14 hours ago, fas42 said:

 

It's the same thing. Different way of expressing the concept that the sound never dives into the speaker, no matter how far you push it ...

So ...

The sound stage appears in front of you, in the same way as, say, the moon is always in the same position relative to yourself as you go along in a car at night; it "follows you". You go right, it goes right, etc. So, in respect to that position beside the speaker, the centre of the sound stage is now in line with the inside edge of the left speaker - spooky, eh ... ?

Is the same thing as:

how far can you go before the sound dives into the nearer speaker?

It's no wonder I'm confused! Anyway, for the record, the "how far can you go" idea somewhat matches my subjective experience, the "it follows you, you go right it goes right" idea does not.

I fear this discussion may take us back to pesky science stuff.

Consider that the stereo effect is based on tiny differences in the time the audio signal reaches the ear, together with relative volume levels and the "cues" in the sound.

If you move towards one speaker, this speaker will get subjectively louder and the time for the sound to reach the ear will reduce. The other speaker gets quieter and the time for the sound to reach the ear increases. (double the distance and SPL drops by a factor of four)

So lets try another thought experiment. What will happen to the soundstage if you gradually turn the balance knob (if you have one) fully to the left? Would it not cause the center of the soundstage to shift left? In this example the SPL reduces in one speaker and increases in the other. If you move your head towards one speaker, exactly the same thing happens to SPL from a subjective point of view, but in addition you a change in the timing of the sound.

So in theory, for the dive test the soundstage will remain locked in the center up to the point that the subjective difference in SPL between the speakers breaks the illusion for the particular listener.

All good stuff but I cannot see that this is an indicator of the integrity of the sound. Or could it? Maybe with "sorted" SQ, the "locking in the center" effect could be more robust, of course this could never remove the SPL differential effect, so it is sorted sound versus SPL differentials, at what point does the SPL effect break the timing effect? That being the case, sticking you head next to a speaker and noting the soundstage has followed you like the moon would hence indicate a lack of sorting, the unavoidable SPL effect dominates over the timing effect.

Let's try another thought experiment. Let's say I go to a nightclub and stick my head in a horn loaded bass bin, subjectively the sound will sound like it is coming from the bass bin, because it is.

10 hours ago, Confused said:

 

So ...

 

The sound stage appears in front of you, in the same way as, say, the moon is always in the same position relative to yourself as you go along in a car at night; it "follows you". You go right, it goes right, etc. So, in respect to that position beside the speaker, the centre of the sound stage is now in line with the inside edge of the left speaker - spooky, eh ... ?

 

Is the same thing as:

 

how far can you go before the sound dives into the nearer speaker?

 

It's no wonder I'm confused! Anyway, for the record, the "how far can you go" idea somewhat matches my subjective experience, the "it follows you, you go right it goes right" idea does not.

It is important that you view this experiment using source material that is true mono! It won't be good enough, at least at the beginnings of this, to use tracks which are nominally mono, but which derive from, say, needledrops of mono LPs using a stereo cartridge. The left channel waveform needs to be identical to the right channel waveform, okay?

Quote

 

I fear this discussion may take us back to pesky science stuff.

 

Consider that the stereo effect is based on tiny differences in the time the audio signal reaches the ear, together with relative volume levels and the "cues" in the sound.

That's exactly why this behaviour does occur ... there is a time difference between left and right speaker sound, as you move sideways; and the brain interprets it as the sound "following you", with true mono.

Quote

 

So lets try another thought experiment. What will happen to the soundstage if you gradually turn the balance knob (if you have one) fully to the left? Would it not cause the center of the soundstage to shift left? In this example the SPL reduces in one speaker and increases in the other. If you move your head towards one speaker, exactly the same thing happens to SPL from a subjective point of view, but in addition you a change in the timing of the sound.

The volume variation has nothing to do with it; it's all about the timing differences - I'm not sure what it would do with a true mono track; something to try for myself, by burning variations of left and right volumes on a CDR .

Quote

 

So in theory, for the dive test the soundstage will remain locked in the center up to the point that the subjective difference in SPL between the speakers breaks the illusion for the particular listener.

For true mono, the sound following thing happens. For normal stereo, what you get is the performance happening behind the speakers, with their positions in that space "nailed to the floor". If you move around, it is as if the musicians, etc, just stayed where they were originally, all the time; mirroring a live event perception.

Quote

 

All good stuff but I cannot see that this is an indicator of the integrity of the sound. Or could it? Maybe with "sorted" SQ, the "locking in the center" effect could be more robust, of course this could never remove the SPL differential effect, so it is sorted sound versus SPL differentials, at what point does the SPL effect break the timing effect? That being the case, sticking you head next to a speaker and noting the soundstage has followed you like the moon would hence indicate a lack of sorting, the unavoidable SPL effect dominates over the timing effect.

Why it's an indicator of SQ is that the recording space cues are so clear, and well defined, that they override the other indicators that in fact you are very close to some speaker drivers. The obvious one is, yes, they are much louder, to your ears - that should be so evident to your awareness!

To experience this happening is truly astonishing - and what sent the message home loud and clear, those decades ago, is that the rig constantly switched between the quality levels necessary - it made exactly what was going, with the senses, trivially obvious.

Quote

 

Let's try another thought experiment. Let's say I go to a nightclub and stick my head in a horn loaded bass bin, subjectively the sound will sound like it is coming from the bass bin, because it is.

 

Here, you only have the bass sounds - if it was full range; it might work ... did you know that Tom Danley of Danley Sounds, makers of high quality, and extremely loud PA systems, has experienced this very effect on his own gear? In some posts he mentioned getting this remarkable result, on another forum.

9 hours ago, fas42 said:

It is important that you view this experiment using source material that is true mono! It won't be good enough, at least at the beginnings of this, to use tracks which are nominally mono, but which derive from, say, needledrops of mono LPs using a stereo cartridge. The left channel waveform needs to be identical to the right channel waveform, okay?

Okay as a statement, but not actually addressing the question it is responding to. Although I think you might have done that in your later comments.

Let's see if I have this right...

You are stating:

With a true mono source, the image follows you like the moon.

With a normal stereo source the image is "nailed to the floor".

The logic here is that with a stereo source the cues in the sound override the fact that one speaker is next to your ear and the other speaker is over two meters away? If this is correct, then if the cues in the sound place the singer in the centre of the soundstage, then the singer would subjectively stay in the centre of the soundstage even if one speaker was disconnected.

Although the moon image thing is at odds with your earlier question; "when you put on a pure mono recording with the Blades, and you stand in the centre, and then move slowly to one side, left or right - how far can you go before the sound dives into the nearer speaker?"

With the image following you like the moon, surely the image should dive into the nearest speaker when you are in line with it?

9 hours ago, fas42 said:

Here, you only have the bass sounds - if it was full range; it might work ... did you know that Tom Danley of Danley Sounds, makers of high quality, and extremely loud PA systems, has experienced this very effect on his own gear? In some posts he mentioned getting this remarkable result, on another forum.

Do you have a link (or links) to what Tom Danley states he has experienced?

14 hours ago, Confused said:

The logic here is that with a stereo source the cues in the sound override the fact that one speaker is next to your ear and the other speaker is over two meters away? If this is correct, then if the cues in the sound place the singer in the centre of the soundstage, then the singer would subjectively stay in the centre of the soundstage even if one speaker was disconnected.

The illusion depends on both speakers operating - if you disconnect one, then any spatial positioning sideways collapses.

14 hours ago, Confused said:

 

Although the moon image thing is at odds with your earlier question; "when you put on a pure mono recording with the Blades, and you stand in the centre, and then move slowly to one side, left or right - how far can you go before the sound dives into the nearer speaker?"

 

With the image following you like the moon, surely the image should dive into the nearest speaker when you are in line with it?

The remarkable thing is, that when you are directly in line with one of the speakers, that the soundstage is now behind that speaker! If you move slightly to the left of the speaker that's where the imaging, goes; and similarly to the right - the phantom soundstage movement is seamless, wrt a speaker. If you go right up to the speaker, it comes from beyond the speaker now in front of you, the speaker is "blocking" what is happening behind it! ... I told you it was spooky, .

I get this now with my current speakers, but only when far enough away from one - it fails when too close; still too much playback distortion audible, as yet.

14 hours ago, Confused said:

 

 

Do you have a link (or links) to what Tom Danley states he has experienced?

Pretty sure I've mentioned it in a post some time ago, on AS - will track it down ...

And here it is,

His attitude to getting realistic reproduction is very similar to mine; and he notes that he heard the effect with two very dissimilar speakers.

8 hours ago, fas42 said:

The illusion depends on both speakers operating - if you disconnect one, then any spatial positioning sideways collapses.

I am pleased that we agree on this.

But do you agree that if your head is right next to one speaker, then you are barely going to hear the other speaker, to all intents and purposes it is just about as audible as it would be as if it was disconnected.  

Although you did say this in the post linked later:

Thus, a single speaker, working well enough, will also be invisible - your brain will receive insufficient information to decode where the drivers are, the key data is "drowned out" by the spatial information within the recording.

8 hours ago, fas42 said:

His attitude to getting realistic reproduction is very similar to mine; and he notes that he heard the effect with two very dissimilar speakers.

And this takes us back to where we started:

The link you provided makes no mention of:

With a true mono source, the image follows you like the moon.

With a normal stereo source the image is "nailed to the floor".

Just talk of "invisible speakers"

And Mr Danley starts with this:

I think as it’s linked directly to how well a stereo image can be created (if in the recording).
I think you see what I see except I would say room reflections etc are and additional factor to how the speaker radiates. The loudspeaker part of it works outside where there are no room effects.

Re the above - this is what my proposed garage experiment relates to. Give it a try! Plus, Mr Danley himself thinks that room reflections are an additional factor.

More from Mr Danley:

What I am fascinated with and think is the overlooked area is how our brain assembles a single image from two inputs and how a single loudspeaker radiates or can radiate a different things to each ear, that if present allow you to “hear”/ triangulate / localize how far away the speaker is, that gives it spatial identity. Conversely, if an identical sound is presented to each ear (like sound coming from far away, nearly a plane wave or simple source), you can’t identify it’s distance with your eyes closed.

I agree this is a fascinating topic, but this is what he says that I think you are relating to:

The drivers all add coherently so you can walk up, put your head inside the horn mouth while playing music and you cannot hear anything but the sound coming from somewhere in front of you, no individual drivers. I saw you referenced a post from a guy that rented some live sound versions and because they radiate as if the sound came from an inch or two from the rear, you really can put them flat against the wall (or more often another cabinet) and not have any interference, with two cabinets, no audible seam. That makes ALL the near wall reflections go away and the near field a lot larger.

He is talking about individual drivers being "invisible", and the apparent location of sound from a very specific speaker design, not the stereo imaging moon being nailed to the floor.

Anyway, I am not sure all of this is going anywhere positive. Maybe time to get back to the purpose of audio reproduction?

I guess we can agree that Tom Danley is a very interesting guy.  I've spent a lot of time with pro audio kit in the past, it is great to see someone taking an almost audiophile view in this area.

3 hours ago, Confused said:

 

 

But do you agree that if your head is right next to one speaker, then you are barely going to hear the other speaker, to all intents and purposes it is just about as audible as it would be as if it was disconnected.  

Yes, that speaker will dominate; but it seems that one's mind keeps compensating for what it heard, when one's head was in a more reasonable position. Noting that the current actives don't do this as well as it can work, so far; but when operating at an optimum there is never a subjective discontinuity, no matter how close you get.

3 hours ago, Confused said:

 

Although you did say this in the post linked later:

 

Thus, a single speaker, working well enough, will also be invisible - your brain will receive insufficient information to decode where the drivers are, the key data is "drowned out" by the spatial information within the recording.

 

 

The key thing is that mind perceives the sound as coming from somewhere behind the drivers - not from the surfaces of the driver materials.

3 hours ago, Confused said:

 

 

And this takes us back to where we started:

 

The link you provided makes no mention of:

 

With a true mono source, the image follows you like the moon.

 

With a normal stereo source the image is "nailed to the floor".

 

Just talk of "invisible speakers"

There are various behaviours associated with this - the most significant one is the general invisibility; which was the point of the post. This can also be demonstrated by person wearing a blindfold, and being asked to point where the speakers are, and obviously guessing ...

3 hours ago, Confused said:

 

And Mr Danley starts with this:

 

I think as it’s linked directly to how well a stereo image can be created (if in the recording).
I think you see what I see except I would say room reflections etc are and additional factor to how the speaker radiates. The loudspeaker part of it works outside where there are no room effects.

 

Re the above - this is what my proposed garage experiment relates to. Give it a try! Plus, Mr Danley himself thinks that room reflections are an additional factor.

I did say his attitude was very similar, rather than exactly like mine .

3 hours ago, Confused said:

 

I agree this is a fascinating topic, but this is what he says that I think you are relating to:

 

The drivers all add coherently so you can walk up, put your head inside the horn mouth while playing music and you cannot hear anything but the sound coming from somewhere in front of you, no individual drivers. I saw you referenced a post from a guy that rented some live sound versions and because they radiate as if the sound came from an inch or two from the rear, you really can put them flat against the wall (or more often another cabinet) and not have any interference, with two cabinets, no audible seam. That makes ALL the near wall reflections go away and the near field a lot larger.

 

He is talking about individual drivers being "invisible", and the apparent location of sound from a very specific speaker design, not the stereo imaging moon being nailed to the floor.

Yes. It's the effect that he heard that's important; how it can be achieved will have more than one method, of that I'm certain.

3 hours ago, Confused said:

 

Anyway, I am not sure all of this is going anywhere positive. Maybe time to get back to the purpose of audio reproduction?

It's all part of the Big Picture . IME, a method that works is getting clean enough sound such that the auditory world of the recording is dominant; has multiple benefits as a listening experience, and allows one to enjoy recordings that are 'unlistenable' on more conventional playback.

3 hours ago, Confused said:

 

I guess we can agree that Tom Danley is a very interesting guy.  I've spent a lot of time with pro audio kit in the past, it is great to see someone taking an almost audiophile view in this area.

Yes ... were you aware he's bringing out a consumer product that some say is a game changer, the Hyperion?

Just found a thread, where that speaker is with an ASR member, https://gearspace.com/board/high-end/1345289-danley-hyperion-4-way-compact-active-loudspeaker.html

Also, a video with another Danley speaker, demonstrating the ability to present the acoustic of the recording at any distance; this is the sort of reproduction that produces fully realistic soundscapes when at an optimum quality level,

On 3/20/2022 at 12:14 PM, fas42 said:

Yes ... were you aware he's bringing out a consumer product that some say is a game changer, the Hyperion?

I was not, but I am now!

I found this, pretty much flat to 20Hz, which is very impressive.

They are not the prettiest of things, but this could be forgiven if the SQ is there.

What I cannot find is pricing. (Although for sure they will be more expensive in the UK versus the US)

Interesting, I'll keep an ear out for these.

Music is not boring. Now, that might seem pretty damn obvious, - but if your only exposure to this form of sensory stimulation was via many of the audio systems out there, you could easily come to this conclusion ... why? Ummm, pretty simple - the losses that below par setups incur, take the zing out of what should be a powerfully engaging experience - if that key 'essence' is not in what you listen to, then what's the point?

I was drawn to this thought after reading this,

If a rig is "boring", then it's wrong. That is, it's not accurate to the recording - so, either get rid of it, and get a better one; or do what I do: work my way through the issues, until the sound stops being boring! In that post, non-boring SQ is tentatively called "tube sound", which is complete nonsense - the implication is that the "right parts!!" distort what's on the recording, to make it more satisfying to listen to - and this is total BS.

Audio recordings are fabulous. End of story. So if you're not getting that, then it's not the recording's fault ... it's the fault of your playback chain ... okay?

I just pointed to this clip,

... and one of the comments below was this,

Quote

It's hard to say something about the sound of the speakers. Because the echo walks around the room ... and the music, frankly, idiotic.

But it seems that the system is playing powerfully and correctly.

Ho boy!! Welcome to wacky world of audiophile thinkin'!

Umm, good speaker setups have "no sound" ... that's because, you're hearing the recording, NOT the speakers.

He's upset about the echo - poor thing . Get a grip! The real world is always full of echo, 'cause that's how it's made! If you want some weird, artificial acoustic environment to "make it sound better!", go for it - but a competent setup doesn't need such crutches; the magic of the performance will still ring true ... for those who just like music - and who don't obsess about the "tiny stuff", .

Idiotic music? ... Say no more ...

But, hooray!!! It's, "playing powerfully and correctly" ... three cheers! A little chink of light has forced its way through .

Just came across a bit in a post on another forum, which said it perfectly,

Quote

The only reason for engaging in better audio is to reproduce the recorded music or song in a more illuminating way, to understand the craft of the musician playing, the skill of the recording engineer and producer layering the individual recorded tracks into a tapestry of sound that is sheer brilliance and a joy to listen too.

Spot on. So it's mighty curious that so many have a problem with a person having such a goal - such as myself ... could it be that I haven't thrown lots and lots of money at it, could it be that I haven't bowed down to the Great Names in the Audio Game?  ... Hmm, not quite sure ...

There's no such thing as a Bad recording ...

Just came across this clip, which shows how audiophiles have developed a 'distorted' understanding of what's going on, and then try to wrap their head around some combination of equipment which shows that such is not the case ... even the title is hilarious, "DAC Fixes distorted recording" ... hoo, boy!! ... Didn't know that electronics had embedded AI to that level, .

A classic track, here sounding very, very close to what it should on a competent rig - I regularly used a standard release of this CD many years ago, for checking SQ status.

The purpose of audio reproduction is to trick the mind. Period. This is the obvious intention of ordinary stereo - if it wasn't tricked, then no matter how you were seated or organised the room then what you would always hear would just be some sound coming from the left speaker, and some sound coming from the right speaker; and, that from the tweeter would be distinct from that of the mid/bass, etc. Equivalent to a couple of people leaning over each other, on the two sides of the room, talking; 4 distinct voices. But that doesn't happen - the mind integrates what's coming into the ears, and it makes sense; there is a single person in the middle between the speakers, talking.

So, that is magic, at a basic level. Next step, improve the quality of the illusion, which is what it is, so that it always works. Why it doesn't work, that is, the trick fails, is because the ears hear anomalies that don't add up - the mirage evaporates. An obvious example here is that one moves out of the "sweet spot", and then the sound just dives into the nearer speaker; to make it even worse, go right up close to a normal working speaker, and any semblance to faking it has completely gone out the door; each driver can be heard thrashing away, very distinctly, and on many recordings this will sound downright awful. The anomalies have won, there is zero magic here ...

The tricking can only happen if the disturbing anomalies are not audible, to the brain. Clever crutches like the TigerFox 360 currently discussed work because they reinforce the information you want to hear, without drawing your attention to the anomalies.

The parallels are very strong, right now, in the visual world. A lot of money, and research is going into generating, and evolving photorealistic mechanisms, which allow "immersive" viewing - the goal is to create a visual, well, mirage which is so compelling that you lose all sense that it's being faked. And here the same issues as for auditory apply - the mind is so acutely attuned to what makes sense, and what doesn't, that the slightest giveaway of fakery, to the eyes, is picked up - quite easily.  Only the highest levels of accuracy stand a chance - if there is some slight glitch, which is regularly repeated, then the mind loses interest; it is now on the lookout for the glitches ... and the trick has failed.

Unfortunately, there is nowhere near the interest, or belief, in tricking the auditory sense. Now and again one can fluke a higher level of accuracy in the acoustic arena, and the mind switches into an "immersive" hearing mode - but unless there is a focused effort on evolving the mechanisms to be accurate enough, then any successes will be very much hit and miss ..

A thought expressed elsewhere was,

Quote

"I wouldn't part with this amazing DAC for all the money in the world".  <-- worth, not value.

That's not the world I'm interested in ... where I want to be, is

Quote

"I wouldn't part with this amazing recording for all the money in the world"

The DAC, any DAC, is a means to an end ... if it is "amazing!" right now, then there will be one for a fraction of the price, and better again, a few years down the track. What's really special in the audio world is the content of all the recordings done to date - and the goal is to extract as much of that as possible, without spending ridiculous money to get there.

A giveaway that current setups are still struggling to achieve integrity is this, in a post about Axpona,

Quote

Another theme this year is music being played too loud, resulting in a harsher, unmusical experience.

Yep. If a rig starts to go or sound sour as the volume is increased, then it's got problems ... one of the markers of competent SQ is that the SPLs in the room can be pushed to any sane amount, without losing the ability to sound realistic. A live instrument can produce momentary bursts of intense dBs, but doesn't stop being "musical" at that moment - and so it should be for capable audio playback.

Just came  across a post by j_j, on ASR ... he's a hard core objectivist, but he said, in part, "the ability of the human brain to "hear through" various kinds of distortions" is key. Every time you listen to any system, in any condition, this is the case - otherwise, someone who has a top notch rig wouldn't be able to enjoy a song he knows well on a mediocre car radio ...

So what's happening? The brain can compensate, using the crutches of knowing "what comes next", or room setup to highlight the positives and reduce the negatives - but if the distortion is of the 'wrong type' then listener fatigue becomes an issue, because the brain is having to work so hard to unravel what it wants to hear, constantly grappling with the 'veil' of distortion. When the levels of this type of distortion are too high, then it's just "unlistenable!".

Therefore, the goal is to eliminate as much as possible all these 'wrong types' - doing this effectively then allows the listening to become "effortless"; and the world of enjoying any recording that gets put on, at any reasonable volume, then opens up. Unfortunately, nearly all the things that get measured are only poor indicators of these critical distortions, that really matter, subjectively, and this is especially so in higher end gear ...

This could be also be put in the Interesting Conversations thread, but I'm diving in towards the end of the piece; so mentioned here instead - the posts by PeterA here are especially pertinent, and the latest round starts a bit before https://www.whatsbestforum.com/threads/david-karmelis-natural-sound-in-utah.32411/post-794675 .

The rigs by ddk, David, have got the key things under control; which Peter makes clear. A key post includes this,

Quote

The challenge is not losing it through poor gear choices, room treatments, wire choices, or set up decisions. The information is there on the recording. I heard it in varying degrees on all of David’s systems.

I have also heard the effect injected into systems by cables that enhance certain frequencies, but in this case everything sounds the same and it’s really not the same quality of naturalness. In fact it is unnatural and immediately tells me that I’m listening to is a high-fi system.

This is one of the big lessons I learned with this most recent visit to Utah. The information is on the recording. The challenge is to leave it intact and deliver it to the listener.

Exactly. Don't muck up what's recorded by overlaying your own ideas of "what it should sound like!" on top, and if the integrity of the replay is in place then it can't help but 'blossom' ...

Edit: A comment a bit later, by another forum member who was there,

Quote

It is hard to find the right words to describe the experience of listening to music without thinking about where it comes from or how it is made. As audiophiles we bring a lot of baggage with us that just gets in the way

Which is why my stance is so disturbing for some ... you see, it really is "about the music" - this is not just a platitude, but what I see as the point of doing anything in audio.

Interesting that Chris mentions hearing a Yello album as being immersive when running through an Atmos system,

I have a few of their albums, and the nature of the tracks is that they generate an intensely immersive soundscape when reproduced correctly, on "just" a 2 channel setup. Key is the ability to deliver the necessary SPLs with full clarity; something which many systems struggle to do - most likely a large part of why the Atmos system works so well subjectively is that there is plenty of dB horsepower on tap to produce the sound; each speaker driving chain is barely idling to generate its part, so the integrity of the combined output is much higher, as compared to a normal chain feeding a pair of speakers.

So, Atmos is a shortcut to getting a powerful subjective experience - the downside is the processing of the tracks, and the replay machinery to do this. Of course, the most effective solution is to do what's necessary to lift a normal stereo playback chain to the necessary standard - which is still largely out of reach for most owners of systems, for all the reasons I've mentioned numerous times ...

No and no. You can’t reproduce with two channels, what can be reproduced with 12 discrete channels. Boris Blank’s voice coming from a rear height channel, can’t be done with only a front left and front right channel. Period. 

I guess it depends upon one's definition of immersive ... for me, having things like a vocalist coming from behind me is on the gimmicky end of the spectrum; the vast majority of music is intended to be heard from a stage, in front of you - very little would have  you, a lone listener, surrounded by the musicians ... consider listening to a live rock band, rehearsing in a garage: you could have each member on the points of a compass, around you; or, arrayed along one wall, with you listening right in front of them. I would consider both those experiences, "immersive" - it's the intensity of the sound you're hearing that makes it special.

I don't want to be in the middle of an orchestra, or a big band, performing. Yes, you can do all sorts of tricks with 12 channels around you, that won't happen with 2 channels - but I can't relate that to the experience of what live music is usually like.

5 hours ago, fas42 said:

I guess it depends upon one's definition of immersive ... for me, having things like a vocalist coming from behind me is on the gimmicky end of the spectrum; the vast majority of music is intended to be heard from a stage, in front of you - very little would have  you, a lone listener, surrounded by the musicians ... consider listening to a live rock band, rehearsing in a garage: you could have each member on the points of a compass, around you; or, arrayed along one wall, with you listening right in front of them. I would consider both those experiences, "immersive" - it's the intensity of the sound you're hearing that makes it special.

 

I don't want to be in the middle of an orchestra, or a big band, performing. Yes, you can do all sorts of tricks with 12 channels around you, that won't happen with 2 channels - but I can't relate that to the experience of what live music is usually like.

Immersive gives the artist possibilities that didn’t previously exist. They can be more creative. You mentioned Yello, so I used that as my example. If you want to play the album Point how the artist intended, two channels won’t event get you close. Whether you like it or not is completely different. 
 

You also can’t reproduce a concert hall nearly as accurately with two channels. It just can’t be done. Nobody is suggesting listeners be in the middle is the music. They are in the best seat in the house. 

Many years ago I saw The Orb live at Brixton Academy. They had a PA system where you would expect at the stage area, and another full size PA at the back of the hall. There was no "front" to the gig, maybe somewhere in the center was the best place to be. It was a kind of immersive live surround sound event. (and great fun it was too)

As a childhood memory, in the 70's the BBC broadcasted The Dark Side of the Moon in quadrophonic as a one off experiment. This was done by broadcasting two channels each on two FM radio stations simultaneously. My elder brother set something up to listen to this with a 1960's radiogram and a stereo radio cassette player. He got it to work, not that he had access to the kit to do it properly. 

So I guess with live or recorded music, there are no rules when it comes to be creative. Current technology simply offers more possibilities.

Being creative is fine. Always. If one wanted to release an album where sound is intentionally coming from behind, these days it's easy: simply add extra tracks to the download, say; and have extra amps and speakers driven by the extra channels provided as part of the production. I don't see the need for having some "special system", like Atmos, which will charge lots of dough for the setup - with software, it would be trivial to do for the DIYer, say.

Concert hall reproduction works fine, with competent 2 channel sound. The subjective presentation is that the listening space you're in is sliced off at the vertical plane that the speakers lie in, and is then attached to the acoustic space that the microphones saw. In terms of "being there" there are no limitations to what you experience, apart from this. What most normal stereo systems fail at, is being able to produce realistic volumes, competently - they hit the "it's a bit loud!" limits very quickly, and someone runs for the volume control ... .

With regard to Point, I haven't heard it - but just perused a review. It seems to be a straight continuation of what Yello have always done: create amazing soundscapes that are indeed, highly "immersive", .