment to get this, but if it isn't on the cd/record/etc, it is not going to come out of your speakers.