Brad, could you clarify something about this statement? When you write “dimension/physicality” like this, are you suggesting that dimension and physicality are somehow interchangeable or equivalent sonic attributes? I think of them as distinct characteristics.
My system does in fact convey a sense of dimension, though I prefer to think of it as relative scale. Various recordings do present different sized impressions. I can clearly distinguish for instance the relative scale of say Peter Schrier singing Winterreise in front of a piano and someone singing in the middle of the choir in Cantato Domino. Or a timpani in the back of a stage versus Jim Keltner’s solo drum kit large and up close in Sheffield’s famous track, or the violin smaller and to the left of the cello in Brahm’s concerto. And that sonic information from the recordings presented by my system does encourage images in my imagination formed from memories of live experiences. So it does all come together into something believable and convincing, because of both the relative scale and also the sense of physicality from mass and impact presented in the front of the listening room. For me, it just does not seem as literal an image as what some others seem to describe experiencing from some systems.
I think there are components and set up techniques that can accentuate this imaging effect in hifi. Some prefer this kind of presentation, and that is fine. As Fransisco writes, there are also engineering techniques in the recordings that can enhance this effect, all in an attempt to recreate the visual sense from the live concert in the listening room, if I understand correctly. My point is that this differs from what I actually hear in the concert hall. These different perceptions and goals are what make this hobby so fascinating and they explain in part why there are so many different types of systems and system presentations.
