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?
128x128richardhk

Showing 6 responses by richardhk

@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.
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.
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.


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).
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.
One of the reasons that sparked my interest to bring this topic up is, because the following has been mentioned in the first edition of this year’s the absolute sound, quote (from a Monitor Audio piece):

“Jonathan Valin has long written about three kinds of audiophiles:

1. those who seek “the absolute sound”—that is, the as-realistic-as-possible reproduction of the sound of acoustic instruments in a real space;

2. “fidelity to source” listeners who want the truth of what’s on the original mastertape or recording replicated as the engineers/artists intended;

3. “as you like it” listeners who care more about what sounds pleasing to their ears than meeting these other criteria…maybe they like a little bass boost or the warm, golden signature of a particular tube, for example.”

“Of course, such “fidelity to source” tendencies can reveal a recording’s finesse or flaws, whether it’s well-recorded or not especially so.”

“As far as minor points to critique, at times on good recordings even though resolution was high, the Gold 300s might not be the last word in realism (à la “the absolute sound”) or the oft-discussed speaker “disappearing act”—though for most listeners that won’t matter much. Certain instrumental layers would jump or stand out from others. It’s hard to put my finger on what the issue was, though it generally seemed to occur in the upper midrange. However, I only noticed this on certain recordings and the occasional projection of the upper mids did seem to diminish over time. Really this might only concern listeners who are seriously into realism…so it didn’t really bother me.

Soundstages thrown tended to offer good width and adequate depth—assuming the source material captured these things—though more height could have been desirable on certain recordings.”

“Especially if you appreciate or collect well-recorded material, the speaker can enable you to reap its rewards.”

So, for me, I am looking for the above mentioned

“realistic-as-possible reproduction of the sound of acoustic instruments in a real space” or the oft-discussed speaker “disappearing act”.

Which speakers besides the already mentioned ones do that in your opinion and/ or what have you heard lately at showrooms or audio shows that you really liked?