Soundstage, Imaging, Detail & Presence??

Detail= Low level resolution, meaning, not at a low volume, but that background details, which are at a lower dynamic, are presented with the same clairity as foreground info. But that's only the beginning...great detail also gives information without that overly etched sound, which IMHO can be fatiguing. It's 'all' apparently there...with great focus, like taking that lens on the camera and making the final tweak, to bring everything together in perfect focus.
Imaging=Change audio into the visual medium and ask yourself can I visualize what I'm hearing...does it 'paint a vivid picture', that being orchestra, locations of instruments, juxtaposition of instruments in a jazz combo, and the distances between being rendered in what you think to be accurate proportions.
Presence=Think halographic...'Help me Obi Wan you're my only hope'..a female vocalist is standing before you in a time and place in space. Shockingly so....sometimes great, great tubes render this for me, better than anything else--the effect is stunning and keeps me comming back for more every time.

Good luck and good listening...

Larry

Charles1dad,
I remember my first 'tube' experience.
I had opened a high end audio store in Louisville, KY.
Bill Conrad kept calling, trying to get me to sell cj products. He's such a sweet guy, how could anyone object to doing business with him?
Anyway, when I got a PV-5 in, 'circa 1983'...I noticed the extreme heat and smell of the tubes...then I was thunderstruck by the 'space', 'space within space' and the overall presentation being on a whole different planet in terms of low level resolution...that, and the overall 'smoothness'...I was hooked...still am.

As I tell fledgling audiophiles, 'Tubes is great'! lol.

Larry

Ngjockey...sometimes I get caught up in the 'comment' side of this, that I fail to 'carefully' read...then analyze the intent and deep meanings of the well written posts.
Its not that his post is Zen-like, its simply that what he says, captures the essence of this topic.
When I ascribed my adjectives to this, I meant it as part of the 'total listening experience' in which we try to, (if you're a good audiophile) close our eyes and 'pretend' that we're 'there', not 'here'.
Studio recordings, if well done, place the singer (Renee Olstead) in the, at least, close center, out a bit in front...by using volume and the old 50/50% in each speaker, allowing our ears/brain to do the rest.
Then to lesser degrees, % of volume and such, others are placed in the sound stage. It's fun, but to use Ngjocky's words which are elegant and simple (and perfect for this) 'artificial and imaginary'.
This past Sunday, I was invited to a concert that a friend was conducting, a 40 piece 'BAND'...no strings.
During it, of course, I closed my eyes, pretending it was home stereo, (how 'bout that for full circle irony).
What was missing was pretty amazing.
Very little of the instrument specificity, (that may be something we simply 'apply' in orchestral works)in terms of location.
The MAIN thing missing (at home) is dynamic contrast. The zero to 115+db (and more) was startling. That, and the scaling of the various instruments and how different they are in that dynamic contrasting...piccalos are really, really dynamic, at least, they 'cut through', (no doubt a function of their place on the pitch scale and the human hearing 'curve') all the other instruments. Nature's way of allowing the piccalo to say, 'Here I am', even if I am a fraction the size of a Tuba!

All in all, it was a reminder of what Ngjockey said, AND how important it is to hear, (for me at least) accoustic music played. Moreover, it may, may have been a really good commercial for Horn Speakers--at least the dynamics made it a reminder.

Good listening,
Larry

Charles1dad,
That sentence, beautifully constructed,"...the simple point is our ears are great and can perceive the many nuances and subtle characteristics in music that as of yet can`t be quantified with measurements."...is so true as to be the crux of many disagreements.
Back in the day, I used to ask Jim Thiel why he didn't use better caps and air core inductors, resisters, etc, in his crossovers. He would coyly say, 'Because they measure as they do with the components I'm using.'

That was all well and good--but then the next day, I'd be talking to Bill Conrad of cj, and he'd be waxing poetically about the caps they were having made to their specs and how they spent hours deciding which cap goes where and so on. I was confused and frustrated with Jim, one of my icons.

Many years later, I realized that the 'pragmatic' business side of Jim was simply winning the battle for saving the world from bad audio, and keeping THIEL Audio in business.
Every, we'll call it 'additional' penny(s) a manufacturer spends on internal parts, is a penny that doesn't come back as profits. So, if a $.58 piece of stuff works, why spend $4.35?

It wasn't until the twilight of Jim's life that he publically changed that position by making the CS2.4SE. As you may know, it offered upgraded parts in the crossovers.
When interviewed, Jim said, 'Well, there are some things that can't be measured, but exist in audio.' I'm paraphrasing, but that's the intent of the comments.
These speakers came out AFTER my LSA Statements hit the streets, AND after Sherry Graham (formerly of THIEL and new owner of LSA speakers) came to work for LSA. There may have been NO correllation, but anyone who's heard the LSA1 or LSA2 Standard/Signature/Statements can easily attest to the differences, the ENORMOUS differences that higher quality parts can make in circuitry.
Hell, two carefully chose Amprex 6dj8 tubes Circa 1962 in my Statement LSA Amp, even using the ridiculously expensive parts we use, 'transform' that amp into another realm.

There was a transmission commercial on TV years ago, touting the quality of parts that a company used...the 'stupid guy' trying to make the opposite point, says, 'Parts is Parts'! That always resonated with me.
Great comment Charles1dad.

Larry