What makes the Bloom around instruments . . .

I would say that it has to be captured in the recording too.An amp can't make it if it isn't there,in the recording.With a good recording,then the amp and speakers and rest of the system has to be able to reproduce it.Over the decades in this hobby,my big complaint is the recordings.I listen to music that I don't really like at times,because they did such a great job of capturing it.There's nothing more disappointing to me than buying some new music I heard on the radio or somewhere,and get a bad recording.It just happened to many times.I think it would be great if these engineers that do a great job at this,would start a school for other recording engineers,so they could learn how to do a better job at mike placement,and whatever else it takes to get it done right.

I grew up in the tube days,and there are descriptive words that are being used now,that's different from what I've learned.The best way that I know of on how to describe a lot of these words that are used,is to have two different amps,one that has a lot of the characteristic,the other, very little.This was how I learned them,hanging around audio stores,since I was little.Basically it captures all the warmth,timbre,air,and the 3d imaging,full body of an instrument,hardly anything lacking.Upper end SS amps do capture more of it now,but not quite as much as a tube amp does,at least in my opinion.I may be wrong on my description.Threads like these are hard to post on,because the way the descriptions seen to very more and more.A person that's fairly new to audio,will start using these descriptive words,on what they think they are,and it may very.One audio dealer(in hi-end),that was around since the tube days, caught me of guard.He asked me this when tube amps started returning,what does the word liquid mean,that you tube amp guys tend to use.He asked me,because he knew I wouldn't embarrass him.It took a while,but I came in there with an old Dynaco(full of liquid),a old Nad(dry),and a couple of old recordings that had some instruments that were recorded on gear,that was real liquid sounding.He got it right from the beginning,just nobody ever compared it to him.He said he felt dumb,and seem embarrassed,should have known,but was relieved to know for sure.He was familiar the sound difference of it,but didn't want to use that word until somebody assured him.

Pardon the night grammar.

When an audio product can't separate each individual instrument,singer,or other from each other,that would be the opposite of being articulated.When your system and recording is highly articulated,you should be able to identify everything separately,with it's bloom,and other sonic characteristics,as you would,if listening to it live.I still think someone that isn't familiar with the terms used,would be easiest to compare two products,one that has the quality,against one that lacks it,possibly with someone there to point out where the difference is on the recording.Another way would be to have a recording made by an audiophile with a short cut of music(10 seconds?)with it lacking in it(bloom),against the other that reproduces it good.Without Knowing some of these characteristic's,it could be easily confused with some other descriptive term.At least,that's my two cents worth.I didn't see the Stereophile's full list of them,to see how good they did at trying to make it understandable.

Bloom cannot accurately describe a drum or cymbal's.So it can't be used for all instruments.