One thing that hasn't been clearly stated is that for an acoustic performance (e.g., orchestral) the microphones are usually placed closer to the performers than the vast majority of the audience. By being closer to the microphones the relative distances of the individual performers to the microphones is greater thereby emphasizing (exagerating?) the depth and width. My experience at the symphony is width and depth are there but not near as prominent as on recordings. While this is a nice effect, I think getting tonality correct is the real secret to a good audio system.
Soundstaging and imaging are audiophile fictions.
Recently I attended two live performances in one week--a folk duo in a small club and a performance of Swan Lake by a Russian ballet company. I was reminded of something I have known for many years but talked myself out of for the sake of audiophilia: there is no such thing as "imaging" in live music! I have been hearing live music since I was a child (dad loved jazz, mom loved classical) and am now in my 50s. I have never, NEVER heard any live music on any scale that has "pinpoint imaging" or a "well resolved soundstage," etc. We should get over this nonsense and stop letting manufacturers and reviewers sell us products with reve reviews/claims for wholly artificial "soundstaging"
I often think we should all go back to mono and get one really fine speaker while focusing on tonality, clarity and dynamics--which ARE real. And think of the money we could save.
I happily await the outraged responses.
Jeffrey
I often think we should all go back to mono and get one really fine speaker while focusing on tonality, clarity and dynamics--which ARE real. And think of the money we could save.
I happily await the outraged responses.
Jeffrey