A great article on the experience of listening to live music that might
offer some interesting perspective upon the experience of auditioning
high-end audio equipment:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/03/ar...html?th&emc=th

Enjoy.

GE

wrote in message
...
A great article on the experience of listening to live music that might
offer some interesting perspective upon the experience of auditioning
high-end audio equipment:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/03/ar...html?th&emc=th

Enjoy.

GE


Well, let's brighten things up.

I'm in snowy New England, and over the last two days, in mid-afternoon, at
volumes slightly higher than I use in the evening (I live in an apartment) I
have listened (respectively) to Carlos Kleiber leading the Vienna in
Beethoven's Seventh (on of my favorites) and MTT leading the San Francisco
in Mahler's 3rd (not one of my favorites but worth an occassional listen --
the writing that is, not the performance). I was struck by the excellence
of the recordings in both these pieces, one from the seventies using
multitrack tape -- one of the few successful DGG efforts -- the other using
flying mics in a live performance space recorded directly to DSD... Both in
glorious 5.1 sound....and both sounding like a real symphony orchestra in a
good hall. Whoever here wanted to here orchestral ambience should listen to
the MTT/SFO 3rd...particularly following the kettle drum beats in the third
movement.

Then later today I listened to the concert DVD from Bruce Springstein's 30th
anniversary triple-boxed set. Even though it was Dolby Digital and slightly
"raw", the 5.1 sound literally took you to the concert, from a perspective
where you were sitting at the front of the stage. Very exciting sound...far
more involving and dynamic than either the CD remaster, or the 48/24
lossless PCM stereo of the concert disk.

I've decided that for an older audiophile who has been pursuing the holy
grail of "live" sound in the living room since about 1955, the year 2005 was
a very good year. As far as I am concerned , there are more surround disks
out there than I can fathom already and I will be set for years to come.

Ah, the joys of being part of a niche market!

wrote:
A great article on the experience of listening to live music that might
offer some interesting perspective upon the experience of auditioning
high-end audio equipment:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/03/ar...html?th&emc=th

Enjoy.

GE

THe article mentions that different people are listening for different
things. As I listen for contrapuntal clarity especially in Bach, I have
actually been disappointed with Walt Disney Concert Hall (apparently a
lone voice). From a seat in the "Terrace," not the frontmost level but
not too far back either, one of Bach's keyboard concertos was mud. It
was reduced to a vague succession of chords.

For those not familiar, this is a "concert hall in the round" which
means that if you aren't sitting right at the stage, you get unfocused
reflected images.

The noise level is also very high, since the hall is bright and
transmits every rustle, sneeze, cough (not to mention people talking
over the performance.. I'm not kidding, happens 75% of the time I go).

In any case, analog certainly has much greater contrapuntal clarity and
ease of separating voices.

Mike

On 5 Jan 2006 00:19:55 GMT, wrote:

wrote:
A great article on the experience of listening to live music that might
offer some interesting perspective upon the experience of auditioning
high-end audio equipment:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/03/ar...html?th&emc=th

Enjoy.

GE

THe article mentions that different people are listening for different
things. As I listen for contrapuntal clarity especially in Bach, I have
actually been disappointed with Walt Disney Concert Hall (apparently a
lone voice). From a seat in the "Terrace," not the frontmost level but
not too far back either, one of Bach's keyboard concertos was mud. It
was reduced to a vague succession of chords.

For those not familiar, this is a "concert hall in the round" which
means that if you aren't sitting right at the stage, you get unfocused
reflected images.

The noise level is also very high, since the hall is bright and
transmits every rustle, sneeze, cough (not to mention people talking
over the performance.. I'm not kidding, happens 75% of the time I go).

In any case, analog certainly has much greater contrapuntal clarity and
ease of separating voices.

This is utter nonsense. Digital has greatly superior dynamic range and
pitch stability, both essential to the sort of listening you describe.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On 5 Jan 2006 00:19:55 GMT, wrote:

THe article mentions that different people are listening for different
things. As I listen for contrapuntal clarity especially in Bach, I have
actually been disappointed with Walt Disney Concert Hall (apparently a
lone voice). From a seat in the "Terrace," not the frontmost level but
not too far back either, one of Bach's keyboard concertos was mud. It
was reduced to a vague succession of chords.

For those not familiar, this is a "concert hall in the round" which
means that if you aren't sitting right at the stage, you get unfocused
reflected images.

The noise level is also very high, since the hall is bright and
transmits every rustle, sneeze, cough (not to mention people talking
over the performance.. I'm not kidding, happens 75% of the time I go).

In any case, analog certainly has much greater contrapuntal clarity and
ease of separating voices.

This is utter nonsense. Digital has greatly superior dynamic range and
pitch stability, both essential to the sort of listening you describe.

But not necessarily the listening he actually does. It may be that the
particular details he's after get "pulled up in the mix" in a
compressed analog medium. Perhaps he'd prefer CDs if classical
recordings were compressed like pop ones are.

Also, let's not miss the fact that his complaints about Disney Hall
seem to track his complaints about digital. Another data point
indicating that digital is closer to live than analog is.

bob

bob wrote:
Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On 5 Jan 2006 00:19:55 GMT, wrote:

THe article mentions that different people are listening for different
things. As I listen for contrapuntal clarity especially in Bach, I have
actually been disappointed with Walt Disney Concert Hall (apparently a
lone voice). From a seat in the "Terrace," not the frontmost level but
not too far back either, one of Bach's keyboard concertos was mud. It
was reduced to a vague succession of chords.

For those not familiar, this is a "concert hall in the round" which
means that if you aren't sitting right at the stage, you get unfocused
reflected images.

The noise level is also very high, since the hall is bright and
transmits every rustle, sneeze, cough (not to mention people talking
over the performance.. I'm not kidding, happens 75% of the time I go).

In any case, analog certainly has much greater contrapuntal clarity and
ease of separating voices.

This is utter nonsense. Digital has greatly superior dynamic range and
pitch stability, both essential to the sort of listening you describe.

But not necessarily the listening he actually does. It may be that the
particular details he's after get "pulled up in the mix" in a
compressed analog medium.

It may be. But why then does live music (in good acoustics)---which has
no compression--have the greatest contrapuntal clarity of all?

Perhaps he'd prefer CDs if classical
recordings were compressed like pop ones are.

I've done some experiments with that using widely available digital
processing programs, hoping to find that magic transformation which
makes CDs sound analog. Alas, all distortions made the sound worse (I
tried compression, simulated analog tape distortion, and simulated tube
distortion). The worst qualities of the sound (for example, harsh highs
on the particular recording I used) were not improved in the slightest.


Also, let's not miss the fact that his complaints about Disney Hall
seem to track his complaints about digital.

Only vaguely and only about one of the complaints (lack of contrapuntal
clarity). The acoustics relative to a bad seat are a form of
distortion, just as digital is. A good seat in a good hall (or one of
the better seats in WDCH) resembles analog far more than digital.

Another data point
indicating that digital is closer to live than analog is.

It's only closer to bad live acoustics.

Mike