Sat front row at the symphony...

It was purely by accident, but one of the best things that ever happened to me was attending large-scale classical concerts and opera performances well before my obsession with high-end audio, and continuing through the years when I had the most gear. It was transparently obvious that no audio system could possibly replicate the experience of a live orchestral or operatic event in a large hall with good acoustics. Accordingly I never expected that from my audio gear, then was often pleasantly surprised by how well it did with classical LPs.

In ’74 or ’75 I somehow landed a gig as an usher for the Boston Lyric Opera Company’s weekend performance of an opera (whose name I forget) starring Beverly Sill. This included rehearsals and evening performances in the Boston Opera House. Given the work, I was able to hear all of this from an ever changing assortment of spots in the hall. I wasn’t yet immersed in audio then, but I was immersed in music of all kinds, and this experience was unforgettable--especially the opportunity to meet the gracious & friendly Beverly Sills and tell how beautiful I thought her voice was...

I'm not sure I'm being accurate as to what fleschler is saying here, but to me he's saying there are a whole bunch of absolute sounds. There's no "the" in TAS. I have to agree, too. In any case, the question is now whether your sound system can grant you at least a glimmer of actually hearing those many Absolute Sounds. If the system does get satisfyingly close to this, then stop beating yourself up over it for a while.😂

fleschler,

I agree with nearly everything you said, but differ only about very close rows.  Like you, as a performer, there is nothing like stage sound for detail, direct immediacy.  Using that criteria, only the 1st row is the next best thing to the stage.  Even the 2nd row is veiled by comparison.  Another reason is the absorption of sound from anyone sitting in front of you.  If I were a sitting giraffe with my head way over people, then the 2nd row might be nice.  

At the last concert I attended, I was sitting in the 1st row center.  The first piece was a piano concerto.  The orchestra was moved back, with the 1st violins and cello section at an equivalent 3rd row distance.  The next piece was pure orchestra, with the 1st violins and cello section moved forward to the usual 1st row distance.  There was a tremendous increase in detail from violins and cellos.  Many audiophiles change cables and find worthwhile differences, but the difference in direct brilliance between rows 1 and 3 is orders of magnitude greater.  That's why I can't stand the loss of brilliance further back than row 1, despite the visual advantage of greater distances.

I did some recordings.  My best work was with small ensembles on a shallow stage where my close mike placement could still yield good balances.  Even my cardioid Neumann KM 184 mikes picked up enough ambience to let the sound breathe.  I realized that why I disliked many commercial recordings was because of the addition of distant mikes to pick up more ambience.  I found that this excessive ambience mixed with the close mikes was responsible for smearing of details.

Yes, performance first, sound second.  I would rather listen to 1928 recordings of legendary violin masters like Fritz Kreisler on youtube, than today's violinists in pristine sound.  

@viber6 Well, I partially agree with you. Had you sat in Royce Hall/UCLA back in the 60’s to 80’s prior to the big remodel, you would NOT have appreciated the brighter/thinner sound in the first row versus the 10th. It was direct alright, but did not sound cohesive. I heard over 70 classical concerts, orchestral and instrumental. There were always empty seats up front, for a reason. Unfortunately, not many great performances any longer to attend so I haven’t auditioned the sound lately. As to Disney Hall and Soroya/CSUN, yes, closer produces a more precise and dynamic sound.  I also record chamber music in a large private home for Viklarbo and sit further back than 5' or 10' from the performers.  Too close for the size of the room.  No loss in resolution at 15' to 20'.  

I too dislike the distant miking for purposes of adding "ambiance." I want to hear the full tone of the instruments. Studio recordings can add plate or tape reverb, etc. but not lose the main/basic sound. My favorite jazz recordings were made in the late 50s and 60’s on "antiquated" tube equipment, mics and mixers with magnetic tape, in studios like Contemporary. There’s some reverb but mostly direct, colorful, dynamic sound recordings. I love em." I have 7,000 78s and at least 70,000 vocal recordings on CDs and LPs. half from the 78 recording era. Performances never to be duplicated.

Viber 6's comment, "If I were a sitting giraffe with my head way over people, then the 2nd row might be nice."  That is a great way of articulating my previous comment about achieving a "sight line" to every instrument in an orchestra. From that vantage point the listener [or microphone] can perceive all three dimensions of a large group of musicians : width, depth and height.  Sitting directly in front of such a large group of 100 or so instrumentalists does not provide the important element of depth.  I cannot dispute the choice of those who choose to do so because that choice is legitimate, just not complete.  Any seat in any hall may be to a listener's liking but most likely not to every one's taste. It reminds me of a friend who was the manager of a large motorcycle dealership.  One day, as I looked over the huge sales floor filled with hundreds of motorcycles, I asked how they expected to sell so many different styles and types.  His response was, "There's an ass out there for EVERY seat" !   I guess the same could be said for the seats in any concert hall ?   

    A music reviewer was once a guest at one of our audio listening sessions and made an interesting comment.  He suggested that it would be a good idea for orchestral recordings to list the "perspective" in which they were recorded.  i.e. -- from the perspective of the conductor, a musician within the group, a listener nearby in the hall or one in the balcony.  We all can identify recordings that emulate those "perspectives", can't we ?   Of course it was a suggestion that went nowhere because of the complexity involved but was interesting nontheless.

    It is no surprise to learn of such varied tastes in listening habits any more that the differences we see in the viewing of "art objects" or the enjoyment of culinary creations.  As an old friend used to say, "That's why they make chocolate  AND vanilla" !