Conference hips::uk_audioo

I associate imaging (i.e. the ability of a system to let you mentally 'place'
the instruments 'on stage' - a euphemism these days given the way recordings
are accomplished), with timing. My brain associates depth with the delay in
my (stereo) ears receiving the information from the same instrument. This 
delay is different for all the instruments on stage and so I form a mental
picture as a result.

A system which images is a system which is faithfully relaying this kind of
information to me.

    There is more to "soundstage" than the ability to locate a sound source
    in space; another aspect is the ability of the system to reproduce
    individual sounds, each in its own "space" in the audio spectrum,
    whilst still contributing to the whole, as the musicians intended.
    
    These two aspects aren't mutually exclusive, but are difficult to
    achieve together, along with "accuracy" and "tunefulness", except
    at the high end. All sorts of aspects of the signal content contribute
    towards creating the sense of reality; once heard it can be hard to
    live without, if you're any sort of hifi casualty.
    
    On the other hand, some factors are more fundamental to this sense of
    reality than others and a lot depends on personal preferences. Some
    systems, in some rooms with some recordings, can excel in projecting
    these fundamentals, others excel in other aspects of performance.
    
    Jeff's experience with the two amps could be either that the two
    amplifiers simply emphasised different aspects of the CD player's
    signal, or that the new amp, being more "truthful" - whatever that
    is - allowed weaknesses in the source's signal to be reproduced, thus
    distracting the listener from what it was doing right, whereas the Quad's
    "tailored" response gave less emphasis to these weaknesses. I doubt
    this is the case, though, as obscuring defects usually results in
    obscuring desirable aspects too, so this "filtering" is unlikely to
    produce the changes heard. 
    
    Personally, I suspect that the Quad may just have a more balanced set of
    virtues, within the limitations of the age of its design, than the new amp.
    The new amp, for all the fashionable "New World" aspects that seem
    essential these days, perhaps exaggerated defects in the CD player's
    output, distracting the listener. 
    
    I doubt the differences would be down to the individual amplifiers'
    abilities to drive the Infinitys. It would be more likely that the
    differences were due to sins of omission in one amp and sins of
    comission in the other.
    
    Although it's probably old hat to many audiophiles, a recent
    "road-to-Damascus" experience with my Cd player taught me that many
    so-called deficiencies are down to something being inserted or
    exaggerated that shouldn't be, distracting me from what I should hear that
    was there all the time, rather than what I should hear actually being
    reduced or distorted in itself. [I will state categorically the
    digiphobia was *not* one of those "somethings"!]
    
    Dave
     

    nevertheless, Infinities can be real biests, connected to the wrong ;-)
    amp. 
    ? Which one is NOT wrong ?
    
    heinz
    
    p.s. stopped suffering from them