Having a "You are there " compared to "They are here " system
- Thread starter Mdp632
- Start date
First, It totally depends on what type of Dynamic Scale is present in the Live Performance of the Music being recorded. The "They are Here" as opposed to the "You Are There" Listening Perspective has to be accounted for at the time of the Recording. No amount of "Fixing the Sound" in the Production Studio is really going to satisfactorily make up for Dynamic Contrast relationships of the various Instrumental Orchestral Choirs that exist within the Orchestra. Simply put, a Symphonic Orchestra wouldn't sound very good playing in your Living Room. In this case, we would definitely find a better sense of Dynamic Contrast in the "You Are There" recoding perspective. On a side note, we're still calling this the "What Sounds Best" Forum?
Last edited:
I think there are some relevant points here but mostly it's just an interesting read:
https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20190729-how-the-sound-in-your-office-affects-your-mood
"Mainstream architecture typically considers a building’s sonic voice only in the construction of concert halls, where acoustic perfection is key. The idea that you can take this a step further, and have a building itself act as a sort of musical instrument that envelops people, that’s capable of inducing feelings of tranquility, exhilaration, tension or even a trance-like state is unusual. However, it isn’t unknown." (my emphasis)
The key seems to be the shape of the ceiling.
Some of the great old Operahouses and concert halls in Europe managed this from keen observation of what makes good sound rather than advanced science...I have heard state of the art modern halls and they are great...but so are the classic European ones.
Never heard anything there...but I have heard some excellent concerts in some very old churches...
Excellent article - thank you for the link!!
Here is a twenty-minute lecture by David Griesinger on room acoustics, speech comprehension, and recall, mostly applicable to lecture halls, but with some applicability to high-end audio:
Imo one of the more useful concepts is this: While we are usually able to understand individual words in an excessively reverberant environment, it takes the ear/brain system a certain amount of time and concentration to do so, giving us correspondingly less time and brain-power available for comprehension and retention of complex ideas. By the time we figure out what a given word is, the instructor is already saying the next word or even the one thereafter. Our limited attention capability is focused figuring out what the words are, and we have insufficient remaining attention capability to devote to understanding the concepts therefore we are not able to commit them to memory. To make matters worse, that portion of our brain which is working overtime to identify the words quickly becomes fatigued. Thus if we are sitting in the back of an overly reverberant lecture hall, after about fifteen minutes we are mentally exhausted and may even develop a headache, and our recall is poor.
So if you have kids or grandkids in college, tell them that they really need to sit up front so they can effortlessly comprehend the instructor's words, as this will give their brains sufficient time to wrap itself around complex ideas and put them into memory.
Here is another twenty-minute lecture by Griesinger which is more about listening to music, though the focus is on the acoustics and psychoacoustics of concert halls rather than on home audio. Again imo some of the principles are applicable:
Last edited:
I was reading the Wikipedia article on whispering galleries: those places where voices carry long distances in a room even if at just whisper volume. Instead of building the complex curves of those spaces, the writer said you could use "In a similar way, two large concave parabolic dishes, serving as acoustic mirrors, may be erected facing each other in a room or outdoors to serve as a whispering gallery, a common feature of science museums."
You wouldn't want to do this in a concert hall but I imagine it might work well for a listening room with a single listening location.
True story: There is an old restaurant in Zurich called the Johanniter Brassiere that I used to go to regularly. One night I was sitting at one of the circular tables near the entrance with my back to the wall but I started hearing voices behind me! At first I thought I am going nuts but after awhile I realized I was hearing a conversation from somewhere else in the room, despite it being a bit busy and therefore pretty loud. After listening and looking at people I saw that it was a couple of guys at the other end of room at a small table. Then I started looking at the ceiling...all multiple curves and quasi-parabolic shapes. The ceiling was collecting and reflecting that sound towards me. Amazing.
@Mdp632
Not nonsense at all. Quite the contrary, your question takes us right to the core of what high-end audio is supposed to be all about. That when you sit down and push play, you want to hear the performers as though you’ve been transformed to the recording hall – a performance that is entirely believable and exhilarating. But that’s only because there’s nothing exhilarating nor believable when it sounds like the performers are 5 or 10 ft in front of you in your listening room which can be accomplished by most any 10-year old with a credit account at Best Buy.
It’s important to understand that every last playback system is thoroughly saturated with distortions. These distortions collectively establish a much raised noise floor which in turn acts as a severe performance-limiting governor (think “hi-fi” sound). Implying that of the 100% of the music info read from the source and processed throughout the playback hardware, only the percentage of that music info processed that’s above the much raised noise floor will remain audible at the speaker while that music info processed below the much raised noise floor remains inaudible at the speaker. Think percentages. And though every sonic characteristic contributes to the “you are there” listening experience, none is perceived more evident nor more evasive (inaudible below the much raised noise floor) than the volumes and volumes of ambient info – the live music traveling throughout the soundstage and recording hall.
You asked where does one start? But perhaps the better first question is, is achieving a “you are there” sound even possible? Because many do not think it possible and if you’re convinced it’s impossible, why go any further?
But you should know that a few industry “experts” have used the word catastrophic while claiming much of the live performance never makes it to the recording. Another said only 15% of the magic (think believability) of the live performance is captured by even our very best playback systems. But the one I’m most fond of is the well-renowned designer who admitted in another forum that all of his designs and all others’ designs included at least one serious and unknown flaw for which even their sensitive measuring instruments were of no value. My response to him was, his designs contained no such serious unknown flaws but only that his designs were incomplete and outside of his scope.
The point being that considering these “experts” use of words like catastrophic and serious flaws, the problem is very real and severe.
Nevertheless, our playback systems are loaded with distortions that cripple our components’ precision and accuracy so they can only perform at their base performance levels and the bulk of these distortions are tied directly to poorly managed electrical and mechanical energies. The same two energies required for our playback systems to even function. But again, the culmination of all distortions and regardless of source determine a given playback system’s noise floor and it’s the noise floor that becomes the performance-limiting governor – not the distortions themselves.
You ask, where does one start? Start with the lowest hanging fruit to most easily realize a handful of little performance gains. Maybe start by replacing all of your components’ stock fuses with audio-grade cryo-treated fuses. Replacing 1 fuse may not show any audible improvements but replacing 5 or 6 or more at the exact same time and letting them burn-in for 3 days running should put a little smile on your face. Then do likewise maybe your electrical wall outlets, then maybe your AC plugs, IEC connectors and inlets, then maybe sending out your ic’s and sc’s (speaker cables) to be cryo-treated via the full immersion method, then maybe finding superior (vs inferior) line conditioners, etc, etc. The list of potentials goes on.
This simple strategy is not so easy because with every distortion type and its potential remedy, there are inferior solutions and superior solutions as evidenced by varied opinions in the forums. And choosing the inferior solution generally means little or no improvements and may even take your system in the wrong direction.
There’s also time and patience. Any time you make an alteration, even though you may sometimes realize instantaneous result, you should never expect results to be instantaneous. There’s always an allotted time required to burn-in, to settle-in, and break-in. This allotted time can be hours, days, weeks, or even months depending on the alteration. This is important to note because all too often somebody will make a legitimate alteration but because the impact was not immediate, they immediately remove the alteration thinking it’s a dud. For example. After used cables are cryo-treated, they are returned to a new / unused state and must be burned in all over again before you can appreciate their new sonic benefits.
But another important question is, what exactly happens to a playback system’s sonics when you legitimately address a single area of distortion? All too often, we hear of somebody tweaking their system to address warmer midrange, or transparency, etc. That may sound good on paper but it’s nonsense. A legitimate distortion impacts all aspects of sonic characteristics as do their legitimate remedies. IOW, neither distortions nor their remedies discriminate between sonic characteristics. Rather they only contribute toward a universal raised noise floor which in turn universally impacts all sonic characteristics equally and their legitimate remedies will universally chip away and lower that much raised noise floor.
Another good question might be, can this “you are there” listening perspective be achieved time after time and recording after recording regardless of the recording’s quality of engineering, or can we just expect an occasional hint of this “you are there” listening perspective for some well-engineered recordings? The answer to this question depends entirely on your mindset toward performance. A “they are here” vs “you are there” is not an On/Off switch by any means. Rather it’s a very gradual process much like drag racing 70 years ago started with men removing the hubcaps from the family station wagon before going down the quarter mile strip and today after thousands of improvements along the way now run upwards of 325 mph.
If after a few alterations you’re satisfied with hearing only the occasionally well-engineered recording sounding a bit like “you are there” then you’re likely to stop and call it a day there. But the opportunity exists to continue your pursuits to the point where perhaps 95% of your entire music library can provide you not just with little sampling of “you are there” but actually expose (make audible) tremendous volumes of ambient info that even listening to 1960’s pop music will provide you the perspective that you are somewhere in the recording studio, even if that perspective is somewhere by the restroom. But it’s entirely up to you and your desire to perform due diligence and entirely within your scope (and entirely outside the scope of your hardware designers).
I mention legitimate solutions because much like inferior vs superior solutions, not all “solutions” are legitimate. For example. As you may notice, some choose to go the multi-channel route to achieve a hint of the “you are there” sound. Multi-channel in and of itself may be a legitimate option or strategy. But for those seeking a remedy for deficiencies or shortcomings of their 2-channel playback systems caused by distortions, is a poor band-aid since they’ve done nothing to address the cause but only the effects. Sure, the multi-channel listener has more point source info/cues/nuances to excite the senses while providing some sense of “you are there”, but it’s a poor band-aid for the fact that it’s the hardware that induces and/or exemplifies the bulk of pre-existing distortions so it stands to reason that more hardware induces more distortions - not less. In other words, they’re hearing more exciting “surround” nuances but each channel of music has even less fidelity (think less musicality) than when they had only 2-channels and less hardware. So introducing multi-channel as a remedy for addressing universal distortions is more of a one step forward and 2 steps backward solution.
Bottom line is, like anything else in life, extreme results most always only occur from extreme efforts. Never by token or half-assed efforts.
Not nonsense at all. Quite the contrary, your question takes us right to the core of what high-end audio is supposed to be all about. That when you sit down and push play, you want to hear the performers as though you’ve been transformed to the recording hall – a performance that is entirely believable and exhilarating. But that’s only because there’s nothing exhilarating nor believable when it sounds like the performers are 5 or 10 ft in front of you in your listening room which can be accomplished by most any 10-year old with a credit account at Best Buy.
It’s important to understand that every last playback system is thoroughly saturated with distortions. These distortions collectively establish a much raised noise floor which in turn acts as a severe performance-limiting governor (think “hi-fi” sound). Implying that of the 100% of the music info read from the source and processed throughout the playback hardware, only the percentage of that music info processed that’s above the much raised noise floor will remain audible at the speaker while that music info processed below the much raised noise floor remains inaudible at the speaker. Think percentages. And though every sonic characteristic contributes to the “you are there” listening experience, none is perceived more evident nor more evasive (inaudible below the much raised noise floor) than the volumes and volumes of ambient info – the live music traveling throughout the soundstage and recording hall.
You asked where does one start? But perhaps the better first question is, is achieving a “you are there” sound even possible? Because many do not think it possible and if you’re convinced it’s impossible, why go any further?
But you should know that a few industry “experts” have used the word catastrophic while claiming much of the live performance never makes it to the recording. Another said only 15% of the magic (think believability) of the live performance is captured by even our very best playback systems. But the one I’m most fond of is the well-renowned designer who admitted in another forum that all of his designs and all others’ designs included at least one serious and unknown flaw for which even their sensitive measuring instruments were of no value. My response to him was, his designs contained no such serious unknown flaws but only that his designs were incomplete and outside of his scope.
The point being that considering these “experts” use of words like catastrophic and serious flaws, the problem is very real and severe.
Nevertheless, our playback systems are loaded with distortions that cripple our components’ precision and accuracy so they can only perform at their base performance levels and the bulk of these distortions are tied directly to poorly managed electrical and mechanical energies. The same two energies required for our playback systems to even function. But again, the culmination of all distortions and regardless of source determine a given playback system’s noise floor and it’s the noise floor that becomes the performance-limiting governor – not the distortions themselves.
You ask, where does one start? Start with the lowest hanging fruit to most easily realize a handful of little performance gains. Maybe start by replacing all of your components’ stock fuses with audio-grade cryo-treated fuses. Replacing 1 fuse may not show any audible improvements but replacing 5 or 6 or more at the exact same time and letting them burn-in for 3 days running should put a little smile on your face. Then do likewise maybe your electrical wall outlets, then maybe your AC plugs, IEC connectors and inlets, then maybe sending out your ic’s and sc’s (speaker cables) to be cryo-treated via the full immersion method, then maybe finding superior (vs inferior) line conditioners, etc, etc. The list of potentials goes on.
This simple strategy is not so easy because with every distortion type and its potential remedy, there are inferior solutions and superior solutions as evidenced by varied opinions in the forums. And choosing the inferior solution generally means little or no improvements and may even take your system in the wrong direction.
There’s also time and patience. Any time you make an alteration, even though you may sometimes realize instantaneous result, you should never expect results to be instantaneous. There’s always an allotted time required to burn-in, to settle-in, and break-in. This allotted time can be hours, days, weeks, or even months depending on the alteration. This is important to note because all too often somebody will make a legitimate alteration but because the impact was not immediate, they immediately remove the alteration thinking it’s a dud. For example. After used cables are cryo-treated, they are returned to a new / unused state and must be burned in all over again before you can appreciate their new sonic benefits.
But another important question is, what exactly happens to a playback system’s sonics when you legitimately address a single area of distortion? All too often, we hear of somebody tweaking their system to address warmer midrange, or transparency, etc. That may sound good on paper but it’s nonsense. A legitimate distortion impacts all aspects of sonic characteristics as do their legitimate remedies. IOW, neither distortions nor their remedies discriminate between sonic characteristics. Rather they only contribute toward a universal raised noise floor which in turn universally impacts all sonic characteristics equally and their legitimate remedies will universally chip away and lower that much raised noise floor.
Another good question might be, can this “you are there” listening perspective be achieved time after time and recording after recording regardless of the recording’s quality of engineering, or can we just expect an occasional hint of this “you are there” listening perspective for some well-engineered recordings? The answer to this question depends entirely on your mindset toward performance. A “they are here” vs “you are there” is not an On/Off switch by any means. Rather it’s a very gradual process much like drag racing 70 years ago started with men removing the hubcaps from the family station wagon before going down the quarter mile strip and today after thousands of improvements along the way now run upwards of 325 mph.
If after a few alterations you’re satisfied with hearing only the occasionally well-engineered recording sounding a bit like “you are there” then you’re likely to stop and call it a day there. But the opportunity exists to continue your pursuits to the point where perhaps 95% of your entire music library can provide you not just with little sampling of “you are there” but actually expose (make audible) tremendous volumes of ambient info that even listening to 1960’s pop music will provide you the perspective that you are somewhere in the recording studio, even if that perspective is somewhere by the restroom. But it’s entirely up to you and your desire to perform due diligence and entirely within your scope (and entirely outside the scope of your hardware designers).
I mention legitimate solutions because much like inferior vs superior solutions, not all “solutions” are legitimate. For example. As you may notice, some choose to go the multi-channel route to achieve a hint of the “you are there” sound. Multi-channel in and of itself may be a legitimate option or strategy. But for those seeking a remedy for deficiencies or shortcomings of their 2-channel playback systems caused by distortions, is a poor band-aid since they’ve done nothing to address the cause but only the effects. Sure, the multi-channel listener has more point source info/cues/nuances to excite the senses while providing some sense of “you are there”, but it’s a poor band-aid for the fact that it’s the hardware that induces and/or exemplifies the bulk of pre-existing distortions so it stands to reason that more hardware induces more distortions - not less. In other words, they’re hearing more exciting “surround” nuances but each channel of music has even less fidelity (think less musicality) than when they had only 2-channels and less hardware. So introducing multi-channel as a remedy for addressing universal distortions is more of a one step forward and 2 steps backward solution.
Bottom line is, like anything else in life, extreme results most always only occur from extreme efforts. Never by token or half-assed efforts.
Similar threads
