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

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