resolution and imaging

Learsfool, Thanks for the clarification regarding what I percieved as a superhuman hearing ability mostly achieved after the signal hit the grey matter. :-)

FWIW, my use of the word timbre in that context was not from ignorance of common usage so much as I can't imagine that anyone at an audiophile level would accept speakers in the first place that couldn't resolve differences between mic'd violins and cellos (for example) playing in the same register. Its just not that subtle, I think.

I think this has been said somewhere (probably in this thread) but all of the discussion about a live acoustic and imaging is IMHO nothing more than the ability of the forces to drive or overdrive a room, not much different that what a stereo system does in your home.

As evidence, listen to Mahler in a small auditorum - listen to some Bosendorfers in a small chamber. Either could put you off your lunch. Now move them to appropriate space and you get to hear a lot more inner detail. Remove the room factor entirely, i.e. outside, and Mr T would (at least I would argue he could) hear all of that imaging that he does not hear in his home or in a symphony hall in his favorite seat even if the distance to the orchestra was identical. But I suspect most would find the sound a bit sterile, being acoustomed to the reverberations added by the room. I do.

So, in the final analysis I tend to agree with Mapman's last sentence, and like Goldylocks I have chosen to set up a system which is not overly analytical, yet has enuf overall resolution so that I can get very good imaging including front to back 'depth of image'. Not because I think that this is 'real' so much as it is just the sound I like most.

FWIW.

I think that Sns and Mapman are both correct. Sound reproduction should attempt to mirror the effects of live music as closely as possible, however it will never achieve this goal because of all the variables involved, not the least of which is a bad recording job in the first place. I know I have said this before, but I think too many audiophiles are too quick to blame their systems instead of the recording. The bottom line is you need to have a system that you like the sound of. And many of us cannot afford to buy the equipment we might really like. It's all a compromise of some sort. Shouldn't stop you from enjoying the music.

Newbee is right that often live music must be played in very inappropriate rooms, which makes it hard for the performers to adjust. Just last night, for instance, my orchestra performed in a church gymnasium, ooh aah. And at both of the schools I went to, the orchestra had to perform in a hall too small for it, though both were great for chamber music and recitals.

By the way, Sns, does anyone ever play any concerts in Hill Auditorium there in Ann Arbor anymore, or has it fallen into disuse/disrepair? I had the pleasure of playing in that hall back in the mid-eighties. It would be a shame if that great old hall died.

"I think too many audiophiles are too quick to blame their systems instead of the recording"

Amen.

Mapman, I'm not saying reproduced images are exactly like 'real' images. I'm saying whatever amount of imaging exists on a recording should be able to be reproduced on a high resolution system. Yes, there are flat recordings, these should be reproduced as such. The point is, imaging exists in live music, and should also exist in audio reproduction if it is on the recording.

The greatest problem is knowing exactly the imaging properties of the original recording. I suppose we would have to be at the recording session (in some cases) or at least hear the master tape.

"I'm saying whatever amount of imaging exists on a recording should be able to be reproduced on a high resolution system."

I would agree.

Sometimes the imaging cues are there and make for a special listening experience. Sometimes they are not there, or they are there but too scrambled during the recording process to be recovered, and listening merit has to come from other recording factors.