Sat front row at the symphony...

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" !

fleschler and terraplane8bob,

I love the sound of my violin under my ear (fortunately I play well) which I admit isn't applicable to most listeners.  There is a vast difference between inches away and even only a few feet away.  I used to go to major auctions of violins and try out many violins.  I listened to good violinists playing a few feet away.  I was shocked when I then tried the same violin under my ear--I could hear many tonal flaws in the violin which I had no idea from listening to them just a few feet away.  So for ultimate listening pleasure, only the stage sound will do for me.  Sitting at a music stand listening to my partner, his/her precision of execution is way beyond even sitting in the 1st row as a listener.  These days I play in a small orchestra connected to a choral group.  I hear several types of instruments and choral soloists at very close range.  There is no elevated stage, so the line of sight is pure, and there is no problem as in a typical hall where the first few rows have obstructed line of sight.  The tonal purity and detail are way beyond what a typical listener in a hall can get.  What I value as exciting, crisp tonality, most listeners think it as too bright/thin.  What I consider as dull and veiled, they think is just right.  That is unfortunate, because they didn't grow up with intimate contact with real instruments.  It is a major factor in why most audio manufacturers produce mediocre veiled speakers and euphonic electronics, all designed to produce a facsimile of this laid back sound that most listeners are familiar with.

In addition to the Turnabout LP's of Rachmaninoff Symphonic Dances, the 1950's Mercury Living Presence recordings are some of the few examples of close perspectives that deliver clarity and impact.  In mono and stereo, the few main mikes were placed 10 feet over the conductor's head to deliver detail and enough but not too much spatiality which would muddy the sound.  My recordings were inspired by the Turnabout and Mercury recordings.  I used two Neumann KM184 cardioids near the conductor's head angled 90-110 degrees according to the width of the ensemble, with the diaphragms separated about 10 inches.  I got pinpoint imaging and top clarity, better than Mercury because I didn't need additional spaced omnis.  My recordings have less depth than commercial recordings.  I have found that you cannot have high clarity and lots of depth at the same time.  You have to make a choice.  Close distance is associated with less depth.  Far distance yields more depth but poor clarity.  Medium distance gives some clarity and some depth, which is what almost all recording engineers strive for.  But it is an unacceptable compromise to me.  As an aside, go on vacation to European towns where there is lots of music on the street.  Turn the corner, and allow yourself to be pleasantly surprised at new sounds like streetcar bells, random street musicians.  You don't say, "oh what depth"--but you marvel at the clarity and sudden impact.  I don't care WHERE the sound comes from, but I want to be stunned by the clarity.

In a room, 15-20 feet away is still close enough for good detail and impact.  The 1st row in a hall might be 10-15 feet away.  But the front of the balcony is at least 100 feet away, and the sound is markedly rolled off in HF.  The midrange is veiled from all the multipath time delayed arrival from hall reflections.  Terrible sound, like a speaker stuffed with drivers in every direction.  A total mess.