[DEP14]

So, I've been to a few live shows here recently and it's interesting.  When listening to a concert live, it's really a wall of sound.  If you close your eyes, it's just a wall you have no clue where each instrument is.  It's dynamic, it's awesome, but really there is no imaging whatsoever.  Until you open your eyes, and your eyes tell you where each instrument, vocalist etc is. 

Yet, when doing critical listening at home, we focus quite a bit on a speakers performance as far as it's ability to image.  I do this like many people but I have an uncle who really focuses on it more than any other performance factor.  Obviously many other factors including dynamics but just found it interesting that when listening live, our eyes tell us about the imaging.  But with evaluating speakers we rely on our ears.

[srb]

It depends on the venue, but many larger live concert mixes are mixed to mono or mono blended into a stereo mix.  This allows all listeners to hear all of the instruments and vocals in a balanced mix regardless of their seating position.

Steve

[BobRex]

I agree with Steve, but it's not just the venue.  You can have imaging with unamplified jazz and symphonies.  I remember taking a friend to see the Philly orchestra perform the Carmina Burana.  At one point he looked at me and said: "Holy crap, you really can tell where the instruments are!"  I just smiled.  This was from the balcony level of the Acadamy of Music, for those from the Philly area.

[DEP14]

Ah, that makes some sense.

I suppose if it was an acoustic setting without amplifiers that would make a big difference, but a rock concert with a singer running all over... makes no difference. 

But acoustically it would make a lot of sense to me.

[hogzilla]

I saw Pat Metheny a few years back at The Old Town School of Folk Music here in Chicago. It was the first time I was able to truly make out where things were in the show. The sound system in that theater is amazing.

[Paul K.]

A really good symphonic piece to hear that highlights imaging is Resphigi's Pines of Rome whether live or recorded (but if you get a chance it's really great to hear live).  This piece is loaded with extra percussion and brass instruments being played and there are two brass sections, one typically located in the back, right of the orchestra, and the other on the far left front of orchestra.  The two brass sections play together and back and forth separately.  There is also a trumpet played off stage.  A good recording will let you easily "see" what's going on.
Paul

I agree with Steve, but it's not just the venue.  You can have imaging with unamplified jazz and symphonies.  I remember taking a friend to see the Philly orchestra perform the Carmina Burana.  At one point he looked at me and said: "Holy crap, you really can tell where the instruments are!"  I just smiled.  This was from the balcony level of the Acadamy of Music, for those from the Philly area.

[S Clark]

Not all performance halls are created equal.  Most good ones allow the listener to hear the location of instruments.  Some are even sought after for recording.  Kingsway Hall in London has great recording acoustics.  Carnegie Hall not so much.

[BobRex]

Not all performance halls are created equal.  Most good ones allow the listener to hear the location of instruments.  Some are even sought after for recording.  Kingsway Hall in London has great recording acoustics.  Carnegie Hall not so much.

New Carnegie or "old" Carnegie?  "Old" Carnegie was an excellent recording venue - think Belefonte, Weavers, Brubeck,...  Clasically, I think part of the problem was that the NYPO weren't recorded by Decca or EMI, so they didn't get the best recording treatment.

[S Clark]

Good point... the new version isn't the same.  And another good point about the recording engineers.  RCA recorded very little there (the famous Belafonte being an exception). Nor did the Fines with Mercury, or the excellent London/Decca group.  Most were Columbia, which were hit and miss.  About the only RCA recording that I can come up with is Van Cliburn Tchaikovsky Conc. that is nothing special (LSC2252)- but the engineer was Crawford who wasn't RCA's best guy.

[jimdgoulding]

Microphone use and placement contributes in a recording to imaging, too.  Contrary to what a person might think, a stereo mike set-up is all that is required for an orchestra or, an many cases, acoustic music at large.  Two "ears" on a stand.  On our end, speaker placement will allow for playback of what the microphone(s) captured right in our rooms*.  Belafonte at Carnegie Hall was mentioned above.  Dunno what the microphone placement was but it was discreet.  Hence, the album is famous for a you-are-there experience.  Which brings me to a pet peeve.  My preference is to try and duplicate sitting in the audience and I have sat in a bunch with judicious use of my volume setting.  Take the Belafonte.  Too loud and he unrealistically fills the space up between my speakers in my room and at the expense of just about everything else.  I prefer the "I am there" experience to the "He is here" experience especially on live recordings.  So, I listen at a volume that renders the "event" believably and you can even "see" the Carnegie balconies.  Studio made recordings typically don't contain ambient info and may not contain a realistic size of an instrument, either.  I knock my lights out on many of those**. 

*best to have them out from room boundaries if you can manage so reflected info isn't arriving or summing in so soon as to distort front to back layering or the space between instrumental sections or the instruments themselves and location ambience. 

**Peter Gabriel's album "Security" contains all sorts of ambient info tho electronically induced, I suspect.  Still, it adds to the finished product seductively.

[barrows]

As mentioned, there are all different kinds of "imaging" in recordings.  We have total studio creations, such as is common for modern rock recordings: try, for example, Peter Gabriel's "UP", crazy stuff going on all over the soundstage, including sounds (in a good stereo set up) way out to the sides and even semi surround effects.  There is no attempt to create a realistic "soundstage" of what one might hear live, but it is enveloping and quite often very effective at bringing one into the music.
Then we have recordings of live music events, or studio recordings which attempt to re-create the soundstage which one might hear in a live music event: with instruments placed accordingly on a "soundstage".  There is also more than one way to do this, and I am not conviced that the stereo pair or single stereo mic is always the best way.  Even some of my favorite classical recordings used multi mic techniques and some studio manipulation to good effect, as sometimes distant miking just does not capture accurate tonality-I suspect this is because a microphone is not analagous in response to the ear/brain mechanisim and it needs some help at times to be more accurate.
Jared Sachs does not use just a stereo pair to produce the quite nice Channel Classics recordings (for example), and some of the best Deccas (The Planets) used multi mic techniques.

As far as the live experience goes, where you sit, and the venue itself will have everything to do with whether you hear a "soundstage" with image specifity.  And of course, as mentioned, amplifed concerts are a whole 'nother thing.  Some are stereo, some are not, some are even quad: I have heard Pink Floyd Stadium shows that featured at least two surround channels, mainly used for special effects...  And still, with an amplified show, the hall and where one sits makes all the difference.  I always try to get close to center, and about 1/3 distance from stage for an amplified show, as this position has the best chance of having fairly good balance in the hall.

[steve in jersey]

New Carnegie or "old" Carnegie?  "Old" Carnegie was an excellent recording venue - think Belefonte, Weavers, Brubeck,...  Clasically, I think part of the problem was that the NYPO weren't recorded by Decca or EMI, so they didn't get the best recording treatment.

If I'm not mistaken one of the very famous Classical Violinists had a huge amount of input to the rennovations for the "New Carnegie" to
suit what he preferred to be hearing while performing on stage. These changes definitely changed the "balance" of the Hall's overall sound.

If I'm not mistaken the fantastic Lyrita recording of "Malcolm Arnold's English,Irish,Scottish & Cornish Dances" was recorded in Kingsway Hall
Decca's Ken Wilkinson made many superb recordings here. Decca had a close relationship with Lyrita so I've always wondered if it was
K.Wilkinson who was the engineer for this session as I'm not too sure there was anyone else who could record as well as this

[jimdgoulding]

"I always try to get close to center, and about 1/3 distance from stage for an amplified show, as this position has the best chance of having fairly good balance in the hall."

"Malcolm Arnold's English,Irish,Scottish & Cornish Dances" was recorded in Kingsway Hall.  Decca's Ken Wilkinson made many superb recordings here."

The above is what I try and create with judicious use of my volume control but for unamplified music, too, and I have the Lyrita Arnold and its soundstage AND venue is you-are-there realistic unless you mess it up by playing it too loudly.

Guess I'll have to check out "Up".  Cheers.

[rajacat]

A really good symphonic piece to hear that highlights imaging is Resphigi's Pines of Rome whether live or recorded (but if you get a chance it's really great to hear live).  This piece is loaded with extra percussion and brass instruments being played and there are two brass sections, one typically located in the back, right of the orchestra, and the other on the far left front of orchestra.  The two brass sections play together and back and forth separately.  There is also a trumpet played off stage.  A good recording will let you easily "see" what's going on.
Paul

+1.  Pines of Rome is what I go to when evaluating new gear and tweeks.

[steve in jersey]

"I always try to get close to center, and about 1/3 distance from stage for an amplified show, as this position has the best chance of having fairly good balance in the hall."

"Malcolm Arnold's English,Irish,Scottish & Cornish Dances" was recorded in Kingsway Hall.  Decca's Ken Wilkinson made many superb recordings here."

The above is what I try and create with judicious use of my volume control but for unamplified music, too, and I have the Lyrita Arnold and its soundstage AND venue is you-are-there realistic unless you mess it up by playing it too loudly.

Guess I'll have to check out "Up".  Cheers.

Jim, you make an excellent point about playback volume & soundstage effects. When we listen to recordings that have an appreciable amount of "captured" soundstage information on them (& unfortunately not all recordings do) the 'window' of playback volume adjustments is slightly less than what is available to you if you want to hear the optimal amount of soundstage from the recording. Just a bit too little or too much will change the ratio of direct to reflected sound enough will obscure the music's natural balance enough to hide some of the staging.

Another one of favorite recordings for Soundstaging effects is the Charles Munch/BSO RCA Living Stereo recording of Ravel/Bolero/La Valse,...etc. The Acoustic sound of the Boston Hall is quite a bit different  then Kingsway,but so is the recording perspective. We are listening to the Orchestra from a front seat location rather than further back in the hall (I did'nt realize this when I first heard this rec.
as this is a pretty unique listening perspective as the choirs of instrument sections as they are played are very distinct in relation to the rest of the orchestra).

I've found that if I use the oboe solo(near the beginning of Bolero) as the "gauge" for volume every other part of the Orchestra pops into place for the entire recording. As the oboe is being played there is a certain point on the volume control at which the sound of it's stage presence just "pops"
into place (as opposed to not having a distinct sounding stage presence) & you really don't want to go any louder than just being able to hear this change if you want to hear all the "magic" this recording has to offer! (I actually did'nt really even care for the Bolero before I'd heard this version of it; I guess it's a case of a great recording influencing my musical taste)

[jimdgoulding]

Steve in Jersey, .  When I visit fellow music lover's abodes, I find that some seldom pay attention to things like the volume setting.  My guess is (I should ask and will) that they haven't attended many diverse musical settings (clubs, halls, etc.).  And, a bunch listen almost exclusively to recordings made in a studio.  But, for those of us with more diverse tastes and experience, our volume control is our ticket to admission.  Something else, where you sit and listen may not be ideal for all recordings.  What I do is move my chair to or fro on the occasion where there is more realism to be gained.  This allows me to get more of the flavor of the setting and helps to re-create it in my room.  I have a piece of tape on the carpet in front of my chair for reference.  Listen well.

PS-  Have a look at vinyl_lady's speaker placement and room.  Don't you just know the front end of her, Laura's, room will positively come alive* on a well made symphonic recordings.  She does listen to a lot of live rock concerts.  I can just imagine.  Whew!

*and with her gear and speaker set up.

[mcgsxr]

Interesting topic, and not one I have thought that much about.

As a former musician (violinist in orchestra in my youth, as well as trombone, stand up bass, electric bass, and some trumpet and guitar) my reference is from inside the pit.  I also worked security at a number of live music venues during my early 20's in and around Toronto.

Recorded music is for my enjoyment, and does not often replicate the live experience in any real way.  These days I listen WAY more at home than I do to concerts or live performances.

I do listen pretty quiet compared to others I know though.  My peaks in room are always below 90db for music.  When I visit the homes of others, I find they often play louder than I do.   So too the audio gatherings I have attended.

Movies will be louder, but that's a whole other ball of wax.

[a.wayne]

So, I've been to a few live shows here recently and it's interesting.  When listening to a concert live, it's really a wall of sound.  If you close your eyes, it's just a wall you have no clue where each instrument is.  It's dynamic, it's awesome, but really there is no imaging whatsoever.  Until you open your eyes, and your eyes tell you where each instrument, vocalist etc is. 

Yet, when doing critical listening at home, we focus quite a bit on a speakers performance as far as it's ability to image.  I do this like many people but I have an uncle who really focuses on it more than any other performance factor.  Obviously many other factors including dynamics but just found it interesting that when listening live, our eyes tell us about the imaging.  But with evaluating speakers we rely on our ears.

We don't listen to live music thru our systems , we listen to  recordings of live music and worst regenerations of such. Recreating space and instrument imaging is important to recreate the venue , for a real comparison you should listen to live unamplfied instruments, not an  amplfied  concert with its wall of sound. Important to note, in  a lot of symphony halls today ,   the sound is amplified, so try and get closer  to the stage or check to make sure you are not listening mostly to the PA system.


Regards...

[a.wayne]

Interesting topic, and not one I have thought that much about.

As a former musician (violinist in orchestra in my youth, as well as trombone, stand up bass, electric bass, and some trumpet and guitar) my reference is from inside the pit.  I also worked security at a number of live music venues during my early 20's in and around Toronto.

Recorded music is for my enjoyment, and does not often replicate the live experience in any real way.  These days I listen WAY more at home than I do to concerts or live performances.

I do listen pretty quiet compared to others I know though.  My peaks in room are always below 90db for music.  When I visit the homes of others, I find they often play louder than I do.   So too the audio gatherings I have attended.

Movies will be louder, but that's a whole other ball of wax.

I find most audiophiles do play symphony music at too high a DIN, the  reasons i would speculate is from a system that is too small in dynamics, instrument size and  low level resolution. Hence the high DIN levels instead of high peak levels.  I would expect to see at least 93-96 db peaks on dynamic passage from a nominal Din of 70-74 db from the listening position for any kind of realism to live reproduction.

Listening room noise floor is very important here for realism, the lower the better of course anything over 50db eats into your dynamics and clarity on quite passages.

[Early B.]

I went to a concert recently in a small venue with only 100 people in the audience. The singer was accompanied by a pianist, drummer, guitarist, and bass guitarist. It was an eye opening experience. As expected, imaging was fine. However, I walked away realizing that my audio system lacked true dynamics. Every so often, the drummer would intentionally hit a note that was 10x louder than the rest of the music, and there's no way I was gonna hear that on my system from a redbook CD.