Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site oliven.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!mhuxn!mhuxj!mhuxr!ulysses!allegra!bellcore!decvax!decwrl!sun!idi!oliven!greg
From: greg@oliven.UUCP (Greg Paley)
Newsgroups: net.audio,net.music.classical
Subject: Live vs. Home Audio Sound
Message-ID: <813@oliven.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 1-Mar-85 13:12:44 EST
Article-I.D.: oliven.813
Posted: Fri Mar  1 13:12:44 1985
Date-Received: Mon, 4-Mar-85 04:43:34 EST
Organization: Olivetti ATC, Cupertino, Ca
Lines: 103
Xref: watmath net.audio:4246 net.music.classical:940


In discussing the live performances vs. recordings I am here
referring strictly to the difference in sound per se, not in
musical interpretation.  Also I'm making no statement about the
superiority of one over the other:  I believe both are essential
but are different experiences, not to be directly compared.

In references to equipment and recordings, it's common to use
live performance sound as a criterion for excellence.  The better
the equipment and recording, the closer it sounds to the live
performance.  This is particularly true of publications like
"Absolute Sound".

I think that, to a degree, they're kidding themselves, or, rather,
being tricked by their own senses.  It would be interesting to
ask a blind person what their opinion is about the same recordings
and equipment, because I feel that the visual element in a live
performance situation radically alters one's perceptions and
memory of what was actually heard.  It is as though some human
(subconscious) mechanism strives to provide a sense of coherence
between the varying inputs of eye and ear.
I've made a point when attending live concerts
recently of listening to extended passages with my eyes closed.
I find that such concepts as "imaging", "depth of field", "ambience",
and general balances heard live would not be considered acceptable
by audiophile standards were they to be exactly reproduced on
a recording at home.  This, at least, is my conclusion when
listening to large orchestral and choral forces in large auditoriums.

A particular example of this is a performance I heard last Friday
of the San Jose Symphony under George Cleve performing Mahler's
"Das Lied von der Erde" with Jessye Norman and Richard Cassily as
soloists.  The performance itself was exceptionally fine, incidentally.
The orchestral playing astonished me, since this orchestra is
generally considered to be of provincial quality.

With my eyes open, locating the performing forces for me, everything
seemed to sound fine - voices clearly projecting and a marvelous
balance and depth to the sound.  With my eyes closed, I realized
that if this were a recording, I'd consider the miking of soloists
to be seriously deficient - they seemed recessed and submerged into
the orchestra.  This was particularly true of the tenor, even 
though he has a huge voice and performs the likes of Otello and
Tannhaueser (boy it would be nice to be able to type umlauts here)
at the Met.  

Even though I didn't plan to mention musical performance,
there's one point I can't resist mentioning here.  Several people
have complained about James King's handling of the tenor part in
this work on the Haitink and Bernstein recordings, praising the
work of Araiza on the new Giulini recording and Wunderlich on the
Klemperer recording.  I understand what they're saying, but feel
it necessary to clarify that Araiza and Wunderlich are giving
recording-studio-only performances;  voices of this sweetness and
beauty would be lost against this orchestration in a live performance
or else, if they would be heard at all, they would have none of
that sweetness and beauty left by the time they had managed to
project their sound over the orchestra.  King's performance,
though lacking in their subtlety, is a "real life" one which
he could, and has, duplicated in concert.

Imaging and "depth" are also relatively lost in a live performance,
without the eye to locate the relative positions of the performers.
By the time the sound of individual soloists and sections has
blended in the hall, it would be impossible to locate them as
emanating from a fixed position, or even to know, for example,
that the horns are seated behind the winds, who in turn are
seated behind the strings.

My point is that even those who recommend "simple" two and
three-mike recordings with "natural" balances are still expecting
to hear, on a recording, sounds that are radically different
from what they would really hear live.  The sound on those
older Mercury and RCA recordings appears natural at home
but is still exaggerating the detail and sense of spatial
deployment, so as to compensate for the missing visual element.

I think this is partially responsible for what remains a 
lukewarm (at best) reception of the CD on the part of the 
staff of "Absolute Sound" and like-minded writers.  I certainly 
didn't like the early CD samples (and players) I heard, and the defects
were obvious:  strident upper mid-range and treble, complete
lack of any hall acoustic, etc.  I no longer hear these defects
on many more recent classical releases on good players (the
Philips/Magnavox series, NAD, NEC, etc.).  What I do hear is
remarkably close to what I hear live.  However, lacking the
visual stimulus as well as the exaggerations that helped
compensate for the visual element on earlier recordings, these
can seem subdued, lacking in "life" and vitality, and generally
(paradoxically) less "live" even though they are, in my
opinion, more "accurate" when compared directly to a number
of analogue LP's.

Recording producers will probably end up having to decide
whether to alter and "hype up" the sound of CD's in order to
compete directly with older analogue recordings, or wait
for the audio writers to adjust their thinking (and expectations)
when listening to CD's.  The success of CD's at the sales
counter indicates that the general public isn't having any
problem with this.


	- Greg Paley