-
Hi Nick,
I was trying to involve you into this talk as the lows and highs- noise floor and head room- what is your experience? with the top decks!
Now turning to Greg's comments. Firstly it is great to hear from an experienced listener-probably far ahead of me-from the sound of it-(No Pun intended).
There is always a risk of being misunderstood on any forum. For some one like me- who can not read music, it is desirable to hear as much detail I can.The point was that I have seen the knowing classical musicians not too worried of the detail produced by stereo reproduction- they listen but can hear what they want to.
As for recorded sound- a large orchestra is a daunting prospect. Add to it a large choir, then the brain will not be able to cope with paying attention with all that is going on - the larger image or gestalt.
Dave DSJR as usual is spot on again.
The position of the microphone, the number used, and in the end mixing is what determines the sound reproduction. To highten the kind of detail I am talking about would require multi-close miking which will in the end destroy the soul of music.
Some of the detail can not be easily followed-and may not be intended to be followed. May I please recommend the series of "Great Composers" frequently telecast on Sky Art from time to time. The one on Tchaikovsky is very useful. In it Gyergev asks only the string section to play a piece of Tchaikovsky 6th- to high light a point. There are many strands to what I am saying. More importantly the position of the listener-on the conductors podium, in the middle of the auditorium or further back- or to one side and so on- again what DSJR has hinted at.
-
I would say that if there are different counterpoint melodies on a recording, a half-decent system should capture them so they can be listened to separately and as whole, in time with each other.
The timing bit is more important than the space around the instruments bit in my view, although both are desirable where possible.
-
Thanks Steve, that was the point,
I need to clarify why I made that comment. I knew a professor of Statistics in NZ who used to play for the local city orchestra. He told me that he was rehearsing Beethoven's Eroica-playing 3rd violin. I have spoken to my daughter-now a professional classical musician-who says not 3rd violin but he might have meant 3rd deck. There are essentially two layers- 1st and 2nd. Anyway this Statistician told me that to his surprise he was playing differently to the 1st violins. I am told that the second and 1st violins complement each other- one would play rhythm/harmony and the 1st melody. It is part of the melody-or theme so can not be split or separated. The same applies if the violas, cellos and basses become part of the same scheme- or are separated by the composer.
In short - counterpoint, canon, reverse canon or reverse counterpoint should be audible but not the basic structure of music-not the innards. That is what I was trying to say.
