Do we want to sit in the orchestra?

[Keraulophone]

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.

[Bryn]

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.

[Keraulophone]

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?

[Bryn]

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".

[Cellini]

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.

[Cellini]

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.

[Bryn]

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]

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.

[Bryn]

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)

Vo. 2 (Op. 59)

Vol. 3 (the earlier 'late' quartets)

However, Crotchet have Vol. 4 (the later 'lates') and are also a bit cheaper for the first 3 volumes, even considering p&p.

[Cellini]

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.

[Bryn]

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.

[Roffensis]

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!!

[amateur51]

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 - but then I know no better

One major benefit - it makes my listening terrifically cheap!

[Flosshilde]

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 (which I also think was brought on by several massive penicillin shots.)

[amateur51]

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 (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.

I just wish the tinnitus would go too