You are there vs. They are there
So what is the difference? Do I have it right?
You are there: the vocal and soundstage starts at the plane of the speakers
and recess backward behind the speakers plane.
They are there: The soundstage is forward into the room with the vocal
reproduction in your room.
Which would you prefer?
in my opinion. They are there. is how I would express it BUT with a bit of flavor. The players are in your room, but with space and dimensionality, not just there but with space amongst the instruments and vocalist. I would like to best describe it as "walk in reality of the players" in your room" now that is hard to do, if your room and speakers are not in full synergy |
@spenav - there are photographs of Abraham Lincoln; Matthew Brady, for one,was a very well known for his Civil War photographs. Photography was about daguerrotypes then. |
@kennyc Optomize…. Optomize… Optomize is the best one (man) can do
Optomize…. Is to OPTOMIZE A great beat going where? If you care to dare Optomize…. optomize until…. They are here, or YOU are THERE Can anyone hear a great catchy song opportunity here? |
@spenav Exactly. Why should we hang ourselves up over this false notion we must adhere to some unknown reference. Now I can accept we have reference for things like timbre with acoustic instrument, but sound stage/presentations. Do whatever is pleasing to you. |
I believe we are in agreement. I feel like we are a little too hang up on the fidelity part of Hi-Fi. It’s like trying to pick a faithful painting portrait of Abe Lincoln but we have never seen him in real life. It will be hard to know which one resembles him the most. Obviously, some of them would be rejected off hand: like Abe with dog ears or with a chicken beak or Abe with a tail. But there would be a fair number of portraits that would be plausible. Which one is true to the original would be hard to determine. At the end of the day, we will have to pick the one that pleases us the most. Because we are dealing with music reproduction and music as an art, we have to allow ourselves some freedom to choose based on preference to our ears even though we might stray from the supposed original. We also have to keep in mind, that our rooms have a lot to say about the presentation. Take care. |
@spenav ”How would you know the recording is changed unless you were at the recording studio or the live venue” l would never know. I was talking about “if” a system did not actually reproduce the intended information or adds its own signature it is not true to the original. “There is a difference in adding things or restoring things that were actually lost” I’m not sure if the “adding things” you refer to is in agreement with me or not, but the restoring things that ARE “actually lost” l am not sure is possible. The only way l would think you are talking about is maybe an extra recording element (or track that was part of the master) that has been recently rediscovered but was never included in the original mix? An example that springs to mind of a lost, or in this case a rediscovered element is the 2.0 unlimited release of the soundtrack to “The Omega Man” When the original first issue “limited edition” was released by Film Score Monthly 15 years earlier, it was not known that a third (centre) track of the keyboards/Synthesisers existed. The keyboards, a key (pun intended) important part of the score were quietly there on the original CD, but only recorded by the far left and right track microphones. Restoring the integral middle centre microphone elements with the higher keyboard levels brought the original soundstage ambiance back to that which was intended. |
Phasing may have to do with it. What if you made a speaker that was out of phase with itself? I’ve never heard speakers that image like my Mermans and this is partially what they do. Signal is fed to the 2251J through a choke as well as by-passing the choke so when blended, you get a composite and the signal that goes through the choke "lags" that of what doesn’t. "In an inductor, the current lags behind the voltage. Specifically, in a purely inductive circuit, the current lags the voltage by 90 degrees. This means the peak current occurs later in time than the peak voltage." The contour control determines the amount of by-pass signal that blends with the choked signal. As resistance is added, the signal through the choke predominates causing a rise in the ~1,500-2,500 band (sweetens up the vocals). As resistance is removed, the two signals cancel each other out and the rise is removed leaving a "flat" signal. This was done because it creates a very steep slope between the 2251J and the Heil. These two drivers do not play nice together without some special treatment to reduce their overlap which can either cause a massive peak or massive suck-out if not handled properly. (BTW, subsequent testing/listening shows R1 works best at about 28 ohms.)
|
@sns +1 I think the only times I've heard sound in front of my dipole speakers is when some tracks were deliberately recorded out-of-phase to provide that effect, which I find very enjoyable. This recording technique can make sounds appear to be behind you, and with tall speakers, sounds can appear at your ears, even. |
There are at least as many variables in recording as there are in playback. Making your own recordings gives you reference that is difficult to achieve any other way. |
@spenav + 1 Even if one made one's own recordings, hardly practical in most cases unless recording yourself or people you know, would the mic be a foot away? 10 feet away? At the back of the room? Totally different sound from each place. And would you be listening back in that same room? |
Yes on @spenav. We'd have to be at the recording venue and or mix down of recordings in order to arrive at some objectively determined presentation of sound stage. And then we have to consider the system recording was mixed down with, it may have entirely different presentation than our home system. There are NO means for us end users to objectively define what is the 'true' sound staging for any particular recording. |
I agree with @sns, one can have both You are there vs They are there. I also have time aligned horns that are actively Bi-amped and project a 3D image with real life scale. It’s somewhat recording and system dependent. My system plays on the slightly cool side of neutral with gusto and passion. For in the what it’s worth category, the equipment, room, and recording all play their part in the 3D illusion of sound reproduction. @spenav +2 Mike
|
Close miked recordings/performers will be inherently more in room than those distantly miked, your system should reveal both. Hard panned info will also have more inherent projection into room. I've never had a system setup where all info behind plane of speaker, that would be both loss of depth and homogeneous presentation. Seems to me one would want both projection and recession of sound stage to create sound stage depth and more three dimensional imaging. |
For the most part, there would be a recording booth. I doubt you want to be there. It’s almost like saying the taste of a good dish will take you to the kitchen. Most of the albums in our libraries are recorded in a studio not live. |
In some review I remember reading "a good system will being the performers to your room, a great system will take you there." There is a bit of truth to this, taking you there does require an excellent system, but it also requires that the recording engineer was sensitive to the concept. For recordings made by laying down tracks you cannot go there since there is no real "there", since guitars and synthesizers signals are recorded, the first time that there is a sound in a space is when that signal is reproduced by your speakers. Being able to be taken to the recording space depends on the acoustics of that space; I often listen to archaic liturgical, vocal music, frequently recorded in reverberant churches or cathedrals and there is a clear sense of being in that space. Similarly chamber music is often recorded in a recital hall and the acoustics of the venue can be heard. Occasionally naturally recorded orchestral music can do the trick, the old Living Stereo "shaded dogs" in particular, which were often recorded with just two or three microphones, well in front of the orchestra, also give that sense of space. Lewis Layton and Jack Pfeiffer are revered. More recent recordings, especially DG, have no sense of ambience. My listening is done in my untreated living room, but I am fortunate in that the speakers are about 10 feet from the back wall which consists of curtained windows and logs; other than the ceiling there is no sheetrock - and the ceiling is broken up by transverse 10" square rough sawn beams. The room has couches and the floor between the speakers and my listening couch is carpeted so there are no hard flat surfaces to bounce sound at you. The soundstage, on a good recording, will typically start a couple of feet behind the speakers and extend 8 feet back from there, there is never a sense of the performer(s) being in front of the plane of the speakers. Width similarly depends on the recording, it might be a foot or two narrower or wider than the speakers. In summary, my view is that the recording process and playback system usually should aim to take the listener to the recording venue. Clearly, issues of disparate sizes of the recording and listening sites (if nothing else!) make this non-trivial. If an engineer intends to bring a particular performance (e.g. a soloist) to your space, and achieves that, then that is also a success. |
If anything spatially changes a recording in any way…. the reproduction is flawed. Is it not the goal of a very accurate hi-fi system to project just what is there and add noting more?. Surely any alteration is like colouring or sound processing similar to an AV amp, so not true to the original. We all know that “sound fields” in home theatre are not real but generated, so it must be best practice to use equipment that play nothing more than intended? Using equipment that adds and subtracts to the ambiance of the sound stage is questionably not true hi-fi. |
I think a balanced system does both depending on the recording. The spatial information is embedded in the recording. Some mixes feature vocals or other instruments "in your face" with the rest behind and maybe lead instruments projecting forward. Others create a more homogeneous ambient sound field where everything is in the same space behind the speakers. The system/room should reveal that spatial information to reflect the intent of the artist/producer. An example for me is Bonnie Raitt, "Blame it on Me". The vocals sit perfectly in front with the rhythm section projecting behind while the organ projects forward as if you're actually playing it. A song like "Thing Called Love" is more homogeneous like you were watching the band on stage. The stage begins at the speakers and spreads behind. |
One can have both a more forward sound stage and/or projection of performers into one's listening space yet also maintain depth so there is a sense of the recording venue. I have horns SET amps and DHT preamps so this inherently more forward ss or sense of performers in room, but at the same time using strategically placed room treatments I've been able to create a center image that also extends behind plane of speakers. I also physically time aligned my mid and tweeter drivers which has greatly enhanced depth of sound stage. I've also experienced systems with less forward sound stage that have been very engaging, don't believe there's any right or wrong, all about preference. |
Did you mean to say “they are here”? I think of most systems built around more directional speakers as “you are there”. The goal is to take the room out of the equation and experience the recording exactly as produced. Whereas I think of more omnidirectional speakers as “they are here”. In other words now your room is the live performance venue and the players sound more like they are there in the room with you. I have one of each and enjoy each on its own terms in different ways because I just love this stuff in general and want to experience it all. ❤️❤️❤️ |
Can you have the best of both worlds - forward but not shouting at you. I personally prefer "They are there". It creates a palpable presence that makes music more interesting.
|
When my room was done , my first one, with many resonators distributed. the soundstage was around me. No shouting at all , it was not a singer surging from the center forwrd as suggested by the word "shouting" it was immersive soundstage all around my listening position beside me and sometimes almost behind me and with depth behind the speakers it is related to the recording trade-off .
With no more distribute grid of Helmhotz resonators i did not have this at this level in my actual smaller room in a basement.... In near field my small active speakers gave me the more in between image and depth from behind the speakers, sometimes with good recording a more immersive one though but not at the level of my past bigger room at all...Anyway for the low price and well embedded in the room this system is satisfying.
With headphone the TOP AKG K340 i had the impression i am there, and even with some recording the impression speaker like and out of the head that the musicians are in my room ...
Stereo system Crosstalk impede the spatial attributes of sound as it is recorded it is well explained by the genius acoustician Edgar Choueiri...
|
Good question, I have wondered about that myself. Google Gemini says: In audiophile terms, "you are there" versus "they are here" are two different—and sometimes conflicting—goals for a sound system's performance, particularly concerning its ability to create a realistic sense of space and imaging.
Key Differences and Associated Concepts
While some audiophiles prefer one over the other, the ultimate goal for many is a system that can do both—one that offers pinpoint accuracy and presence while also conveying the size and acoustics of the original recording space. This synergy of "they are here" and "you are there" is often considered the hallmark of a truly great high-fidelity system.
|
