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



    14 hours ago, esimms86 said:

    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.

     

    Yes, I mentioned the Smyth Realizer A16 up-thread. I really want to audition it. There are also several of these "out of your head" SW technologies out there now. I just wish these software solutions were packaged up as Roon plugins, not standalone apps that run on Windows only, as some are.

     

    14 hours ago, esimms86 said:

    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).

     

    Oh yeah, the live jazz experience is amazing too.

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    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!

    Yup, Mch delivers much more of the live experience, but I find that to be true for solo, chamber, and opera as well as orchestral.

     

    I have a few 7.1 BDs, but I don't find much advantage over 5.1.  And, the number of 7.1 discrete recordings, even on videos, has been disappointing.  Personally, by hindsight, I think investing in 7.1 vs. just 5.1 was a waste for me.  And, I listen to 5.1 source material as 5.1, not upsampled to 7.1.  I also listen to stereo sources as 2.1, though not frequently.

     

    My speaker setup using the ITU standard does a great job with both music and video.  I have no issues with it whatsoever.  It is also totally congruent with DTS and Dolby recommended speaker layouts.

     

    As an audiophile/music lover in the wilderness for decades, discretely recorded hirez Mch is clearly the best reproduction there is in terms of capturing the sense of the live concert experience by reproducing a better replica of the sound field in the hall. Many of the small classical labels dedicated to it also have exemplary engineering practices that make it possible.  Though I have heard and I have owned many superbly fine stereos at huge expense in that time span, for the first time I don't find myself wondering why it doesn't sound more like the live music I cherish.

     

     

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Funny corollary - I am in London at the CanJam that starts tomorrow. Today I was walking on Westminster Bridge, and walked past a guy playing Amazing Grace on bagpipes. 

     

    The timbre and energy of the instrument as I walked by was just incredible. There are all kinds of subtle sounds and details to the main sound of the instrument that come across.

     

    No, I didn't stop to do A/B with eyes closed/open. The guy wasn't that good. ?

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    1 hour ago, austinpop said:

     

     

    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.

     

    I have thousands of Mch files on my NAS.  I haven't found too many weird ones, although I do not like the occasional one done from a within ensemble rather than an audience perspective.  I don't want to listen to a string quartet with the instruments surrounding me.  But, I have learned which labels are the good ones, and I have relied on reviews, both musically and sonically, at:
     
     
    I also don't find that the ITU 5.1 spec, used for SACD and most BD Mch music, is at odds at all with either DTS or Dolby speaker layout recommendations for BluRay in 5.1.  I researched that carefully.  There is perfect congruence of the recommended speaker angles within their respective recommended ranges.  7.1 is more troublesome and less well standardized, but there is not much music there.  
     
    Yes, there was the old DVD-era movie setup for THX using bi-/di-pole surround speakers.  But, that is now old hat, superceded by DTS HD MA and Dolby True HD recommendations.  And, I am perfectly satisfied in my own setup based on ITU for both music and video.  So, if it is right for music, can you really tell in a movie soundtrack that it is incorrect in the surround channels?  I sure can't.  I have no reference for exactly from whence that movie surround effect was supposed to emanate. 
     
    Speaker matching is important.  However, one of the advantages of full range DSP room EQ is that it voices all speaker channels near identically.  That might not cure all problems with mismatched speakers in Mch, but it might also help a lot.  Identical speakers all around, or at least across the front may be ideal,  but the results can be surprisingly good with care with nonidentical ones, preferably from the same manufacturer.
     
    I have three different pairs of electrostat hybrid speakers plus a horizontal center all from one manufacturer, Martin Logan, all with similar drivers, but in different sizes.  But, my system does not suffer at all in comparison to other Mch setups I have heard, including all identical or identical across the front ones.  The owners of those systems agree after having heard mine.
     
     
     

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    I am intrigued by the discussion of surround  SACD  or DVD-A as I recently acquired a player that can  decode them.  I will explore the link to the HiRez site. In the meantime, if you had to recommend 1 or 2 discs to start with what would they be? Any genre.. thanks

     

     

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    22 minutes ago, bbosler said:

    I am intrigued by the discussion of surround  SACD  or DVD-A as I recently acquired a player that can  decode them.  I will explore the link to the HiRez site. In the meantime, if you had to recommend 1 or 2 discs to start with what would they be? Any genre.. thanks

     

     

    Gosh, musical tastes vary so much.  So, I would rather recommend some fine SACD  labels to you for you to choose the selections:

     

    BIS

    Channel Classics

    Chandos

    Harmonia Mundi

    RCO Live (Concertgebouw)

    Reference Recordings

    SFS (San Francisco)

    Telarc (now defunct)

    many others, including a few from some major studios like DGG, RCA, etc.

     

    Best to search at hraudio.net for Mch releases, usually with full reviews.

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    I have about 600 mch albums.  I would second Fitzcaraldo's list but would add Pentatone.  Mine are almost all classical.  Channel Classics is excellent and very reliable in quality.  They do almost all their recording in DSD64 and have both SACDs and downloads (from NativeDSD which they own, but distributes many DSD mch and stereo label downloads).  I did a deal with them a couple of years ago and bought the entire Channel Classics mch catalogue from them, buying both the mch and stereo versions of the albums in a package.  There were about 200 albums at that time. 

     

    Most of my other mch albums I bought the SACD and ripped the mch file using a Sony PS3, discussed in other threads.  You can also use an Oppo 105 or 103 (IIRC) to rip the SACD.  I have a DAC while I use mostly for the mch files.

     

    The Budapest Festival Orchestra albums with Ivan Fischer are a pretty uniformly good choice on Channel Classics.  The Julia Fischer albums on Pentatone are also uniformly excellent (she has moved to Decca and now her releases are CD only).  Rachel Podger's violin SACD's are also very fine.  If you like opera, Rene Jacob's Marriage of Figaro on HarMun is wonderful as a SACD. 

     

    Larry

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    25 minutes ago, astrotoy said:

    Thanks to austinpop for your analysis.  We go to the SFS pretty often, it is our home orchestra.  We also know many of the members, who perform in my wife's concert series, and who have performed in our home.  So going to a concert where you know the performers makes it more fun.

     

    We go to quite a few concerts a year, about 70 - almost all classical.  I don't normally try to compare to my home hifi system, but several of your statements ring true. We do a fair amount of orchestral concerts, a lot of chamber and solo music and some opera and ballet. About a third or more of the concerts we attend are in London and surroundings on our annual sojourn there, so we get to hear concerts in different halls, generally with some of the best artists.  We are usually in London when MTT is doing his guest conducting stint with the LSO, so get to hear him (and soloists like Yuja Wang and Yo-Yo Ma) with this great band. We heard three operas in London and surroundings last month, Rosenkavalier and Handel's Julius Caesar at Glyndebourne and Lohengrin at the Royal Opera House (Andris Nelsons conducting). 

     

    Sitting typically around where austinpop sits, maybe three or so rows closer, the dynamics of a full orchestra playing Mahler from the quietest pianissimo to the loudest triple forte can be stunning.  I think the pinpoint imaging that so many audiophiles enjoy (me included) is not my experience in the concert hall, even when sitting fairly close.

     

    We go to concerts because we enjoy the experience. We are often introduced to new music or interpretations that are fresh and different. Sometimes they are revelatory, sometimes we walk away thinking what was that. 

     

    Records and tapes, particularly from the predigital era, gives us exposure to artists who are no longer with us.  I was fortunate to start going seriously to concerts while in college in the early and mid '60's, so heard many of the top performers, who regularly stopped in Boston to perform. Of course I could go to the BSO with Leinsdorf conducting, in addition to hearing Rubinstein, Serkin, Cliburn, Joan Sutherland, Budapest String Quartet and many others.  However, their performances are memories, only brought to life by my records and tapes and some digital files ripped from analogue originals.

     

    Interestingly, although we currently listen to many of the top current classical performers in concert, I don't buy as many of their releases. We really like Mitsuko Uchida, Paul Lewis, Yuja Wang, Nicola Benedetti, James Ehnes, MTT and the SFS, the London SO, the Vienna Phil, the Philharmonia O, the Chicago SO, Philharmonia Baroque (our other local band), to name just some of the artists we have heard in the few years,  but I almost never seek out their recent recordings to buy on CD or SACD or download.

     

    Larry

     

     

    Larry, thanks for adding your experiences here. Wow, 70 concerts a year? Nice!

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    7 hours ago, astrotoy said:

    I have about 600 mch albums.  I would second Fitzcaraldo's list but would add Pentatone.  Mine are almost all classical.  Channel Classics is excellent and very reliable in quality.  They do almost all their recording in DSD64 and have both SACDs and downloads (from NativeDSD which they own, but distributes many DSD mch and stereo label downloads).  I did a deal with them a couple of years ago and bought the entire Channel Classics mch catalogue from them, buying both the mch and stereo versions of the albums in a package.  There were about 200 albums at that time. 

     

    Most of my other mch albums I bought the SACD and ripped the mch file using a Sony PS3, discussed in other threads.  You can also use an Oppo 105 or 103 (IIRC) to rip the SACD.  I have a DAC while I use mostly for the mch files.

     

    The Budapest Festival Orchestra albums with Ivan Fischer are a pretty uniformly good choice on Channel Classics.  The Julia Fischer albums on Pentatone are also uniformly excellent (she has moved to Decca and now her releases are CD only).  Rachel Podger's violin SACD's are also very fine.  If you like opera, Rene Jacob's Marriage of Figaro on HarMun is wonderful as a SACD. 

     

    Larry

    Completely agree, Larry.  I should have included PentaTone.  They are an excellent label, one of the very best for Mch.

     

    I like your other choices, as well, especially that Jacobs Marriage of Figaro on Harmonia Mundi.

     

    One label I do not care for, unfortunately, is LSO Live, due to fairly consistently mediocre sonics.  A superb orchestra, and partly I am sure it is due to the Barbican's acoustics.  But, I don't think their engineering is top notch either.  

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    2 hours ago, Fitzcaraldo215 said:

    Completely agree, Larry.  I should have included PentaTone.  They are an excellent label, one of the very best for Mch.

     

    I like your other choices, as well, especially that Jacobs Marriage of Figaro on Harmonia Mundi.

     

    One label I do not care for, unfortunately, is LSO Live, due to fairly consistently mediocre sonics.  A superb orchestra, and partly I am sure it is due to the Barbican's acoustics.  But, I don't think their engineering is top notch either.  

    One of my friends, John Dunkerley, long time Decca recording engineer, whom I interviewed extensively for my Decca book, told me that in general he didn't like the sonics of the Live series of the LSO and some other orchestras.  He said the engineers had much less control over the placement of mics and musicians. Because of the limited number of performances (in the LSO's case, usually one) there are few opportunities for multiple takes to cover mistakes made in the performances or loud audience noises that can't be filtered out.  For example, they much preferred recording venues which were almost always not the normal performance venues for the orchestras.  For example, in London, the famed Kingsway Hall (where both Decca and EMI had permanent studios) and Walthamstow Hall were the preferred venues over Royal Festival Hall and Barbican.  Sofiensaal in Vienna over the famed Musikverein, Masonic Hall in Chicago over Orchestra Hall.  Even in the famed Boston Symphony Hall (where my friend Mike Mailes recorded the Boston Pops) and the Concertgebouw in Amsterdam, Decca set up the recordings putting the orchestra on the floor facing the stage.

     

    The Live series were a matter of economics, since in the old days, all the musicians were paid extra for all recording sessions and the related rehearsals.  There were also strict rules about how much of a recording session could be used in the final recording. One well know statistic was that during the heyday of Karajan's Berlin Phil recordings, the BPO members more than doubled their not inconsiderable salary through the extra payments they earned for their recordings.

     

    Today the musicians contracts normally specify that there will be recordings made at some of their concerts and that there will not be any extra payment made.  However, very careful records are kept for every musician who is present at a recorded concert and they each get a royalty based on the number of copies of the recording that are sold (or streamed).  So if the recording is a big hit, they get more, and if it is a bust, they get less. But the recording company, which is now a part of the symphony, in the Live series, doesn't take very much risk in making a recording - other than the setup and engineering costs.

     

    You may notice that  major orchestras are no longer under contract to the formerly big recording companies, and recording companies have merged and consolidated.  Operas. too, are rarely recorded in studios, but taken from live performances and shot in video. The glamorous or handsome singer is more often featured than the super singer.  Studio recordings (without video) also offered great singers opportunities to record roles that they would or could not sing on stage.  But that is for another thread.

     

    Larry 

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Larry, What a wealth of insight! I very much enjoyed your comments and indeed am envious of your concert-goin history. 

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    thanks to everyone for the surround suggestions. I downloaded a sampler from Channel Classics.

    25 takes from 25 years . I would say after a preliminary listen it is a mixed bag. The performances and sonics are consistently very good, the surround not so much. It seems to me your attention  shouldn't be drawn to the side channels, but with some of these recordings you are sitting in the middle of the orchestra they are so loud, and on one I felt like was inside the piano. On one vocal track the voice was coming from everywhere. Perhaps the sound of a very, very reverberant hall but seems unnatural to me. I double checked and with test signals all 5 channels are very close to the same volume so I have to  contribute it to the mix. I'll keep experimenting

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    40 minutes ago, bbosler said:

    thanks to everyone for the surround suggestions. I downloaded a sampler from Channel Classics.

    25 takes from 25 years . I would say after a preliminary listen it is a mixed bag. The performances and sonics are consistently very good, the surround not so much. It seems to me your attention  shouldn't be drawn to the side channels, but with some of these recordings you are sitting in the middle of the orchestra they are so loud, and on one I felt like was inside the piano. On one vocal track the voice was coming from everywhere. Perhaps the sound of a very, very reverberant hall but seems unnatural to me. I double checked and with test signals all 5 channels are very close to the same volume so I have to  contribute it to the mix. I'll keep experimenting

    It is clear that your system is not set up and calibrated correctly.  With Channel Classics and other fine labels,  the surround channels disappear as separate sound sources.  You notice what they do only by reverting to stereo, where the sound field collapses and recedes to the front of the room. Also, performers should stay anchored in the front, as in live performance.  They should not become vague and diffuse or appear to emanate from surround channels.  If a Channel Classics selection in Mch does not sound much more like what you hear in live performance, it is your system setup that is at fault, quite simply.

     

    I can only suggest that for starters you read the following essay I posted in another forum:

     

    https://audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/multichannel-system-for-music-standards-setup-thoughts-etc.3295/

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    GOT IT!   thanks for the response. I have an OPPO 203 that can decode the surround tracks. I was feeding it via HDMI to my AVR receiver. The receiver can't (or I haven't figured out how to) decode the multichannel from the OPPO over HDMI so it applied surround processing that wasn't proper. However, when I feed the 7.1 analog output of the OPPO to the 7.1 analog in of the AVR (actually using 5.1) all is well. The surrounds are now ambience and it sounds quite nice. Down side.... how much will I now spend on these files???

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    On 7/19/2018 at 3:16 PM, loop7 said:

    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.

     

    I began going to the SF Symphony starting from their final year at the Opera House (before Davies Hall was completed, in the era of Edo de Waart). I've attended many concerts in Davies Hall and have sat in every section. The 2nd Tier has the best sound and was good even before the 1992 acoustic renovation. The worst I experienced was sitting on the side of the 1st Tier for the Beethoven 9th. When the music got loud, there was a weird buzzing resonance from the other side of the hall. Last year, I was in the Orchestra section for a concert that included a piano concerto. The orchestra sounded fine but the piano didn't project well to where I was sitting (near center around row K). IMO, Davies Hall is too large and cavernous for ideal acoustics.

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    On 7/19/2018 at 10:28 AM, firedog said:

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

     

    On 7/19/2018 at 1:42 PM, Fitzcaraldo215 said:

    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.

     

    It's been happening for many years, including some premier classical venues. Here's an article from 1999:

    https://www.nytimes.com/1999/08/18/theater/enhancing-sound-in-a-hush-hush-way.html

     

     

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    1 hour ago, RichardSF said:

     

     

    It's been happening for many years, including some premier classical venues. Here's an article from 1999:

    https://www.nytimes.com/1999/08/18/theater/enhancing-sound-in-a-hush-hush-way.html

     

     

    Thanks for that. The 20 year old article is doubly interesting as classical afficianados have often told me it hasn't and won't happen to classical performances, and apparently many have been listening to it all along.

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Concert halls are just a place where the acoustics is modified by the surface, shape and design of the hall to enhance to listening experience. There are now new adjustable panel design to modify the frequency response of a hall to adapt for different type of music genre, especially for rock music. 

     

    DSP can play a bigger role to enhance the overall acoustics of a hall to overcome inherent limitations of the hall due the fixed nature of the reverbs. 

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    10 hours ago, RichardSF said:

     

     

    It's been happening for many years, including some premier classical venues. Here's an article from 1999:

    https://www.nytimes.com/1999/08/18/theater/enhancing-sound-in-a-hush-hush-way.html

     

     

    Well, I don't see any  "top tier" halls listed, but the article is nearly two decades old and some halls may wish to remain anonymous.  
     
    The article discusses the aspect of using DSP reinforcement to enhance reflected energy, reverb, etc. in overly dry halls, rather than using it to alter any direct sound from the performers on stage.  This might well be a good application of DSP augmentation in cases where it is needed.  Halls like that might otherwise be impossible to fix via purely passive, acoustic methods.  And, as we know, architects and acoustic consultants frequently are unable to fully anticipate resulting hall acoustic problems in their design.
     
    We do have an outdoor venue for summer concerts, the Mann Center here in Philly.  It is very large with a roof covering the audience, but with no side walls.  There is a sophisticated sound reinforcement system there, though maybe not state of the art.  But, it ain't so hot.  I don't go anymore.
     
    But, once again, I will say that I consider DSP EQ absolutely essential in home listening on all speaker channels, even on the priciest and most prestigious systems.  Small room acoustics, speakers, etc. have their own problems which are very difficult to resolve any other way.
     
     
     
     

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    People should try putting on a blindfold before the orchestra members take to their seats.

    They'd be surprised by how much of what you describe (and audiophiles have come to expect from their playback) is the result of visual cues.

     

    Soundstage is an audiophile invention. ?

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    I just attended two BBC Proms concerts at the Royal Albert Hall in London: Beethoven 9th last night, and Mahler 8th tonight.

     

    What an experience! The Proms are a unique British event, where the center of the arena accommodates standing-room attendees. Both concerts had a strong choral element. I was seated in the "Stalls," closer to the stage, and so was very close to one section of the choir. The effect of a large choir is stunning. And of course the Mahler 8th is arguably one symphony that is almost impossible to reproduce in an audio system. The effect of the huge choirs and the organ ... incredible.

     

    I'm shaken AND stirred! :D

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    I was also fortunate enough to attend the proms a few years ago. It was Bach night and they  played Bach pieces along with what I would call Bach inspired. I was eagerly awaiting the Tocatta and Fugue in D minor and picked that night knowing the hall had a massive organ. I was surprised they played it with full orchestra and didn't fire up the organ. The other downside was we were just below the boxes and the people in them were busy drinking, clanking glasses, and chatting which detracted from the mood. All in all I'm glad we went, but I'm disappointed in  how many people go to such an event and don't respect those around them. ?

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    I live in Brooklyn and get to hear a lot of live music.  There is an amazing resurgence of free jazz in New York, and it is my primary interest in both live and recorded music: amazing world-class musicians, like the Matt Shipp trio, for example, whom I have heard at Carnegie Hall (sold out) and in venues with 30 people in recent months.   I mostly hear music in small ventures where you can almost touch the musicians. I think it is the timbre that is hardest to get in reproduction.

    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...