Forgive me Computeraudiophiles, for I have sinned

[bachish]

On 7/8/2018 at 11:41 AM, joelha said:

If, on the other hand, you want to tell me you have a digital system which matches or exceeds the enjoyment factor you have had from reel to reel tape, please chime in.

Other comments or questions are welcome as well. I’m very new to this reel to reel part of the hobby and, for all the reasons I’ve mentioned above, won’t abandon the digital part of my system. But it’s a heck of a lot harder to go back to now.

 

Joel

 

Joel, I still remember the first time I heard a CD in 1985 while an undergrad music student. The theory prof played us a CD of the opening of the Rite of Spring. The entire class was floored. It was like a veil had been lifted from the recording. It was like you could reach out and touch the bassoon and bass clarinet. I could hear the clicking of the keys on the bass clarinet like it was in the same room with us. 

 

That is what digital is - transparent. Digital doesn't have a 'sound' per se.  It is the Simon Cowell of audio - brutally honest. It won't put the best spin on a story or flatter a recording. You have to get it right from the get go.

 

But what digital excels at is high fidelity. What I mean is you can take the voltage coming from an analog mixing counsel or mic pre and put it through high end ADDA conversion at it will sound, for all intents and purposes, identical to the sound from the counsel.  That is high fidelity ('faithfulness' to the original signal) and it is not as true for reel to reel tape. 

 

I have heard reel to reel analog tape and it does sound beautiful, no doubt, but at a price.  You don't get something for nothing in this universe. Analog tape still has that slight veil, IMO, that sounds less like 'you are there' in the way I described the Rite of Spring recording. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[bachish]

37 minutes ago, joelha said:

Bachish,

 

Thanks for your message.

 

The reason I don't agree, and you're communicating with someone who has made a serious investment in digital, is even between different high-end dac's, usb cables and yes, even ethernet cables, the sound varies. An SLC SSD operating system drive sounds different than an MLC SSD operating system drive. There can't be a specific digital sound because there are too many variables from studio recording to output on the user's speakers.

 

Having said that, in general, and this is a purely subjective finding, what tends to sound revealing about digital to me, for lack of a better way of putting it, suffers from a lack of smoothness and richness. 

 

I'm not for one minute going to say that reel to reel is more accurate, whatever that means. Because I'm not technically knowledgeable enough to make that assessment.

 

I'll just say from a convenience and cost standpoint, I wish digital sounded better to me.

 

Reel to reel tape I could listen to critically for hours on end. Digital? Not so much.

 

However, I'm not giving up the chase.

 

Reel to reel is too expensive and inconvenient for me to rely on as a primary means of playback.

 

I believe that someday, with ever improving filters and computer technology, digital will be able to replicate any playback means available.

 

Thanks again.

 

Joel

 

 

 

I respect your attraction to analog tape. It's totally valid but I would say again that digital sounds more like the original than analg tape, IMO. That is all I mean. Yes, analog tape can sound deliciously gorgeous. But for classical, I think digital sounds more transparent and a little more 'life like' than analog tape. That's just my opinion. It's totally cool you like analog tape - I do too. But the sooth chocolate of tape has some trade offs.

 

 

[bachish]

12 hours ago, sandyk said:

 

 I imagine that 1st generation digital without a pile of other stuff mixed in does sound better than what most of us get to hear.

 

One can ruin a recording with too much processing, if that is what you mean. Gentle processing can improve a recording if the original has defects: i.e. too much bass, not enough reverb, too much reverb, clinical sounding, harsh, too heavy in the mids, etc.....

[bachish]

5 hours ago, Teresa said:

 

So you can listen to any CD no matter how poorly it was engineered, good for you. I can't, in fact I'm not fond of CDs or 16/44.1kHz PCM, even if well recorded.

 

A 4416 recording, properly downsampled and dithered, should be indistinguishable from the high res version, especially on a high end system.

 

Here are possible reasons you hear a difference,

 

1) A problem with your DAC

2) A poorly executed  downsample (possible on older CDs)

3) Your head wasn't in exactly the same place for each version.

4)  You heard something new in the music when listening to the high res version and attributed it to the high res

5) Expectation bias (a proven phenomenon)

 

Have you tried a blind test?  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[bachish]

11 hours ago, vl said:

 

Sound Keeper's web site has tracks of different resolutions for free downloads.  Listen to them.  With my system the 16/44 tracks sounded very similar to hires tracks.

 

http://www.soundkeeperrecordings.com/format.htm

 

Thanks for the link. I'II check it out. I have done this sort of thing many times and over the years, due to certain experiences, I have developed a skepticism of my own ears.  

 

Oneof my hobbies is recording - I'm a classical musician. Anyway, when you have the experience of fiddling around with processing settings and being convinced you hear a difference for the better, only to find out the bypass button is pushed, you learn pretty quick about expectation bias and how powerful an effect it is on the brain.

 

 

 

 

[bachish]

7 hours ago, Teresa said:

I believe the difference may be indistinguishable to you. Perhaps, you have yet to hear an authentic audiophile or natural recording in high resolution.

 

You have me pegged all wrong, Teresa. I consider myself pretty experienced in these matters - at least I like to think so!

 

7 hours ago, Teresa said:

 I will say Telarc or Reference Recording CDs sound more realistic to me than high resolution recordings from the major labels. However, Telarc pure DSD SACDs and Reference Recordings 24/176.4kHz HRx discs and downloads take that realism to a much higher level.  So since audiophile SACDs, DSDs and 24 bit PCM downloads sound so much better than their CD versions, why mess with CD or 16/44.1kHz PCM?

 

Most high resolution downloads are from the major labels, perhaps these are ones you compared. Try some real audiophile recordings from SACDs and high resolution downloads before you condemn high resolution. Here is a list of my favorite audiophile labels which are audiophile from the microphones to the finished product:

 

• Analogue Productions Originals (recorded live direct to 2-track analog with no editing in Blue Heaven Studios, a church-turned-recording studio)
• AudioQuest Music (SACDs are back in print reissued by Sledgehammer
• Blues)
• Channel Classics
• Chesky Records (Their philosophy is to create the illusion of live musicians in a real three-dimensional space.)
• DMP (no editing within a single song or composition as owner Tom Jung believes editing destroys the flow of the music.)
• Groove Note
• Linn
• MA Recordings
• Opus 3
• PentaTone Classics
• Reference Recordings
• Sheffield Lab
• Stockfisch Records
• Telarc (Pre-2009, especially pure DSD SACDs) Pre-2009 Telarc is my favorite audiophile label.
• ViTaL Records (Vacuum Tube Logic) especially the SACD and DSD versions as rereleased by fonè)
• Wilson Audiophile

 

Sorry but CDs and 16/44.1kHz just are too compromised sonically for me.

 

 

You realize that there is not the hard and fast line between so-called "audiophile labels' and 'major labels', right? 

 

For example, Sound Mirror recording company in Boston - considered one of the top classical recording companies in existence - has recorded for Reference Recordings and Pentatone you listed as 'audiophile labels' but also for every major label.

 

Here it is from their website...

 

Soundmirror’s orchestral, solo, opera, and chamber recordings have received over 80 GRAMMY nominations and awards as well as special commendations from prestigious publications.

Soundmirror has recorded for every major classical record label including Albany, Angel, Analeckta, BMG, Cambria, CBS, Chandos, Clarion, Decca, Deutsche Grammophon, ECM, EMI, Erato, Finlandia, Harmonia Mundi, Koch International, LSO Live, Marc Aural Edition, N2K, Naxos, New World, Nonesuch, PentaTone Classics, Philips, Phonogram, RCA Red Seal, Signum Classics, Sony Classical, Summit, Telarc, Teldec, Virgin Classics, Warner/Elektra as well as many artist in-house labels.

 

They even have Grammy nominations and awards for recordings on the Naxos label. Yep, you heard correctly.  You can check it out here.

 

BTW, the founder of Sound Mirror, John Newton, was a key player in the development of SACD, your favorite format.

 

Another example is Tony Faulkner of Green Room Productions in the UK, a legend in the classical recording world.  Here's the list from his website (notice, gasp! all the major labels!),

 

Albany, American Gramaphone, Andante, Argo, ASV, AVC, BBC Legends, BBC-tv, BMG Arte Nova, BMG Classics, BMG Conifer, Cala, Capriol, CBS Masterworks, CBS-Sony, Celestial Harmonies, CfP, Chandos, Claves, Clovelly, Collegium, Collins, CPO, das alte Werk, Decca l’Oiseau-Lyre, Delos, Denon, Deux-Elles, DG Archiv, EMI Classics, Enigma, Ensayo, Erato, Finlandia, Folio Society, Gimell, Green Label Music, Harmonia Mundi (U.S.A.), Helios, Hyperion, Iambic Productions, JVC, Kane, Koch Classics, Ktel, Landor, Lego, Lodia, LSO Live, Kevin Mayhew Publishing, MCA, Meridian TV, MCS, Musica Sveciae, Musical Heritage, Mute, Naïve, NMC, Nonesuch, Novalis, NVC Arts, NYO, Octavia, Pearl, Philharmonia, Philips Classics, Pianissimo, Pickwick-IMP, Pony Canyon, PRT, Radio New Zealand, RCA Red Seal, Reader’s Digest, Regent, Signum, Solo, Sony Classical, Soundcircus, SRC, Sunshine Taiwan, Telarc, Teldec, Unicorn-Kanchana, United Artists, Universal, Virgin Classics, Virgo, Virtuosi, Vital, Vox, Warner Classics, WEA, Wigmore Hall Live, Windham Hill, Windmill

 

And a third example is Norbert Kraft, a well-known classical guitarists and performer who became one of the great recordists of classical guitar, IMO. Since the 1990s he has been in charge of recording the Naxos Guitar Collection, that pesky major label!  

 

And not all audiophile labels have great recordings either. One of my least favorite recordings of all time is Carmina Burana performed by the Atlanta Symphony and Chorus recorded by Telarc. The SACD layer offers no help. Why? Because the acoustics in the Symphony Hall were awful in 2001. They've since replaced the shell (2013) which has helped a lot. But the acoustics make a far bigger difference than DSD vs PCM or even 44/16 vs 96/24.  If the recording is excellent, it will sound excellent on PCM 44/16, 96/24, 88.2/24 or DSD.  DSD will not automatically sound more analog! 

 

I could say a lot more but I'll leave it at that for now.

 

[bachish]

1 hour ago, Teresa said:

 

Thanks for the lengthy reply. The only Sound Mirror work I have are their remasters of RCA Living Stereo on SACD.

 

All of my Reference Recordings SACDs and 24/176.4 HRx's are engineer by Prof. Keith Johnson. The sub-label Reference Recordings Fresh! are the only ones engineered Sound Mirror, I don't have any of those. So I can't comment on those.

 

Also I clearly stated I like pre-2009 Telarc, especially pure DSD SACDs, that was back before they were purchased by Concord Records, who fired the inhouse recording teams and went to outsourcing. Prior to 2009 Telarc's domestic recordings were done by Michael Bishop, Jack Renner, Robert Woods, etc. and the European recordings were done by Polyhymnia .

 

Also most of my PentaTone recordings were engineered by  Polyhymnia .

 

I've not been very impressed with the Naxos CDs, SACDs or high resolution downloads. I have kept a Naxos SACD and a 24/192 download mostly because of the music. The Naxos SACD lists the recording engineer as Genady Papin and producer as Beta International.

 

So, to sum up I don't remember seeing Sound Mirror listed on any of my recordings except for the RCA Living Stereo remasters, so I can't comment on their original recordings.

 

In closing, I really don't enjoy listening to music at 16/44.1kHz PCM or CD, if you do I am very happy for you. ?

 

So just to clarify...I'm not saying you should or shouldn't like 4416 or 9624 or DSD recordings. I actually prefer high res versions too when I can get them for my own reasons. I'm only saying my belief that I see no reason why a properly downsampled and dithered 4416 recording played through a high end system with a great DAC should sound different than the original 9624 version.  It's what I think and I have several reasons for that. You probably do hear a difference but there are several explanations for it and I listed some of them.  

 

My point in the previous post was addressing the common idea floating around audiophile circles that the major label recordings are inferior to the audiophile labels.  The problem with that view is that many independent recording studios and engineers who are well recognized in the industry have recorded for both audiophile labels and the major labels. Just trying to expand your horizons a bit!

 

What audiophile labels do have is perhaps more consistency. Some recordings on Naxos and Chandos, for example, are truely not good while others are recorded by places like Soundmirror or Norbert Kraft, etc. You just have to do some reasearch to sift the chaff from the wheat. 

 

BTW, under the discography for Soundmirror they list recordings done for Reference Recordings and Pentatone.  

 

[bachish]

1 hour ago, sandyk said:

 Perhaps Bachish who is not a Professional (yet?) should try taking his personal beliefs off line ,and PM either Barry Diament or Cookie Marenco and discuss/learn from them ?

 They are both highly approachable and friendly ,and almost certainly would be able to offer him some very worthwhile advice in their areas of common interest, as would Mario and George too . 

 

Nope not a professional recordist. 

 

Anyway, talking to Barry Diament or Cookie Marenco won't convince me either way. I need to see a repeatable double blind study showing trained listeners were able to hear the difference.

 

The closest study to date I know of that shows trained listeners may be able hear the difference between 4424 and 8824 is an Audio Engineering Society Convention Paper, Sampling rate discrimination: 44.1 vs. 88.2 from May 2010.

 

They had three versions to compare:

 

2 versions recorded at 88.2 and 44.1 simultaneously.

1 version down sampled from 88.2 to 44.1

 

Here is a quote,

 

"Listeners were free to adjust the sound level and their position if needed. The duration of the experiment ranged between two and four hours per participant [plenty of time to become familiar with the files]...three expert listeners out of 16 listeners obtained significant results p<.05, 2 tailed. However, they significantly selected the wrong answer, suggesting they could hear the difference between A and B but picked the wrong one [in other words, they choose the 4424 file thinking it was the 8824]...The remaining 13 participants did not perform above chance level, either at the individual or group level...On a scale of 0 to 10, expert listeners reported that the difficultly level of the task was 9 on average...They commented that the task was very demanding in terms of concentration and that it was hard to stop doubting about what they heard..."

 

In summary, it was primarily the down sampled version that was discernible from the original 88.2, not files recorded at 44.1 and 88.2 simultaneously. 

 

In other words,

 

Files recorded at 88.2 and down sampled to 44.1 were distinguishable to a few but they chose the wrong answers.

Files recorded at 88.2 and 44.1 were mostly indistinguishable to everyone.

 

A couple of points...

 

It's not exactly an endorsement of the benefits of high sample rates when the 3 that had significant results picked the wrong answers.

 

The ADCs were RME Mictasys, not considered high end converters. 

 

As has been pointed out by those who know much more than me, recording w ADCs at different sample rates simultaneously introduces possible artifacts.

 

All said it was quite difficult.

 

The study may only show that the down sampling of Pyramix at the time was somewhat audible.  

 

This paper was presented in May 2010. The study was likely done prior to the year 2010, which puts the technology at approximately a decade old. Not only is the study a decade old but the converters were meh...I'd be curious to see if these results are repeatable today with top converters and the best modern SRC. Personally, I seriously doubt it would be. But I'm willing to change my mind if double blind tests show otherwise.  And besides people, they weren't even picking the 88.2 files when they detected differences! They chose the 44.1 files!

 

 

 

 

 

[bachish]

58 minutes ago, Teresa said:

 

The theory is that, even though we do not hear ultrasonic frequencies, that audio energy exists as upper overtones of musical instruments which has an effect on the lower frequencies which we do hear directly.

 

When listening to music we hear the fundamental note and its overtones shape the timbre, this is why an oboe and a clarinet sound different when playing the same note as their overtone series is different. The more overtones available to shape the timbre of the fundamental tone the more accurate the timbre is.

 

See There's Life Above 20 Kilohertz! A Survey of Musical Instrument Spectra to 102.4 KHz

 

Even if so, the overtones were present at the time of the recording and were exerting their influence on the lower frequencies and those effects would already be captured by the microphones in the recording.

 

 

 

 

[bachish]

55 minutes ago, Teresa said:

Actually, I was aware that my favorite recording engineers from Telarc who formed Five/Four Productions made a few recordings for Deutsche Grammophon. However, I assume (and I could be wrong) that the requirements of a major label are different than the requirments of an audiophile label or a recording company who strives to make the most natural sounding recordings they possibly can.

 

Deutsche Grammphone tends towards a particular German approach to recording (understandably) that is the opposite from the minimalism of many of the 'audiophile' labels, but I think every bit as valid. The German 'Tonmeister' way tends towards many more microphones and spot mics. The advantage? A more detailed capture for sure with an added excitement. You can hear at times the rattling of the string against the fingerboards in Beethoven. With minimalist recording techniques, the mics have to be further back to get a good balance and blend. And since air absorbs high frequencies, the further back you go the more you lose the softer and higher overtones that I don't think can be fully regained by a high-frequency lift in the mics - a technique often used with minimalist micing. The closer mics allow for a full capture of the complexities of the timbre of the expensive string instruments. Is there a sacrifice in the Tonmeister approach? Of course. You lose the some of the natural stereo imaging and soundstage present in more minimalist techniques. But you gain detail, excitement, and tonal complexity.  Recording, like most things in life, has its trade-offs and pros and cons. What you like is dependent on your priorities.

 

1 hour ago, Teresa said:

A while back I read an interview with an engineer who has worked for both commercial and audiophile labels. And he does what his client asks as they are paying him. It's up to the client (record company, artists, etc.) if they want a natural minimalist recording or a big production with EQ., limiting, compression, etc. He records popular, jazz and other non-classical music. It's possible that outsourced engineers are given more freedom with classical music, I don't know. At any rate I'm sticking with audiophile and boutique labels in high resolution.

 

Yes, the clients have their taste as well and you have to do what they like.  I personally don't think very gentle processing done with excellent software or hardware is ever out of the questions.  Minimalism only fully works in an ideal setting (acoustics, for example). In a less than ideal setting, the recording engineer has to grapple with all sorts of annoying problems that can be improved with some processing. If you like the sound of a label, by all means, enjoy! I'm definitely not trying to convince you to like something - just trying to open your mind a tad

 

1 hour ago, Teresa said:

I don't own the Telarc Carmina Burana you mention, but I do have the first movement (O Fortuna) on Telarc's SACD Sampler No. 1 and I just played it and the 2:33 excerpt sounds excellent on my system. I don't own the complete SACD as I am not a fan of classical singing styles, I prefer folk, rock, pop, jazz for the human voice. 

 

If it's the same recording, we definitely have different ideas of a good orchestral recording! Way to dry for my taste!  Maybe it's a different release.  Not sure

[bachish]

4 hours ago, sandyk said:

 

 That is indeed possible. Perhaps Teresa can tell you the album number ?  

However, to fully understand where you are coming from in general, it would be helpful to know what the system you are using consists of.

For example, is it hardware based, CD/DVD player etc. or are you using a PC for playback ? 

IF you are using a PC for playback, (This IS Computer Audiophile Forum) are you playing from System Memory using a highly regarded S/W player such as jRiver ?

if not, what S/W are you playing the music with , and are you using A.S.I.O ?

 

I have a few ways to listen.  I have a regular stereo system - Paradigm Monitor 11s tower speakers (about 17 years old. Work great), Older Harmon Kardon Amp bi amping the paradigms,  Marantz CD player with digital outs to a Grace Design M900 DAC/Pre amp. Used to have a SACD player. 

 

or

 

Playing the wav file 4416 on my computer using the M900 onto some JBL near field monitors or Blue Mo Fi Headphones. No fancy player. Sounds the same in my DAW as in the regular players on my computer. I am using the xmos Stereo USB Audio Class 2 driver so I can play DSD and very high sample rates.

 

or

 

Listening on my MO FI headphones through my Rolland R44 portable recorder's digital outs to the M900.

 

It's not the set up. I don't think the acoustic of the concert hall is particularly beautiful, flatters, helps, or enhances the sound. The bass drum sounds dead as a door nail. 

 

This Gramophone Recording is by far superior,

 

https://www.deutschegrammophon.com/us/cat/4797445

 

 

 

[bachish]

1 hour ago, rando said:

For the sake of clarity she is referring to a selection off this album.

 

 

Yep, that's it.  This is one recording where some processing would have helped to compensate for the acoustic.

[bachish]

2 minutes ago, sandyk said:

 

 What OS are you using ?  Are you playing music directly from System Memory ?  

 

Windows 10. I'm not streaming if that is what you are asking. The music is stored on my hard drive. 

[bachish]

11 hours ago, sandyk said:

 

 O.K. I use W10/64.

To get a superior performance you need to bypass the dreaded Windows mixer which degrades SQ and S/N and turn off System sounds too.

To do this you are best using ASIO and playing from System Memory using a decent S/W player like jRiver or even the simplistic cPlay. Unless you  use something like this you are unlikely in your case to hear the subtle but worthwhile differences between 16/44.1 and 24/192 etc.Neither does the " Jack of all trades" Foobar 2000 come even close to the SQ obtainable using JRiver.

 A large number of C.A. members use JRiver for it's superior A and V performance.

 

 In my case I have an internal ASUS Xonar D2X soundcard using A.S.I.O, and play from System Memory (you need to choose the correct settings for this in JRiver too) via Coax SPDIF to a modified Musical Fidelity X-DAC V3 into a Class A HA and AT W1000 headphones.

It can be a revelation to hear the differences compared with  Foobar 2000 , Power DVD, VLC Media player, even Sound Forge 9's own playback.

 The closest to this kind of performance that I have heard with Hardware was from a friend's Perfect Wave Transport which also plays from internal memory.

 

Thanks for the info. To save time I called Grace Design directly and they said all my settings are good and with the driver I installed from their website it should be bit perfect playback, assuming the player I am using isn't doing any DSD behind the scenes, which it shouldn't be doing.  But I suppose it might be a good insurance for peace of mind to get a better player to be sure there is no funny business going on. I was advised to keep the levels all the way up on the computer and do all level changes with the DAC or I am throwing away bits. Other than that, they said I am good to go.

 

One thing that would be far more convienient is to get a better player, like you mention. Right now, with the plug in I'm using, I have to set the sample rate and bit depth manually. It can be a pain. A better player would do that automatically. 

 

But I'll look into it further. Thanks again for the info.

 

 

[bachish]

46 minutes ago, Teresa said:

 

Yes, that is the album the excerpt (O Fortuna) on Telarc's SACD Sampler No. 1 is from. 

 

 

Each to their own. I'm sure glad Telarc didn't do any processing on their SACDs of the Atlanta Symphony as they are some of the finest sounding recordings I own. And in my system the acoustic sounds perfect with a very I am there feel. I would say the acoustics are fantastic. We are either not hearing the same things, have drastically different sounding audio systems, speaker placements, hearing or we live on different planets. Anyway if you don't like the way Telarc records, don't buy them. That's what I do, I try to buy only what I think I will like. And if I end up with something I don't like I sell it, trade it in or in the case of computer downloads delete the music file and all backups.

 

Absolutely, if you like it, I think that's great.  The performance is wonderful no doubt, which is the most important thing to me.

 

But we also differ on the appropriateness of processing. I don't follow a dogmatic almost religious view of some audiophiles that processing is always bad. I think some processing to compensate for defects, especially with the quite amazing quality of the hardware and software today, often helps recordings.  

 

And just FYI, the acoustics in Symphony Hall was widely known to have serious issues prior to 2013 when they installed a new $500,000 shell on stage. To me, it's obvious in the recording that was recorded in the early 2000s but hey, Viva la difference! And maybe there is a re-release, who knows.

 

Now hear this! New $500,000 acoustical shell improves long-lamented sound in Symphony Hall

 

But the all-important change is in the sound. Musicians have long complained that it is difficult to hear one another on the stage, and the hall’s acoustics have left much to be desired. “The sound is more immediate; there is more bloom,” Murphy says. “Personally, I find it easier to make a quality sound, especially in quiet dynamics. I am hearing other sections of the orchestra much more easily, especially the woodwinds and the double basses.”

 

BTW, I didn't say I didn't like Telarc. Quite the opposite.

 

 

 

[bachish]

1 hour ago, Teresa said:

 

I just looked at the technical information on my Atlanta Symphony Orchestra Telarc SACDs it says they used on-stage acoustic treatments, your research explains why. I only have a few Telarc recordings that use acoustic treatments on-stage. So, they too knew it was a less than perfect hall.

 

Just to clarify the old Telarc's stand (pre-2009), they preferred to do pre-production as opposed to post-production. They moved microphones around, players around, sometimes covered or removed the first row of seats in a concert hall, etc. They did many sound tests beforehand because once they began the actual recording that is what the finished product was unless they needed to correct a bad note or other mistake.

 

That is definitely the preferable way to go, to get as much correct as possible in the analog domain so you don't have to do any processing in post.  I totally agree with this method. Processing is a last resort and only if it helps. Decca, back in the day, used to spend a great deal of time tuning the hall through various treatments. 

 

There are definitely things you can do to help acoustical problems in a concert hall but in the end, having read a little about concert hall acoustics and all that is involved in that, my sense is a glorious sounding acoustic probably isn't going to be gotten from these fixes, though improvements are certainly likely. 

 

I do admit I'm a big fan of gorgeous reverb in concert halls on recordings (not overdone, of course!). Just my taste.