[Steven Sullivan]

wrote:
On Apr 26, 5:12?pm, Steven Sullivan wrote:
wrote:

[ unattributed secondary quote removed -- dsr ]

Perhaps as (I indicated) it's because I don't look for recordings or
broadasts, etc. to reproduce "musical ambience" or an experience from
a hall seat. I prefer not to hear air, ambience or anything else which
would result in diluting the sound as it occurs close to points where
it leaves its source.

Is that how you listen to live music, really? How close do you get to the back row of
an orchestra?

Do ya think I would be willing to drive, park, eat out, etc. to a hall
in order to sit beneath an overhang?, tsk-tsk.
Back of the orchestra? One of my life's ambitions is to sit as close
as possible to an orchestra, along-side the conductor's podium would
suit me fine. I've had 'stage' seats to sold out chamber music
performances and just 'eat-up' that type of sound.

So the answer is, not very close. Almost certainly less close than you
get to your loudspeakers.

The fact is, as was established pre-WWII, 2-channel reproduction is at best
a compromise over what can be done with more channels, to recreate the
'dimensionality' of an event.

Do your live music experineces take place in nonreflective spaces?

I strive for seats where the ratio of direct to reflected sound is as
great as possible, purposefully to avoid hearing reflections which by
their nature muddy the sound.

Reflections are important for 'realism'. I think you'd find listening in a
reflection-free chamber to be rather unpleasant.

In a concert hall you are aswim in reflections; it wouldn't sound nearly
as good without it. The direct/refl;ected ratio is hugely important but the most realistic
sound is not necessarily the one where it is *maximized*.

--
-S
We have it in our power to begin the world over again - Thomas Paine