How much of playback do we actually pay attention to?

[Mr Peabody]

I try to take in live music as often as possible. Today the afternoon was our school district's Winter Fine Arts Performance. I have a girl in 6th grade band and another in high school string orchestra.

While listening I try to compare how the instruments tones and such, match what I hear at home, noting the audible aspects of drum strikes, I've noted strings for the most part are not as warm and lush as some systems present them, bite of brass, these types of things.

Today what caught my attention was how I heard the stick crack against the cymbals, bells and percussion. I don't purposely pick something to listen for. I just listen intently as to attempt to capture as much aural information as I can and still enjoy the performance.

Later, I got to thinking, I hear cymbals all the time through my system but really couldn't recall if I hear that cracking, tapping sound as it's being struck. So I sat in the seat and played some tracks, Like Ozone Percussion Group, listening particularly for the stick strikes. They were there, not quite as distinct as live but still there when I paid attention for it.

This got me to wonder how we are always chasing detail, yet how much of what we have do we, or, can we register while listening? I get from my friends I am a very perceptive listener, I mention aspects, they say just enjoy the music. I do, I just can't help picking up on audible aspects.

Although I'm that way maybe my aural field, if that's such a thing, is narrow.

How many of you feel you can hear a song and take in every aspect, like vocals, drums, bass lines, all the song, especially, orchestra? This is impossible I suppose to answer. Think about when listening to a new piece of gear, do you consume the entire sound stage or focus in one area of it?

 

[DSkip]

A realistic soundstage with depth, tonal balance, and joy of listening far trump details for me. While its enjoyable to get that detail, I'll sacrifice it every time to get returns in those first three elements.

Question - how many times have you been to concerts and NOT heard the crack of the stick like that?

 

[Mr Peabody]

I went back and read my post, I never said I hadn'theard the stick at a concert, I noted the strike didn't register with me when listening to music played back on my system. So I wonder how much detail gets by us when we are listening. When I went back and listened to my system for that particular thing, I did notice it.

I was close to the front at the time I'm writing about. There were good details that are not apparent or more difficult to hear further back in a large symphony hall.

A realistic soundstage with depth, tonal balance, and joy of listening far trump details for me. While its enjoyable to get that detail, I'll sacrifice it every time to get returns in those first three elements.

Question - how many times have you been to concerts and NOT heard the crack of the stick like that?

 

[bart]

We attend 15-20 classical concerts a year (and 6-10 jazz concerts).
It's wonderful that you can focus on whatever section of the orchestra you desire during such a live performance.
I think it is also the visual aspect that facilitates to dive deeper into the music.
That being said, I'm pretty happy with my set-up.
For large scale orchestral music, I will get more out of the pieces while listening in 5.0.

 

[Spock]

My opinion:
I don´t care about the live performance. From the live sound, I just watch out to the timbre of each instrument, when individually heard. My goal is the hyper realism of reproduction, something different (better?) than alive sound. I want to listen the whole orchestra and each instrument at the same time, sitting in the best place (my sofa )

Talking about cymbals, is really difficult to reproduce their sound. Not only the stick but the sound of metal against metal.

 

[Mr Peabody]

Ah, visuals, yet another factor. I usually keep this to myself as it's not relevant, however, in this discussion, possibly, visual is not a factor for me, I am not totally blind but certainly I don't see well enough to see performers on stage. Actually, as I get older it's rare I can recognize an LP cover.

Nice to attend that many performances.

We attend 15-20 classical concerts a year (and 6-10 jazz concerts).
It's wonderful that you can focus on whatever section of the orchestra you desire during such a live performance.
I think it is also the visual aspect that facilitates to dive deeper into the music.
That being said, I'm pretty happy with my set-up.
For large scale orchestral music, I will get more out of the pieces while listening in 5.0.

 

[Mr Peabody]

You mentioned 5-channel playback, do you have any 2L recordings? I don't, I understand them to be excellent though if you've never tried any.

We attend 15-20 classical concerts a year (and 6-10 jazz concerts).
It's wonderful that you can focus on whatever section of the orchestra you desire during such a live performance.
I think it is also the visual aspect that facilitates to dive deeper into the music.
That being said, I'm pretty happy with my set-up.
For large scale orchestral music, I will get more out of the pieces while listening in 5.0.

 

[astrotoy]

We also go to quite a few concerts a year, almost all classical music from opera to orchestral to chamber and solo recitals, average of about 70 a year. We typically sit in about the 6th to 10th row center or slightly left center (to see the keyboard) in the orchestra (stalls). I would say, I listen first to the emotional content of the music - how the performers convey the feeling, and the line of the music - not just the individual notes. Next I will usually try to analyze the piece - if it is in sonata form, I listen for the first and second themes, and the modulating bridge of the exposition, and whether the exposition is repeated or not, then the development and what is happening there, and finally the recapitulation and the ending coda. For theme and variations, scherzo-trio and rondo movements, the analysis is much easier and I don't have to focus as much on it. Analysis takes a lot of concentration and I often find that if a stray thought enters my brain so I am distracted, I will lose that concentration. The visual clues from the performers make it much easier to identify who is playing a solo part. However, in live music, I find that if I close my eyes, I don't get the pinpoint location of instruments that I get listening at home, or the layering of instruments in depth.

We went to two concerts this weekend.

The first was the Philharmonia Baroque performing their annual Messiah concert at their home in the First Congregational Church in Berkeley. What I noticed was how rich the sound was in this beautiful church acoustic, with the 23 piece choir, standing very near the rear wall of the sanctuary, sound bigger than their numbers, but also with extremely clear enunciation of the words. The four soloists stood in front of the 35 piece orchestra, again with power, beauty and clarity. We were sitting in row F, left center. I have their recording on CD on Harmonia Mundi, done 25 years or so ago. Nicolas McGegan has been the music director for 31 years, so the interpretation is pretty constant, though with different performers.

The second was a wonderful performance by the Takacs Quartet, joined in the second half by Garrick Ohlsson in the great Brahms Piano Quintet. They were playing in Zellerbach Hall on the UC Berkeley campus, generally too large for solo or chamber music. We were in our normal seats - Row G slightly left of center. It was clear that these are among the world's best musicians, playing with absolute precision, but with great emotion that had me, and the rest of the audience in awe. In the large hall, the sound was not overpowering. I would have preferred that they had performed in the most acoustically friendly confines of the smaller Hertz Hall, where the Takacs normally play. Here the visual cues were very important to identify the performers. The first violin was very easy to hear in space, even with eyes closed, since he sat rather far left in the group. However, the viola on the right was not far from the cello in right center, behind her. At some points, the cello's part rises above the viola part and I had to look to see what each was playing. Even on occasion, when both first and second violins were playing with similar bow strokes, and even when they were sitting relatively far apart, I had to confirm which was playing the solo part and which the accompanying harmony line. Live performance did not then, and generally for me at 8 or 10 rows back, have the pin point imaging of a fine home stereo.

Larry

 

[bart]

You mentioned 5-channel playback, do you have any 2L recordings? I don't, I understand them to be excellent though if you've never tried any.

They're excellent.
Sound wise I mean, not always artistically top notch.

 

[mep]

We also go to quite a few concerts a year, almost all classical music from opera to orchestral to chamber and solo recitals, average of about 70 a year. We typically sit in about the 6th to 10th row center or slightly left center (to see the keyboard) in the orchestra (stalls). I would say, I listen first to the emotional content of the music - how the performers convey the feeling, and the line of the music - not just the individual notes. Next I will usually try to analyze the piece - if it is in sonata form, I listen for the first and second themes, and the modulating bridge of the exposition, and whether the exposition is repeated or not, then the development and what is happening there, and finally the recapitulation and the ending coda. For theme and variations, scherzo-trio and rondo movements, the analysis is much easier and I don't have to focus as much on it. Analysis takes a lot of concentration and I often find that if a stray thought enters my brain so I am distracted, I will lose that concentration. The visual clues from the performers make it much easier to identify who is playing a solo part. However, in live music, I find that if I close my eyes, I don't get the pinpoint location of instruments that I get listening at home, or the layering of instruments in depth.

We went to two concerts this weekend.

The first was the Philharmonia Baroque performing their annual Messiah concert at their home in the First Congregational Church in Berkeley. What I noticed was how rich the sound was in this beautiful church acoustic, with the 23 piece choir, standing very near the rear wall of the sanctuary, sound bigger than their numbers, but also with extremely clear enunciation of the words. The four soloists stood in front of the 35 piece orchestra, again with power, beauty and clarity. We were sitting in row F, left center. I have their recording on CD on Harmonia Mundi, done 25 years or so ago. Nicolas McGegan has been the music director for 31 years, so the interpretation is pretty constant, though with different performers.

The second was a wonderful performance by the Takacs Quartet, joined in the second half by Garrick Ohlsson in the great Brahms Piano Quintet. They were playing in Zellerbach Hall on the UC Berkeley campus, generally too large for solo or chamber music. We were in our normal seats - Row G slightly left of center. It was clear that these are among the world's best musicians, playing with absolute precision, but with great emotion that had me, and the rest of the audience in awe. In the large hall, the sound was not overpowering. I would have preferred that they had performed in the most acoustically friendly confines of the smaller Hertz Hall, where the Takacs normally play. Here the visual cues were very important to identify the performers. The first violin was very easy to hear in space, even with eyes closed, since he sat rather far left in the group. However, the viola on the right was not far from the cello in right center, behind her. At some points, the cello's part rises above the viola part and I had to look to see what each was playing. Even on occasion, when both first and second violins were playing with similar bow strokes, and even when they were sitting relatively far apart, I had to confirm which was playing the solo part and which the accompanying harmony line. Live performance did not then, and generally for me at 8 or 10 rows back, have the pin point imaging of a fine home stereo.

Larry

Great write up Larry!

 

[Odyssey]

Larry, thanks for taking the time to describe the methodology you use to enjoy classical music. The genre is enigma to many of us and anathema to some.

Thanks for sharing how you break it down.

We also go to quite a few concerts a year, almost all classical music from opera to orchestral to chamber and solo recitals, average of about 70 a year. We typically sit in about the 6th to 10th row center or slightly left center (to see the keyboard) in the orchestra (stalls). I would say, I listen first to the emotional content of the music - how the performers convey the feeling, and the line of the music - not just the individual notes. Next I will usually try to analyze the piece - if it is in sonata form, I listen for the first and second themes, and the modulating bridge of the exposition, and whether the exposition is repeated or not, then the development and what is happening there, and finally the recapitulation and the ending coda. For theme and variations, scherzo-trio and rondo movements, the analysis is much easier and I don't have to focus as much on it. Analysis takes a lot of concentration and I often find that if a stray thought enters my brain so I am distracted, I will lose that concentration. The visual clues from the performers make it much easier to identify who is playing a solo part. However, in live music, I find that if I close my eyes, I don't get the pinpoint location of instruments that I get listening at home, or the layering of instruments in depth.


Larry

 

[bart]

We also go to quite a few concerts a year, almost all classical music from opera to orchestral to chamber and solo recitals, average of about 70 a year. We typically sit in about the 6th to 10th row center or slightly left center (to see the keyboard) in the orchestra (stalls). I would say, I listen first to the emotional content of the music - how the performers convey the feeling, and the line of the music - not just the individual notes. Next I will usually try to analyze the piece - if it is in sonata form, I listen for the first and second themes, and the modulating bridge of the exposition, and whether the exposition is repeated or not, then the development and what is happening there, and finally the recapitulation and the ending coda. For theme and variations, scherzo-trio and rondo movements, the analysis is much easier and I don't have to focus as much on it. Analysis takes a lot of concentration and I often find that if a stray thought enters my brain so I am distracted, I will lose that concentration. The visual clues from the performers make it much easier to identify who is playing a solo part. However, in live music, I find that if I close my eyes, I don't get the pinpoint location of instruments that I get listening at home, or the layering of instruments in depth.

We went to two concerts this weekend.

The first was the Philharmonia Baroque performing their annual Messiah concert at their home in the First Congregational Church in Berkeley. What I noticed was how rich the sound was in this beautiful church acoustic, with the 23 piece choir, standing very near the rear wall of the sanctuary, sound bigger than their numbers, but also with extremely clear enunciation of the words. The four soloists stood in front of the 35 piece orchestra, again with power, beauty and clarity. We were sitting in row F, left center. I have their recording on CD on Harmonia Mundi, done 25 years or so ago. Nicolas McGegan has been the music director for 31 years, so the interpretation is pretty constant, though with different performers.

The second was a wonderful performance by the Takacs Quartet, joined in the second half by Garrick Ohlsson in the great Brahms Piano Quintet. They were playing in Zellerbach Hall on the UC Berkeley campus, generally too large for solo or chamber music. We were in our normal seats - Row G slightly left of center. It was clear that these are among the world's best musicians, playing with absolute precision, but with great emotion that had me, and the rest of the audience in awe. In the large hall, the sound was not overpowering. I would have preferred that they had performed in the most acoustically friendly confines of the smaller Hertz Hall, where the Takacs normally play. Here the visual cues were very important to identify the performers. The first violin was very easy to hear in space, even with eyes closed, since he sat rather far left in the group. However, the viola on the right was not far from the cello in right center, behind her. At some points, the cello's part rises above the viola part and I had to look to see what each was playing. Even on occasion, when both first and second violins were playing with similar bow strokes, and even when they were sitting relatively far apart, I had to confirm which was playing the solo part and which the accompanying harmony line. Live performance did not then, and generally for me at 8 or 10 rows back, have the pin point imaging of a fine home stereo.

Larry

Wow Larry!
70 a year.
When I'll be "semi-retired", we'll do more concerts also.
We, that is my wife and me.
We luckily share a lot of musical tastes.
I'm all in for large scale orchestral and chamber music, and she likes vocal a lot, but we enjoy each other choices as much.

 

[Mike]

If you're attending 70 concerts a year, it's very likely you have developed an ear for "live sounds". I developed my ear for "live sounds" by playing in jazz bands, big bands, etc. through college. To me, what separates live sound from reproduction is dynamics. Yes, there are other characteristics, but for me, the fundamental characteristic is dynamics. Hence, the reason I have had AG's for 3 years now and no desire to make a change. There is no more dynamic speaker I have ever heard, regardless of power. It's simply physics my dear Watson! With AG's, the snap of the drum, pluck of the guitar is right there - as close to live as I can get.

But not all horns are created equal. Frankly, there aren't many others I could live with.

 

[Mechnutt]

With live performances, I try to take everything in and not focus on any one particular part of the music except for vocals. I find that if I start trying to analyze the music it takes away from the emotional experience. Now I may briefly comment or notice a particular band member or instrument that stands out however.

Listening on an audio system is a different matter though. Music is certainly presented in a different way compared to live. (Live music generally does not have the air and transparency that most of us love unless you have perfect acoustics which is typically not the case) It is easy to sit an listen to your system and be critical of it. I use to be a detail fanatic and found myself not listening and relaxing. Now, I don't worry about detail and trying to approximate the live sound. I just sit back and enjoy the music.

Mike, I have to agree with you about dynamic's. Live music is more dynamic but it is also more textured. I have tried to pick out audio gear that is very dynamic in its presentation with good texture. That's why I went with my Pass amp and my BAT VK-51se preamp which continues to amaze me at how dynamic it can be. My Magnepans also help with their huge sound stage and dynamic's even it the do need a good pair of subwoofer's for the lower frequencies. Even my music players adjusted for dynamics.