Disturbing "Sonic Trend" showing up on SOTA audio

Tgrisham, Well said! My view exactly. FWIW, using an absolute, such as a live performance, sounds of instruments, halls, etc, as a measure of the merit of an audio system, is so flawed, that the only purpose it really serves is the wallet of the purveyors of audio equipment.

Even if the equipment and environment existed where the true sounds of a live performance might occur (and IMHO, it doesn't and can't) the end result would still be determined in the creation of the recording on the mixing console by the recording engineer. A major dam in the flow of live music to its reproduction in the home.

The sound of unamplified music playing in appropriate venues is of unparalleled value, if for no other it clearly illustrates how far short our audio systems fall short of its reproduction. You my disagree, but if you do think and consider what aspect of a live performance you are willing to sacrifice when you listen to a recording of one in your home. Home audio succeeds best when your system replicates those things which are important to you (not necessarily others).

For example, for folks who value 'detail and imaging' at home, might like to sit in rows D through E on the main floor, center. Go to your favorite hall and sit in that seat and listen to a Mahler symphony. For detail and imaging that is probably as good as it gets. But do you really think that you can even get a small measure of the dynamics you experience in your home. I think not, even if your set up is a well matched and set up SOTA system. Now you might feel different, in degrees as least, if your seats at the symphony are in the ear bleeding section.

Now consider live performance of a solo piano, i.e. the piano. Fantastic instrument but one which sounds so different when heard in a typical concert hall, or in a recital hall specifically made for solo instruments and small groups. Much of what I said in the lst paragraph applies, but seating is not nearly so important in recital halls because the acoustic itself allows for projection of small detail more uniformly. But the dynamic range and frequency range will all but overwhelm your home audio system.

So while I value the knowledge of the experience of listening to live, unamplified, performances of jazz and classical music, and I use this knowledge in setting up a listening room, I don't feel that my goal at home is ever more than to hear sounds that remind me of what I enjoy hearing live. Remind me!

I have no issue with using 'live sound' as a standard for home audio, but when suggested that it can be, or should be a goal of the serious audiophile, to replicate this experience I disagree. It can't be done! You might come close if you make some serious concessions, but when you do that its not really 'live' is it.

Hi Learsfool, To clarify my poorly stated illustration, I selected the front rows as they might relate to some specific audiophile goals such as 'detail' and 'imaging', as well as the sheer dynamics. In this location they are also the least homogenized as well, as they might be further back in the location your recommend. (The recording engineer can use the rear hall sound and then use spot mikes to give a close-up emphasis to the weaker instruments. It is interesting to hear a violin concerto live, where I have rarely heard screechy violins (strings) either from the soloist or section(s) and a recording where the violins sound both emphasized and often too much so. Not so much with pianos perhaps, but they are such a big sound by themselves. Nonetheless the recording engineers still can't resist sticking a mike under the lid.)

FWIW, probably some of the worst orchestral sounds I have experienced occurred when I was sitting in some ear bleeding seats (at Mosconi Center) listening to some Elgar performed by Andrew Davis. The highs were piercing, the bass non-existent, and worst of all it took forever. The most dramatic performance was of a Mahler Five in row F center, of a multi-use auditorium by a provincial orchestra. The most disappointing was a Mahler 7 in the lower balcony in SF performed by MMT. The 'sound' was OK, the music well blended for right side seats, but I think it might still be playing! So much for MMT's Mahler 7, live anyway, I like his recorded version much more, but maybe because of my nervous bladder. :-)

But the point I really wanted to make was that the sound of 'live & unamplified music' is a moving target. It is too hard to pin down for it to become a meaningful standard to judge audio set- ups and recordings, especially after a recording engineer has performed his magic.

For myself, live music and recorded music are really separate and valid experiences to be enjoyed with out cross references to each other. Makes life simpler and both more enjoyable.

Hi Learsfool, sorry for the confusion. Ear bleeding can be the result of a ruptured eardrum which can be caused by sound, albeit nothing you are ever likely to hear in a symphony hall. Other hearing problems can be caused by heights such as the changing of the air pressure on the eardrum that you experience when flying. Your ear pops as the pressure in your inner ear equalizes with the exterior air pressure. I may be the only person who uses this term, and inappropriately so perhaps. I most often I use it to describe the uppermost seating in large stadiums at sporting events where you may almost have to use binoculars to see the game. So yes, I was referring to the most remote/highest seats in a hall. A location that maximizes the affect of reflected sound, and can unduly emphasize/minimize parts of the frequency response, unfavorably.

When in my post I referred to 'imaging' for audiophiles, I was only trying to find a seat location where hall sounds had the least influence and direct sounds had the most and might create an affect that audiophiles might consider great imaging, i.e. location/specificity of instruments. Balance, not so much perhaps.