Jump to content
  • austinpop
    austinpop

    Calibrating My Ears at the San Francisco Symphony

    Most of us audiophiles like to attend and experience live music, not just for the sonic treat that it is, but also as a way for us to calibrate our ears and brains - i.e. to provide a reference which we strive to approach with our audio setups.

    This was the situation I found myself in San Francisco recently, on a gorgeous sunny Sunday afternoon. A business trip had brought me to the Bay area, so I seized the opportunity to go see one of my favorite orchestras, the San Francisco Symphony, led by Michael Tilson Thomas, aka MTT/SFS. Emerging from the BART, I was startled and then amused to find that my walk to the concert hall coincided with the San Francisco Pride parade. Buoyed by the bonhomie of the marchers, I found my way to Davies Hall, and my seat (in row N), which gave me this vantage point - just about the perfect spot for my tastes:

     

     

    SS.jpg

     

     

     

     

    It was right  about when I took this picture that the idea occurred to me that I should use this experience to really focus on aspects of the live experience and contrast it to what I hear in my system. After all, the program was intensely familiar to me - Sibelius Symphonies 6 & 7, and Rachmaninoff Piano Concerto No. 3. This meant I could let this familiar, extremely pleasurable music wash over me, and still be able to analyze the aspects of the experience I'll describe below. 

     

    Let me explain why this was the perfect spot for my tastes. After attending many, many performances in many concert halls sitting everywhere from the first row to the rafters, I have found that sitting close to the stage really allows you to experience the sheer power and raw physicality of a live orchestra in a gut-punching way. It's tremendously exciting, but the disadvantage is you're looking at the performers'  ankles, and you have no view of the orchestra. My preference is to be up just a few rows where you can see all the performers, although the woodwinds and the brass sections still tend to be hard to see. The location pictured above is just about right for me, as while you do give up a tiny bit of the power and punch, it's not much, and you have the benefit of a much better view and perspective . I'll come back to this when I talk abut visual cues. 

     

    With this background, I'll spend the rest of this article on various aspects of the listening experience, and contrast this with my audio setup, or audio systems in general.

     


    Soundstage and Imaging

    Once the music began, I closed my eyes to simulate the experience in my listening room, and focused on placing instruments (or clusters) in 3-dimensional space. The degree to which I could do this spatial placement was incredible, but there were surprises too. Remember, the sound from the instruments interacts with the concert hall, creating reflections, reverberations etc. What this does is diffuse and smear the localization, so the spatial placement isn't pinpoint accurate. In a way, this is really useful to hear, because it made me realize that the imperfect sound staging I hear in my system isn't as "imperfect" as I think, since even the real thing is more diffuse, and dependent on the concert hall's acoustics.

    One thing we strive for, but is hard to get right in our system, is image depth, or front to back sound staging. Here again, the degree to which I was hearing depth cues was amazing, but again - surprising, too . Sitting mid-hall as I was, I realized that while my ability to place instruments front to back was way better than any audio system, the extent of front to back was not as great as I thought, due to the foreshortening effect based on my vantage point. The soundstage wasn't "incredibly deep," it was just right for the geometry of the space, the orchestra, and my position relative to them. What this made me realize is that we sometimes go overboard in our quest for stage depth. Rather, the better quest or goal is for the depth to sound just right.

     


    Visual Cues

    Remember, until this point, I was recording my impressions with my eyes closed, because in my listening room, I do not have the benefit of being able to see the musicians playing. But at a concert, I do have this advantage, so what does it add? Wow. Try this next time you're at a concert of any kind. Experience the music with your eyes closed, and then with them open.

    The extent to which visual cues enhance the experience is not just astonishing - it is mind boggling. The diffuse, imperfect placement of instruments is swept away, and the imaging is just about perfectly precise. Well duh, Captain Obvious, you say - of course it is, since you can now see where the instruments are. Yes, this is obvious, but it does underscore the fact that sight can play an incredible part in the listening experience. Whereas without sight cues, that french horn was vaguely in that corner there, my brain was now localizing it precisely, and my ears played along, as if to say "I knew it was exactly there all along!"



    Going back to the listening room, I've experienced the power of visual cues myself. I subscribe to the Digital Concert, a streaming service of the Berlin Philharmonie, which streams all the BPO concerts live, as well as provides access to a vast archive of prior recordings. While this stream is relatively good quality, it is not lossless, and certainly not high-resolution. If I listen to a performance with no video, it's pleasant enough, but no match for my best recordings. But display the performance on my 100" big screen simultaneously, and it's a whole different experience. Why? The audio is the same in both cases. The addition of visual cues makes the difference.


     

    Certainly, this is no surprise, as the whole premise of home theater is based on the same principles. Home theater components are not generally engineered to the same extremes as high-end audio gear, but we frequently speak of the home theater experience in superlatives.

     

    I know the use of video in the listening experience is hardly an audiophile preference, but it's food for thought.

     

     

     

    Dynamics

     

    From the barely audible sound of an instrument playing pianissimo, to the knock-you-off-your-seat sound of the entire orchestra playing the loudest crescendo, the dynamic range of a live orchestra is something to experience! Of course, the acoustics of the hall, your listening position, even the size of the audience - these all matter. Yes, put enough human bodies in the way, and they act as an acoustic damper! 

     

    Still, once I heard the range from the first diminuendo to the first crescendo, there was no doubt at all that this is no audio system - it's the real thing. Why is that? First is the clarity with which I could hear even the softest passages. Then came the crescendoes! These were momentarily so loud as to literally startle me. The key word here is momentarily. Obviously, sustained sound at that level of loudness would damage the hearing. But it is really that fleeting loudness, what we audiophile call transients, that stand out in a live concert.

     

    It is extremely hard to make an audio system deliver this dynamic range. Obviously, transducers and amplifiers bear the bulk of the burden to deliver dynamics, but the digital chain can profoundly affect it too. In my own digital chain, and in my experience, the key subsystem that affects this is the power supply. This is fairly obvious in a DAC, but the power supplies' quality and robustness seems to matter further upstream as well. I have found that optimizing power supplies in the digital path pays rich dividends in dynamics. Is it close to the live experience - no, but it's getting ever-better.

     

     


    Tonality

     

    We audiophiles love to throw around adjectives like bright, dark, warm, analytical, and that's even before we get creative! I hope it's fair to say that as computer audiophiles, we are all at war with digital harshness, glaze, or etchiness, which often gets lumped under the term bright. With this in mind, I would describe the sound of a Real Concert™ as darker than most digital audio systems. What I mean by dark is the absence of any kind of brightness or glare. There is a sense of calm and ease to the sonic experience. Traditionally shrill instruments like piccolos, oboes, trumpets and trombones don't grate on your ears. Except when they're meant to. 

     

    The other aspect of a live concert is bass. Deep, glorious, gut-punching, ball-busting bass. Most non-classical listeners have a misconception of classical music as polite elevator musak. People in formal clothes sipping wine, and clapping politely. The reality could not be more different. Classical music can be beautiful, yes, but also ugly, visceral, and raw. And deep bass - the growl of the double basses, the blat of the tuba, and the thump of the tympani - is a vital element of that experience.

     

    One instrument that seems to be particularly difficult to reproduce correctly is, of course, the piano. As I listened to Daniil Trifonov's beautiful playing of the Rachmaninoff, I realized there is something about a live piano's tonality and dynamics that is immediately recognizable, even with eyes closed.

     

    In the context of my own system, I could tell I still had quite a way to go to achieve this level of tonality. While my system reproduces piano notes without obvious harshness or color, it's just not the same. Still, what heartened me is that the trajectory I was on, the optimizations I was making, were all pulling me in the right direction.

     

     


    Timbre

    One of the most satisfying aspects of a live concert experience is savoring the sound of instruments in all their nuance and complexity. Listening to instruments live is to hear an overwhelming wealth of minute details - the intakes of breath, the creak of chairs and instruments, the sound of fingers plucking strings, the sound of mallets striking tympani, the sound of a piano's hammers hitting the strings. Instruments have a spatial volume - a size in 3 dimensions. We often use the term dimension to describe this. Massed instruments playing in unison, especially strings, sound like a collection of individual instruments, not like one giant amalgam. Even when playing the same note, the thin reediness of an oboe is profoundly different than the rounder tone of a clarinet. When evaluating this characteristic in our systems, people tend to use terms like texture, dimension, and resolution.  

     

    I want to mention voices and song in this section. Although this particular concert did not involve vocalists or a choir, this is another area where experiencing the human voice in song - live - delivers the kind of goosebumps no recording or audio system can. Massed voices - as in a choir - are another example of the timbral richness of a live experience. Listen hard enough and you can make out the individual voices that comprise the whole. Or sit back and soak in the magnificent collection as a whole.

     

    It was humbling to hear how far from real my own system was. This (timbre and texture) is an area that is particularly benefited by the optimizations in the digital chain from the DAC on upstream. Improvements to clocking and power supplies, for example, seem to reveal timbral subtleties as their reward. Again, this has been an area of focus for me. When I compare where I started a couple years ago to where I am, my system has loads more timbral accuracy. Yet, compared to the real thing, there is much more to be done.

     

     

     

    Summing up

    One would have to be a deluded fool to think that one's audio system could reproduce music as well as it sounds at a live performance. I'm not a deluded fool. I use these experiences to cast a critical eye at my system, and identify which aspects are weakest, so I can prioritize what to optimize, when I am able.  One would think that this exercise would be a depressing one, but perhaps surprisingly, I don't find this to be the case.
     

    I am pleasantly surprised at how enjoyable a listening experience we now have the ability to create in our own homes. Especially in the context of digital and computer audio, the extent to which we can now approach the tonality, timbre, and soundstage of live music is incredible, and improving rapidly. Of course, this is nowhere close to the "real thing." But enjoyable, uplifting, even soul-touching? Absolutely. 

     

     




    User Feedback

    Recommended Comments



    @bbosler

    One of the reasons why audiophiles are audiophiles is because their "listening" involves sound appreciation and music appreciation. For some the emphasis is on "sound" while others place it on the "music". Some on CA place all of the emphasis on the "sound", although none of them would ever admit to it. After a while you get to know who these contributors are.  

     

    @austinpop is definitely a contributor whose emphasis is always on the music.

     

    FWIW, I agree with everything you have written. For me, sound and music appreciation are mutually exclusive, which is why my signature references the "tyranny of conscious thought".

     

    BTW, I gave up my subscription of Digital Concert Hall for exactly the reasons you highlighted.

     

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    I know that some theaters/performance halls are using acoustic paneling and DSP to ensure that everyone in the theater hears the same thing at the same time: in other words, mics to DSP to multiple speakers all around the hall, and DSP and paneling being used to make sure each audience member hears the same thing at the same time.

    I also know that some of the new symphony halls have various "movable" acoustic panels/ceilings in order to alter the sound of the hall depending on the piece and size of the ensemble being used. 

    I wonder if any orchestra has contemplated doing something similar with DSP and classical?

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    10 hours ago, STC said:

     

    The technology is here but the implementation is tedious. The sound in concert hall consists of two parts. Direct and reflected sound. Most classical recordings are a mixture of close miking and from the critical radius where the reverberation and direct sound ratio are equal (more or less). 

     

    In real life, the sweet spot is much further away than the critical distance where the microphones were placed to do the recording. We are essentially listening to 90 percent of the hall's sound and only about 10% of the direct sound from the performers.

     

    The rest of the 40 percent of the actual concert hall sound is not in the recordings. It is a myth to believe you can reproduce the concert hall sound with only 40% of the actual sound in the recording. It cannot be done. Furthermore, the reflected sound comes in surround mode from thousands, if not millions of different angle all around the listeners head giving the sense of envelopment. This reflected sound if reproduced in the recording it will sound fuzzy because the speakers will be sending this reflected sound from only two angle as opposed to the millions in a concert hall.

     

    A good room with diffusers, can help to reproduce the balance of 40% of the reflected sound but due to the limited volume of our normal listening room it can only give a marginal sense of envelopment. Also notice that in recordings, you only have TWO location of the source. Unlike a live concert performance, the reflected direction of the reverberation in listening room is rather monotonous as the direction cannot vary beyond the two speakers radiation point.

     

     

    I agree with much of what you say.  But, there is a solution that works extraordinarily well in dealing with the issues you cited - discretely recorded multichannel sound.

     

    I have been attending  Philadelphia Orchestra and other live concerts for decades.  Obviously, nothing beats live performance sonically. But, I was always struck by the fact that no stereos - my own very fine and costly ones or even more outrageously over the top ones - were really faithful to the sound one experiences at live concerts.  Yes,  I could deeply enjoy the music at home in stereo, but it still was too far from sounding real to me.

     

    Fortunately, my encounters with Mch audio over a decade ago changed that, dramatically for the better,  and I upgraded to a high quality 7.1 system.  Also, fortunately, I discovered that there was a substantial and rewarding classical discography in discretely recorded Mch on SACD, plus less so on BD-V and BD-A.  Yes, the selection is much smaller than on CD, but I have collected many thousands of Mch albums, all ripped to my NAS.  I do not miss CDs at all, and I have not bought any stereo recordings in over 10 years.

     

    I am not implying utter perfection in discrete Mch.  But, I am much, much more satisfied in home listening, with none of the feelings that something is missing from the sound. It changed my life more than any other audio experience.  I also have found that attempting to tweak your hopelessly too small listening  room for concert hall sound or using stereo to Mch upmixing both fall far and disappointingly short of discretely recorded Mch sound.  

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    it is about the music - but he made the comparison (AFAIK) to see if he is getting the best SQ in his home - which is where MOST people listen to music

     

    note also his careful seat selection (row N, and apparently just a tad right of center)

     

    he was able to hear an orchestra in a much larger city than the one he resides in (and so likely better) so why not?

     

    I enjoyed hearing George Szell and the CSO back in the day (tho I had no frame of reference to realize how good it was) and I sincerely doubt that he (and they) will be revivified and dropped into the middle of my small (170k) city so i can ear them.  Why would I not listen to them on a recording and try to make my sound system as good as I can?

     

    Some kid tried to bring sexy back but nobody is gonna bring Coltrane back, so count yourself lucky to live in the era of recorded music

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    oh BTW, some people enjoy a gestalt experience, others enjoy analyzing things - take a course in art appreciation and you will see a tendency to analyze, put in historical perspective, etc.

     

     

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    8 hours ago, miguelito said:

    I was just joking... Sorry if it was too terse. I pictured you standing up and telling them all "Can you play that again while I cover my eyes?"

     

    Ah ? I get it now!

     

    I doubt MTT would have been amused at the interruption. LOL.

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    18 hours ago, hols said:

    Hi austinpop nice write up. You lucky man. Daniil Trifonov is really a genius and definitely the most exciting pianist around nowadays. You've got to listen to his recitals if you get a chance. It is even more startling than his concerto performance.

     

    He was amazing indeed!

     

    18 hours ago, hols said:

    Like you I am a classical music enthusiast and I go to orchestral concerts regularly. I agree with you entirely that in the actual performance the orchestra layout is not as sharp as in our recreated audio. But one point I would like to make when we compare real performance and our recreated audio sound is that there is an intermediary i.e. the recording engineer and the mastering engineer. I used to believe that what we can hear from our CDs is not 100% what the conductor wants you to hear but more what the recording engineer wants you to hear. (Musically yes mostly from the conductor but the HiFi aspect it is mostly from the recording and mastering engineer). There are many tricks or tweaks that the recording engineer or mastering engineer can put in before the release of the CD so much so that they can increase the depth or width of the orchestra layout, improve the timbre of certain solo instruments, enhance the reverberation or adding airiness to improve the dynamics. So the final outcome of the CD may or may not reflect the actual performance no matter how hard you try. Just my 2 cents.

     

    Great point about the recording and mastering process. In my mind, it's another factor that makes it harder to get close to the real thing. 

     

    13 hours ago, firedog said:

    I wouldn't be surprised if in the not distant future we will be able to use DSP and psychoacoustics to make a "virtual reality"  playback that is good enough to fool us into thinking we are hearing the real thing. Enough cues, and our brains will fill in the rest. 

     

    Yes I wouldn't be surprised if DSP rises in importance and impact. We're already seeing things like the Smyth Realizer, or the JVC Exasound technology. I suspect there is a lot more to come.

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Austinpop, thank you for the considered response.

     

    I find it odd that the original poster apparently has no problem with my opinion but the moderator does AND he chose to denigrate me will commenting. As Austinpop  stated "It was a fair question, and I hope I clarified my rationale for you"

     

    Computer Audiophile, I believe  I was very clear that I was open to how people listened and made them  happy was fine with me.  I stated it clearly and alluded to it more than once. I'm not going to go back and dig through but I clearly stated that how one chooses to listen is their own choice and I wished them much happiness in doing so. The fact you choose to scold me for expressing my opinion about what makes me happy compared to others when I  clearly stated I had no problem with the difference, shows how narrow-minded you are, not me. I don't often get riled up on internet forums but what I stated was an opinion about what I chose to do versus others. It was an observation, not a condemnation like your post about me. Yours was a snarky attack about me doing so.  I suppose you will delete this and ban me from the site for firing back. If so I am happy to go if the moderator is offended by  well reasoned opinions. BTW I deleted my original "kiss my ass" line so as not to offend anybody.

     

    Thank you, I feel better

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    2 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

     

    Absolutely not. But even if it did, who cares?

     

     

     

    Hi @bbosler - Why are you sad that someone goes to an orchestra and has fun in his own way? Is he barred from all other performances and enjoying them in the way in which won't make you sad? This is all very strange to me. What does it matter how someone else enjoys his free time?

     

    It doesn't make me sad in the least if someone goes to a Pearl Jam concert for the expensive beer and hot dogs. In fact, I'm probably happy for that person if he is happy.

     

     

     

    Perhaps you're bothered easily by people who don't act like you or in your approved way? Just using your own terms (bothered). 

     

     

    I can't understand why anyone would be bothered by other people's actions as long as the actions don't effect anyone else.

     

    Like music? Fine.

    Like gear? Fine.

    Like music and gear? Fine.

    Like to get a baseline sound for comparison of your home playback system, in an effort to increase your enjoyment of this wonderful hobby? Fine. 

     

     

     

    16 minutes ago, bbosler said:

    Computer Audiophile, I believe  I was very clear that I was open to how people listened and made them  happy was fine with me.  I stated it clearly and alluded to it more than once. I'm not going to go back and dig through but I clearly stated that how one chooses to listen is their own choice and I wished them much happiness in doing so. The fact you choose to scold me for expressing my opinion about what makes me happy compared to others when I  clearly stated I had no problem with the difference, shows how narrow-minded you are, not me. I don't often get riled up on internet forums but what I stated was an opinion about what I chose to do versus others. It was an observation, not a condemnation like your post about me. Yours was a snarky attack about me doing so.  I suppose you will delete this and ban me from the site for firing back. If so I am happy to go if the moderator is offended by  well reasoned opinions. BTW I deleted my original "kiss my ass" line so as not to offend anybody.

     

    Thank you, I feel better

     

     

    Hi @bbosler - I'll quote my words above just so we don't have to scroll for reference. 

     

    Is it possible you read more into my post that I really wrote?

     

    I only used your words to ask you questions and state my opinion about how people enjoy things. 

     

    I see zero scolding in my words. I would never scold someone for an opinion. I encourage all opinions. Just like yours, I offered mine. 

     

    I didn't see your post as a condemnation, only an opinion. This is why I asked you questions. To help me understand why you would be bothered (your word not mine).

     

    People don't get banned around here for opinions or offending others as long as they don't launch personal attacks.

     

    Last question, is it really deleting a comment if you say you deleted it and write it in full?

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    2 hours ago, firedog said:

    I know that some theaters/performance halls are using acoustic paneling and DSP to ensure that everyone in the theater hears the same thing at the same time: in other words, mics to DSP to multiple speakers all around the hall, and DSP and paneling being used to make sure each audience member hears the same thing at the same time.

    I also know that some of the new symphony halls have various "movable" acoustic panels/ceilings in order to alter the sound of the hall depending on the piece and size of the ensemble being used. 

    I wonder if any orchestra has contemplated doing something similar with DSP and classical?

    No established first or second tier ensemble would consider that, I think, for classical music, opera, etc.  The audience would be aghast.  I know I would cancel my subscription.  Similarly, if the Met Opera in NYC started using head mikes like they do in Broadway shows, there would be pandemonium.

     

    The design of Verizon Hall, the Philadelphia Orchestra's home performance space, was designed about 2 decades ago with certain adjustable acoustic features - like large, rotatable wall panels behind side seating areas, a lowerable section of ceiling, etc.  There is however absolutely no sound reinforcement by speakers during orchestra performances.  And, although there was much concern, effort, measurement and attention, all quite expensive during design, the hall was initially disappointing in spite of the adjustable features.  Several cycles of expensive remeasurement and reconfiguration gradually but steadily  improved that noticeably, though some of the tweaks were surprisingly small..  That is not unusual for concert halls.  

     

    Today, I think it is a good hall, though not a Concertgebouw, Symphony Hall Boston, Musikvereinsaal, etc.  I believe that the expensive original adjustable acoustics are now totally unused.

     

    Having said that, I would not part to the death with DSP EQ for my room/speaker setup.  It is huge.  Acoustic treatments are much more of a crap shoot.  And, if you do not fully understand acoustics, it is pretty much trial and error both for large halls using prestige consultants and for home listening rooms.

     

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    18 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

    Is it possible you read more into my post that I really wrote?

     

     

    That is always possible especially in a forum like this, which I believe I acknowledged in an earlier post. However, when someone quotes you and follows with "who cares" don't you think that if not scolding it is at a minimum being dismissive, which is defined as "feeling or showing that something is unworthy of consideration." Whether scolded or dismissed, it is IMHO a counterproductive  way to engage in meaningful dialogue.

     

    The line about deleting the line then including the line was in my mind very humorous. An attempt at what I thought was irony.  YMMV

     

    I apologize to all for taking the thread in another direction. Let's get back to discussing the original post. BTW very well written whether or not I agree with it. 

     

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    1 minute ago, bbosler said:

     

    That is always possible especially in a forum like this, which I believe I acknowledged in an earlier post. However, when someone quotes you and follows with "so what" don't you think that if not scolding it is at a minimum being dismissive, which is defined as "feeling or showing that something is unworthy of consideration." Whether scolded or dismissed, it is IMHO a counterproductive  way to engage in meaningful dialogue.

     

    The line about deleting the line then including the line was in my mind very humorous. An attempt at what I thought was irony.  YMMV

     

    I apologize to all for taking the thread in another direction. Let's get back to discussing the original post. BTW very well written whether or not I agree with it. 

     

    My specific term was "who cares" and I guess there is no way to use that term online and have it be received like I meant it. My fault.

     

    My body language just didn't make it through my screen protector :~)

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    2 hours ago, austinpop said:

     

    I would love to hear other views on amplified live music.

     

    performances of Edgard Varèse

     

    (and his protege, FV Zappa)

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    6 hours ago, Fitzcaraldo215 said:

    I agree with much of what you say.  But, there is a solution that works extraordinarily well in dealing with the issues you cited - discretely recorded multichannel sound.

     

    +1 to that. Two speakers system cannot adequately portray a concert hall sound. I have always preferred multichannel format over stereo  for full orchestra. Most Mch SACD's rear channel carries the rear hall ambiance. This is closer to concert hall performance as the additional channels/speakers are reproducing what couldn't be included in the main stereo channel. There are also other 5.1 where the rear or surround channels are not true stereo sound but mere discrete mono channels for creating a sense of surround sound by projecting sound from side and rear. This is more useful for movies.

     

    Having said that, even the 5.1 or 7.1 is still far from realism. In my system of 72 channels of hall ambiance alone vs  5.1  (I do not have 7.1 music tracks), the difference can be heard easily. I still think that is still far from realism.

     

    Nice to know another fan of multichannel format.

     

    Cheers!

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Rajiv, I thoroughly enjoyed the article. I did have one question, though. Please correct me if my recollection is faulty but isn't it so that you do your listening at home through a headphone based system? If so, then I suspect that something like the upcoming Smyth Realiser A16 paired with some multichannel classical recordings would really take your at home listening to another level.

     

    BTW, if you have a taste for acoustic or slightly amplified jazz performed in a small venue then I would definitely recommend such a concertgoing experience to also help in "recalibrating your ears." In addition, there is nothing to match the dynamic sound of live drums(and piano, as you point out).

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    I always thought concert videos always sound better with the tv on too. Something about watching it while you hear it brings it to the next level.

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    18 hours ago, miguelito said:

    I was just joking... Sorry if it was too terse. I pictured you standing up and telling them all "Can you play that again while I cover my eyes?"

     

    Yep, this was still funny a day later.

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    9 hours ago, loop7 said:

    Great piece.

     

    I've been attending SF Symphony concerts in Davies Symphony Hall since 1997 (4-5 concerts per year). For years, I sat in the First Tier because it offers great views with mid-line prices but I would also sit in the different areas of the Orchestra section when budget or circumstances permitted.

     

    So, those were my two areas until I had a lengthy post-concert conversation with a volunteer docent (retired broker) in 2004 who had been attending concerts in Davies since it opened, during and after the renovations. He strongly urged me to give the Second Tier a try because, in his opinion, it was up in that area where the hall really worked in terms creating magic. I questioned his advice because the view is mediocre.

     

    The next concert to which I had tickets was Mahler's 6th symphony (Tilson Thomas) in the First Tier but I swapped them for prime seats in the Second Tier. Well, the sound was so balanced, full and emotional that the experience is permanently imprinted into memory. Thinking it was the performance/piece and not the Second Tier, I then attended a few more concerts way up in those "cheap seats" and have never looked back. It's remarkable how much better the sound is up there than in the more expensive areas of Davies.

     

    Oh, the wise old docent had spent a lot of time traveling across the country for concerts and thought the Cleveland and Dallas halls are still number one in the US according to his ears.

     

    Wow thanks, that is great insight and advice!

     

    I’ll have to give it a try and see, next time I attend the SFS. In general - not specific to Davies - I have found the sound in the cheap seats in the upper tiers to lack dynamics, although perhaps it is accompanied by a more balanced presentation?

     

    I’ll have to see. I find live dynamics to be one of the more compelling aspects of attending the symphony.

     

    I’ll also have to check out Dallas and Cleveland!

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    8 hours ago, austinpop said:

     

    Wow thanks, that is great insight and advice!

     

    I’ll have to give it a try and see, next time I attend the SFS. In general - not specific to Davies - I have found the sound in the cheap seats in the upper tiers to lack dynamics, although perhaps it is accompanied by a more balanced presentation?

     

    I’ll have to see. I find live dynamics to be one of the more compelling aspects of attending the symphony.

     

    I’ll also have to check out Dallas and Cleveland!

    Many halls may have their own particular sweet spots, also depending on arbitrary listener preference, mythology, etc.

     

    After sitting in many different seats at various levels in Verizon Hall, Philadelphia, I am happiest with Orchestra Floor level, center section, about 2/3 toward the rear.  Dead centered or not in that section doesn't make a big difference to me, nor does a few rows forward or back.  

     

    The sight lines are not as good as in the balconies. We used to have first tier, center balcony boxes with perfect sight lines and no overhang, but the sound is preferable to me on the Orchestra Floor level.

     

    But, the live music experience is precious, and that comes through no matter the seat, slight quibbles about the sound or sight lines aside..

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    11 hours ago, Deyorew said:

    I always thought concert videos always sound better with the tv on too. Something about watching it while you hear it brings it to the next level.

    I have hundreds of concert videos, operas, ballets, etc.. I agree, there is no more engrossing musical experience in the home than audio plus video. I really enjoy seeing the passion and intensity of the performers in making great music.  For opera, I even prefer it to being there, after having been a Met subscriber for decades, much as I also prefer football on TV.  The sound from BD can be quite good, as well.

     

    The only problem is I tire after several watchings of seeing exactly the same faces, gestures, expressions each time.  No problem, though.  I just turn off the video if need be.

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    23 hours ago, Fitzcaraldo215 said:

    I agree with much of what you say.  But, there is a solution that works extraordinarily well in dealing with the issues you cited - discretely recorded multichannel sound.

     

    I have been attending  Philadelphia Orchestra and other live concerts for decades.  Obviously, nothing beats live performance sonically. But, I was always struck by the fact that no stereos - my own very fine and costly ones or even more outrageously over the top ones - were really faithful to the sound one experiences at live concerts.  Yes,  I could deeply enjoy the music at home in stereo, but it still was too far from sounding real to me.

     

    Fortunately, my encounters with Mch audio over a decade ago changed that, dramatically for the better,  and I upgraded to a high quality 7.1 system.  Also, fortunately, I discovered that there was a substantial and rewarding classical discography in discretely recorded Mch on SACD, plus less so on BD-V and BD-A.  Yes, the selection is much smaller than on CD, but I have collected many thousands of Mch albums, all ripped to my NAS.  I do not miss CDs at all, and I have not bought any stereo recordings in over 10 years.

     

    I am not implying utter perfection in discrete Mch.  But, I am much, much more satisfied in home listening, with none of the feelings that something is missing from the sound. It changed my life more than any other audio experience.  I also have found that attempting to tweak your hopelessly too small listening  room for concert hall sound or using stereo to Mch upmixing both fall far and disappointingly short of discretely recorded Mch sound.  

     

    16 hours ago, STC said:

     

    +1 to that. Two speakers system cannot adequately portray a concert hall sound. I have always preferred multichannel format over stereo  for full orchestra. Most Mch SACD's rear channel carries the rear hall ambiance. This is closer to concert hall performance as the additional channels/speakers are reproducing what couldn't be included in the main stereo channel. There are also other 5.1 where the rear or surround channels are not true stereo sound but mere discrete mono channels for creating a sense of surround sound by projecting sound from side and rear. This is more useful for movies.

     

    Having said that, even the 5.1 or 7.1 is still far from realism. In my system of 72 channels of hall ambiance alone vs  5.1  (I do not have 7.1 music tracks), the difference can be heard easily. I still think that is still far from realism.

     

    Nice to know another fan of multichannel format.

     

    Cheers!

     

    Great point about Mch SACD.

     

    I too have hundreds of ripped Mch SACDs in my library. I do listen to them in my home theater, using my Oppo 105D to stream from my NAS. A few points on this:

    • this is a format particularly sensitive to the recording and mastering engineers' skill and aesthetic. The ones that get this right are amazing, but others are ... weird.
    • the speaker placement for which Mch SACDs are typically mastered, is NOT the same as for 5.1 HT, but I've never been motivated enough to reconfigure my setup for the recommended Mch music.
    • Also, my 5.1 setup uses smaller speakers for center and surround, whereas Mch music benefits from identical speakers all around.

    All that said, it is an intriguing alternate path to the concert experience. I admit that I veer towards being a stereo purist myself.

     

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites




    Create an account or sign in to comment

    You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

    Create an account

    Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

    Register a new account

    Sign in

    Already have an account? Sign in here.

    Sign In Now




×
×
  • Create New...