|
|
|
Is there an assumption that a hall with good acoustics for live performance is necessarily a good recording venue, or vice versa? Not necessarily so, either way. SF Symphony has made recordings in both their hall and in the practice area. Reportedly, measures have been taken to dampen the hall's acoustics during recordings there. It would seem that microphone placement could also compensate for hall acoustical issues or account for dry or spotlit vs. reverberant recording effects.
|
|
|
Post by seth July 3, 2012 (22 of 62)
|
|
Polly Nomial said:
That's a fair point re home vs away orchestras. Still, a good concert hall (let alone a great one) should be able to cope with all (from solo violin to Gurrelieder) IMO.
Frequency of measurement does not necessarily mean that the hall is first class...
In any respect (and sadly I have too little knowledge of many modern concert halls), IMO Symphony Hall (Birmingham, UK) knocks all other halls in Europe from the "golden age" into an acoustic black hole (not been to US for concert purposes). The great tragedy is that no one records the CBSO in SACD... Robert, Pentaman, Jared - are you listening?!?
There's really no one size fits all for concert hall designs, and that's where so many concert halls get into trouble.
The simple fact is that the more seats you add, the larger the hall is, and the more the acoustics are impaired. There's no way around this. But financially, small halls don't work. ticket sales are your primary source of earned revenue. The difference between 1,800 seats and 2,600 is millions of dollars in ticket sales over the course of a season.
In the middle of the 20th century there was a push for larger halls (both to capture more ticket revenue and to have more lower priced seats), which is why there are so few halls of acoustical significance built during this period -- Avery Fischer is the classic example of this. At the end of the century people began realizing that they had to go back to smaller halls, which is why Birmingham Symphony Hall only seats about 2,250.
And given how infrequently works requiring more than 110 musicians are performed, let alone 400, designing a hall to accommodating them is impractical. A hall should be designed for its primary purpose, not the outliers.
Again, halls get into acoustical problems when design choices are made to accommodate the occasional pop-music concert, dance/ballet, semi-staged theater, etc. in order to increase rental opportunities. Materials that are not suited for an orchestral music are used, all kinds of sound reflecting panels are used, the design is altered, etc. But again, design a hall specifically for the classical repertoire is financially impractical because it lacks the flexibility to be used for other purposes. (In fact, there is such a push for new concert halls to be multi-purpose facilities to capture rental opportunities, that halls are design to accommodate corporate board meetings or sit down dinner galas, even if that kind of rental only happens once every three years).
So in conclusion (!), the Musikverein is the perfect size for everything up from a single person through most of the orchestral repertoire (which doesn't include occasionally performed 20th century pieces for very large orchestras). If a visiting orchestra brings too many musicians with them, that's their fault, and no different than not bringing enough musicians to a very large hall that requires more players than normal to ensure that the orchestra's sound is large enough.
And lastly, people are measuring the acoustical properties of the Musikverein because they are trying to replicate them. So yes, it is significant that more people study that hall than any other.
|
|
|
Post by seth July 3, 2012 (23 of 62)
|
|
Euell Neverno said:
Is there an assumption that a hall with good acoustics for live performance is necessarily a good recording venue, or vice versa? Not necessarily so, either way. SF Symphony has made recordings in both their hall and in the practice area. Reportedly, measures have been taken to dampen the hall's acoustics during recordings there. It would seem that microphone placement could also compensate for hall acoustical issues or account for dry or spotlit vs. reverberant recording effects.
I'm not a recording engineer, but I'd imagine that when you record live the positive acoustics of a hall don't always come through based on how much you want avoid capturing ambient sound from the audience.
|
|
|
|
|
|
seth said:
And lastly, people are measuring the acoustical properties of the Musikverein because they are trying to replicate them. So yes, it is significant that more people study that hall than any other.
Sorry - I didn't mean size in terms of seats but volume of air (although they're often closely related). Symphony Hall Birmingham is huge compared to the Musikverein, yet it is uniformly excellent from a solo recital, to quartets, to symphonies (Mozart to Mahler), to Wagner operas, to Gurrelieder. If one is blessed (?cursed?) with good hearing, you can pinpoint the position of any cougher in the hall - fortunately, it's as good for music as it is for that!
People can try replicating the Musikverein if they wish but IMO there must be many better halls around Europe and the world to copy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
seth said:
And lastly, people are measuring the acoustical properties of the Musikverein because they are trying to replicate them. So yes, it is significant that more people study that hall than any other.
Sorry - I didn't mean size in terms of seats but volume of air (although they're often closely related). Symphony Hall Birmingham is huge compared to the Musikverein, yet it is uniformly excellent from a solo recital, to quartets, to symphonies (Mozart to Mahler), to Wagner operas, to Gurrelieder. If one is blessed (?cursed?) with good hearing, you can pinpoint the position of any cougher in the hall - fortunately, it's as good for music as it is for that!
People can try replicating the Musikverein if they wish but IMO there must be many better halls around Europe and the world to copy.
|
|
|
Post by Arnaldo July 4, 2012 (26 of 62)
|
|
krisjan said:
... Now that I know you listen via headphones, I can safely ignore your sonic comments in the future.
While you're free to whine as you please, a majority here apparently thinks otherwise. As of now, in a disproportional turnout for such an unpretentious mini-review, 13 out of 19 or almost 70%, found it helpful, headphones et al. Either way, as I wrote, the purpose was "... calling attention to an important but somewhat overlooked new release." Irrespective of the review, mission accomplished, thanks in part to your small-minded rantings.
|
|
|
Post by krisjan July 4, 2012 (27 of 62)
|
|
Arnaldo said:
While you're free to whine as you please...
You are a truly rude person.
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm with Krisjan. Your review isn't helpful.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Kal Rubinson said:
But that's not here or there: The difference in aural presentation between a pair of headphones and a pair of speakers is much larger, imho, than any differences among speakers or among headphones. Comments about imaging and soundstage would be specific to one type of listening.
I would agree, with the above, but, as we know, headphones generally reveal more detail than speakers. The perception of a stereo recording's ambiance with headphones is also generally superior, as there are no room acoustics involved in the reproduction. In my experience, recording and performance flaws become much more evident using headphones. However, while they may exist, I am not aware of headphones that are capable of reproducing surround tracks, so there is that limitation. BUT, the Exton recording being discussed has no surround track, although the Chailly and Nott Mahler 3's do have a surround track.
So, I must respectfully disagree with those who think a stereo-only review based upon headphone listening is somehow invalid. On the contrary, that listening experience can be and usually is more revealing than listening to reproduction through speakers.
|
|
|
Post by Chris July 4, 2012 (30 of 62)
|
|
Euell Neverno said:
I would agree, with the above, but, as we know, headphones generally reveal more detail than speakers. The perception of a stereo recording's ambiance with headphones is also generally superior, as there are no room acoustics involved in the reproduction. In my experience, recording and performance flaws become much more evident using headphones. However, while they may exist, I am not aware of headphones that are capable of reproducing surround tracks, so there is that limitation. BUT, the Exton recording being discussed has no surround track, although the Chailly and Nott Mahler 3's do have a surround track.
So, I must respectfully disagree with those who think a stereo-only review based upon headphone listening is somehow invalid. On the contrary, that listening experience can be and usually is more revealing than listening to reproduction through speakers.
As someone who has for "deaf ears" long argued along the same lines as you do now, I couldn't agree more.
The fact is you need extremely costly speakers to even approach the detail and low distortion Studio Quality headphones deliver.
It is a different experience yes, with it own drawbacks. But in some respects it gets you closer to what was actually recorded than most speaker systems imo.
The best dynamic headphones,magnetostatic or Electrostatic headphones have much lower distortion levels than most speakers.
Especially in the bass the difference is big,very big unless you have true high end speakers.
Where a good Headphone has maybe 1% distortion or less,a speaker often has 10% distortion or more.
The difference is audible and one of the reasons I enjoy headphones more, even now when I have a rather big listening room again.
And ambience retrieval can also be excellent via good headphones.
On the other hand you get things delivered "warts and all" and excessive multimiking often glossed over or hidden via speakers becomes irritating via good headphones.
When the Sennheiser HD 800 I am currently using, was first reviewed the reviewer in HI FI +
ended his review with something along these lines "these 1000 Pounds headphones could be your next 25000 Pounds speakers, yes they are that good."
IMO he was right, the only speakers I have heard that approach the low level of distortion and low colouration,I have become used to over the WHOLE frequency range,have been exceedingly more expensive.
I must admit that I was impressed by the mighty TAD Reference though, but they cost about as much as a decent house would in many parts of the world.
Tonight I am going to let my headphones once again reveal all the beauty in Bruckner's 7th as played and recorded LIVE in Leipzig by Querstand.
An SA-CD and recording of true excellence.
|
|
