Munich show 2023 Hifideluxe and MOC .

[adrianywu]

I was last Sunday at as string quartet concert in the Tonhalle Zurich in their “small” hall. The sound was so rich and full! We weren’t that close but I measured peak levels (C weighted fast) of over 90dB, which is quite loud when you consider the distance and it being only 4 unamplified string instruments.

What really struck me , beside the SPL, was the richness of tone and the ability to easily localize the instruments in space. It just reminded me how epically most systems fail in tone reproduction. Nearly all are too thin and lack body…as well as dynamics.

If the manufacturers at Munich were serious about doing this right they would listen and learn but it might destroy a few dogmas…

Interesting observation. I have a similar experience before going to Munich High End. Please see the link to my article above.
I went to a Vienna Phil concert in Paris. The hall on Champs-Elysées was wonderful. The average SPL during the concert (according to my Apple Watch) was 89dB. I was sitting on row 4, and the hall was small by modern standards. Going to these concerts makes me think how much further we have to go to improve our systems !

 

[carolus]

The first part of my article on the Munich High End has been published on Copper.
https://www.psaudio.com/blogs/coppe...an-hiraga?mc_cid=230200783c&mc_eid=9502639bc6

.... une visite époustouflante ......

 

[Klonk]

The first part of my article on the Munich High End has been published on Copper.
https://www.psaudio.com/blogs/coppe...an-hiraga?mc_cid=230200783c&mc_eid=9502639bc6

Thank you. I really love the part with Jean Hiraga. A legend, I didn't know he was still alive.

 

[Moiz Audio]

only regret this year was not having more clips done from Zeiler Audio room.

 

[RCanelas]

I was last Sunday at as string quartet concert in the Tonhalle Zurich in their “small” hall. The sound was so rich and full! We weren’t that close but I measured peak levels (C weighted fast) of over 90dB, which is quite loud when you consider the distance and it being only 4 unamplified string instruments.

What really struck me , beside the SPL, was the richness of tone and the ability to easily localize the instruments in space. It just reminded me how epically most systems fail in tone reproduction. Nearly all are too thin and lack body…as well as dynamics.

If the manufacturers at Munich were serious about doing this right they would listen and learn but it might destroy a few dogmas…

How much of the failure to reproduce a real acoustic event do you attribute to the recording, stereo paradigm and system?

For me the ratio between the 3 changes throughout the day, as I meander from mediocre recordings to really good ones.

 

[morricab]

How much of the failure to reproduce a real acoustic event do you attribute to the recording, stereo paradigm and system?

For me the ratio between the 3 changes throughout the day, as I meander from mediocre recordings to really good ones.

i would say that it clearly starts with the recording and that might be the ultimate barrier to realism but really good recordings exist. One thing to consider with the recording though is how close the microphones are to the musicians. In my case for this concert I was not very close to the stage. This means that sound will be a bit warmer and sweeter (less string more wood) than a lot of recordings where the microphones are up pretty close.

Assuming one knows what to expect when up close (see the video I posted of my ex playing Paganini Caprices in the exact same hall where I heard the concert last Sunday) then distance of miking vs. distance of listening live can be compensated.

I can tell you from a lot of experience of up close listening to live violin of the highest order (Strad, Guarneri, Amati, Guadanini etc.), cello, piano, duets, trios, quartets etc. most systems sound way to lean and lack the dimensionality and volume (space not SPL) of live. Stereo itself I don't think is such an issue, although I have made some good mono solo violin recordings that could be argued to sound more realistic. Multichannel for a big orchestra might have an advantage but I think this is negated by the relative lack of quality in the gear used for most multi-channel.

It then comes down to the recording and the system quality I think...although ultimate realism might need to include visuals as well (holograms?). Still, I noticed a lot of people at the concert with eyes closed (myself as well often). Turning off the visual allows one to take in more with the auditory senses. This is how I noticed that I could still mentally "visualize" the location of each performer from sound alone relatively easily. There have been many here that say localization live is poor but in a good hall that doesn't seem to be true.

 

[adrianywu]

Thank you. I really love the part with Jean Hiraga. A legend, I didn't know he was still alive.

Very much so........

 

[adrianywu]

i would say that it clearly starts with the recording and that might be the ultimate barrier to realism but really good recordings exist. One thing to consider with the recording though is how close the microphones are to the musicians. In my case for this concert I was not very close to the stage. This means that sound will be a bit warmer and sweeter (less string more wood) than a lot of recordings where the microphones are up pretty close.

Assuming one knows what to expect when up close (see the video I posted of my ex playing Paganini Caprices in the exact same hall where I heard the concert last Sunday) then distance of miking vs. distance of listening live can be compensated.

I can tell you from a lot of experience of up close listening to live violin of the highest order (Strad, Guarneri, Amati, Guadanini etc.), cello, piano, duets, trios, quartets etc. most systems sound way to lean and lack the dimensionality and volume (space not SPL) of live. Stereo itself I don't think is such an issue, although I have made some good mono solo violin recordings that could be argued to sound more realistic. Multichannel for a big orchestra might have an advantage but I think this is negated by the relative lack of quality in the gear used for most multi-channel.

It then comes down to the recording and the system quality I think...although ultimate realism might need to include visuals as well (holograms?). Still, I noticed a lot of people at the concert with eyes closed (myself as well often). Turning off the visual allows one to take in more with the auditory senses. This is how I noticed that I could still mentally "visualize" the location of each performer from sound alone relatively easily. There have been many here that say localization live is poor but in a good hall that doesn't seem to be true.

I have made a number of recordings for the Chinese prodigy violinist Li Chuan Yun. I remember the first time I played back the tape of a rehearsal through headphones to him, and he was shocked how "rough" his violin sounded. Close miking really captures a lot of details that get diluted with distance, especially on the raw session master.

 

[RCanelas]

I can tell you from a lot of experience of up close listening to live violin of the highest order (Strad, Guarneri, Amati, Guadanini etc.), cello, piano, duets, trios, quartets etc. most systems sound way to lean and lack the dimensionality and volume (space not SPL) of live.

As a double bass player (in a previous life...), I share the feeling. I have spent many hours listening and playing in small settings and large ensembles. There is a quality to the way harmonics propagate and interact that just isn't reproduced by most recordings and systems.

Stereo itself I don't think is such an issue, although I have made some good mono solo violin recordings that could be argued to sound more realistic. Multichannel for a big orchestra might have an advantage but I think this is negated by the relative lack of quality in the gear used for most multi-channel.

Stereo has it's limitations, but the main issue I find with it is the arbitrary ceiling it creates for most recording session techs. Combined with the limited dynamic range, non-linear and non-constant polar patterns on all mics, it makes the investment on exceptional recordings a weird proposition and their appearance a rare event.

 

[hopkins]

As a double bass player (in a previous life...), I share the feeling. I have spent many hours listening and playing in small settings and large ensembles. There is a quality to the way harmonics propagate and interact that just isn't reproduced by most recordings and systems.



Stereo has it's limitations, but the main issue I find with it is the arbitrary ceiling it creates for most recording session techs. Combined with the limited dynamic range, non-linear and non-constant polar patterns on all mics, it makes the investment on exceptional recordings a weird proposition and their appearance a rare event.

This why a lot of people, including musicians of course, feel a simple stereo is "good enough" and hifi systems add limited value (not worth the cost and effort).

 

[morricab]

I have made a number of recordings for the Chinese prodigy violinist Li Chuan Yun. I remember the first time I played back the tape of a rehearsal through headphones to him, and he was shocked how "rough" his violin sounded. Close miking really captures a lot of details that get diluted with distance, especially on the raw session master.

Yes, there is probably a "right" distance where you get a lot of detail without all the scratchy spitty stuff. My ex was playing on Polish television by age 5 and won several competitions. Currently, she is a Konzertmeister in an orchestra in Germany. I recorded her practice sessions for the Paganini concerts and they are very direct but the worst extraneous noises are not too audible. I was about 3 meters from her during the recording.

 

[morricab]

This why a lot of people, including musicians of course, feel a simple stereo is "good enough" and hifi systems add limited value (not worth the cost and effort).

My ex appreciated good stereo and accompanied me to a number of hifi shows. Her decision on a room's sound was swift and occasionally brutal. She particularly like my Apogees and my Acoustats...after we broke up she even bought a pair of them from me (I had three pairs of Acoustats at that time).

 

[wil]

How much of the failure to reproduce a real acoustic event do you attribute to the recording, stereo paradigm and system?

For me the ratio between the 3 changes throughout the day, as I meander from mediocre recordings to really good ones.

My experience is the recording is responsible for 90% of a good listening experience (whether the system is relatively modest or extreme).

 

[Rexp]

My experience is the recording is responsible for 90% of a good listening experience (whether the system is relatively modest or extreme).

Agreed, In the 90's I once dropped my Pink Triangle turntable and while it was being repaired I was stuck with uninspiring digital playback. For a laugh I plugged a JVC boom box into my CJ pre and played some cassettes. The sound was so good I literally cried.

 

[Gregm]

My experience is the recording is responsible for 90% of a good listening experience (whether the system is relatively modest or extreme).

If you include the mastering process when you say recording, I'd agree.

As we know instruments are tuned (with or without tools) and played by ear (no pun intended). The mic does not hear things the same way our ears hear things, and musicians play the music according to the ear standard -- not the mic's.
Hence I would like and expect the recording & mastering engineer(s) to take this into account and compensate so as to bring the final product as close to the original event as they can. Particularly when it comes to acoustic music.

 

[Argonaut]

HIGH END 2023 Munich Show Coverage Celebrating 40 years... to become the world leader of premium audio events. HIGH END 2023 Show Report By Andrija Curkovic

HIGH END 2023 Munich Show Coverage Celebrating 40 years... to become the world leader of premium audio events. HIGH END 2023 Show Report By Andrija Curkovic

www.enjoythemusic.com

 

[matthias]

My experience is the recording is responsible for 90% of a good listening experience (whether the system is relatively modest or extreme).

If you include the mastering process when you say recording, I'd agree.

Agree,
recording and mastering are extremely important.
I read recently in an interview with Jan Eric Kongshaug who made some of the best recordings for ECM that he used compression in his recordings. So improvements on R&M can have a much greater impact than spending thousands on playback devices.

Matt

 

[zerostargeneral]

Supreme sound that should bridge the gap between music lovers and high end audiophilia.

Kindest regards and thanks to Moiz, G.

 

[Carlos269]

Agree,
recording and mastering are extremely important.
I read recently in an interview with Jan Eric Kongshaug who made some of the best recordings for ECM that he used compression in his recordings. So improvements on R&M can have a much greater impact than spending thousands on playback devices.

Matt

I completely agree, that the real power in making any substantial impact to the sound quality, in matching our preferences and expectations, comes with making changes in the mastering of the recordings:

Remastering Your High-End Audio System to Achieve Your Sonic Objectives

 

[hopkins]

On the other hand, with the right system (one that is to our liking) and room acoustics we can find pleasure in many recordings. Good recordings are a bonus.