Placing Instrument Separation of Large Ensembles in Recordings


I have noticed that my stereo presents solo piano recordings with more realism and impact than any others. And that’s great but I can’t just listen to piano all of the time. I will say that I have mostly zero objections to other chamber music ensemble recordings, regardless of their instrumentation. But when it comes to orchestral recordings, it seems to be all over the place. Some recordings sound like the orchestra has been divided into blocks and fitted together. So that might entail a block consisting of double basses, tympani and bassoons fitted with a block consisting of cellos, French horns and percussion, etc… In this scenario, it’s hard to differentiate instrument separation within those blocks. Some recordings sound like sections of the orchestra are divided from the center and then segmented outwards. Other recordings sound as though microphone placement is done according to their respective sections, first violins, second violins, violas, cellos, double basses, etc… And to me, this makes the most sense however it’s still sometimes difficult to make out what’s what. So is it my equipment, or is it the quality of the microphones and their placement? I will say that I find some orchestral recordings to be very good in this regard, i.e. mostly 128 cycle DSD downloads. While others make me think of sitting on the DC Beltway during rush hour. (No I don’t live in the District of Columbia). To a large degree, my thought is that this is normal and that different recording techniques will render different results. It’s simple to realize that newer recordings will have a technical advantage over older recordings. Though I have heard early stereo recordings (i.e. RCA Living Stereo) that were remastered and they sounded remarkable. Anyway, I’d appreciate input from others on this matter. Thanks!

128x128goofyfoot

@goofyfoot 

Apology accepted.

I think that some of your prejudices, or pre conceptions, are going to interfere with your goals here.  These prejudices aren’t unreasonable but let’s explore them.

  The price of a product such as Minidsp relative to the price of the rest of an expensive system does lead to skepticism about potential merits.  Would it make a believer if they increased the price of the identical product 100 fold?  Many high end components bundle Dirac or ARC in so I guess many buyers don’t realize how inexpensive the RC actually is, and therefore don’t have the cognitive dissonance that you are undergoing.  

  DSP isn’t the first Digital Product that is relatively inexpensive to produce but is then inflated by the manufacturer.  I won’t name the company but a few years ago I was going to purchase a DAC that was loudly promoting a “Femto Clock” as the reason for purchase, and the new DAC cost twice the manufacturer’s previous top model.  An online reviewer pointed out that the Femto Chip, which they sourced from a third party, cost them $10 each, and the power supply for that chip about the same, yet the manufacturer was charging around $1000 for the DAC.  As you probably know Femto chips are now standard in most DACs.  The point is that due to the fact that many Digital Devices have been used and developed in the IT world, it doesn’t cost a fortune to apply them to the HEA world.  This should be a good thing but it does seem counterintuitive because we are use to a paradigm where quality is directly related to cost.

  Regarding using subwoofers with Electrostatics, I suspect that if you were to successfully implement one, most of the issues in your OP would improve.  The key is successfully implementing the sub.

  I didn’t want to add one to my two channel system either, but when I did it was one of those ear opening moments.  I use REL subs-and only one- because they are the most musical that I have encountered.  The depth of the sound stage took a major leap, as the percussionists and double basses now seemed to be in their proper location (namely, behind the rest of the orchestra, stage right and left, respectively).  I could easily distinguish when a conductor was dividing the seating of the first and second violins.  And that old canard that a good sub should even make a solo flute sound better, which I always thought was nonsense, was revealed.

  Most importantly were the low level percussion effects that composers such as Mahler and Shostakovich use in their symphonies.  There are all kinds of reinforcement with tympani and snares and other percussion that isn’t meant to be highlighted.  I used to think that the only was to really feel that viscerally, even though it’s meant to be low level, was to hear live performances.  Live is still the Gold Standard but the sub and DSP at least get me part of the way.

 

  Subs come with their own DSP , but yes I prefer the DSP that Dirac provides.

Electostatics are great for chamber music, solo piano, guitar, and most piano recordings.  If they are going to adequately attempt to reproduce a large orchestra, in the most demanding repertoire, they need help

 

  

@mahler123 I will then stay open to adding a sub at some point. Unfortunately right now, the amount of space is limited not to mention the cost involved. I never understood why people add only one sub when they use two speakers.

Yeah the sub number is a controversy in and of itself.  The dogma used to be that bass is unidirectional and one sub would do it.  Now the prevailing trend is one sub per speaker.  I have room limitations in my 2 channel and one sub does it for me.  It makes more sense to have more than one in my 5.1, but I just haven’t gone there