A Copernican View of the Turntable System

Dear Dgob: What we hear at home through our each one audio system is what microphones " heard " and that are way near the " stage/venues " that our seat position in the music hall.
In the other side the " micros " are not only sensitive but with wider frequency range that ours ears. As a fact there are many reasons why we heard what we heard at home against in live concerts and its differences.

regards and enjoy the music,
raul.

Ralph, I believe there is one more factor in the perception of three-dimensionality or spaciousness -- how close one sits for a live performance. One season as an experiment I chose different seating locations for each of a half-dozen concerts by our local symphony. The variations in sonic effect were sobering. Unless I was front-center, I din't hear the live spatiality I hear in some recordings.

I think a major influence in the awareness/desirability of soundstage and spaciousness was Harry Pearson at TAS. Those descriptions could be counted upon with every review he wrote. Then I learned that his preferred seat at Carnegie Hall (and I must suppose other venues) was row 2 or 3, dead center. Well, that explained a lot.

Now, how ironic that most older recordings were made with 1-3 primary mics which were better able to capture the natural sonic space of the program, even when home audio equipment did not product it so well. But currently with (some) improvements in the equipment which better allow spatiality to be reproduced, everything is multi-multi mic'ed and channel mixed so that artificial reverb must be added to provide any sense of three-dimensionality.

Raul,

I totally agree and, I suppose, have tried to suggest some of that in my comments. I suppose I did not really note the importance of differences between the individual listening room and concert hall on scale/volume and acoustic behaviour and how this alone impacts on attempts to exactly reproduce the live experience of a large number of recordings. I have tried to reflect on this on other threads but not so well in my above outburst, which was fueled largely by tiredness and irritability I think.

Nevertheless, my views that there are clear distinctions and that there are inevitable psychacoustic factors when reproducing performances through hifi are getting form and clarification through some of the interesting responses that it is raising and yours is a well considered and much appreciated one.

Many thanks again

Raul,

Just to add that I am aware that I have drifted somewhat from your response in my reply but would note that my comment is based on my slight preoccupation with acoustic spaces and psychoacoustic factors.

I think the issues of distinct venues and quality of performances on distinct occasions still undermine my moments of certainty that I have captured "a" live event. This rears its head in my concern over distinction between listening rooms and performance venues in my reply. Of course, as your response points out, that is only one aspect to consider when addressing the authenticity of our hifi experience.

Pryso,

Thanks for your valued reflections. I think they develop another dimension of Raul's reference to the distinction between the close mic'ed recording (as relayed to the home stationed audiophile) and the sitting position of the live spectator. I slightly drifted from the point in my initial reply to Raul. However, I find it fascinating.

I'm not sure who came first, HP or Martin Colloms, but the issue about soundstage as a criteria for judging ones hifi has been a fairly standard one since them. I do think your reflections on the importance of sitting position are critical for the general issue of perceptions of staging.

Beyond that, I think that your reflections on the impact of new recording techniques (some popular experiences of which I am still recovering from) provide much food for thought.

Might oak trees for small acorns (rants) grow.

Thanks