|
|
|
seth said:
You're overstating your case a bit. Unless you're Bill Gates or a Saudi oil prince, I doubt your listening room as the aesthetic appeal of a concert hall. The aesthetic of your listening space affects how you hear the music. There's a reason why concert halls are extremely opulent instead of bare like a recording studio.
mmmmm
Seth,
When I was a young teen, my main mentor in learning to enjoy classical music was my mother's blind uncle. He had a small house - to tell the truth it was a shack with a wrap-around porch. The Hi Fi (monaural) was in a room adjacent to the porch and we listened there on summer nights through an open door and window, sitting in rocking chairs in the dark. So I learned to listen in the dark - having closed eyes allows a much clearer and greater concentration on the music. With closed eyes the music envelops you and you become a part of it.
I practice this even in the concert hall. Truth to tell the best hall I've ever been in is Symphony Hall in Boston and while I feel a sense of reverence there, it is far from opulent. Such opulence as exists is in the form of recessed statues which according to an article I read on acoustics, break up the sound - the word is diffraction I believe. Carnegie is more of a feast for the eyes and IMO not nearly as desireable a place to listen. No place I've ever been so flatters the sound of strings as Symphony Hall in Boston where I listen mostly with my eyes closed.
Bruce
|
|
|
Post by Peter December 22, 2005 (62 of 121)
|
|
Edvin said:
Oh dear, not again. But Peter, if you give five stars to an old Sony recording from the fifties what are you supposed to do with, say, the new RCO-Live with Stravinsky/Rachmaninov or the Gorgeous Tchaikovsky third suite from PentaTone? You have no more stars left. And if you think that the sound quiality is as high on the old Sony recordings you need to have your ears examined. I understand that one can be exalted by an sacd and in the heat of the moment give it five stars and even wanting more. But I also think it is wise to cool down and listen again, and again.
Sound reproduction is an exact science, not some whim. And also, I was not at all arrogant when I used the word silly. I know a lot of words that are far more powerful, and I feel an urge to use some of them every time I read your postings.
The reviews in question are very well written, something we can´t expect from you, Peter.
I don't believe you've read what I've written. Your concluding insults were predictable.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edvin said:
The reviews in question are very well written, something we can´t expect from you, Peter.
Really don't need this kind of needling do we?
Otherwise Edvin, I agree with you and wish we could convince Peter of the value of what we are trying to promote here.
|
|
|
Post by Peter December 22, 2005 (64 of 121)
|
|
Windsurfer said:
Really don't need this kind of needling do we?
Otherwise Edvin, I agree with you and wish we could convince Peter of the value of what we are trying to promote here.
I am convinced of the value of what you are trying to promote; it's the manner sometimes which undermines the case. Belittling others' views doesn't support a case.
BTW, I'm sure, if you have read my posts, you will know why I have not contributed any reviews for some time.
|
|
|
Post by racerguy December 22, 2005 (65 of 121)
|
|
Windsurfer said:
So what does the 2 channel system provide that you don't get from the multi-channel rig? I am curious about the classical side - such recordings as MTT'S Mahler 1, Channel Classics Beethoven Cello sonatas, Pentatone's Julia Fischer playing unaccompanied Bach. Played back in multichannel these recordings actually give me the illusion of being transported into the concert hall. That is a thing I value so much I assumed everyone else would also.
I gather you do not.
Having listened to stereo for most of my adult life and visited, unfortunately not owned, some truly extraordinary systems; I can say without hesitation, the sense of actually being there has never been anywhere near as keen in stereo as in multi-channel.
Sure stereo can focus in on specifics in a way that no live performance can - and if that is the thing you refer to as musical satisfaction, well you are entitled to it and I should probably have made some allowance for those who hold that preference - but I think a recording should try to recreate the sense of being in a concert, complete with concert hall. That is what I always assumed the Fi in Hi Fi was supposed to be all about.
Stereo just doesn't do that for me, never did and I really don't think it is possible compared to MCh....except for binaural which as you probably know is a dummy head with special mics that replicate the human hearing. Of course you must use headphones to derive any benefit from that, but according to what I've read that is the most accurate way to achieve what they set about when recording acoustic music in a real concert space. MCh does a pretty good job of doing this with speakers but I wish I had been able to hear some binaural recordings when I had Stax headphones.
For a different view see the writings of Art Dudley in Stereophile. He apparently views Hi Fi as fidelity to one's own perceptions and not to accuracy in reproduction. Art is apparently in favor of recording as Art rather than the art of recording with fidelity to an event.
I agree that some multichannel recordings create an illusion, but to me the illusion is totally artificial. I am a season ticket-holder for my state symphony orchestra, so I have a regular reference. I have NEVER heard a multichannel recording on my MC system, or any other MC system, that sounded like "being there." I am always aware that what is coming from behind me emanates from loudspeakers. There's an illusion, but to me it's not a convincing one. To you the illusion created by MC may sound more "real" than the illusion created by stereo, but to me, they are both illusions, so one really doesn't have a tremendous advantage over the other.
For me, one of the benefits of attending a live orchestra performance is being able to listen into the orchestra and pick out individual instruments/voices from the mass. Most audio systems tend to obscure this level of detail to varying degrees. I find that the more revealing the system, the easier it is to pick out specific instruments or voices. My stereo rig is highly revealing, with substantial amount of detail. It is much easier to listen into the orchestra with my stereo system than it is with my less-revealing MC system. That is why I took issue with your statement that mediocre MC always beats high-quality stereo.
|
|
|
Post by brenda December 22, 2005 (66 of 121)
|
|
Peter said:
I am convinced of the value of what you are trying to promote; it's the manner sometimes which undermines the case. Belittling others' views doesn't support a case.
BTW, I'm sure, if you have read my posts, you will know why I have not contributed any reviews for some time.
i drop by the site only infrequently now, and never leave reviews, and for the same reason, peter, - the insults and unchecked aggression which seems to characterise the site, with edvin recently taking over from dutchman in that regard. Sad.
|
|
|
Post by Peter December 22, 2005 (67 of 121)
|
|
brenda said:
i drop by the site only infrequently now, and never leave reviews, and for the same reason, peter, - the insults and unchecked aggression which seems to characterise the site, with edvin recently taking over from dutchman in that regard. Sad.
Hello Brenda - whilst I agree with you wholeheartedly, the main reason for my not posting reviews was due to lightning damage to my equipment in August. Last week I got the last and vital replacement, the preamp, so I can listen again in my living room via rather better equipment.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Shall we go back and see where the naked aggression and insults first started? Hmmm? Why, from Brenda of course when she started this whole thing by calling me a racist for a one line comment that had absolutely no implied or expressed racist content. Grow up, Brenda, you prissy little prima donna. The naked aggression and hostility come mostly from you.
|
|
|
Post by Allan1us December 23, 2005 (69 of 121)
|
|
Edvin said:
Oh dear, not again. But Peter, if you give five stars to an old Sony recording from the fifties what are you supposed to do with, say, the new RCO-Live with Stravinsky/Rachmaninov or the Gorgeous Tchaikovsky third suite from PentaTone? You have no more stars left. And if you think that the sound quiality is as high on the old Sony recordings you need to have your ears examined. I understand that one can be exalted by an sacd and in the heat of the moment give it five stars and even wanting more. But I also think it is wise to cool down and listen again, and again.
Sound reproduction is an exact science, not some whim. And also, I was not at all arrogant when I used the word silly. I know a lot of words that are far more powerful, and I feel an urge to use some of them every time I read your postings.
The reviews in question are very well written, something we can´t expect from you, Peter.
Reading Peter's review was a joy because you communicated the real pleasure the record and the music gave you. And that's what it is all about in the end. In my humble opinion it was also very well written, or at least certainly more than well enough written for this context. Perhaps Edvin's grasp of English is not one hundred percent?
|
|
|
Post by Peter December 23, 2005 (70 of 121)
|
|
Allan1us said:
Reading Peter's review was a joy because you communicated the real pleasure the record and the music gave you. And that's what it is all about in the end. In my humble opinion it was also very well written, or at least certainly more than well enough written for this context. Perhaps Edvin's grasp of English is not one hundred percent?
Allan, thank you for that. I very much appreciate your comments, and regret that for various reasons I will be unable to contribute any more reviews.
|
|
