Article: Calibrating My Ears at the San Francisco Symphony

[Fitzcaraldo215]

10 hours ago, STC said:

 

The technology is here but the implementation is tedious. The sound in concert hall consists of two parts. Direct and reflected sound. Most classical recordings are a mixture of close miking and from the critical radius where the reverberation and direct sound ratio are equal (more or less). 

 

In real life, the sweet spot is much further away than the critical distance where the microphones were placed to do the recording. We are essentially listening to 90 percent of the hall's sound and only about 10% of the direct sound from the performers.

 

The rest of the 40 percent of the actual concert hall sound is not in the recordings. It is a myth to believe you can reproduce the concert hall sound with only 40% of the actual sound in the recording. It cannot be done. Furthermore, the reflected sound comes in surround mode from thousands, if not millions of different angle all around the listeners head giving the sense of envelopment. This reflected sound if reproduced in the recording it will sound fuzzy because the speakers will be sending this reflected sound from only two angle as opposed to the millions in a concert hall.

 

A good room with diffusers, can help to reproduce the balance of 40% of the reflected sound but due to the limited volume of our normal listening room it can only give a marginal sense of envelopment. Also notice that in recordings, you only have TWO location of the source. Unlike a live concert performance, the reflected direction of the reverberation in listening room is rather monotonous as the direction cannot vary beyond the two speakers radiation point.

 

 

I agree with much of what you say.  But, there is a solution that works extraordinarily well in dealing with the issues you cited - discretely recorded multichannel sound.

 

I have been attending  Philadelphia Orchestra and other live concerts for decades.  Obviously, nothing beats live performance sonically. But, I was always struck by the fact that no stereos - my own very fine and costly ones or even more outrageously over the top ones - were really faithful to the sound one experiences at live concerts.  Yes,  I could deeply enjoy the music at home in stereo, but it still was too far from sounding real to me.

 

Fortunately, my encounters with Mch audio over a decade ago changed that, dramatically for the better,  and I upgraded to a high quality 7.1 system.  Also, fortunately, I discovered that there was a substantial and rewarding classical discography in discretely recorded Mch on SACD, plus less so on BD-V and BD-A.  Yes, the selection is much smaller than on CD, but I have collected many thousands of Mch albums, all ripped to my NAS.  I do not miss CDs at all, and I have not bought any stereo recordings in over 10 years.

 

I am not implying utter perfection in discrete Mch.  But, I am much, much more satisfied in home listening, with none of the feelings that something is missing from the sound. It changed my life more than any other audio experience.  I also have found that attempting to tweak your hopelessly too small listening  room for concert hall sound or using stereo to Mch upmixing both fall far and disappointingly short of discretely recorded Mch sound.  

[Fitzcaraldo215]

2 hours ago, firedog said:

I know that some theaters/performance halls are using acoustic paneling and DSP to ensure that everyone in the theater hears the same thing at the same time: in other words, mics to DSP to multiple speakers all around the hall, and DSP and paneling being used to make sure each audience member hears the same thing at the same time.

I also know that some of the new symphony halls have various "movable" acoustic panels/ceilings in order to alter the sound of the hall depending on the piece and size of the ensemble being used. 

I wonder if any orchestra has contemplated doing something similar with DSP and classical?

No established first or second tier ensemble would consider that, I think, for classical music, opera, etc.  The audience would be aghast.  I know I would cancel my subscription.  Similarly, if the Met Opera in NYC started using head mikes like they do in Broadway shows, there would be pandemonium.

 

The design of Verizon Hall, the Philadelphia Orchestra's home performance space, was designed about 2 decades ago with certain adjustable acoustic features - like large, rotatable wall panels behind side seating areas, a lowerable section of ceiling, etc.  There is however absolutely no sound reinforcement by speakers during orchestra performances.  And, although there was much concern, effort, measurement and attention, all quite expensive during design, the hall was initially disappointing in spite of the adjustable features.  Several cycles of expensive remeasurement and reconfiguration gradually but steadily  improved that noticeably, though some of the tweaks were surprisingly small..  That is not unusual for concert halls.  

 

Today, I think it is a good hall, though not a Concertgebouw, Symphony Hall Boston, Musikvereinsaal, etc.  I believe that the expensive original adjustable acoustics are now totally unused.

 

Having said that, I would not part to the death with DSP EQ for my room/speaker setup.  It is huge.  Acoustic treatments are much more of a crap shoot.  And, if you do not fully understand acoustics, it is pretty much trial and error both for large halls using prestige consultants and for home listening rooms.

 

[Fitzcaraldo215]

8 hours ago, austinpop said:

 

Wow thanks, that is great insight and advice!

 

I’ll have to give it a try and see, next time I attend the SFS. In general - not specific to Davies - I have found the sound in the cheap seats in the upper tiers to lack dynamics, although perhaps it is accompanied by a more balanced presentation?

 

I’ll have to see. I find live dynamics to be one of the more compelling aspects of attending the symphony.

 

I’ll also have to check out Dallas and Cleveland!

Many halls may have their own particular sweet spots, also depending on arbitrary listener preference, mythology, etc.

 

After sitting in many different seats at various levels in Verizon Hall, Philadelphia, I am happiest with Orchestra Floor level, center section, about 2/3 toward the rear.  Dead centered or not in that section doesn't make a big difference to me, nor does a few rows forward or back.  

 

The sight lines are not as good as in the balconies. We used to have first tier, center balcony boxes with perfect sight lines and no overhang, but the sound is preferable to me on the Orchestra Floor level.

 

But, the live music experience is precious, and that comes through no matter the seat, slight quibbles about the sound or sight lines aside..

[Fitzcaraldo215]

11 hours ago, Deyorew said:

I always thought concert videos always sound better with the tv on too. Something about watching it while you hear it brings it to the next level.

I have hundreds of concert videos, operas, ballets, etc.. I agree, there is no more engrossing musical experience in the home than audio plus video. I really enjoy seeing the passion and intensity of the performers in making great music.  For opera, I even prefer it to being there, after having been a Met subscriber for decades, much as I also prefer football on TV.  The sound from BD can be quite good, as well.

 

The only problem is I tire after several watchings of seeing exactly the same faces, gestures, expressions each time.  No problem, though.  I just turn off the video if need be.

[Fitzcaraldo215]

16 hours ago, STC said:

 

+1 to that. Two speakers system cannot adequately portray a concert hall sound. I have always preferred multichannel format over stereo  for full orchestra. Most Mch SACD's rear channel carries the rear hall ambiance. This is closer to concert hall performance as the additional channels/speakers are reproducing what couldn't be included in the main stereo channel. There are also other 5.1 where the rear or surround channels are not true stereo sound but mere discrete mono channels for creating a sense of surround sound by projecting sound from side and rear. This is more useful for movies.

 

Having said that, even the 5.1 or 7.1 is still far from realism. In my system of 72 channels of hall ambiance alone vs  5.1  (I do not have 7.1 music tracks), the difference can be heard easily. I still think that is still far from realism.

 

Nice to know another fan of multichannel format.

 

Cheers!

Yup, Mch delivers much more of the live experience, but I find that to be true for solo, chamber, and opera as well as orchestral.

 

I have a few 7.1 BDs, but I don't find much advantage over 5.1.  And, the number of 7.1 discrete recordings, even on videos, has been disappointing.  Personally, by hindsight, I think investing in 7.1 vs. just 5.1 was a waste for me.  And, I listen to 5.1 source material as 5.1, not upsampled to 7.1.  I also listen to stereo sources as 2.1, though not frequently.

 

My speaker setup using the ITU standard does a great job with both music and video.  I have no issues with it whatsoever.  It is also totally congruent with DTS and Dolby recommended speaker layouts.

 

As an audiophile/music lover in the wilderness for decades, discretely recorded hirez Mch is clearly the best reproduction there is in terms of capturing the sense of the live concert experience by reproducing a better replica of the sound field in the hall. Many of the small classical labels dedicated to it also have exemplary engineering practices that make it possible.  Though I have heard and I have owned many superbly fine stereos at huge expense in that time span, for the first time I don't find myself wondering why it doesn't sound more like the live music I cherish.

 

 

[Fitzcaraldo215]

1 hour ago, austinpop said:

 

 

Great point about Mch SACD.

 

I too have hundreds of ripped Mch SACDs in my library. I do listen to them in my home theater, using my Oppo 105D to stream from my NAS. A few points on this:

• this is a format particularly sensitive to the recording and mastering engineers' skill and aesthetic. The ones that get this right are amazing, but others are ... weird.
• the speaker placement for which Mch SACDs are typically mastered, is NOT the same as for 5.1 HT, but I've never been motivated enough to reconfigure my setup for the recommended Mch music.
• Also, my 5.1 setup uses smaller speakers for center and surround, whereas Mch music benefits from identical speakers all around.

All that said, it is an intriguing alternate path to the concert experience. I admit that I veer towards being a stereo purist myself.

 

I have thousands of Mch files on my NAS.  I haven't found too many weird ones, although I do not like the occasional one done from a within ensemble rather than an audience perspective.  I don't want to listen to a string quartet with the instruments surrounding me.  But, I have learned which labels are the good ones, and I have relied on reviews, both musically and sonically, at:

 

https://www.hraudio.net/home.php

 

I also don't find that the ITU 5.1 spec, used for SACD and most BD Mch music, is at odds at all with either DTS or Dolby speaker layout recommendations for BluRay in 5.1.  I researched that carefully.  There is perfect congruence of the recommended speaker angles within their respective recommended ranges.  7.1 is more troublesome and less well standardized, but there is not much music there.  

 

Yes, there was the old DVD-era movie setup for THX using bi-/di-pole surround speakers.  But, that is now old hat, superceded by DTS HD MA and Dolby True HD recommendations.  And, I am perfectly satisfied in my own setup based on ITU for both music and video.  So, if it is right for music, can you really tell in a movie soundtrack that it is incorrect in the surround channels?  I sure can't.  I have no reference for exactly from whence that movie surround effect was supposed to emanate. 

 

Speaker matching is important.  However, one of the advantages of full range DSP room EQ is that it voices all speaker channels near identically.  That might not cure all problems with mismatched speakers in Mch, but it might also help a lot.  Identical speakers all around, or at least across the front may be ideal,  but the results can be surprisingly good with care with nonidentical ones, preferably from the same manufacturer.

 

I have three different pairs of electrostat hybrid speakers plus a horizontal center all from one manufacturer, Martin Logan, all with similar drivers, but in different sizes.  But, my system does not suffer at all in comparison to other Mch setups I have heard, including all identical or identical across the front ones.  The owners of those systems agree after having heard mine.

 

 

 

[Fitzcaraldo215]

22 minutes ago, bbosler said:

I am intrigued by the discussion of surround  SACD  or DVD-A as I recently acquired a player that can  decode them.  I will explore the link to the HiRez site. In the meantime, if you had to recommend 1 or 2 discs to start with what would they be? Any genre.. thanks

 

 

Gosh, musical tastes vary so much.  So, I would rather recommend some fine SACD  labels to you for you to choose the selections:

 

BIS

Channel Classics

Chandos

Harmonia Mundi

RCO Live (Concertgebouw)

Reference Recordings

SFS (San Francisco)

Telarc (now defunct)

many others, including a few from some major studios like DGG, RCA, etc.

 

Best to search at hraudio.net for Mch releases, usually with full reviews.

[Fitzcaraldo215]

7 hours ago, astrotoy said:

I have about 600 mch albums.  I would second Fitzcaraldo's list but would add Pentatone.  Mine are almost all classical.  Channel Classics is excellent and very reliable in quality.  They do almost all their recording in DSD64 and have both SACDs and downloads (from NativeDSD which they own, but distributes many DSD mch and stereo label downloads).  I did a deal with them a couple of years ago and bought the entire Channel Classics mch catalogue from them, buying both the mch and stereo versions of the albums in a package.  There were about 200 albums at that time. 

 

Most of my other mch albums I bought the SACD and ripped the mch file using a Sony PS3, discussed in other threads.  You can also use an Oppo 105 or 103 (IIRC) to rip the SACD.  I have a DAC while I use mostly for the mch files.

 

The Budapest Festival Orchestra albums with Ivan Fischer are a pretty uniformly good choice on Channel Classics.  The Julia Fischer albums on Pentatone are also uniformly excellent (she has moved to Decca and now her releases are CD only).  Rachel Podger's violin SACD's are also very fine.  If you like opera, Rene Jacob's Marriage of Figaro on HarMun is wonderful as a SACD. 

 

Larry

Completely agree, Larry.  I should have included PentaTone.  They are an excellent label, one of the very best for Mch.

 

I like your other choices, as well, especially that Jacobs Marriage of Figaro on Harmonia Mundi.

 

One label I do not care for, unfortunately, is LSO Live, due to fairly consistently mediocre sonics.  A superb orchestra, and partly I am sure it is due to the Barbican's acoustics.  But, I don't think their engineering is top notch either.  

[Fitzcaraldo215]

40 minutes ago, bbosler said:

thanks to everyone for the surround suggestions. I downloaded a sampler from Channel Classics.

25 takes from 25 years . I would say after a preliminary listen it is a mixed bag. The performances and sonics are consistently very good, the surround not so much. It seems to me your attention  shouldn't be drawn to the side channels, but with some of these recordings you are sitting in the middle of the orchestra they are so loud, and on one I felt like was inside the piano. On one vocal track the voice was coming from everywhere. Perhaps the sound of a very, very reverberant hall but seems unnatural to me. I double checked and with test signals all 5 channels are very close to the same volume so I have to  contribute it to the mix. I'll keep experimenting

It is clear that your system is not set up and calibrated correctly.  With Channel Classics and other fine labels,  the surround channels disappear as separate sound sources.  You notice what they do only by reverting to stereo, where the sound field collapses and recedes to the front of the room. Also, performers should stay anchored in the front, as in live performance.  They should not become vague and diffuse or appear to emanate from surround channels.  If a Channel Classics selection in Mch does not sound much more like what you hear in live performance, it is your system setup that is at fault, quite simply.

 

I can only suggest that for starters you read the following essay I posted in another forum:

 

https://audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/multichannel-system-for-music-standards-setup-thoughts-etc.3295/

[Fitzcaraldo215]

10 hours ago, RichardSF said:

 

 

It's been happening for many years, including some premier classical venues. Here's an article from 1999:

https://www.nytimes.com/1999/08/18/theater/enhancing-sound-in-a-hush-hush-way.html

 

 

Well, I don't see any  "top tier" halls listed, but the article is nearly two decades old and some halls may wish to remain anonymous.  

 

The article discusses the aspect of using DSP reinforcement to enhance reflected energy, reverb, etc. in overly dry halls, rather than using it to alter any direct sound from the performers on stage.  This might well be a good application of DSP augmentation in cases where it is needed.  Halls like that might otherwise be impossible to fix via purely passive, acoustic methods.  And, as we know, architects and acoustic consultants frequently are unable to fully anticipate resulting hall acoustic problems in their design.

 

We do have an outdoor venue for summer concerts, the Mann Center here in Philly.  It is very large with a roof covering the audience, but with no side walls.  There is a sophisticated sound reinforcement system there, though maybe not state of the art.  But, it ain't so hot.  I don't go anymore.

 

But, once again, I will say that I consider DSP EQ absolutely essential in home listening on all speaker channels, even on the priciest and most prestigious systems.  Small room acoustics, speakers, etc. have their own problems which are very difficult to resolve any other way.

 

 

 

 

[Fitzcaraldo215]

18 hours ago, semente said:

People should try putting on a blindfold before the orchestra members take to their seats.

They'd be surprised by how much of what you describe (and audiophiles have come to expect from their playback) is the result of visual cues.

 

Soundstage is an audiophile invention. ?

I agree partially, but not entirely.  I agree that live classical concert sound tends to be more diffuse than it is on many recordings.  Without the visual cues live, I often have difficulty localizing the exact position of performers playing solo within the orchestra.  Many recordings tend to give a somewhat more exaggerated sense of the "soundstage" and the location of the performers within it.

 

But, I see it as a engineering choice in recording, not an "audiophile" thing.  I believe engineers favor that heightened detail and soundstage because they know listeners will lack visual cues.  It is also a result of the relatively closer micing - often on or over the stage - than the true audience perspective.  That is necessary in order to suppress many hall reflections, particularly in stereo, lest the direct sound be too cavernous sounding.  Of course, some engineers also go overboard with too many onstage spot mics, which can distort the spatial imaging.

 

With the best recordings in fine systems, however, there is definitely a perceivable soundstage in terms of width, depth, apparent size and dimensionality of the instruments, and even suggested height in some systems.  And, personally, I find that discrete Mch renders these soundstage attributes better and more plausibly than stereo together with much more of the diffuse, reflected sound field in the hall, including maintaining the directional information associated with those hall reflections.