You had to be there

[EdgeleyRob]

or maybe not.

So many reviews of Proms by forumites who attended the RAH seem to have quibbles about sound,acoustics,can't hear this or that section of the orchestra and such.
This is even more apparent reading the reviews of last night's Prom
Quite often I have listened to the same concert at home and had very few complaints,just the odd minor issue which usually hasn't spoiled my enjoyment.
Is the RAH such a poor building to host concerts (I've never set foot in the place btw).
I'm no audiophile,don't have very expensive equipment.
Usually I listen via I tunes radio,basic Hi Fi or laptop.
I listened to last nights Gerontius on my common and garden Pure Evoke DAB radio,the sound was superb but for a minor blip which I assume was to do with the BBC sound balancing.
Do prommers expect too much,are they over critical or am I just not critical enough,usually too bowled over by the music to notice.
Don't want to start a war of words,just curious

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

I'm no audiophile,don't have very expensive equipment.

Snap! - And I wonder if this is part of our (lack of) problem: better playing equipment shows up blemishes more clearly than cheaper stuff? (Something I noticed when I've played CDs on expensive kit that sound perfectly acceptable on my home players.)

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

I think the RAH is much maligned. It had terrible sound before the installation of the flying saucers, but these have made a huge difference.

Re Radio 3's broadcast sound, I do think it has got worse, and I have old open reel tapes to back up this assertion.

But in answer to the OP's heading, you do have to be there for the best sound. Nothing manufactured (or copied) can match it.

[Serial_Apologist]

Re Radio 3's broadcast sound, I do think it has got worse, and I have old open reel tapes to back up this assertion.

As indeed have I. I've been arguing this fact ever since coming into this forum's predecessor.

[Conchis]

I've noticed a pattern in critical appreciation of concert venues, at least in Britain.

A venue opens and is deemed to be 'acoustically perfect', the best hall in the word, etc., etc. After a few years, it becomes merely 'the best hall in the UK' or in England. Then it ceases to be praised; then it starts to get panned. It happened, famously, with the RFH and it is now happening with Birmingham Symphony Hall. In due course, it will happen with the Sage Gateshead, the current top dog.

As to 'having to be there' - well, no two pairs of ears are the same even before you get started on individual listening preferences (some like dry sound, some like bright sound, etc, etc); so, in this respect, arguments about sound are academic, because the subject is so subjective.

[richardfinegold]

Snap! - And I wonder if this is part of our (lack of) problem: better playing equipment shows up blemishes more clearly than cheaper stuff? (Something I noticed when I've played CDs on expensive kit that sound perfectly acceptable on my home players.)

Too true.

[Stillhomewardbound]

On the musical proms I have lamented the use of the headset mics rather than fixed mics on stand at the front.

As a singer (of sorts) I would find it very frustrating to be permanently at a fix remove from the mic. I suspect also there is a less natural mix into the orchestra / hall sound.

Listening on headphones last night there was a dullness in the sound. Now, the top of end of my hearing is not that great but I can still detect clarity. It was just a tadge mushy.

I would have been much better listening on my desk speakers (which are very good) but I was watching between 2 & 4 am. Wouldn't have gone down well with even my more musical neighbours.

[jayne lee wilson]

Snap! - And I wonder if this is part of our (lack of) problem: better playing equipment shows up blemishes more clearly than cheaper stuff? (Something I noticed when I've played CDs on expensive kit that sound perfectly acceptable on my home players.)

Hmm... you want the short answer or the (very) long one ?

I've auditioned a pack of hifi equipment, often in my own largish room, from modest separates to truly costly studio monitoring combos. Short answer, then: whilst the better equipment does indeed tell you more of what's wrong with a recording or an acoustic, it also tells you much more about what's right with it. If you take a problematic acoustic like BBC Maida Vale say, or the Moscow Grand TV&R Studio where many Melodiyas were made, whilst you hear much more of the acoustical oddity - dryness in London, or brightness and over-reverberance in Moscow - the very presence of the space, and the individualising of the performers within it, makes the musical experience more tangible - so much more involving.**

Ultimately you hear more of the truth and distinctiveness of a given recording, and surely we all want more of that in the classical game. Yes, it may seem to go against you sometimes - the DAC I have now (since 2013) has tended to make some of the less-than-miraculous earlier Mercurys less tolerable as the audible distortion is more obvious - but I'd rather hear the truth about them, if it means that the Dorati Tchaikovsy 1-3 sounds even more miraculous for its years.

It's addictive in itself of course, and can be great fun - just now I'm pursuing sonic upgrades to USB Asynchronous Computer Music replay.
As with all musical things, YMMV... but best advice about auditioning hifi? Don't listen to it if you can't afford it...!... oh boy, did I find out that out the hard way...

**Good examples: Petrassi Concerti per Orchestra 1, 2&8 (BBCSO/ PESKO, Warner Fonit. When you move from MV to St Pancras Town Hall, you hear the gains in freshness immediately, BUT you enjoy both.); Rozhdestvensky's Bruckner (Melodiya, or later and better, Venezia). You almost giggle at the outrageous reverb as you thrill to the orchestra & what Rozh does with it.
(This is not to deny the gains digital manipulation/acoustic mod. has wrought in later Maida Vale tapings., but I tend to prefer good honest dryness).

***
As for Radio 3's broadcasts/webcast, if you critique it you have to be specific as to which platform - FM, Dab, Freeview etc.... HDs at 320 kbps now puts FM firmly in the shade, but ONLY if you send the digital stream out from the computer source to the DAC/system - that really is FIRST BASE. And I say this having been a devotee of FM through many a tuner, from budget Pioneers to modified Leak Troughlines and the present Magnum Dynalab. (Oh, we used to drive up to Winter Hill just to peer at the miraculous transmitter, its apex lost in cloud...)
FM can still sound "lovely" but - with no climaxes ....

[richardfinegold]

Hmm... you want the short answer or the (very) long one ?

I've auditioned a pack of hifi equipment, often in my own largish room, from modest separates to truly costly studio monitoring combos. Short answer, then: whilst the better equipment does indeed tell you more of what's wrong with a recording or an acoustic, it also tells you much more about what's right with it. If you take a problematic acoustic like BBC Maida Vale say, or the Moscow Grand TV&R Studio where many Melodiyas were made, whilst you hear much more of the acoustical oddity - dryness in London, or brightness and over-reverberance in Moscow - the very presence of the space, and the individualising of the performers within it, makes the musical experience more tangible - so much more involving.**

Ultimately you hear more of the truth and distinctiveness of a given recording, and surely we all want more of that in the classical game. Yes, it may seem to go against you sometimes - the DAC I have now (since 2013) has tended to make some of the less-than-miraculous earlier Mercurys less tolerable as the audible distortion is more obvious - but I'd rather hear the truth about them, if it means that the Dorati Tchaikovsy 1-3 sounds even more miraculous for its years.

It's addictive in itself of course, and can be great fun - just now I'm pursuing sonic upgrades to USB Asynchronous Computer Music replay.
As with all musical things, YMMV... but best advice about auditioning hifi? Don't listen to it if you can't afford it...!... oh boy, did I find out that out the hard way...

**Good examples: Petrassi Concerti per Orchestra 1, 2&8 (BBCSO/ PESKO, Warner Fonit. When you move from MV to St Pancras Town Hall, you hear the gains in freshness immediately, BUT you enjoy both.); Rozhdestvensky's Bruckner (Melodiya, or later and better, Venezia). You almost giggle at the outrageous reverb as you thrill to the orchestra & what Rozh does with it.
(This is not to deny the gains digital manipulation/acoustic mod. has wrought in later Maida Vale tapings., but I tend to prefer good honest dryness).

***
As for Radio 3's broadcasts/webcast, if you critique it you have to be specific as to which platform - FM, Dab, Freeview etc.... HDs at 320 kbps now puts FM firmly in the shade, but ONLY if you send the digital stream out from the computer source to the DAC/system - that really is FIRST BASE. And I say this having been a devotee of FM through many a tuner, from budget Pioneers to modified Leak Troughlines and the present Magnum Dynalab. (Oh, we used to drive up to Winter Hill just to peer at the miraculous transmitter, its apex lost in cloud...)
FM can still sound "lovely" but - with no climaxes ....

As usual, jlw, very insightful. Have you ever written about audio professionally? I was just reading Stereophile when tiring of the likes of Mikey Fremer and art Dudley I glanced at the Forum and your post makes so much more sense than the usual audiophile blather.
Currently listening to RCA SACD remastering (3 channel only) of Reiner/CSO Also Sprach from 1954. It is amazing how much Hall Ambience is captured and how, in the infancy of Stereo, the Orchestra sounds like they are playing in a real space, with proper resonance and decay, and a absolute lack of Hi Fi trickery. I am glad that I have a system that does this classic recording justice because it really does enhance the experience

[EdgeleyRob]

Hmm... you want the short answer or the (very) long one ?

I've auditioned a pack of hifi equipment, often in my own largish room, from modest separates to truly costly studio monitoring combos. Short answer, then: whilst the better equipment does indeed tell you more of what's wrong with a recording or an acoustic, it also tells you much more about what's right with it. If you take a problematic acoustic like BBC Maida Vale say, or the Moscow Grand TV&R Studio where many Melodiyas were made, whilst you hear much more of the acoustical oddity - dryness in London, or brightness and over-reverberance in Moscow - the very presence of the space, and the individualising of the performers within it, makes the musical experience more tangible - so much more involving.**

Ultimately you hear more of the truth and distinctiveness of a given recording, and surely we all want more of that in the classical game. Yes, it may seem to go against you sometimes - the DAC I have now (since 2013) has tended to make some of the less-than-miraculous earlier Mercurys less tolerable as the audible distortion is more obvious - but I'd rather hear the truth about them, if it means that the Dorati Tchaikovsy 1-3 sounds even more miraculous for its years.

It's addictive in itself of course, and can be great fun - just now I'm pursuing sonic upgrades to USB Asynchronous Computer Music replay.
As with all musical things, YMMV... but best advice about auditioning hifi? Don't listen to it if you can't afford it...!... oh boy, did I find out that out the hard way...

**Good examples: Petrassi Concerti per Orchestra 1, 2&8 (BBCSO/ PESKO, Warner Fonit. When you move from MV to St Pancras Town Hall, you hear the gains in freshness immediately, BUT you enjoy both.); Rozhdestvensky's Bruckner (Melodiya, or later and better, Venezia). You almost giggle at the outrageous reverb as you thrill to the orchestra & what Rozh does with it.
(This is not to deny the gains digital manipulation/acoustic mod. has wrought in later Maida Vale tapings., but I tend to prefer good honest dryness).

***
As for Radio 3's broadcasts/webcast, if you critique it you have to be specific as to which platform - FM, Dab, Freeview etc.... HDs at 320 kbps now puts FM firmly in the shade, but ONLY if you send the digital stream out from the computer source to the DAC/system - that really is FIRST BASE. And I say this having been a devotee of FM through many a tuner, from budget Pioneers to modified Leak Troughlines and the present Magnum Dynalab. (Oh, we used to drive up to Winter Hill just to peer at the miraculous transmitter, its apex lost in cloud...)
FM can still sound "lovely" but - with no climaxes ....

That's a wonderful post Jayne.
However I'm not sure my hearing is acute enough,well in fact I've come to the conclusion that it can't be after having read so many reviews on here.
I just don't pick up many of the flaws that other listeners seem to.
Like I said last night's Gerontius sounded stunning on my portable DAB radio.
Other forumites,maybe listening via more sophisticated kit,thought less so.

[Anastasius]

I've been to several Proms this year and quite simply listening at home...well, it bears no comparison. The only quibble I could make is that in the Brandenburg Concerto 2, the keyboard instrument was inaudible from the front row of the Arena.

[VodkaDilc]

I've been to several Proms this year and quite simply listening at home...well, it bears no comparison. The only quibble I could make is that in the Brandenburg Concerto 2, the keyboard instrument was inaudible from the front row of the Arena.

I think there are times when nothing can compare with being present at a concert. I am looking forward to the Edinburgh Festival performance of the Berlioz Requiem which is on the radio next week (Friday I think). I was there and it was stunning. But to think that the radio, even played through the most exotic equipment, could do justice to the moments when the full forces are joined by four brass groups (behind the choir, in the left gallery, the right gallery and behind the listener) is being unrealistic. I really recommend the concert though.

[teamsaint]

i think that what you find quite often depends on what you are looking for.

[jayne lee wilson]

i think that what you find quite often depends on what you are looking for.

Absolutely, ts... and those of us who can't get to concerts anymore don't sit at home lamenting it.

What you get out of home listening is down to far more than the dichotomy of extremes set up in the false opposition of live/recorded. What every listener is trying to do is connect with the music and the musicians, respond to them, or to keep those responses fresh. So for some it means pursuing audio excellence, where others might feel that close attention to how it sounds only leads them away. Having said that, when someone hears a really musical, highly resolving system for the first time they usually go very quiet, shake their head, start to smile..."I didn't know they could do that"...

In my own case though, Recorded Music always came first. Concerts were a more or less regular special occasion, the bigger (the Mahler, the Messe des Morts) the better of course. But much classical orchestral and smaller ensembles often come across with terrific vibrancy and immediacy on a good home system. I never enjoyed Haydn or Mozart much at the RLPO Hall, and not many of us live round the corner from the Salzburg Mozarteum or QEH...

As for "the radio" (again)... even the best platforms don't yet approach CD-resolution (though 320kbps aac is at least a good trompe l'oreille), so it's even more apples-and-pears than usual.
Berlioz? The engineer and hifi writer John Crabbe spent his life trying to create a system that could do at least some justice to the Grande Messe...
Whether he achieved it, or felt that he had... I've no idea. But, it's often better to travel... ...

[VodkaDilc]

Berlioz? The engineer and hifi writer John Crabbe spent his life trying to create a system that could do at least some justice to the Grande Messe...
Whether he achieved it, or felt that he had... I've no idea. But, it's often better to travel... ...

I hope you will be able to listen to the Philharmonia performance of the Berlioz on Friday. It was a wonderful experience last month at the Usher Hall.