The “They are here” vs “You are there” sound topic


Hi all,

I want to start a topic about the “They are here” vs “You are there” type of sound. I have read that different audiophiles usually fall in one of either categories, but what does it actually mean? So here a few questions:

- what is the definition of “They are here” vs “You are there” in your opinion?
- what is the main difference in sound? E.g. soundstage
- which kind of sound do you prefer?
- which type of speakers fall in one or the other category in your opinion?
- what type of sources, amplifiers or even cables fall in one or the other category in your opinion?

For instance, I believe the Esoteric products from Japan fall in the they are here type of sound. Do you feel the same?
richardhk
They are what they are. They are here is easier to achieve. They are here is sounds so good and clear its like they are here in your room. But you still know your room is there. They are here was the near impossible to attain goal for quite some time. Still is for most. With a lot of recordings probably always will be. But you never know. What the right tweaks seem to be showing is there's way more in those recordings than a lot of us ever thought.

Still, fact remains, they are here is a limited version of you are there.

Because with you are there, well, you are there. Your room no longer exists. Your walls, floor, ceiling- all sense of the physically limited space you know yourself to be in- is gone. With you are there you are... there. The recording studio. The concert hall. The whatever. 

You are there is a lot harder to achieve, primarily because a lot of our sense of the size of the space we are in comes from subtle very low frequency vibrations. Think about it. When you go to a concert hall you know roughly the volume of the hall even with your eyes closed. A monster king dome size concert sounds bigger, almost like being outdoors. Almost. You can hear and feel the difference. There is no reverb outdoors.

The reverb of large spaces is unique to large spaces. So you are there depends heavily on extreme low bass fidelity. 

The disappearing speakers act is sufficient to deliver they are here. Only truly magnificent deep bass response is capable of disappearing your whole room to the extent required to achieve the sublime state of you are there.


@Millercarbon - thanks for your definition. However, it seems that there are two camps that still prefer one or the other. Like people choosing to build a setup aimed at the “they are here” sound over “you are there”, maybe rightly so as you said because limitations in room dimensions and acoustics in order to achieve the amount of fidelity and layering in the lowest of bass. Such that in most people rooms the “you are there” principle may create too much bass boom, bass quantity over quality. 
Would also be interesting to know your thoughts and that of others on:

- which type of speakers fall in one or the other category in your opinion?
- what type of sources, amplifiers or even cables fall in one or the other category in your opinion?
 Unless it’s mostly about the room in your opinions.
You are there is more than you being in the physical location. It is more psychological than that. It’s being transported to the time and place and emotional state. In other words, you are there is being there (existentially)
There’s no difference. It’s a semantic argument.
Interesting views, here’s a user comment I found for instance on SST Sistrum platforms and racks:

“It feels as though the window into the music is even more clear, that a film has been stripped away making the illusion of actual musicians in the room even more compelling. This is important to me, as my pursuit has always been of the "they are here" and not the "you are there" variety...”

One of the examples I was wondering why and how people make the distinction. There are more of these views and explanations I found in a recent edition of the Absolute Sound magazine dividing the camps. Let me find it and I’ll share it here as well.
I think the premise is sort of off. You always want to be at the venue. The question is where in the venue do you want to be. Very few recordings are done so that you feel the instrument is in the room with you. Many studio recordings are very surrealistic and don't put you anywhere. 20 foot wide pianos do not exist. But with a well done live recording the question is where in the venue do you want to be. I prefer to be right up front 6th row or so. This is also more realistic in small clubs were you are always up front. The effect is do almost entirely to speakers and the way they radiate. Point source speakers give you a small sound stage and put you in the back of the hall. Line source speakers put you up front giving you a much larger sound stage. Point source advocates will tell you the stage is too large. I think not. They are just use to listening to miniature stages. The biggest problem for line source advocates is that most recordings are mastered on point source speakers and sometimes the translation to line source is not...right I suppose. So the main factors are speakers and recordings. Other electronics and audiophile paraphernalia make relatively little difference. Next in line would be the amplifier as you do need whatever it takes to get clean peaks of 105 dB. Then the cartridge if you do analog. 

Mike 
You are there: very expansive soundstage, feels like you can visualize the recording space.  First speaker example that comes to mind is DeVore.

They are here: forward presentation, very solid, focused images, such that the performer feels physically conjured in your room.  Zu is the classic example here.

I prefer "they are here".
To my ears and in my rooms I have found most conventional designs lean towards they are here presentations.  Projecting into the room with less rear wall interaction. A few exceptions along the way of stellar designs have done both when the recording offers it.  Conversely I’ve had Bi-polar and Di-polar designs that leaned more towards the you are there sound.  They all used the rear wall to create a hall effect to a greater degree.  Logans, Maggie, Mirage and Eminent Technology usually gave me the larger ambient field and when the venue was captured in recordings these designs almost always made me hear more of the you are there sound stage.  
Just my brief two cents on what I’ve experienced.   


Exactly right bryhifi. You are comparing line sources to point sources. There are very few if any Bi poles out there. That is a speaker that radiates from both sides in phase. Most of them, all the ones you mention are di poles. Both sides radiate 180 degress out of phase. It is not the sound bouncing off the back wall that gives you that "you are there" image. It is actually the lack of reflected sound that allows you to hear farther into the recording. Dipoles throw very little energy to their sides, up or down. Most of us that use them also dampen the wall behind them which tightens up the image even more. 
You are there: very expansive soundstage, feels like you can visualize the recording space. First speaker example that comes to mind is DeVore.

They are here: forward presentation, very solid, focused images, such that the performer feels physically conjured in your room. Zu is the classic example here.

I prefer "they are here".
Very interesting. Given the above rationale,

With "you are there", would you say that it’s a more back of the hall presentation and that images are not that solid or focused, such that you have to mentally imagine more the performers location? This is basically the opposite of your description of "they are here".

I have to be honest that when I listen to systems at shows and the quite large difference in how they reproduce sound and music I am not quite sure which type of perspective I am hearing and tend to get analytical about it.

Of course, the best systems at shows in my opinion tend to have everything. Such they both have a "you are there", but also "they are here" perspective - if that makes sense. They do an amazing job in creating all elements on stage with the right size/ proportion, but also in relation to each other. In a sense they create both the expansive soundstage which appears before you and have a laser sharp focus on images, such that the singer is located centrally and the musicians playing their instruments in the right place/ in their own spot.

2 of my best rated systems had the Lumen White speaker and the Albedo Audio speaker. Not coincidentally, I think both use Accuton drivers.


Our very own Quantum Mechanics Audiophile Observer Effect... : )
They are here=recordings with no reverb 

You are there=recordings with plenty of reverb 
@mijostyn

One clarifier, Mirage M1si and M3si were bi-polar designs -  Otherwise yes on the di-pole assessment and to be honest, from memory, the M1 & M3 did create the largest sound stages I ever heard in my old house.  They also gave me some sharper placement of musicians as compared to the di-poles.  Agree with you on the lack of side reflections allowing deeper into the recordings, especially the Maggies.  
No preference.In my smallish room "they are here" is easy to achieve.If I leave the room and head to the kitchen it sounds so much like arriving late to a large venue and hearing the band from the lobby,then "I am there."Our rooms and speaker placement are more important than the brand of components to create the illusion.
Still, just to throw it in there, speaker manufacturers have their own house sound or DNA if you will. To stir things up, would you say that in most cases you feel the below speakers tend to emphasise one or the other more:

- B & W = they are here
- Monitor Audio = you are there
- Tidal = you are there
- Sonus Faber = they are here

Just to name a few (I have heard multiple times).
Just read this post from Duke and felt it a good view point from a speaker designer. 

01-10-2020 1:51pmOne of the reasons Maggies sound so good is that they generate a lot of spectrally-correct backwave energy. When placed well out into the room, that backwave energy arrives after a relatively long time delay, which is desirable. This mimics, on a smaller scale, what we find in a good seat in a good concert hall: A time-gap in between the direct sound and the strong onset of reflections. According to researcher David Griesinger, the ear being able to separate out the direct sound from the reflections is highly beneficial, and is largely what differentiates a good seat from a bad one in a concert hall. 

In a home audio setting, there is a competition between two sets of venue cues: The venue cues on the recording (whether real or engineered); and the acoustic signature of the listening room. In order for the venue cues on the recording to dominate our perception and enable that elusive "you are there" illusion with a good recording, they must be presented effectively, while the listening room’s inherent "small room signature" is minimized. The backwave of the Maggies can present the recording venue cues effectively, and the long time delay from proper placement tends to minimize "small room signature", so Maggies set up properly can be very enjoyable. 

One of the things an acoustician does in a home audio setting is minimize the early reflections while preserving that energy so it can come back as later reflections. This is conceptually similar to what a good dipole does when set up properly. 

Because it is spectrally correct the backwave also enhances timbre, which again is something reflections do in a good concert or recital hall. 

I realize none of this speaks directly to the question of "what to get after Maggies", but perhaps awareness of what the backwave can contribute is helpful. 

Duke
It’s same conundrum as the time paradox from the movie Interstellar. The astronaut ages slower than people back home on Earth because time slows down on a spaceship traveling at near light-speed relative to a stationary frame of motion. But the paradox is that not only can the spaceship be viewed as moving at near light-speed relative to Earth but the Earth can be viewed as moving at Light-speed relative to the spaceship. Which frame of reference you choose is completely arbitrary.
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 consider it to be as fruitless as the phenomenon of "burn in", which I pay no attention to any longer. (See my article "Audiophile Law: Thou Shalt Not Overemphasize Burn In" at Dagogo.com). 

It is evident to me that the phenomenon of there versus here is a function of the recording, and the degree to which it is felt is a result of the quality of the system. It is not dependent upon any type of speaker, as I can obtain that distinction in listening with whatever type of speaker I use - panel, horn hybrid, line source, dynamic, etc.  :)  

As usual, YMMV, and I'm not interested in debating my perspective. 



douglas_schroeder

As usual, YMMV, and I’m not interested in debating my perspective.

>>>>>Wise move. 🤗
- which type of speakers fall in one or the other category in your opinion?
- what type of sources, amplifiers or even cables fall in one or the other category in your opinion?
 Unless it’s mostly about the room in your opinions.

Its all there. Read it again. There's a word or two that matter you seem not to have caught, and instead have latched onto a couple that aren't mentioned because they don't. One word in particular matters a whole hell of a lot, and you went right past it.
douglas_schroeder
I pay zero attention to distinctions such as "you are there" versus "they are here". It is a nebulous concept ...
Agreed. It's all an illusion and this discussion is really about semantics.
The following thread from 2010 may be of interest, in which the same question was discussed at length:

https://forum.audiogon.com/discussions/quot-they-are-here-quot-vs-quot-you-are-there-quot

I provided several detailed responses in that thread, but the following excerpt perhaps captures the bottom line IMO:

Almarg 9-5-2010
As someone who listens primarily to classical music, my goal is to duplicate as closely as possible the experience of hearing a live performance from a good seat in a good hall (less extraneous sounds from the audience or other sources, of course). Therefore I am in the "you are there" camp....

... I doubt that it is typically possible for the acoustics of the listening room to resemble those of the recording space in any meaningful way (assuming the recording space is a hall), because the dimensions (and hence the delay times between direct and reflected sound) are so vastly different.... The overall combination of room acoustics and equipment should be as neutral as possible, to make the listening experience as "you are there" as possible.

(Note that my use of the word "neutral" in this context connotes accuracy, not blandness as the term is sometimes interpreted).

Thus, when it comes to this issue I second the comments by Mijostyn, Douglas_Schroeder, and others emphasizing the overriding importance of the recording, and how it was mic’d and engineered.

Regards,
-- Al

Often things are neither here nor there. Kaitty should realize that things traveling at far less than "near" light speed have been proven to age differently...an atomic clock experiment proved that theory years ago by simply orbiting a clock around the earth with its time compared to an earth bound clock. No where near the speed of light.
It's all an illusion and this discussion is really about semantics.

Semantics is the study of language with respect to meaning. The very first response, mine, clearly and succinctly lays bare the distinction in meaning between the two terms. Therefore the discussion is about anything BUT semantics.   

People can, and often do, ignore the points raised. That's not semantics either. That's just plain old poor reading comprehension and weak reasoning.


What is in a recording? What is the data present in it?

The musicians and the venue.

So, I think if we ignore the musicians for a bit, this question really can be re-written this way:

How much of the recording environment comes through the sound system?

That is, the entire difference between the two questions posed by the OP is really the same as this question, above.  To be clear, unless we were present, this really is going to be an unknown quantity. Lots of ways to give the illusion of being in a performance, but that doesn't make the illusion accurate. So I think the answer to this feeling, not necessarily truth, is in the speaker dispersion and room acoustics.

Is the room transparent enough to let the recording of the venue reach our ears with clarity?  Does the speaker work with or against the room? Does the speaker have rear ambience drivers?

Now, which do we like... that's another story. :)
I agree Cleeds, it is just looking at different sides of the same coin. However, there are some important distinctions here. Duke and I illustrated why dipoles such as Maggies are so effective in presenting the venue captured in the recording. I related that dipole line sources radiate very little energy to the sides, up and down which minimizes early reflections and Duke related that enough energy comes of the back side that if the speaker is set up correctly this energy, mostly in the mid range bounces around the room arriving at the ear late simulating the acoustics of a much larger room. The early reflections represent the acoustics of your room. Dipole line sources minimize these reflections better than any other design with the exception of a properly designed bipole horn system. With horns you have much more control over the radiation pattern again giving you the ability to minimize early reflections. To simulate a larger room (increase late reflections you have to add a rear firing midrange driver. With either a horn or Dipole the only early reflection you have to deal with is the two off the front wall aimed at the listening position. As far as bass is concerned instead of decorating your room with ugly bass traps and panels just add several more subwoofers.  
Its all there. Read it again. There's a word or two that matter you seem not to have caught, and instead have latched onto a couple that aren't mentioned because they don't. One word in particular matters a whole hell of a lot, and you went right past it.

> it seems so, maybe firstly since English is not my first language and secondly I am not a seasoned audiophile like most of you are on this forum. Just a millennial that enjoys good sound and likes to learn more. Enlighten me since it went right passed me as you so empathetically mentioned.
Erik, I think that is a cop out. There are great systems and there are systems with obvious defects. How much money was spent is no indication. I have heard beautifully balanced little near field systems that out perform huge systems with mega buck amplifiers. I would bet that a group of experienced listeners would rate these systems in a very similar fashion.  Everyone is entitled to listen to what they like but there are good and not so good systems. Why are a lot of us continuously trying to improve our systems by doing or buying this that or the other? That is an admission that their systems could be better. Is there always room for improvement? Most would say yes but I do not think so. I have heard several systems that need no improvement. You would be more likely to make them worse. 
Sorry @mijostyn but I'm honestly not sure what part of my statement you are objecting to. None of what you wrote seems to oppose anything I wrote.

If you can be specific to any given point, then I might be able to understand your message a little better.

Thanks,

E
A live recording, done well, can transport you to the venue.
A studio recording, done well, will bring them to your room.

All the best,
Nonoise
There are four (count em!) dimensions of the recording venue. Three physical dimensions and the fourth one is time. All four dimensions are captured on the recording, assuming a live recording. The “ambience” - reverberant decay and so forth - is part of the physical dimensions.

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.

nonoise
A live recording, done well, can transport you to the venue.
A studio recording, done well, will bring them to your room.
Neither will do what you claim. Both are illusions.
Of course they are. That's plainly stated in what I said.
It's all a matter of how convincingly it's done.
All of stereo is an illusion. 

All the best,
Nonoise
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....
It is evident to me that the phenomenon of there versus here is a function of the recording, and the degree to which it is felt is a result of the quality of the system. It is not dependent upon any type of speaker, as I can obtain that distinction in listening with whatever type of speaker I use - panel, horn hybrid, line source, dynamic, etc. :)  
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...
Wait, what? Duke hasn’t posted yet??? Must be working on it still then....
Erik, no offence intended. I was referring to your comment about not having been at the original performance thus not being able to evaluate a system effectively. 
" Wait, what? Duke hasn’t posted yet??? Must be working on it still then.... " 

Yeah baby!
@mijostyn

I think we can all evaluate for ourselves how much fun and pleasure our systems create for us. :)

The rest I took to another thread.
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!
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

While you can’t be there for the original event, I will continue to beat the 2L drum ( Grammy winners now ) drum ....
IF you want first venue to survive steep slopes and wiring the midrange out of phase and lots of negative feedback ain’t your friends 
Also, unless your listening chair is bolted down, you can change the ratio between first venue and 2nd....
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.

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. 
But this is a stretch assignment since from what I can tell just about nobody here has a spl meter....
"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

@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!