Disturbing "Sonic Trend" showing up on SOTA audio

Hi Learsfool, To clarify my poorly stated illustration, I selected the front rows as they might relate to some specific audiophile goals such as 'detail' and 'imaging', as well as the sheer dynamics. In this location they are also the least homogenized as well, as they might be further back in the location your recommend. (The recording engineer can use the rear hall sound and then use spot mikes to give a close-up emphasis to the weaker instruments. It is interesting to hear a violin concerto live, where I have rarely heard screechy violins (strings) either from the soloist or section(s) and a recording where the violins sound both emphasized and often too much so. Not so much with pianos perhaps, but they are such a big sound by themselves. Nonetheless the recording engineers still can't resist sticking a mike under the lid.)

FWIW, probably some of the worst orchestral sounds I have experienced occurred when I was sitting in some ear bleeding seats (at Mosconi Center) listening to some Elgar performed by Andrew Davis. The highs were piercing, the bass non-existent, and worst of all it took forever. The most dramatic performance was of a Mahler Five in row F center, of a multi-use auditorium by a provincial orchestra. The most disappointing was a Mahler 7 in the lower balcony in SF performed by MMT. The 'sound' was OK, the music well blended for right side seats, but I think it might still be playing! So much for MMT's Mahler 7, live anyway, I like his recorded version much more, but maybe because of my nervous bladder. :-)

But the point I really wanted to make was that the sound of 'live & unamplified music' is a moving target. It is too hard to pin down for it to become a meaningful standard to judge audio set- ups and recordings, especially after a recording engineer has performed his magic.

For myself, live music and recorded music are really separate and valid experiences to be enjoyed with out cross references to each other. Makes life simpler and both more enjoyable.

"In short, you need to be as passionate in your listening as a Musician is in their playing.

That's a very good way to put it.

As a musician and (somewhat) audiophile, I bought myself a pair of pretty nice omni-directional condenser mics J. Gordon Holt had recommended, and plugged them directly into my Revox A-77 reel-to-reel, in the simple spaced-omni configuration. I recorded some live music (a band I was playing in at the time, with upright piano, tenor and baritone saxes, vocals, drumset, and electric bass and guitar) and some studio sessions, as well as speaking voices (my then two year old son's especially) and other natural sound sources. I monitored all the recording on Sennheiser headphones, and still use the tapes for assessing the sound quality of reproducing gear. You might be amazed at how much more lifelike self-made amateur recordings can sound than commercial releases---so much more transparent and immediate, sounding almost like a direct-to-disc LP in comparison!

****"In short, you need to be as passionate in your listening as a
Musician is in their playing.****

Great comment and I couldn't agree more! But, how exactly is it relevant?

I think that in it is the key to some of the disagreement about the live music
standard and the reason why it's so important. A musician's passion is
mostly expressed in ways that are seldom discussed by audiophiles: the
extremely subtle phrasing nuances and color changes; the feeling and
sense of aliveness that great music making conjures up. Those are the
things that are most difficult to record and reproduce; the magic. Not
frequency response related things nor imaging information which are what
are usually mentioned and talked about. The listener who seldom hears live
music is not equipped to judge how good a job any given component does
at passing along the "passion" information. Some pieces do a
great job of it; while some can sound very high-end in the areas of
tonality and imaging and still not pass along the magic. That's the art
(passion) in audio design.

@Bdp24 - your comments are not surprising at all to me. Your priority as a musician is to get as "real" a sound as possible. This is simply not the priority of the vast majority of recording engineers. Also, you were using just a couple of mikes with analog tape. Engineers never do this with digital recording nowadays, even if they know better- they would be fired by people who don't know any better, unfortunately.

@ Newbee - I must admit that I am very confused about where you are calling "ear-bleeding" seats?? This is not a term I have ever encountered before - usually the term "nose-bleed" is used for the highest balcony, but I don't think that is what you are referring to here. Are you referring to the closest seats? Davies Hall in SF never sounded particularly good, and I have heard that the last remodel didn't help much either. MTT definitely loves his louds, that is for sure, LOL!

@Schubert - my understanding of the audiophile term "imaging" is to pinpoint exactly where instruments are located in the "soundstage." Contrary to what you seem to be implying, unless I am misunderstanding you, it should be much easier to do this listening to live music in a concert hall, and I don't mean because you can see the instruments - you should be able to tell, if you close your eyes, where individual sections are on the stage even in a very large orchestra - if not, you would have no hope to ever do so on a recording, assuming it was a recording where this would be audible. With modern digital recording and mixing, though, this is almost impossible to tell anymore - everything is blandly washed together, usually with absolutely no attempt to recreate what the hall actually sounds like. Perhaps I am misunderstanding the way audiophiles use the term "imaging" though - correct me if I am wrong, guys. But here is an example of how I interpret that term. There is an Oscar Peterson record put out by Pablo entitled Peterson 6 at Montreux. This is a very well recorded album, with fantastic "imaging" - you can indeed pinpoint exactly where each individual performer is on the stage, and the "soundstage" of the recording replicates very faithfully the actual live sound - to me, you can't have "imaging" if you don't have a decent "soundstage" in the first place - which, again, is almost non-existent in current recording. This is my understanding, anyway, of what audiophiles mean by these terms. Please correct me if you guys think my use of these terms is different from how most audiophiles use them.