Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!uwm.edu!csd4.csd.uwm.edu!info-high-audio-request
From: hugo@griggs.dartmouth.edu (Peter Su)
Newsgroups: rec.audio.high-end
Subject: Imaging, ambiance, sound staging, and all that.
Message-ID: <4865@uwm.edu>
Date: 6 Jul 90 12:29:15 GMT
Sender: news@uwm.edu
Lines: 30
Approved: tjk@csd4.csd.uwm.edu

The audio press seems to make a big deal about imaging and ambience
information in recordings, and how well playback systems capture this
information. In fact, in reading some reviews, it almost seems like
detail in imaging is almost the one most important factor used to rate
audio equipment.

One staggering example of this mentality is HP's recent pre-amp
survey, in which the writer goes on an on about how well the back and
sides of the "soundfield" were captured by component X, how the "air"
between the players was now audible, how clearly component Y captured
the reflection of sound off the back wall of the concert hall, and so
on and so forth.  HP even writes somewhere that East coast "air"
sounds "wet" on recordings, where as other air (presumably inland)
sounds "dry." 

The obvious question here is why is this one aspect of sound
reproduction so important to so many people?  Is equipment good enough
to correctly reproduce all the other aspects of music, and this is all
that is left?  I don't think so. 

The other question to raise is whether or not people hear any of this
stuff at concerts.  What does "air" sound like, anyway?  I personally
tend not to notice, but I mostly sit towards the back of the hall I go
to.  I also don't go into the concert thinking 'Ok, listen to the back
and side walls...', geesh.

So, what do people think?

Pete