Prestige of the hall and acoustics correlate well.
http://www.leoberanek.com/pages/eightyeighthalls.pdf
No doubt! But do great acoustics negate or obscure localization? I don't know, that's why I ask.
Last edited:
Look at the extreme, organ in a church. The only thing I can locate there is my back because it hurts from the seating.
I don't think imaging, per se, is considered as a criterion (hey, you can see the orchestra, right?), but clarity is one of the big requirements. It is much like articulation or inteligibility with voice, it depends on strong early reflections.
David
It's not extreme, but a normal situation happening many people every sunday. So, what would be the ideal directivity pattern for stereo speakers to fullfill the situation ?
To make the sound "come from everywhere."? Certainly the speakers should not be high directivity ones, right - Elias
Why must stereo reproduction always be gauged against a concert hall experience, and success or failure (of the reproduction system) based on how well a concert hall experience is reproduced ?
There are other types of music than concert hall performances. The majority in fact.
It could be argued concert hall performances are the least likely to be satisfactorily reproduced by stereo speakers, due to the requirements for a convincing sense of envelopment, however when reproducing other types of music envelopment as a requirement is not necessarily a given, especially if the performance is "created" in the mixing and mastering process, as is more often the case in the majority of recorded music.
In the case of a performance that is "created" by the mixing engineer from component sound sources, the goal of "realism" in reproduction is simply to reproduce in the home the same imaging experience that the engineer heard whilst creating the performance. This is a much more achievable goal.
There are other types of music than concert hall performances. The majority in fact.
It could be argued concert hall performances are the least likely to be satisfactorily reproduced by stereo speakers, due to the requirements for a convincing sense of envelopment, however when reproducing other types of music envelopment as a requirement is not necessarily a given, especially if the performance is "created" in the mixing and mastering process, as is more often the case in the majority of recorded music.
In the case of a performance that is "created" by the mixing engineer from component sound sources, the goal of "realism" in reproduction is simply to reproduce in the home the same imaging experience that the engineer heard whilst creating the performance. This is a much more achievable goal.
And I never said anything in that regard either way. What is your problem?
I don't go to that many halls, Orchestra Hall in Detroit and Hill Auditorium in AA. In neither hall would I call localization good. In fact in Hill, there are locations of singer and listener where the apparent location when your eyes are closed is not on the stage. Open your eyes and that gets resolved. I more with Marcus on this one. I was surprissed how hard it was to localize on any particular instrument with my eyes closed. The whole orchestra, sure, but that not much localization. Not like the imaging of a solo vocalist in a small club. Entirely different things.
It depends on what you are talking about. Spaciousness and localization are at odds with one another, the more so the smaller the room. If the room is large enough then the reverb and the localization cues can be distinct, but a high level of reverberation will still tend to mask the locations.
PS. Am I the only one who is having trouble with the editor on this site? Its on any computer that I use and only this site.
Why must stereo reproduction always be gauged against a concert hall experience, and success or failure (of the reproduction system) based on how well a concert hall experience is reproduced ?
There are other types of music than concert hall performances. The majority in fact.
It could be argued concert hall performances are the least likely to be satisfactorily reproduced by stereo speakers, due to the requirements for a convincing sense of envelopment, however when reproducing other types of music envelopment as a requirement is not necessarily a given, especially if the performance is "created" in the mixing and mastering process, as is more often the case in the majority of recorded music.
In the case of a performance that is "created" by the mixing engineer from component sound sources, the goal of "realism" in reproduction is simply to reproduce in the home the same imaging experience that the engineer heard whilst creating the performance. This is a much more achievable goal.
Here! Here! My position exactly. I would not say this if I hadn't heard it from a very good friend of mine who is a classical pianist of some renown (five CDs and whatever prize that is for being the top young pianist). "Classical music is dead." Thats his opinion anyways. When it ceases to be possible to even make a living at it, the end can't be far behind. It will live on for a while in Europe and Asia, but the US is a goner.
I'm not saying that classical music is dead or dying, nor do I have anything against it.
I'm just questioning the relevance of its frequent use as the yardstick for judging the realism of a stereo playback system, particularly for those who don't or seldom listen to it.
Trying to reproduce it completely realistically with only two channels is probably an impossible goal with a lot of time and effort wasted trying to achieve it, however there are many other imaging experiences possible with 2 channels when the soundstage is created electronically with mixing and processing techniques which can be very satisfying, enjoyable, and even immersive.
Being able to reproduce the imaging provided by these techniques in the home in a way that matches what the recording engineer hears perhaps should be the goal when optimising a stereo speaker system, not trying to achieve the unattainable of absolute realism.
As an analogy, a TV screen can't reproduce the full range of colours and contrast that we can see outdoors in daylight, (and probably never will) so rather than attempting to do that a good quality TV will be calibrated to standards to as closely as possible match what the video engineer/producer sees on his mastering screen when the content is being created and edited.
If we consider the content an art work then reproducing it the way the creator intended is the goal, even if the colours were deliberately changed by the creator as part of the artistic process. Likewise if we consider a final mixed audio recording an art work perhaps we should be reproducing it as the mixer/artist intended rather than a strictly accurate rendition of the raw real life sounds. (Which is impossible if we don't know what processing was applied anyway)
I'm just questioning the relevance of its frequent use as the yardstick for judging the realism of a stereo playback system, particularly for those who don't or seldom listen to it.
Trying to reproduce it completely realistically with only two channels is probably an impossible goal with a lot of time and effort wasted trying to achieve it, however there are many other imaging experiences possible with 2 channels when the soundstage is created electronically with mixing and processing techniques which can be very satisfying, enjoyable, and even immersive.
Being able to reproduce the imaging provided by these techniques in the home in a way that matches what the recording engineer hears perhaps should be the goal when optimising a stereo speaker system, not trying to achieve the unattainable of absolute realism.
As an analogy, a TV screen can't reproduce the full range of colours and contrast that we can see outdoors in daylight, (and probably never will) so rather than attempting to do that a good quality TV will be calibrated to standards to as closely as possible match what the video engineer/producer sees on his mastering screen when the content is being created and edited.
If we consider the content an art work then reproducing it the way the creator intended is the goal, even if the colours were deliberately changed by the creator as part of the artistic process. Likewise if we consider a final mixed audio recording an art work perhaps we should be reproducing it as the mixer/artist intended rather than a strictly accurate rendition of the raw real life sounds. (Which is impossible if we don't know what processing was applied anyway)
Last edited:
Why must stereo reproduction always be gauged against a concert hall experience, and success or failure (of the reproduction system) based on how well a concert hall experience is reproduced ?
There are other types of music than concert hall performances. The majority in fact.
It could be argued concert hall performances are the least likely to be satisfactorily reproduced by stereo speakers, due to the requirements for a convincing sense of envelopment, however when reproducing other types of music envelopment as a requirement is not necessarily a given, especially if the performance is "created" in the mixing and mastering process, as is more often the case in the majority of recorded music.
In the case of a performance that is "created" by the mixing engineer from component sound sources, the goal of "realism" in reproduction is simply to reproduce in the home the same imaging experience that the engineer heard whilst creating the performance. This is a much more achievable goal.
Amen
No, Markus said it after you mentioned reverberent level in a room. The debate was with him. (But thanks for adding your 2 cents worth.)
David
I certainly don't have anything against it at all. I will never turn down the chance to see a live orchestra, there is nothing quite like it. But is it the defacto standard in reproduction? No, its hardly even a factor when one considers the dollar amounts spent. I hope that it never goes away, but I just don't get the same feelling listening at home to classical that I do in a hall. Bad recordings, bad playback (although that I doubt), its just not the same. But studio work gives me the chills and can be very enriching and pleasurable. It can also be total junk. Its all over the map.
That's a bit like saying "my mate Dave down the pub says......."
When I look for Classical CD's on Amazon, choose a particular piece, I am greeted with many different versions of all kinds of Classical works. Their catalogue is absolutely huge. If Classical is dead why do they keep getting in so much new music CD's?
http://www.mediauk.com/radio/55/classic-fm
5,388,000 listeners every week for "Classic FM" in the UK. That's dead?
Very subtle downward trend, hardly dead:
http://www.mediauk.com/radio/55/classic-fm/listening-figures
Perhaps tickets to Classical performances are down but Classical is hardly dead.
The problem for Classical recording artists is that they are producing nothing truly new, just another interpretation. This following many greats with established reputations.
I keep hearing populist music is virtually dead, only children are buying CD's from new acts now.
Manufactured Pop and downloads are turning many adults away from buying new music in droves.
Americans spending 1/3 as much on music as they did 10 years ago.
http://articles.businessinsider.com/2011-02-18/tech/30052663_1_riaa-music-industry-cd-era
Sounds like I am being a pessimist!
According to this article from October 2008 American Orchestras have doubled in 30 years!:
The Unsung Success of Live Classical Music - WSJ.com
Ticket sales are up, orchestra revenues are growing and there are more concerts than ever. As the fall season gets under way, classical music is secretly thriving.
"There are currently nearly 400 professional orchestras in America, according to the League of American Orchestras, while 30 years ago there were 203. There are up to 500 youth orchestras, up from 63 in 1990. The number of orchestra concerts performed annually in the U.S. has risen 24% in the past decade, to 37,000. Ticket-sale income from orchestra performances grew almost 18%, to $608 million, between the 2004-'05 and 2005-'06 seasons."
According to this article from October 2008 American Orchestras have doubled in 30 years!:
The Unsung Success of Live Classical Music - WSJ.com
Ticket sales are up, orchestra revenues are growing and there are more concerts than ever. As the fall season gets under way, classical music is secretly thriving.
"There are currently nearly 400 professional orchestras in America, according to the League of American Orchestras, while 30 years ago there were 203. There are up to 500 youth orchestras, up from 63 in 1990. The number of orchestra concerts performed annually in the U.S. has risen 24% in the past decade, to 37,000. Ticket-sale income from orchestra performances grew almost 18%, to $608 million, between the 2004-'05 and 2005-'06 seasons."
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.