The “They are here” vs “You are there” sound topic
On my system, I am happy with “they are here”, which is 99% of the music I listen to. But there is one recording which gives me “I am there” in spades: That is Sting singing Roxanne on “The Secret Policeman’s other Ball” The hall reverb is just fantastic. The vinyl is better than the CD in this regard, although the CD is still good. |
One of the reasons that sparked my interest to bring this topic up is, because the following has been mentioned in the first edition of this year’s the absolute sound, quote (from a Monitor Audio piece): “Jonathan Valin has long written about three kinds of audiophiles: 1. those who seek “the absolute sound”—that is, the as-realistic-as-possible reproduction of the sound of acoustic instruments in a real space; 2. “fidelity to source” listeners who want the truth of what’s on the original mastertape or recording replicated as the engineers/artists intended; 3. “as you like it” listeners who care more about what sounds pleasing to their ears than meeting these other criteria…maybe they like a little bass boost or the warm, golden signature of a particular tube, for example.” “Of course, such “fidelity to source” tendencies can reveal a recording’s finesse or flaws, whether it’s well-recorded or not especially so.” “As far as minor points to critique, at times on good recordings even though resolution was high, the Gold 300s might not be the last word in realism (à la “the absolute sound”) or the oft-discussed speaker “disappearing act”—though for most listeners that won’t matter much. Certain instrumental layers would jump or stand out from others. It’s hard to put my finger on what the issue was, though it generally seemed to occur in the upper midrange. However, I only noticed this on certain recordings and the occasional projection of the upper mids did seem to diminish over time. Really this might only concern listeners who are seriously into realism…so it didn’t really bother me. Soundstages thrown tended to offer good width and adequate depth—assuming the source material captured these things—though more height could have been desirable on certain recordings.” “Especially if you appreciate or collect well-recorded material, the speaker can enable you to reap its rewards.” So, for me, I am looking for the above mentioned “realistic-as-possible reproduction of the sound of acoustic instruments in a real space” or the oft-discussed speaker “disappearing act”. Which speakers besides the already mentioned ones do that in your opinion and/ or what have you heard lately at showrooms or audio shows that you really liked? |
A live recording, such as Harry Belafonte, Live at Carnegie Hall ( a fave of mine ), creates an " I am there " experience, placing me very close to the stage. Another fave, ( of which I was present on one of those nights ), is The Allman Bros. Live at the Fillmore East. Puts me 1/3rd mid hall, but again, I am there. Understanding, that I am here, in my listening room, is a testament, that if I can be moved, and transported, to the performance ( I am there ), tells me, my system is doing what it is supposed to do, specifically, for what I want it to do. Pretty much, all of the music I listen too, I have this same " sense ", if you will. As mentioned by someone above, this is, more or less, recording dependent, as reverb, hall ambiance, audience involvement ( clapping ), or even dryer studio recordings, can lessen this sense. Still, I am always there. |
@ishkabibil, Sorry about that. I think that was my round-about way of saying that like a lot of people, I had just assumed the 'you are there' or 'they are here' was more or less 'baked into' the gear somehow. The fact that it changed on me from one to the other after my gear was set up, just on account of adding more power treatments alone, showed me it could be influenced, even without changing anything else in the system...maybe not 'baked in' after all?? |
1. You are there is when the recording environment is reproduced (or the Illusion thereof). 2. They are here is when the recording is very dry and you hear nothing but the instruments and voices as if they were in your living room. Only the living room provides any ambience. THIS is what I prefer. I do not want to hear an acoustic guitar as if it was recorded in a church (whether that is actually the case or a simulation). I want to hear that guitar as if it is actually in my living room. As for speakers. Well in my opinion British monitors say from ProAc or Rogers, Celestion etc give me the You are there experience. Klipsch Legacy speakers give me more of a They are here experience. I really do not like much if any reverb, natural or artificial. |
@maghister, Yes, I did indeed neglect to mention the 'mechanical' through oversight. I have a digital, ss system and found an excellent mechanical solution some time ago that works so well that I rarely give it any more thought, so it slipped my mind here. But, for others, particularly using tubes/vinyl, it may be a key piece, as you rightly say. |
| Post removed |
ivan_nosnibor Thanks for your interesting post... My experience is like yours... The mechanical and electrical grid of the house play indeed a fundamental role...But for me they are three embeddings: 1-The mechanical environment of each electronic component (vibrations-resonances controls) 2-The electrical grid of the room and of the house 3a-the passive room treatment with materials absorbant and reflective 3b-the active acoustical space modifications with 8 modified Schumann generators, 20 Helmholtz resonators and 50 reflectors... The cost of my filtration noise system is low compared to other methods and entirely linked to properties of some stones and crystals... For example the filtration of the electrical field of the telephone box, router, breaker panel, is 50% of the imaging field peak potential in my audio system... |
Thank you @audiokinesis, all that seems to me to be on the money. For my own experiences with it, there seems to be (in this sense) 2 sides to getting the First Venue cues to dominate as effectively as possible. I think of the result that the ear hears, in this case, is made up of 2 parts - the electrical half and the acoustical half. For the first half, the electrical, let’s look at the physical system and wiring. I think of this abstractly as a physical ’doorway’ from the ’room behind the front wall’ as it were, through which the music (and all its cues) must pass through into our listening room and to our ears unscathed. The better the system is, theoretically, the more capable it is in **allowing** the signal to pass through unscathed. But, allowing for it does not always guarantee delivery...not only acoustically, but equally important electrically. IOW, in practice, this does not typically come off so well due to routine electrical losses. And that for me is the second half of it. It’s not Just the hardware (or even the acoustics)...it’s just as much the electrical **environment** in which **the system is trying to operate**. Addressing both sides of the coin, however, gets us in very good shape toward coming up with a system that is First-Venue dominant - not only in Theory, but in practice as well. In general there are 2 ways to deal with these losses. Traditionally, one can buy better gear that has better constructed and filtered power supplies. The other is (increasingly these days) to use some form of advanced power treatments (the newer quantum-based kinds avoid the kind of frequency or dynamic anomalies, and power limitations, that have given the term "power conditioning" a bad rep [and you could argue deservedly so]). It ends up almost as expensive as buying the good gear alone, but either way, you can end up with a system that is about as good as it gets these days for inherently preserving First-Venue cues in your listening room - IOW, pretty dang good...room acoustics aside, perhaps. I found a quantum-based noise-floor reduction method (consisting of various, individual filters that I buy separately, evaluate and then move on to the next filter) which I began applying some years ago that works for me. Not too many years ago, my system at the time, which already had a number of filters applied, still had a fairly neutral presentation of its sound stage. But, since then, with the more filters I’ve added, the more the depth increased and the in fact the more laid back the overall presentation has become. Currently, almost 95% of the sound stage is now taking place behind my speakers (they were always 5.5 ft away from the front wall). It may be of some interest here, because in all that time, I never changed any gear, wiring, room treatments, EQ, seating position, speakers or their positioning or toe in. IOW, the delta from a roughly 50% presentation to nearly 95% has all been due to noise-floor reduction alone...an interesting result. In any case, as a result of all the filtering, I’m now also enjoying a system that is very First-Venue efficient, regardless of stage presentation, and the more laid back stage has also allowed for me the inclusion of both "you are there" and "they are here" in the same system and room. But, naturally, I tend to take the notion that First-Venue efficiency can be pinpointed to certain gear or wiring alone with a grain of salt. You might can get there strictly that way, if you choose, but IME anyway, that is plainly not the only way...nor is it the only factor. Sorry for the long post, I’m not having any luck at brevity either. |
I think the purpose of putting together a sound systems is to create a sound stage so you can imagine the artist playing between the speakers. Being able to achieve this takes hours of listening to various speakers and amplifiers. It also depends upon your budget. That is why it helps to listen to various price ranges. Going to audio shows is also a great place to start because you can listen to so many systems in just two days and there are people there who can explain what they are selling. Then, it comes down to what you like hearing most and then decide on how much you want to spend. |
I am glad to learn that my low cost tweaked system is not unrevealing...:) Recorded live events mostly, but also churches spaces gives me the impression " to be there"... Because some spatial cues coming from the recordings vindicate my own room cues, especially in nearfield listening... But I have this impression also to feel a great space encompassing my room or replacing it in regular listening distance...This immersive impression was in my audio system only after my advanced modification of the central breaker panel and the introduction of many Schumann generator with many thin golden plate+liliputian Herkimer diamond... Otherwise in studio recordings "they are here" in an off beat virtual space most of the times ... |
If you close your eyes there should be no difference whatsoever between “you are there” and “they are here.” At the same time most systems are so well, unrevealing - is that too harsh a word? - that the question is actually moot. You’re certainly not there for recordings that are not recorded live. There is no there there. Hel-loo! |
In my opinion, most of it is recording centric. If you want a true "You are There" feeling get great headphones and biaural recordings. There next best is anything recorded with ambient mics adding some concert hall reverberations and audience noise. In my opinion dipoles give the best liveness to recordings. I don't dampen rear walls but I do move them into the room some. Back in the day a pair of Infinity 4.5's and a large room with biamplification and massive amps was one path that consistently got me there. Another was a pair a Maggie IIR's with a pair of Duntech Thor subs. This was also in a very large space. I recall playing Roger Waters Raido Chaos and consistently stopping my host to ask if his dog was ok when the dog on the album barks. He said it was the biggest compliment anyone ever gave his system. It happened multiple times. I just couldn't distinguish the bark from reality. It sounded like a dog in distress. (this happened on the Maggie's) |
The overtone structures created by instruments have an enormous influence on their individual and signature timbres. Those overtones obviously don’t stop at 800Hz. The nature of the crossover plays a huge role in the loudspeaker’s ability to recreate both the fundamental tones and their overtones. Superior drivers make the design of the x/o an easier task. In one of his Tech Talk Tuesday videos, Danny Richie (GR Research) shows the on and off axis response of individual drivers and complete loudspeakers, and demonstrates how improving the off axis response (often via the x/o, the design of which Danny is an expert) affects the loudspeaker’s total in room response, in both the amplitude and temporal domains. Do yourself a huge favor and watch the videos! |
kenjit 800 Hz down covers a broad spectrum of instrument fundamentals but those same instruments will never sound real without their 2nd and 3rd order harmonics. Instruments are not one pitch wonders and need every overtone to create their timbre. As Duke noted above your definition of tonality is different than the rest of us which makes it hard to understand what you are referring to or eluding to. You can’t make speakers sound right if only the fundamentals are addressed. In turn the upper frequencies are crucial to the accurate portrayal of timbre. |
It seems to me that this 2 imaginary locations are not always completely disjointed one from another.... They are related to the recording engineering but also like what has been said already to the peculiarity of our room( the explanation of audiokinesis is very clear).... Sometimes yes they are perceived very clearly and distinctly like almost 2 different experiences.... My system is able to gives me something of this 2 locations different in some different files ….For example listening Walcha playing the Organ works of Bach, I listen like if I was in the space where the organ is.... I listen to a files of Muddy Waters "folk singer" and in the contrary I had the clear impression that Muddy waters is in my room with the musicians... One file is recorded in a big church, the other is recorded in a small studio.... For some " live event" recording it is the same like with the church, I listen to the living space and I feel like I was there.... In near listening field or in regular distance listening from my speakers the differences between these 2 files are the same...Except that in near listening field the space of the church is more present than in regular listening field because of the partial elimination or mitigation of the room peculiarities....But the difference between " I am there" or "they are here" subsist in the 2 positions... In other files there is some no mans land between this 2 options that is not clear cut.... This is linked to the recording engineering peculiarities... It is impossible to decide for one or the other, because there is no space physical unity where all the musicians are together for example in some case, the mind is then mixed about that and recreate an artificial experience without any real link to some real space be it a church, a live event, or even a regular studio........It is more like a virtual totally imaginary space.... |
https://d279m997dpfwgl.cloudfront.net/wp/2019/10/1008_blackest-paint05.jpg
How can you be in 2 places @ once when you're not anywhere @ all. |
Kenjit wrote: "you say that [tonality is your priority] but your focus is and always has been off axis response. That is your holy grail." My interest in getting the off-axis response right arose from its beneficial effects on timbre. Subsequently I found other worthwhile benefits. So to me, getting the off-axis response right is a means to an end, and that end is multi-faceted, and its main facet is timbre. (A major difference between live and reproduced sound is, what’s happening in the reverberant field. You can walk past an open doorway with no line-of-sight to the sound source, such that all you can hear is the reverberant sound, and instantly you know whether it’s live or a recording. There are some simplification assumptions in this statement, but not all that many.) " Cheap dsp speakers costing a few hundred bucks can give you smooth perfect off axis response if thats the goal. " If there is a significant discrepancy between the on-axis response and the off-axis response, that discrepancy shows up in the shape of the radiation pattern. EQ cannot correct the radiation pattern shape, so it cannot simultaneously correct the on-axis and off-axis response if the radiation pattern has problems. (When the radiation pattern does not have problems, on-axis and off-axis issues ARE simultaneously corrected, which is what makes such speakers good candidates for DSP.) So smooth perfect off-axis response is not THE goal. It is one of many. If you are able to achieve satisfactory results with cheap DSP speakers, congratulations! If you are willing to share the secrets of your success, even better. "My definition of tonality is completely different than yours. Tonality, according to my definition is the area well below the crossover point. So it has nothing to do with off axis response." In that case, our use of the term is too different for us to move forward with its use. Do you accept the dictionary definition of "timbre"? Duke |
My definition of tonality is completely different than yours. Tonality, according to my definition is the area well below the crossover point. So it has nothing to do with off axis response.Perhaps I am not the only one but I am sorry to say that perhaps I understand anything but that definition does not makes any sense for me....A more scientific mind help please! In my experience and experiment we cannot separate tonality and the dynamics of the room and the speakers resonance and workings....It is a linked system dynamics.... |
Personally I do place tonality ahead of spatiality on my list of priorities, but tonality was not the topic of this thread. In general I agree with the approach of fixing first that which matters most.you say that but your focus is and always has been off axis response. That is your holy grail. The problem is its not hard to do what you so eagerly seek to achieve. Cheap dsp speakers costing a few hundred bucks can give you smooth perfect off axis response if thats the goal. So even if your goal was the key to perfect sound, it has already been done and very cheaply at that. your injunction to "forget about the off axis response" overlooks a vital aspect of tonality: No it does not. My definition of tonality is completely different than yours. Tonality, according to my definition is the area well below the crossover point. So it has nothing to do with off axis response. |
The Linaeum Model 10 speakers I had many years ago threw a sound stage so enveloping a friend said, "You are swimming in it." This 2 way speaker used the linaeum tweeter, a unique sort of dipole. I always thought that dipole shooting sound out the back (but not to the sides) had to have something to do with the incredible you are there sound. Thanks Duke for explaining so clearly just how that works. |
Maghister wrote: " Thanks for your very interesting post... You made me understand in a better way my intuitive use of absorbing and diffusive ratio in my small room...I use reflectors to diffuse the sound in a way that gives me the first venues cues...I create that with my ears experiments and intuition and for me your explanation makes more sense of my experience for myself now indeed... " Thank you sir! Very glad that some of what I wrote is consistent with your experience and intuition. This is a topic that I am still learning about (it figures into my product development efforts) and the above post is a condensed version of my current understanding. Duke |
@tomic601, for years I too thought the Basement Tapes were recorded on a Revox A77 (perhaps because that is what is pictured on the front cover of the official LP release ;-). But in his book Testimony, Robbie Robertson lists the recording equipment Garth Hudson used in the basement of Big Pink all throughout 1967: - A half dozen Norelco mics (dictation mics?!). - A couple of "little" Altec mixers. - An Ampex 2-channel/4-track stereo reel-to-reel recorder (consumer, not pro), running at either 7.5 or 3.75 ips. - Two speakers for playback listening. - Headphones on which Garth set mic levels. Thank God for Garth Hudson! |
"The "you are there" acoustical signature on the recording is reverb and lots of it." I agree, assuming the recording is done well. "Forget about off axis response. Fix the tonality or you will never be happy." Personally I do place tonality ahead of spatiality on my list of priorities, but tonality was not the topic of this thread. In general I agree with the approach of fixing first that which matters most. Imo your injunction to "forget about the off axis response" overlooks a vital aspect of tonality: Most of the sound you hear in most rooms started out as off-axis response. You can EQ the response such that the sum of on-axis + off-axis = the tonality you desire, but if there was a significant spectral discrepancy between the two to begin with then it’s still there, and listening fatigue may arise over time. Let me explain: The ear/brain system examines each incoming sound to see if it is a new sound or a reflection. It does so by comparing the spectral content to sounds recently stored in a short-term memory. If there is a match, then it’s a reflection and its directional cues are suppressed, but it still contributes to tonality and loudness. If there is no match then it’s a new sound, and a copy goes into short-term memory for comparison with subsequent incoming sounds. This suppression of directional cues from reflections is called the "Precedence effect", and it’s what allows us to reliably determine the direction of a sound source in a reverberant environment... useful for knowing where to look and/or where to run when a predator snaps a twig in the forest. When there is a significant discrepancy between the spectral content of the initial sound and its reflection, the ear/brain system has to work correspondingly harder to make the correct match. Over time this can tire that portion of the brain and result in listening fatigue, sometimes literally manifesting as a head-ache. One EQ-based way to minimize these spectral discrepancies might be to use a fairly directional (or possibly nearfield) EQ’d main array and a dedicated, separately-EQ’d reverberant-field-only array. Position and aim the second arrays (one for each channel) such that their outputs arrive after as much path-length-induced time delay as is reasonably feasible. Duke |
audiokinesis Thanks for your very interesting post... You made me understand in a better way my intuitive use of absorbing and diffusive ratio in my small room...I use reflectors to diffuse the sound in a way that gives me the first venues cues...I create that with my ears experiments and intuition and for me your explanation makes more sense of my experience for myself now indeed... With more conventional speakers the same principles apply, including: Minimize the early reflections (via diffusion or angled reflectors |
For the adventure get a zoom H6, and a guitar ( I myself like Taylor - the hometown team ) or a cymbal, tambourine, etc and capture some original acoustic events with venue 1 for the digital agnostics a small cassette tascam or better yet a Revox A-77 ( it was good enuf for Lonesome Bob and the Band after all ) should suffice. |
The "you are there" acoustical signature on the recording is reverb and lots of it. The more of it you have the less the brain focusses on the competing in room sound signature cues. When the recording has no cues, the in room cues dominates and the performers appear in your room. However the elephant in the room is TONALITY. That is the holy grail of loudspeaker theory. All high end speakers are wrong when it comes to this. Forget about off axis response. Fix the tonality or you will never be happy. |
Thank you millercarbon and bryhifi for your encouargment. Bryhifi, I’m going to continue along the lines of what you quoted. Apologies in advance for the length of this post. Imo this is a complex topic, and brevity eludes me. I’m going to start from the assumption that the recording contains a plausible “you are there” acoustic signature. Obviously such is not always the case, but given that the more challinging of the two would be to recreate “you are there” in a home listening room, let’s make the ability to do so our intention. In the listening room there is, in effect, a "competition" between the acoustic signature of the venue on the recording (whether real or engineered or both), and the acoustic signature of the room we are listening in. Let’s call these the "First Venue" and the "Second Venue", respectively. When the First Venue cues dominate (and all else is good), then "you are there." When the Second Venue cues dominate (and all else is good), then "they are here." In general, getting the First Venue cues to dominate is easier said than done, as the Second Venue cues naturally tend to dominate in most home listening rooms. So while the end result will inevitably be recording-dependent, let’s give all of our recordings the best chance we reasonably can, by effectively presenting the First Venue cues while disrupting the Second Venue cues. In order for the First Venue cues to be effectively presented, they need to be strong enough for us to hear them; they need to be easily recognizable by the ear; they need to arrive from many different directions; and they need to not die away too quickly. The First Venue cues are of course included in the direct sound, but that’s arguably the worst possible direction for reflections to come from. Fortunately they are also included in the reflected energy in the room. The ear/brain system can pick out those First Venue ambience cues from the reflections in the listening room based on their spectral content, and connect them to the appropriate first-arrival sounds. Timbre is also enriched along the way. First Venue cues "strong enough for us to hear them" means that we need a fair amount of reverberant energy, which implies wide-pattern or polydirectional speakers and/or a room that is not overdamped. The latter helps insure that they "don’t die away too quickly". And the wide/polydirectional pattern + ideally a lot of diffusion = the First Venue cues "arrive from many different directions." In order for the First Venue cues to be "easily recognizable by the ear", they must be spectrally correct. This implies that the spectral balance of the off-axis energy is similar to the spectral balance of the first-arrival sound, AND that the room doesn’t over-absorb the short wavelengths (high frequencies) and correspondingly degrade the spectral balance of the reverberant energy. Of course we want to avoid slap echo, so there’s a balance we’re looking for, and in general diffusion serves that goal better than absorption. But imo this is only HALF the battle. The other half is, we want to weaken and/or disrupt the "Second Venue" cues - that is, the inherent acoustic signature of the listening room. Undesirable Second Venue "small room signature" is stongly conveyed by the earliest reflections, and in general the earlier their arrival stronger the effect. So we want to avoid early reflections as much as possible; and/or diffuse them such that they are not strong and distinct ("specular"); and/or aborb them uniformly. The latter cannot be accomplished by a few inches of foam, which soaks up the short wavelengths but has little effect on longer ones, and thereby screws up the spectral balance of the reflections. We want the reflections to decay fairly slowly (though not too slowly), as quick decay is another source of "small room signature", which is another reason to use something other than absorption to address the early reflections, where possible. If we can impose a significant delay on the strong onset of reflections, and push that inrush of reflections back in time somewhat, we can disrupt the "small room signature" cues by introducing contradictory "somewhat larger room" cues. An example of this would be, putting Maggies well out into the room such that it takes a while for the reflections off the wall behind the speakers to reach the listening area. About five feet seems to work well, though greater distance often works better. This relatively late-onset inrush of reverberant energy contradicts the normal "small room signature" cues we would otherwise get. So we end up with relatively indistinct Second Venue cues, which makes it more likely that our effectively-presented First Venue cues will dominate. Thus Maggies and any many other polydirectionals are capable of doing "you are there" rather well with proper set-up, and we easily hear the different "there’s" from one recording to the next, which indicates the First Venue is indeed dominant, rather than merely an enhanced (by the longer reflection paths) Second Venue. With more conventional speakers the same principles apply, including: Minimize the early reflections (via diffusion or angled reflectors or even angled side walls if we’re building a dedicated room) while cultivating the late ones. Compared with all the cues we’d get in the actual venue, even the best stereo system presents us with a poverty of First Venue cues. The ear takes in all of these different and often contradictory cues and constructs a "best fit" impression of the acoustic space we are in. If we have effectively presented the First Venue cues while minimizing/disrupting/degrading the Second Venue cues, with a good recording that "best fit" may well end up being a reasonable facsimile of the acoustic space of the recording (again, whether real or engineered or both). I’m not saying this is the ONLY thing that goes into a "you are there"-capable system, but it’s arguably one of the things. And, note that a professional acoustician can make a small room behave like a much larger and much better space. For many of us, the services of a professional acoustican will make the biggest difference between “they are here” and “you are there.” Imo, ime, ymmv, etc. Duke |
It all starts with microphone choice, then placement in the studio or performance space. Of course it’s an illusion. Some of us, who are not just flavorizing and chasing the tail, have carefully recorded references of original acoustic events. Even the simplest chain has an incredible amount of variables.... with small chorale groups, I try this experiment... let them help pick microphone placement by recording a bit and then pulling them out one at a time to hear playback in the reverberat space but in the near field... the first comment is “ we don’t sound like that “, then I switch to the near field overhead mic tracks... and the answer is we sound like that... then I have them sing again, missing a performer who stands where the House array is.,. The answer is, ya we sound like that, from here! |
I pay zero attention to distinctions such as "you are there" versus "they are here". It is a nebulous concept and has no power, imo, to actually advance an audio system....I think that douglas-schroeder reflect my own opinion well... My own experience is takes cares of the 3 embeddings of the audio system, and you will be there and they will be here....It is what I feel like in my 2 listening position in my room... |
The two most effective ways to create the "You Are There" experience are: 1- Binaural recording and playback (headphones only). 2- A surround sound system that uses the rear channels for hall ambience. That ambience can be discrete (recorded with separate mics on separate channels) or simulated (as with the Hafler out-of-phase matrix). Very few recordings are made with the thought of recreating the sound of the performance venue, with the listener feeling he or she is in that venue. Besides, the sound inside recording studios is very unlike performance venues. |
