Path: utzoo!censor!geac!torsqnt!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uwm.edu!csd4.csd.uwm.edu!info-high-audio-request
From: jdhill@BBN.COM (Jack D. Hill)
Newsgroups: rec.audio.high-end
Subject: Re: Imaging, ambiance, sound staging, and all that.
Message-ID: <4870@uwm.edu>
Date: 6 Jul 90 14:15:05 GMT
Sender: news@uwm.edu
Lines: 34
Approved: tjk@csd4.csd.uwm.edu


In article <4865@uwm.edu> hugo@griggs.dartmouth.edu (Peter Su) writes:
>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.
>...
>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. 

I believe the reason HP and people like him are making such a big deal about it
is because this is an aspect of sound reproduction that contemporary equipment
is just starting to reveal. It is a component that has added to stereo
equipment's ability to achieve concert hall realism in the living room. I don't
think they believe everything else is "good enough", this is just a new
criterion by which to judge components.

>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.

I don't go to concerts and specifically listen to the back and side walls. If
the hall is dry or reverberant then I make a note of it. In sound reproduction
though, if this aspect is missing, then the illusion of realism is not
achieved. We the audience do not have to consciously be aware of such things but
when a reviewer uses such detailed analysis in the critique of an audio
component, then we should know what he's referring to.

Jack Hill