SPACE: THE FINAL FRONTIER

[Karen Sumner]

Here’s what I believe in this regard. When we say that soundstage and imaging doesn’t represent what we hear at a concert, it doesn’t mean that they are wrong or irrelevant. It just means that the capabilities of recording and replaying music are still insufficiently developed to provide a completely accurate facsimile of what we hear in a concert hall. Sound stage and imaging are going in the right direction, they just haven’t yet arrived. Throwing out imaging and soundstaging is the audio equivalent of throwing the baby out with the bath water.

Agreed, and what is it that truly differentiates high end audio from typical audio which is generally musically satisfying because of its balanced presentation? The final frontier is space which makes this discussion so interesting!

 

[Blackmorec]

I think through gear selection and set up approach, people can choose to create a system presentation that is either more like what we hear from a live concert or more full of audiophile sonic attributes. It is a matter of listener preference, goals, and choices, but people starting out need some kind of guidance.

The industry is good at differentiating between products but perhaps not so good at making the connection between how gear selection and set up can bring one closer to the experience of listening to live music.

The reviews are all about how one box sounds different from another box. My local dealer hands me a glass tablet and leaves me alone in the room to push buttons and listen to different sounds. He then tries to sell me accessories.

No wonder people are confused. Pinpoint images and stark outlines can be heard at the dealership and read about in magazines, but we don’t experience them at the concert hall.

Hi Peter,
This is an interesting discussion.

The closest I believe I get to hearing what I hear in a concert hall isn‘t with CD or High Res, but strangely with internet radio. I agree that in a concert hall there’s almost never that super accurate delineation of instrument placement, rather there’s a general direction that allows your eyes to pinpoint the instrument that’s playing ( BTW I think that is what pinpoint means…..ability to accurately locate), but there’s no impresssion of a sharply defined location. Take a listen to Swiss `Radio Classics and I’ll be surprised if you don’t agree that what you hear is very similar to a concert hall in terms of imaging. I would say however that what’s missing from the 128kbps MP3 transmission is any genuine orchestral power and venue information or space, which I think gets lost in compression.
So why do you think that my system can reproduce this ‘imaging’ part of the concert hall experience perfectly, but only when its fed a low resolution signal that omits gobs of information? Again in my system, and with a good recording not a single instrument has a pintpoint image but it does have pinpoint accuracy when it comes to that very first, initial part of the note…..the growl of the bow on cello string for example….As the string starts to vibrate and the instrument to resonate I get a pinpoint accurate location of initial bow on string.
One reason may be that my system and listening room is a LOT quieter than a concert hall, which has distance, local diffusion, audience noise and a lot of late reflections floating around.

 

[microstrip]

Here’s what I believe in this regard. When we say that soundstage and imaging doesn’t represent what we hear at a concert, it doesn’t mean that they are wrong or irrelevant. It just means that the capabilities of recording and replaying music are still insufficiently developed to provide a completely accurate facsimile of what we hear in a concert hall. Sound stage and imaging are going in the right direction, they just haven’t yet arrived. Throwing out imaging and soundstaging is the audio equivalent of throwing the baby out with the bath water.

Although you have a good point concerning the limited capabilities of recording and replaying music, people have noticed that just improving the capabilities of the system does not seem to bring us sound reproduction nirvana. For example, multichannel is a much better system, with true spatial capabilities, not just the illusionary images created by reflections, but many people - I would risk saying most - still prefer listening to music in stereo.

IMHO we are at a point where developments come from understanding in depth the psycho-acoustics behind the stereo illusion and using modern controlled technology to implement the very fine differences in the system that help listeners to recreate or enjoy the playback. It is why we still have notable improvements in a secular standard.

 

[microstrip]

Sniff as you like. Your reader is the judge of your clarity.

We fully agree on this point. I am always happy to make things clear for interested, non belligerent readers.

You constantly offer vague citations to what others say. It is not friendly to expect your reader to take their time to search the internet for the references you use to make your points for you. Most will have the courtesy to, at minimum, provide a URL. I tried to encourage you to state your own beliefs, to be proactive with your own experience - that would keep things informal. Continually trying to use expert opinion turns the discussion more formal and less susceptible to engagement. But if you insist on that, you, not your reader, needs to supply references to their claims.

LOL. Thanks, your style reminds me of my catechist in my childwood. I am not here to save souls and teach others. But I like to learn from knowledgeable or experienced people and experts.

 

[microstrip]

Agreed, and what is it that truly differentiates high end audio from typical audio which is generally musically satisfying because of its balanced presentation? The final frontier is space which makes this discussion so interesting!

Great question - IMHO it deserves a separate thread.

 

[Al M.]

We fully agree on this point. I am always happy to make things clear for interested, non belligerent readers.

You often do, thank you.

 

[Blackmorec]

Although you have a good point concerning the limited capabilities of recording and replaying music, people have noticed that just improving the capabilities of the system does not seem to bring us sound reproduction nirvana. For example, multichannel is a much better system, with true spatial capabilities, not just the illusionary images created by reflections, but many people - I would risk saying most - still prefer listening to music in stereo.

IMHO we are at a point where developments come from understanding in depth the psycho-acoustics behind the stereo illusion and using modern controlled technology to implement the very fine differences in the system that help listeners to recreate or enjoy the playback. It is why we still have notable improvements in a secular standard.

Hi Microstrip,
Not entirely on board with all that . Here’s my alternate take.
Stereo loudspeakers provide two separate sources to represent the total musical signal. By carefully varying amplitude and phase and precisely dividing the signal between the two channels, each loudspeaker injects a stream of sound pressure waves into the room. Your ears pick up those waves and convert them to subtle nerve impulses that directly represents the received signal. Those nerves impulses are then processed by the subconscious brain, that differentiates the two signals and uses both the signal information and the differential information to create the concious sensation of music happening in real space, played by real musicians whose instruments match patterns we know very well called live performances. The timbre and style of delivery make it clear which instruments are playing and from that signal the brain experiences joy and pleasure and moves limbs in time to the music. Given the intense pleasure created, the brain remains focussed on the music, seeking more good feeling. This is whats known as listener involvement
So when you look to improving your system I have found that the best place to look is the music source and to make sure its as truthful and accurate as possible. In my case that’s the network. A fully optimized system network is a sure fire way to sonic nirvana, but that ultimate goal while achievable will cost a lot. But slightly less than perfection can be achieved for a lot less money and you wont hear the difference until one day you hear a more perfectly optimised system. When you optimise the source you are effectively optimising all qualities of the music, and the sonic impact can be quite immense. You can end up with a full 3D representation of real instruments playing in a real venue. This image isn't in your room, there’s only direct and and some reflected soundwaves there. `They are in your head, perfectly decoded from the 2 signals reaching each ear plus their phase and amplitude differentials…So the quality of the music and its imaging is very much dependant on the quality of the data stream or phonoamp output that your system finally converts, amplifies and plays

 

[Mike Lavigne]

Here’s what I believe in this regard. When we say that soundstage and imaging doesn’t represent what we hear at a concert, it doesn’t mean that they are wrong or irrelevant. It just means that the capabilities of recording and replaying music are still insufficiently developed to provide a completely accurate facsimile of what we hear in a concert hall. Sound stage and imaging are going in the right direction, they just haven’t yet arrived. Throwing out imaging and soundstaging is the audio equivalent of throwing the baby out with the bath water.

i view this differently. i view recorded and reproduced music as equal to the live experience musically. i prefer the live-ness and dynamic energy of better live music performances, as well as the whole energy and event. but i prefer the direct connection to the musical message that better reproduced music provides me. mostly i can immerse myself more and deeper into reproduced music. more information, more understanding.

as far as recording capabilities, i don't see that as any problem. the process is sufficiently capable to my ears. the process does not need to, nor do we want it to, replace the live experience. it's different. and that is just fine.

YMMV.

 

[Mike Lavigne]

Mike, I think you are saying that between live and recorded music we have 2 different atmospheres and presentations and your reactions to each are different and you enjoy different characteristics about each of them but you enjoy them equally. If I’ve got that right then I don‘t think you’re viewing this differently. Listening to recorded music and being at a live event are 2 entirely different things, but can be equally enjoyable but for different reasons. The very fact that the recording is carried out very differently to how you personally listen to the live event will cause significant differences to arise, especially in the areas of imaging and soundstage. My point was just that because they sound different and have different characteristics doesn’t make them wrong.

agree. both are right. and neither are the high road some would have us believe.

great music enjoyment is the high road. and for myself building on my level of understanding over time is also a goal and a very satisfying life long and life affirming process.

 

[tima]

i view this differently. i view recorded and reproduced music as equal to the live experience musically. i prefer the live-ness and dynamic energy of better live music performances, as well as the whole energy and event. but i prefer the direct connection to the musical message that better reproduced music provides me. mostly i can immerse myself more and deeper into reproduced music. more information, more understanding.

Having a preference for a reproduction of a musical performance over the actual performance is a special position, or at least one I have not heard stated this openly -- though you've said similar before. Apparently it has followers.

Very scientific. More information, presumably captured by recording instruments and adjudicated by recording engineers, yields more understanding of a 'musical message' when played through your unique stereo system.

Is it primarily your stereo system and audio building that make this possible for you? Or is the capture of sound through microphones and recording process that yields more information leading to more understanding of a musical message?

 

[Mike Lavigne]

Having a preference for a reproduction of a musical performance over the actual performance is a special position, or at least one I have not heard stated this openly -- though you've said similar before. Apparently it has followers.

i did not actually say that.....exactly. but you are being fair based on what i wrote.

Very scientific. More information, presumably captured by recording instruments and adjudicated by recording engineers, yields more understanding of a 'musical message' when played through your unique stereo system.

potentially so. the likely-hood is that the reproduction process can result in a greater connection with musical truth than a typical live experience. it helps to have a serious way to listen to the media. the live experience is variable, as is the performance.

both at their optimal i would give the strong nod to live. but in the big picture the recording rules.

there are areas where live has an overwhelming advantage, reproduced cannot compete really. that's not changed.

Is it primarily your stereo system and audio building that make this possible for you?

to some degree yes.......since i did not always feel that way. a few recent (last few years) live<->reproduced compares have tipped me over. the more complex the recording, the more the reproduced has the advantage. it's less likely a live experience will offer the detail.

Or is the capture of sound through microphones and recording process that yields more information leading to more understanding of a musical message?

my appreciation for the relative value of that process has increased. i'm hearing deeper and deeper into recordings.

so it's both aspects. of course they are inter-related.

it's also possible down the road i might change my tune with different experiences. this is just how things look to me now.

 

[microstrip]

Having a preference for a reproduction of a musical performance over the actual performance is a special position, or at least one I have not heard stated this openly -- though you've said similar before. Apparently it has followers.

It is a subject often addressed in books about sound recording and reproduction or even magazines on classical recorded music. I refer to the obvious - F. Toole "Sound Reproduction" chapter 1 page 6.

"Stravinsky offered the opinion, “How can we continue to prefer an inferior reality (the concert hall) to ideal stereophony?” (a 1962 remark, quoted in Dougharty, 1973). Milton Babbitt was similarly provocative:
I can’t believe that people really prefer to go to the concert hall under intellectually trying,
socially trying, physically trying conditions, unable to repeat something they have missed,
when they can sit home under the most comfortable and stimulating circumstances and
hear it as they want to hear it. I can’t imagine what would happen to literature today if
one were obliged to congregate in an unpleasant hall and read novels projected on a
screen. (Gould, 1966)" . (end of quote) As could be expected in such subject, the discussions on these matters were endless in letters to the editor sections.

Unless people understand that the objective of sound reproduction is much more than just the enjoyment of people looking for resemblance with their own experience listening to live music they will always get a very limited view of this hobby.

 

[microstrip]

i view this differently. i view recorded and reproduced music as equal to the live experience musically. i prefer the live-ness and dynamic energy of better live music performances, as well as the whole energy and event. but i prefer the direct connection to the musical message that better reproduced music provides me. mostly i can immerse myself more and deeper into reproduced music. more information, more understanding.

as far as recording capabilities, i don't see that as any problem. the process is sufficiently capable to my ears. the process does not need to, nor do we want it to, replace the live experience. it's different. and that is just fine.

YMMV.

IMHO two very different experiences, that can't be equaled or ranked globally . The common point is music, that is an activity that involves emotion. As our hobby also involves plenty of emotion and satisfaction, for an audiophile there is also an indisputable strong participation of the quality of the recording and reproduction in the music enjoyment - unless you are an audiophile on Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays, a music lover on Thursdays, Tuesdays and Saturdays and go fishing on Sundays.

 

[PeterA]

Curiously, except for the great room Karen Summer owns, we basically shared almost exactly the same systems for some time, including cables.

What gear did you and Karen share?

 

[tima]

It is a subject often addressed in books about sound recording and reproduction or even magazines on classical recorded music. I refer to the obvious - F. Toole "Sound Reproduction" chapter 1 page 6.

"Stravinsky offered the opinion, “How can we continue to prefer an inferior reality (the concert hall) to ideal stereophony?” (a 1962 remark, quoted in Dougharty, 1973). Milton Babbitt was similarly provocative:
I can’t believe that people really prefer to go to the concert hall under intellectually trying, socially trying, physically trying conditions, unable to repeat something they have missed, when they can sit home under the most comfortable and stimulating circumstances and hear it as they want to hear it. I can’t imagine what would happen to literature today if one were obliged to congregate in an unpleasant hall and read novels projected on a screen. (Gould, 1966)" . (end of quote) As could be expected in such subject, the discussions on these matters were endless in letters to the editor sections.

Unless people understand that the objective of sound reproduction is much more than just the enjoyment of people looking for resemblance with their own experience listening to live music they will always get a very limited view of this hobby.

Ah, Floyd Toole. I'm wondering if Toole might not be like the Bible where supposedly you can find anything you want.

One the same page that you took the quote from we find the following quote from Toole (ISBN 9781136124624, p.6):



I don't know if this contradicts the 'more information is available on the recording' notion, but you're probably happy that I can now say I read Floyd Toole.

I wonder how many people who like that Milton Babbit quote would like Milton Babbit's music, for example his Composition for Synthesizer. "Babbitt was less interested in producing new timbres than in the rhythmic precision he could achieve with the synthesizer, a degree of precision previously unobtainable in performance." It makes me wonder about a live performance of this composition, such that Babbit would indeed prefer home stereo listening.

 

[Karen Sumner]

i view this differently. i view recorded and reproduced music as equal to the live experience musically. i prefer the live-ness and dynamic energy of better live music performances, as well as the whole energy and event. but i prefer the direct connection to the musical message that better reproduced music provides me. mostly i can immerse myself more and deeper into reproduced music. more information, more understanding.

as far as recording capabilities, i don't see that as any problem. the process is sufficiently capable to my ears. the process does not need to, nor do we want it to, replace the live experience. it's different. and that is just fine.

YMMV.

To be sure live and recorded music are different, but each provides us with equally valuable experiences. For Mike, his experience with hearing live acoustic music gives him the freedom to be more receptive to the meaning of the music when he listens to recordings.

I agree.

The story I am about to tell is a bit off topic, but it does provide a window into different perspectives. My spouse, Jack, grew up near Hancock, Maine, where Pierre Monteux held a conductors and musicians school every summer. The orchestra needed trombone players, and short of having to import one, they borrowed a local one, Jack. One of the most interesting stories Jack has shared with me about his summers at the school was about one of his visits to Pierre's home where he noticed several shelves of unopened LPs of Pierre's works in his living room. When Jack (a budding audiophile) asked if Pierre was going to listen to the records at some point, Pierre replied something to the effect: "I never listen to music on records. Music happens in the moment, and some of those moments, I would just as soon forget!"

I agree that most recordings are sufficiently capable of allowing us as mere mortals who love to listen to music (more than perform it) to have profound music listening experiences. With the exception of a few audiophile labels, recordings are generally produced so that they will be playable and enjoyable by the general public with typical systems. Recording labels have no financial incentive to produce recordings that reveal all the potential capabilities that a relatively few high-end home audio systems possess.

We need to work with what we have, and what we have is quite a lot regardless of very different personal perspectives and the inherent limitations of 2 channels.

To get back to the original subject of this thread, I advanced the idea that achieving the highly delineated imaging aesthetic promoted by many members of the press is usually at the expense of the meat of the music.

Those of you who have years of experience listening to live and recorded music and have managed to build highly satisfying home audio systems know this already. As members of this Forum, many of you frequently talk about components and systems. You are under no obligation to become a mentor, but there are many more WBF readers out there who do not have the benefit of your experience.

It would also be OK with me if as a result of our meanderings that a few members of the audio press started to moderate their “sonic” enthusiasm with more references to musical qualities and how everything in the system, including the listening environment is what provides the experience rather than to waste ink talking about this month’s favorite flavor.

 

[microstrip]

Ah, Floyd Toole. I'm wondering if Toole might not be like the Bible where supposedly you can find anything you want.

No Tim. I must say that I learned about the book in WBF many years ago - this forum great debates did not start with the "Natural Sound" (TM) and read it all with great interest, as well as the opinions of people who disagree with him who openly say so with proper reasoning. I have summarized my findings about it before in WBF, and yes, I consider it as a fundamental book in Sound Reproduction. And yes, sometimes we find in his book thinks we do not want or like.

Anyway, nice to know you have now read a few lines of the book. Toole research on speakers strongly influenced the evolution of the speaker industry. Although F. Toole intentionally alienates the high-end, looking at the evolution of high-end speakers in the last 20 years we can see his influence.

BTW, you referred to the Bible without including an ISBN. I expected better from you ...

 

[microstrip]

I feel like I’ve read the same debate on WBF for 5 years.

sorry, Karen. Very much appreciate your essays.

Curiously I have read Karen opinions going in the same sense she promotes in these WBF threads in past in interviews more than 10 years ago and I still find them distinct and evolutionary. I am happy to say that IMHO the degree of analysis, depth and information presented, together with her personnel and industry experience and the possibility of dialogue, surpasses anything on these matters I have read elsewhere - a real asset to WBF.

 

[Karen Sumner]

Curiously I have read Karen opinions going in the same sense she promotes in these WBF threads in past in interviews more than 10 years ago and I still find them distinct and evolutionary. I am happy to say that IMHO the degree of analysis, depth and information presented, together with her personnel and industry experience and the possibility of dialogue, surpasses anything on these matters I have read elsewhere - a real asset to WBF.

The people who really deserve credit are the participants in these threads who have been courageous enough to share their experiences trying to achieve a closer connection with music at home. I have been very moved on numerous occasions while reading many members' comments. The generosity of spirit that many of you have shared is inspiring.

Given the fact that there are over 140 posts on this thread, I thought I would make it easier for us to review where we are at this point by picking out what I consider to be some of the best kernels. If I've missed something that you think is important to include, please feel free to share it.

I know we can measure some stuff but I don't believe we have all the measurements to quantify what happens with the emotional attachment to the music and to the environment that we experience it in.
We have clues but we haven't solved the mystery.

Another clear indication of whether or not the sound from a system is more natural or more hi-fi is the varying portrayal of space from different recordings. If everything is pushed way back for a distant listening perspective and each recording has the same perspective, the system is doing something unnatural. Different recordings have different listening perspectives and that should be clear when hearing them on a good system.

Space is one of the most challenging and ambiguous aspects of stereo sound reproduction, but I find that spaciousness in needed to achieve enjoyment. Intrinsically stereo is deprived from a true stereo imaging and space - stereo captures very little of the phase effects needed to recreate a proper space in playback. Spaciousness is created by interpretation of small cues and room reflections - getting the proper ones and the proper amount of them is not an easy job. And yes, the wrong characteristics in timbre and lack of harmonic richness can easily spoil proper spaciousness.

For me it’s something that I look to with a degree of some latitude. If the stage represents as flat or uneven on a recording that I know has good dimensionality and overall fidelity then that plays as deal breaker for me. If the presentation of acoustic instruments approximates an effective rightness in the representation of scale, instrumental body and overall coherency of the whole and falls within a window of latitude of reasonable believability it factors as a basic competency for me (especially given the scope of potential recording variability in approach in mic and mixing technique).

Ultimately in listening over time or with familiar benchmarked recordings if it’s all just overblown or underrepresented in any direction or if it’s patchy and uneven or incoherently weighted or generally unfaithful to a range of recordings then the out of rightness of soundfield shape and boundaries will flow through and factor in the interrelated experience of energetic natures within the sound and the music. But some love hype, some want to be immersed or possessed all the time, some want to be engulfed by the music, some want to be energised in a very particular way, some want their attention to be constantly drawn from point to point, some like to sit back and watch safely from a distance, some are apparently ok about feeling nothing at all and tilt their system this way but all these could be ok if it’s within the scope of the music and the way it’s been performed and recorded and reflects the listener’s relationship with sound and or music. It’s a personal perspective and it’s about how we frame expectation.

What reflects then as a fidelity to music and the performance in its building space for me. The middle place of what probably best (realistically) represents the scale of the recording and my relationship to the soundfield (assumed) and works best for me experiencing that music… but that is still an approximation within the ballpark of believability and set to what past experience of live acoustic music performance tells me to expect in that.

Getting the energy of the music right, it’s fierceness or it’s flow is critical. Knowing the spirit of music and a performer and being able to sync to that easily makes a difference in also that as a representative value for some.

what i hear is real people, or real instruments with width and depth; i sense bodies moving and a physical presence. instruments have substance. you get a sense of a mouth moving, a chest being a part of the vocals, the instrument moving, the size of the piano, the reality of the drum kit. degrees of these things can separate the good from the great. if this 'illusion' is a 'hifi' artifact, give me more of that stuff. sure, sometimes it's not that way and still a fine involving recording, that sort of 'live' sound is not on every recording. i also think tonal density and timbral and textural complexity, along with the delicate 'action' that gets naturally presented is where the nuanced 'life-like' feeling comes through. the delicacy if you will.

For the brain to identify, resolve and build the correct ‘space’ it needs a lot of information from the recording, so resolution of those elements is an important factor. Timing must be accurate, phase must be well resolved, amplitude must be exactly reproduced between the 2 channels and frequencies must be spot on. A music venue has a certain size….when a musician plays in that venue his/her instrument creates a certain SPL. Given the way music is recorded, the initiation of the note can usually be located with pintpoint accuracy. This is a factor of the recording, not the reproduction. The note then blooms and expands as the instrument resonates to fill the whole venue. The soundwaves hit walls and ceilings and reflect back to the microphone. In order for the brain to identify the venue’s contribution, the reflected sound needs to have the appropriate time delay and the correct amplitude…..when those 2 attributes are clearly resolved, the brain will ‘hear’ the reflection and assign an approximate size and cubic volume to the venue. Because the reflected note has lost a lot of amplitude you only ‘hear‘ these reflections when the reflected note is followed by silence (the so-called inky blackness), however those reflections are going on all the time the instrument is playing, so you still hear them but only as an addition and alteration of the instrument’s timbre rather than as a separate ‘reflection’. This means that the venue is exerting it influence on the sound you hear all the time….

So, pinpoint-accurate imaging is absolutely desirable, as long as it also contains the total note envelope of pinpoint accurate source (partially a microphone/recording artefact), followed by the bloom and reflection, which are anything but pinpoint and should occupy the entire venue.

as a follow up to my previous post, i think when we speak of "space" in a recording, or a system's ability to get it all, and get all of it as right as possible, we see the "we are there" and "they are here" sort of alternate presentations. some systems can do one better than the other i think. or tend to pull the presentation toward one direction. they might get the focus and holographic reach out and touch it of "they are here" but not quite the space and scale of the venue to pull off "you are there". or the reverse too. and, of course, many recordings have elements of both, maybe even while the music is very, very complex and dynamic.

more than a few systems are tuned and equipped with gear for a specific type presentation. a fully valid approach.

personally; what i want is my presentation to be recording dependant and take things are far as they can either way. do both the intimate and the large scale. when i got in my brand new large room 18 years ago, it could do big space right off the bat. but it took me 10 years of futzing, to surpass the previous small scale intimacy of my previous compact room. even my seating position had to change dramatically (over 10 years) from a far field position to a now, near field, position, to be able to deliver everything on the recording in my large room.

getting 100% of the space right in every recording is a big effort. but when you can do it you get a level of involvement and immersion than makes it worth it. and exploring various types of music the system does not become the restriction.

If a power conditioner, or whatever one does to eliminate electrical noise in the system, is effective, it will reveal the ambiance of the recording space wether concert hall or studio. Some studio spaces are treated to give an almost ambiance-fee sonic palette which might come across as a "black" background, others have a lot more room ambiance. If a live venue recording sounds like it has a black background, that would be signs of a problem!

 

[Karen Sumner]

Here is a continued assortment of kernels — at least until we reach 10,000 characters.

The illusion, yes the illusion that you are in the space, and you "seeing" the performance is what I believe we are after. This in some recordings is much more plausible and possible than in others. IMO you will never get there if you don't get the position of the speakers in your room and the placement of your seating position correct. This is not an equipment issue it is a set up issue. I read lots of comments about shows for example and many times small room with smaller speakers are what many get really enthused about and to me this makes perfect sense since the set up of these is much easier and works well in a small space. The larger and the more complicated the speaker system, the more critical and time consuming the set up.

Years ago I was in the Vienna Opera house attending a rehearsal without an audience, and when the conductor interrupted the musicians and they stopped singing and playing, the hall did not suddenly become silent. There remained an audible atmosphere even when the music stopped, and it was certainly there between the notes when the music was playing. There was an energy in the air and around the space. It is hard to describe, but I've heard this on some live recordings played on the best systems, even when the music stopped.

when you walk into a room and speak, it's mostly easy to hear whether there is a tonal and dynamic balance to the room. then speak loud, or play loud music. does the balance remain? this is important. keep the energy in the room, but make sure it's balanced. can the music decay properly all the way? without hashy slap echo.

Space - in my experience - not suggested as some iron-clad fact - is best described and adjusted for when it is thought of and referred to as Presence.

Of course there are many types of Presence -

Intimate in-room Presence

In-room Presence

Studio Presence

Recital Hall Presence

Jazz or Blues Club Presence

Concert Hall Presence,

Live outdoor concert presence, and more.

Some of the tracks that come to mind which capture what I think you are describing are albums recorded in jazz clubs or certain live symphonies...when the music has stopped you are still there...it is a sense of venue...particularly atmospheric with the sub. And the minute the recording stops even when the CD is still playing for a few more silent seconds...it is super-jarring, because in a snap, you have left Narnia and are instantly back in your living room. You have to wait that extra 3 seconds before the next track begins to get 'back to Narnia'.

As many others, I see the limitations of the current audio glossary to express the attributes of the current high subjective resolution gear and would be very happy to learn about a new expanded lexicon that could help audiophiles to correlate our words with our enjoyment of systems. But if this new lexicon must forcefully include people taking lessons on music and going to concerts, as well as overwriting most of the old audio glossary, I think we are doing a poor service to the hobby. All IMHO, YMMV.