View Full Version : Do we want to sit in the orchestra?
silvestrione
03-03-11, 11:27
I was rather surprised to hear Julian Johnson in the Bruckner BAL enthusing about recordings that seemed to place you in the middle of the orchestra...this used to be a common criticism of some (e.g. over-miked) recordings. Isn't it more natural to have a sense of depth to the sound image, strings, then woodwind, than brass at the back, etc (as indeed on Karajan Bruckner recordings but also on e.g. Haitink's old recording of Schubert's Great C Major, which I've been playing).
Also, in current IRR, Michael Dutton makes interesting criticsims of what he sees as the current 'European standard' method of recording orchestras, and is particularly against violins left and right, which, with some other current habits, results in 'a vastly reduced stereo image and the sound lacks air and space'...
Is this why I so often find sound on CDs constricted compared with older recordings, e.g. on LP?
On this one Mike Dutton appears to be using an orifice other than his mouth to do the talking. Violins left and right gives better stereo imagery, especially when the first and second violins are divided in musical content as well as space. Close miking is a bane, certainly, but that's a different matter altogether. Violins left and double basses right is more like a return to the days of the 'artificial stereo' era of the early '60s. :doh:
Regarding the issue of sitting in the middle of the performers, the "Real Surround" DVD Audio discs of the Auryn Quartet take it to a whole new level. Not only is the quartet arraigned around the listener, but there is an additional option to have the individual performers moving around as the recording producer feels fit for the musical content. :whistle:
http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51hyrT8FLaL._SS500_.jpg
I was rather surprised to hear Julian Johnson in the Bruckner BAL enthusing about recordings that seemed to place you in the middle of the orchestra...this used to be a common criticism of some (e.g. over-miked) recordings. Isn't it more natural to have a sense of depth to the sound image, strings, then woodwind, than brass at the back, etc (as indeed on Karajan Bruckner recordings but also on e.g. Haitink's old recording of Schubert's Great C Major, which I've been playing).
Also, in current IRR, Michael Dutton makes interesting criticsims of what he sees as the current 'European standard' method of recording orchestras, and is particularly against violins left and right, which, with some other current habits, results in 'a vastly reduced stereo image and the sound lacks air and space'...
Is this why I so often find sound on CDs constricted compared with older recordings, e.g. on LP?
A very interesting topic, silvestrione!
I have no wish to sit in the orchestra, as I've already done that for far too many years.
It is probably a dangerous technique to try with recordings, as it depends where you sit! You can be in danger of having too many trumpets, or trombones, or percussion - or whatever!!
And would a record producer/engineer know what sitting in an orchestra can sound like? Not often I would think.
I would tend to agee that having the second fiddles on the far right where the cellos often are, is probably not good for recording. I also think it a mistake having the violas there too, as sometimes happens.
The whole orchestral balance thing should be controlled by the conductor, and not the producer, in my opinion. Of course, the problem may be that we have few conductors able to do a good job these days. Ear syringing may become fashionable again and could lead to the odd competent conductor appearing on the scene again.
Hope you don't find this TOO cynical!! :winkeye::doh::laugh:
Bryn, your post and mine crossed!
The reason I'm not too keen on the seconds or violas sitting on the far right is that their sound is going back into the orchestra and not out to the audience and mics. I'm not necessarily saying that it won't improve the stereo image. But the jury is probably still out on this one. However, stereo imaging can be over rated!! :winkeye:
Even more codswallop from me on the subject!!
Bryn - I'm not sure you can compare a string quartet in this instance to an orchestra. Personally I'm coming round to the idea that having the cello in the middle (where the viola normally sits) can be a good one, in a string quartet, like the Takacs do. But I think it depends on the violist having a big sound, which some don't, as the sound is directed towards the back rather than forwards. In the Takacs case they have a violist with a huge sound and a fantastic G B Guadanini viola.
Having said that, with the quartets I play in, we sit traditionally, partly because the viola plyers won't project enough in the outside position. But I might try it soon, just to see. (Or rather hear).
Chris Newman
03-03-11, 12:19
I do so agree with you, Bryn. The first time I noticed this vast improvement from the left/right violins was when I first heard Adrian Boult conduct at Dorking Halls in the sixties. A few months later at the Proms Boult demonstrated the added playfulness between them in Schubert's Great C Major Symphony and Holst's Planets, to name just two works, was so striking. Also basses, cellos and violas seem richer when centralised.The occasional dip in clarity of the stereo when the two violin sections play in unison is a very small price to pay for the glory when they are doing different things. Whether he was at the Albert Hall, Covent Garden, the London Coliseum or the Festival Hall Boult elicited an extra special sound from many different orchestras. I know that the practice predated Boult but I am so pleased that a number of younger conductors do this these days.
Bryn, your post and mine crossed!
The reason I'm not too keen on the seconds or violas sitting on the far right is that their sound is going back into the orchestra and not out to the audience and mics. :winkeye:
Not if the second violins are all cack-handed, Cellini. :whistle:
Ferretfancy
03-03-11, 17:35
I remember a quadraphonic LP of Bartok's Concerto for Orchestra conducted by Bernstein,which deliberately attempted to place the audience around the listener, even going so far as to print position chart on the sleeve! Because SQ Quadraphonic sound was so poor, the effect was meaningless.
I use a Meridian system which provides realistic rear channel ambience on conventional stereo material, or the stereo layer of SACD discs, and I find it impressive. The music is still on the front stage, as in a concert, but I get a realistic "Hall effect" with no anomalies. This was difficult to achieve before digital techniques arrived. Oddly, Meridian do not approve of SACD on the grounds that it is over engineered.
I've just been listening to some Vienna Octet recordings from the late fifties, beautifully balanced with accurate positional information in an open acoustic. Perhaps the musicians are a little close, but this is surely preferable to some of the flabby sounding orchestral recordings made in over reverberant churches which we encounter too often today.
As for divided violins, I can think of plenty of recordings where this is done without significant loss of separation, and I usually prefer it in the concert hall, I find myself wondering why it seems so difficult for today's engineers to produce transparent sound, not too close, not too distant, when their predecessors in the 50s and 60s achieved it so regularly.
Not if the second violins are all cack-handed, Cellini. :whistle:
All second fiddles are cack handed!!! :winkeye:
I remember a quadraphonic LP of Bartok's Concerto for Orchestra conducted by Bernstein,which deliberately attempted to place the audience around the listener, even going so far as to print position chart on the sleeve! Because SQ Quadraphonic sound was so poor, the effect was meaningless.
Indeed - I had an early SQ decoder and a 4 channel Marantz amp and couldn't really tell the difference between the sound produced that way or by a simple Hafler effort.
My SQ decoder went tits up and now has become 16 channel and Hafler has left in a huff.
Regarding the issue of sitting in the middle of the performers, the "Real Surround" DVD Audio discs of the Auryn Quartet take it to a whole new level. Not only is the quartet arraigned around the listener, but there is an additional option to have the individual performers moving around as the recording producer feels fit for the musical content. :whistle:
http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51hyrT8FLaL._SS500_.jpg
I tried to down load some Haydn from the Tacet site who **appear** to do downloads, but nothing would allow it.
The Auryn Quartet sound interesting from a Youtube clip I watched and heard today even if the first fiddle was having a very slight bow contact problem ... (Not enough to be cack handed though!!:winkeye:) Of course, they did use vibrato - but all under control I think. :winkeye:
I tried to down load some Haydn from the Tacet site who **appear** to do downloads, but nothing would allow it.
The Auryn Quartet sound interesting from a Youtube clip I watched and heard today even if the first fiddle was having a very slight bow contact problem ... (Not enough to be cack handed though!!:winkeye:) Of course, they did use vibrato - but all under control I think. :winkeye:
I rather like their Beethoven. Well judged vibrato in Beethoven string quartet playing, I can take. The trouble is, if, via disc, you want to hear them playing as if on stage, you either have to buy the double CDs or let your DVD Audio player do its own 2 channel mix down from the 5 surround channels (at least the DVD Audio is 5.0, rather than 5.1). There is no 2 channel layer on the DVD Audio discs, just a choice of "Real Surround Sound" or "Moving Real Surround Sound". Having taken the plunge with both the CD and DVD Audio version of the first 3 volumes (and just the CD version of Volume 4, which was all that was available then) a couple of year ago, I am currently awaiting delivery of the DVD Audio disc of Volume 4.
By the way, I was using "cack-handed" in the sense of "southpaw" rather than "incompetent". :winkeye:
Far be it for me to call a second violin incompetent!! They are worth their weight in gold in orchestras and quartets. Some of my best friends are/were second violinists.
My CD player is not state of the art, in fact its not state of anything, and makes funny noises when a CD is not in place. But for £39 what can one expect! So I imagine the Tacet CD's won't work, and they are too expensive anyway. If downloads were possible and cheap I might have go.
LeMartinPecheur
03-03-11, 22:39
Bryn - I'm not sure you can compare a string quartet in this instance to an orchestra. Personally I'm coming round to the idea that having the cello in the middle (where the viola normally sits) can be a good one, in a string quartet, like the Takacs do. But I think it depends on the violist having a big sound, which some don't, as the sound is directed towards the back rather than forwards. In the Takacs case they have a violist with a huge sound and a fantastic G B Guadanini viola.
Having said that, with the quartets I play in, we sit traditionally, partly because the viola plyers won't project enough in the outside position. But I might try it soon, just to see. (Or rather hear).Cellini: you might appreciate the Herold Quartet of Prague. Their violist sits opposite the leader but plays with his instrument pointing straight down the hall even when he's looking at his colleagues. He never looks at his instrument (a violist who really knows where all the notes are??:laugh:) Perhaps you'd still want to sit on the left side of the hall for optimal balance?
Seriously, they are a very good quartet all round, with an unusually strong violist.
Cellini: you might appreciate the Herold Quartet of Prague. Their violist sits opposite the leader but plays with his instrument pointing straight down the hall even when he's looking at his colleagues. He never looks at his instrument (a violist who really knows where all the notes are??:laugh:) Perhaps you'd still want to sit on the left side of the hall for optimal balance?
Seriously, they are a very good quartet all round, with an unusually strong violist.
I will look out for them. The way you describe the violist sitting I would imagine his sound might work well, but it might be harder to keep in contact with the cello and second violin.
In fact all string players should know where all the notes are and never need to look. I had this discussion on another forum recently and was surprised when some even fairly competent professional teachers and players admitted that they needed sometimes to look at their fingers!! It's totally the wrong way, in my opinion, and this I think is demonstrated by the way most of the really outstanding players perform.
Talking of sitting in the orchestra I almost did that few months ago when Herbert Blomstedt conducted Bruckner 5 at the Salle Pleyel in Paris. I was a bit slow off the mark buying a ticket and the only seats available were in the front row of the stalls. Fortunately it was in the centre but I hadnt realised how close the front row was and as I took my seat I seemed to be positioned right under the conductor's backside. It was so close - about 8 feet away - I could only see the conductor and the first row of violins and cellos and was dreading what the sound was going to be like in this massive symphony. I need not have worried. The sound balance was amazingly good although rather too loud for comfort. It would not be my first choice of seating but I would do it again if I had to. To say I felt totally involved in the performance is an understatement. The good news is I was totally bowled over by Blomstedt's and the recent Querstand CD confirms my concert impression that this was one of the finest performances of the 5th I have heard.
Keraulophone
05-03-11, 08:32
at least the DVD Audio is 5.0, rather than 5.1
Is there a 4.0 option with these recordings? The centre channel, being designed for speech in movie playback, is often fed to a dedicated loudspeaker located near the screen which is often different from the other four 'speakers in a home set-up.
The 3-channel Mercury and RCA Living Stereo [sic] SACDs are the exception, where the centre channel plays an equal part with L and R in attempting to reproduce the original 3-channel recording on the 'Decca Tree' microphone array.
4.0 is surely the way forward, where the listener can be equidistant from identical loudspeakers optimised for the reproduction of classical music, eg Quad ESL.
Hopefully, a competent producer would place the listener in the 'best seat in the hall', which must exclude any in the orchestra because of the up-front balance or imbalance.
Actually, it's a bit of a strange case. They refer to the format being 5.1, but in the notes they say that the sub-woofer channel is not used (hence my describing it as 5.0). The speaker positioning they recommend is to have a speaker at each point of a regular pentagon around the listener, with the centre speaker straight ahead. Equal volume levels for the five speakers is recommended.
See also, messages 1013 and 1015 here (http://www.for3.org/forums/showthread.php?350-What-are-you-listening-to-now&p=36663#post36663).
Keraulophone
05-03-11, 11:29
it's a bit of a strange case.
Yes it most certainly is, because during 00:29 - 00:45 in that 89 second extract from the Grosse Fuge, we hear a can of fizzy drink being pulled. Is that Tacet's idea of audio watermarking? It's difficult to judge in 2-channel download form, but I'm not sure I like the way the musicians seem to be moving about in the aural image... doesn't seem to add anything worthwhile to the musicmaking. You described this as coming from the '4 channel "Moving Real Surround" mix', which is what I'm after. Is this accessible on the disc as well as the 5-ch pentagram version you describe?
Listening in surround it sounds like an attempt by the producer at adding a firework sound effect. I think I will stick to the CD or the Real Surround Sound in future, though I might use the Movng Surround Sound option to get rid of overstaying guests. I bit like the trick of "Let's go to bed and let these nice people go home". :winkeye:
I too thought the CD version the best but I haven't had a chance to hear the surround files on speakers yet. As I may have said I might get their Haydn disc.
The problem is I've been on the Tacet site but I wanted to buy a DVD. However, I understand that this can't be played on a normal CD player through a TV or computer as it has surround sound only. The CD's are rather expensive, so I'm still mulling this over.
The reason I want a DVD is because I'm interested in seeing the interplay between the quartet and also how they play visually from a technical point of view.
The problem is I've been on the Tacet site but I wanted to buy a DVD. However, I understand that this can't be played on a normal CD player through a TV or computer as it has surround sound only. The CD's are rather expensive, so I'm still mulling this over.
The reason I want a DVD is because I'm interested in seeing the interplay between the quartet and also how they play visually from a technical point of view.
Cellini, the DVDs are audio only, (apart from the menu, and that has no pictures). They will however, play on a normal DVD Video player. The audio is slightly higher definition than the CD version, being at a sample rate of 48kHz, and with 24 bit quantisation. However, since the 44.1kHz . 16 bit resolution of the CD issue is likely to have been noise-shaped when reducing the quantisation, the difference in audio quality is likely to be all but imperceptible.
Cellini, the DVDs are audio only, (apart from the menu, and that has no pictures). They will however, play on a normal DVD Video player. The audio is slightly higher definition than the CD version, being at a sample rate of 48kHz, and with 24 bit quantisation. However, since the 44.1kHz . 16 bit resolution of the CD issue is likely to have been noise-shaped when reducing the quantisation, the difference in audio quality is likely to be all but imperceptible.
Ah, thanks for clearing that up, Bryn!! I hadn't thought of them being audio only. In that case I might get a CD if I can work out on the HMV site which CD contains which Haydn quartets, as the Tacet CD numbers do not tie up with the HMV ones, and HMV give no details.
From the release dates, and the Volume numbers given on the hmv.com site, they only have the first three volumes, each a double CD album. i.e.:
Vol. 1 (Op. 18) (http://hmv.com/hmvweb/displayProductDetails.do?ctx=280;1;-1;-1;-1&sku=327347)
Vo. 2 (Op. 59) (http://hmv.com/hmvweb/displayProductDetails.do?ctx=280;1;-1;-1;-1&sku=343285)
Vol. 3 (the earlier 'late' quartets) (http://hmv.com/hmvweb/displayProductDetails.do?ctx=280;1;-1;-1;-1&sku=370812)
However, Crotchet have Vol. 4 (the later 'lates') (http://www.crotchet.co.uk/TACET130) and are also a bit cheaper for the first 3 volumes, even considering p&p.
Thanks Bryn. I did manage to find on the HMV site the single CD of Haydn Op 74 Nos 1-3 which includes the Rider, with the Tacet number 0169 - and have ordered it at £10.99 post free. But the HMV system is not good to get finer details. I will try the Crotchet lot in future.
Looks like hmv.com's so-called Vol. 23 of the Haydn is a typo for Vol. 13. Since each volume is a double CD, I can't see them aver getting to Vol. 23. Indeed, I am surprised they went beyond 12 volumes. 22 or 23 discs suffice for other 'complete' sets. :whistle:
I remember a quadraphonic LP of Bartok's Concerto for Orchestra conducted by Bernstein,which deliberately attempted to place the audience around the listener, even going so far as to print position chart on the sleeve! Because SQ Quadraphonic sound was so poor, the effect was meaningless.
I use a Meridian system which provides realistic rear channel ambience on conventional stereo material, or the stereo layer of SACD discs, and I find it impressive. The music is still on the front stage, as in a concert, but I get a realistic "Hall effect" with no anomalies. This was difficult to achieve before digital techniques arrived. Oddly, Meridian do not approve of SACD on the grounds that it is over engineered.
I've just been listening to some Vienna Octet recordings from the late fifties, beautifully balanced with accurate positional information in an open acoustic. Perhaps the musicians are a little close, but this is surely preferable to some of the flabby sounding orchestral recordings made in over reverberant churches which we encounter too often today.
As for divided violins, I can think of plenty of recordings where this is done without significant loss of separation, and I usually prefer it in the concert hall, I find myself wondering why it seems so difficult for today's engineers to produce transparent sound, not too close, not too distant, when their predecessors in the 50s and 60s achieved it so regularly.
I have a SQ decorder, as well as the other major ones of the 70s. Trust me, concerning the Bernstein, one indeed can tell where the instruments are, I know as I have the record. The truth is there were a lot of poor SQ decoders out there, not least the early non logic ones, which had poor seperation. Given a good decoder the results are still amazing.
I wish people would stop comparing modern surround sound with Quadraphonic sound. SQ is not left plus right equals centre speaker, nor is it left minus right equals two mono rears!! What sort of fake is that!!??SQ was capable of 4 very discreet channels with excellent seperation, a step behind CD4 which was totally discreet. After listening to SQ, stereo sound incredibly flat and rather mono!!!
Unfortunately, there was quad war on in the 70s, companies would settle on one universal system (competition). To cap that the cost of extra speakers and amps stopped many buying, and all four channels were full range, unlike the modern poor imitations. The record companies lost favour with any system by 1978, but by then many excellent recordings had been made thankfully.
Quad was destined to be a high end market thing, but with many small and very poor decoders failing miserably it sadly lost out. By the time Logic circuits made the system really worthwhile, many had just lost faith. Enter digital, that gloriously clinical and dry sound we now have to live with!! Things really have improved!!! Not!!
I use two standard human ears connected up to a human brain (1951 model - B/w & mono ab initio) mediated through considerable hearing loss (middle-ear infections 1957) and tinnitus (resulting from early penicillin therapy for the aforemetioned otitis media), with two digital hearing aids (NHS models, upgraded in 2011).
It ALL sounds lovely to me :biggrin: - but then I know no better :ok: :whistle:
One major benefit - it makes my listening terrifically cheap! :smiley:
Flosshilde
03-05-11, 22:33
:ok: am.
I'm planning on replacing my speakers & tuner/amplifier - I've been looking at speakers that cost £300 - £500 (quite a lot for me, but at the lower end no doubt for some people), but I'm wondering if it's worth spending so much given that I hear everything through a permanent whistle from the tinnitus :sadface: (which I also think was brought on by several massive penicillin shots.)
:ok: am.
I'm planning on replacing my speakers & tuner/amplifier - I've been looking at speakers that cost £300 - £500 (quite a lot for me, but at the lower end no doubt for some people), but I'm wondering if it's worth spending so much given that I hear everything through a permanent whistle from the tinnitus :sadface: (which I also think was brought on by several massive penicillin shots.)
Certainly the link between early penicillin therapies and tinnitus was made in a standard pharmacology text that I used in the early 1970s, Flossie.
However younger GPs tend to look at me aghast when I mention it - maybe it has gone out of fashion.:smiley:
I just wish the tinnitus would go too :yikes:
:ok: am.
I'm planning on replacing my speakers & tuner/amplifier - I've been looking at speakers that cost £300 - £500 (quite a lot for me, but at the lower end no doubt for some people), but I'm wondering if it's worth spending so much given that I hear everything through a permanent whistle from the tinnitus :sadface: (which I also think was brought on by several massive penicillin shots.)
I would consider Mordaunt Short speakers. I'm no audiophile, but I have some and they compare well to the (infinitely more expensive) B&W speakers owned by a friend of mine.
Certainly the link between early penicillin therapies and tinnitus was made in a standard pharmacology text that I used in the early 1970s, Flossie.
However younger GPs tend to look at me aghast when I mention it - maybe it has gone out of fashion.:smiley:
I just wish the tinnitus would go too :yikes:
That's pretty awful, sorry to hear that. Not fun when you appreciate proper music. I did not know of the penicillin link, which makes it worse. For what it is worth, I would stear clear of most modern speakers if i were you. Firstly, their range is a lot poorer than it was in the golden 70s. Today, there are different requirements. A lot of manufacturers bow to the pop industry which means a hard sound, bright, punchy and frankly tiring to listen to for long periods. I have a quadraphonic set up as you probably surmised, but i am also an Organist, love classical music and some decent pop. That steered me to speakers, four identical ones, that a friend of mine had in 1979 which literally blew me away. None of the hard sound, but laid back, tuneful, fast, clear, with a incredible wide range right down to bottom c on an organ (16 herz) and with a top end that really tinkles, given its renowned tweeter. Imaging is glorious, and things are actually in the room with you!! which speaker? Celestion 44. These have something of a cult status now, I got mine off a well known auction site in top nick for £450 all four. One pair was £200. They often appear, and beleive me they are worth seeking out. If I tried to put wide range material through modern speakers believe me in a large room they simply fail. Dismally. I don't care what they say about "long throw" and reflex ports etc. Believe me they fail.
As to hearing damage, I hear you!!! When I began playing in the 70s, one organ would really scream and literally overewhelm, today it seems quite polite. Sometimes my ears pop though, and i still get the lot!! I blame the Liverpool climate I live in, I never had it when I lived down south!!
Hope you find decent speakers. If you want a speaker that is laid back, musical, warm without colouration, and great for orchestral and classical, I'd look for Celestions, otherwise audition first if you don't want Celestions!
Richard
MrGongGong
04-05-11, 10:35
how do you get your Celestion 44's to go to 16HZ when their stated bottom is 25Hz ?
and what do you mean by "poor" range ?
how do you get your Celestion 44's to go to 16HZ when their stated bottom is 25Hz ?
and what do you mean by "poor" range ?
Yes I know, good question to which I don't know, but can only guess that the stated spec is flat from 25Hz up. in other words below that the curve will roll off gradually, but not so much that something is not coming through in the bottom octave. I have scores of both vinyl and Cds of organs, and have heard bottom C of a 32 foot through these. I used to use a KEF sub but now don't bother.
As to poor range I mean a fake lower bass via reflex ports, typically stopping at around 35 to 40 Hz. The smaller cones of today simply cannot move as much air either.
ATB
Richard
Flosshilde
04-05-11, 17:19
Roffensis, The speakers I have are Marantz, which I bought in the mid-seventies. They've been excellent (they were first connected to a Boots portable stereo record player - the sound was a revelation after the original speakers!), but the foam round the actual cones has crumbled, & they go dead (individually) & crackle etc. The cables are the realy thin 2-core cables which connect by a 2-pronged attachments at the end of the cable & placed under screws on the speaker. No plug-in sockets for cable on the speakers, so can't even up-grade the cables!
I can see what you mean about modern speakers & the sound they produce. I've been looking at reviews & they never seem to test speakers with classical music, & the terms they use in talking about the sound don't seem appropriate for classical.
Roffensis, The speakers I have are Marantz, which I bought in the mid-seventies. They've been excellent (they were first connected to a Boots portable stereo record player - the sound was a revelation after the original speakers!), but the foam round the actual cones has crumbled, & they go dead (individually) & crackle etc. The cables are the realy thin 2-core cables which connect by a 2-pronged attachments at the end of the cable & placed under screws on the speaker. No plug-in sockets for cable on the speakers, so can't even up-grade the cables!
I can see what you mean about modern speakers & the sound they produce. I've been looking at reviews & they never seem to test speakers with classical music, & the terms they use in talking about the sound don't seem appropriate for classical.
Good for you, and thanks for comments. Early foam surrounds did indeed crumble, and modern ones may do in time?, the Celestions used rubber surrounds, which I have heard called "everlasting", but these to date show no sign of hardending or cracking. Happy days. If one really likes their speakers but they are failing, there are are companies that will restore them, one I think is in London. The problem I dread is one of my tweeters going, they are not made anymore, and Celestion do not service either, which does not impress me one bit. [/I] Reviews are not what they were in the 70s either!!!
Richard
Flosshilde
04-05-11, 21:48
Roffensis, Just found a pair on ebay - currently £79 + £50(!) delivery. From the picture they look about 3 feet high - is this correct?
(there is also a pair of tweeters for sale :smiley:)
Roffensis, Just found a pair on ebay - currently £79 + £50(!) delivery. From the picture they look about 3 feet high - is this correct?
(there is also a pair of tweeters for sale :smiley:)
Not quite 3 feet, 30" high, 14 wide", 10" deep roughly. Yes I saw the tweeters!!!..............watch what they go for!!! If you can private message me, I'll give you some helpful advice. y the way they are rated at about 40 watts, but rumour has it they'll take a vast amount more than this. Both my amps are well over 125 watts each, and no sign ever of distortion, not unless yu want compound Tinnitus!! :sadface:
Will be in touch tomorrow,
Richard
Eine Alpensinfonie
05-05-11, 11:07
Although I generally prefer the "glow" created by huddling all the violins on the left, I don't think the balance is significantly disturbed by having the 2nd violins facing backwards. The resonance is omnidirectional.
In concert halls, any antiphonal effect is lost unless you happen to be sitting near to the front.
Although I generally prefer the "glow" created by huddling all the violins on the left, I don't think the balance is significantly disturbed by having the 2nd violins facing backwards. The resonance is omnidirectional.
In concert halls, any antiphonal effect is lost unless you happen to be sitting near to the front.
Ideally I think any orchestra should recorded as is, ie how players are set out ...full stop. I think the golden ideal was met by RCA and Reiner, with a single stereo pair over the orchestra, and I think a single mono in the hall. Today, those recordings still sound fantastic. The quadraphonic recording technique yeilded still further realism. I see no argument in spot miking or spreading violins accross a front image. It is a false representation, or am I just too purist?
R
silvestrione
06-05-11, 12:10
RCA and Reiner! Hmm, one of those available in local Oxfam, on LP. Must try it out: might have been Mozart 40 and 41, not sure.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.0 Copyright © 2013 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.