Hilary Hahn Shreds

[MRC01]

Ysaye's violin sonatas are among my favorite works and I've collected a few different performances over the years. Yesterday I listened to Hilary Hahn's new recording and it blew my mind. She shreds, she sings, and everything in between, with seamless artistic integrity. The recording quality is also fantastic. Unmatched transparency, lifelike timbre, micro-detail, tremendous dynamics. It's a bit dry with just a touch of room reverb, which I prefer.

Qobuz

Listen to your music in high quality

play.qobuz.com

Hilary Hahn, Eugène Ysaÿe - Six Sonatas For Violin Solo Op. 27

Explore songs, recommendations, and other album details for Six Sonatas For Violin Solo Op. 27 by Hilary Hahn, Eugène Ysaÿe. Compare different versions and buy them all on Discogs.

www.discogs.com

 

[Deleted member 21219]

Unmatched transparency, lifelike timbre, micro-detail, tremendous dynamics.

I understand transparency.
I understand timbre.
I understand dynamics.

What is micro-detail?

Jim

 

[MRC01]

... What is micro-detail? ...

Micro-detail: revealing the tiniest subtle details of finger & bowing technique, breathing, etc. that you can hear from the front row in live performances yet are commonly masked in recordings.

 

[Deleted member 21219]

Micro-detail: revealing the tiniest subtle details of finger & bowing technique, breathing, etc. that you can hear from the front row in live performances yet are commonly masked in recordings.

Now, I might be wrong about this, and 'm sure you can correct me if I'm wrong, but if some thing is "masked" in making a recording, isn't it lost forever?

I mean, let's say a studio records a violinist. The recording either captures this "micro-detail" or it doesn't .... right? If it doesn't, there's no way in hell that the audio system reconstitutes something that isn't on the recording ..... right?

But let's say that the "micro-detail" is captured in the recording process. Okay .... so it's in there, in a digital file, just waiting to be retrieved for us listeners. Won't any competently designed DAC present the amplifier with a signal that contains this "micro-detail"? And won't any competently-designed amp send a signal to a speaker that contains this "micro-detail"?

And won't any competently-designed speaker reproduce this "micro-detail" for us to hear? I mean, I think it would, wouldn't it? Otherwise, how in the heck could the recording engineer ever know that the "micro-detail" was there in the first place? A recording engineer has to hear what's on the recording to know it's there .... right? After all, even if he missed it, your loudspeaker in your room has to be capable of reproducing this "micro-detail", or else you'd never hear it .... right?

So this "micro-detail" absolutely has to exist in the recording. It has to survive the mixing and mastering processes, and then as far as the signal is concerned, it's home free, isn't it?
The Dac doesn't know the difference between macro-detail and micro-detail, and the amp doesn't know the difference between macro-detail and micro-detail .... right? I'm sure that there are some poor quality speakers that wouldn't reproduce this "micro-detail", but my opinion (and I could be wrong about this) is that a competent loudspeaker will definitely reproduce the "micro-detail", because the monitors in the studio reproduced it for the recording engineer ..... didn't they?

Of course, there might possibly exist speakers that have, say, a slight treble lift, and they might give a listener the impression of greater detail, but that's a different issue, isn't it? Even then, the information still needs to exist on the file first .... right?

So my impression is that there is really no such thing as "micro-detail". The speaker reproduces whatever is on the recording .... or it doesn't.

Am I wrong about this?

Jim Taylor

 

[Fregly]

I understand transparency.
I understand timbre.
I understand dynamics.

What is micro-detail?

Jim

Closely mic'd, and also compression

 

[MRC01]

Now, I might be wrong about this, and 'm sure you can correct me if I'm wrong, but if some thing is "masked" in making a recording, isn't it lost forever?

I mean, let's say a studio records a violinist. The recording either captures this "micro-detail" or it doesn't .... right? If it doesn't, there's no way in hell that the audio system reconstitutes something that isn't on the recording ..... right?

But let's say that the "micro-detail" is captured in the recording process. Okay .... so it's in there, in a digital file, just waiting to be retrieved for us listeners. Won't any competently designed DAC present the amplifier with a signal that contains this "micro-detail"? And won't any competently-designed amp send a signal to a speaker that contains this "micro-detail"?

And won't any competently-designed speaker reproduce this "micro-detail" for us to hear? I mean, I think it would, wouldn't it? Otherwise, how in the heck could the recording engineer ever know that the "micro-detail" was there in the first place? A recording engineer has to hear what's on the recording to know it's there .... right? After all, even if he missed it, your loudspeaker in your room has to be capable of reproducing this "micro-detail", or else you'd never hear it .... right?

So this "micro-detail" absolutely has to exist in the recording. It has to survive the mixing and mastering processes, and then as far as the signal is concerned, it's home free, isn't it?
The Dac doesn't know the difference between macro-detail and micro-detail, and the amp doesn't know the difference between macro-detail and micro-detail .... right? I'm sure that there are some poor quality speakers that wouldn't reproduce this "micro-detail", but my opinion (and I could be wrong about this) is that a competent loudspeaker will definitely reproduce the "micro-detail", because the monitors in the studio reproduced it for the recording engineer ..... didn't they?

Of course, there might possibly exist speakers that have, say, a slight treble lift, and they might give a listener the impression of greater detail, but that's a different issue, isn't it? Even then, the information still needs to exist on the file first .... right?

So my impression is that there is really no such thing as "micro-detail". The speaker reproduces whatever is on the recording .... or it doesn't.

Am I wrong about this?

It sounds like you're reading too much into my comments and making assumptions I didn't assert.

How much detail is captured in the recording depends on how the recording is made. The room used, the mics used, the placement of the mics, etc. Different recordings capture different levels of detail. Then, how much detail is revealed on playback depends on the playback system.

For example you could record far enough away that detail like fingers gently brushing on strings, the performer breathing, or clothes rustling as she moves, is lost. On playback, if the system, headphones or room has CSD / ringing issues at certain frequencies, this can mask detail. And frequency response variations can accentuate some frequencies which relatively masks others, obscuring both timbre and detail.

Closely mic'd, and also compression

Close micing certainly can capture micro-detail. Often, they also use another mic further away to capture some of the room effect. How they mix these, the relative levels, is a contributing factor to how much detail is captured. Too much of the close mic, you get plenty of detail but the instrument timbre doesn't sound right. Too little, the perspective shifts further away giving a more natural sound & timbre yet at the expense of detail. This particular recording strikes an excellent balance between them.

Regarding compression, that can enhance micro-detail, yet used heavy-handedly (as it is with modern music yet less often with classical) it also sounds unnatural since the timbre doesn't change with dynamic (Fletcher-Munson curve) like it should. Compression is not a factor in this particular recording, as you can see in this example track.

 

[Deleted member 21219]

How much detail is captured in the recording depends on how the recording is made. The room used, the mics used, the placement of the mics, etc. Different recordings capture different levels of detail. Then, how much detail is revealed on playback depends on the playback system.

For example you could record far enough away that detail like fingers gently brushing on strings, the performer breathing, or clothes rustling as she moves, is lost. On playback, if the system, headphones or room has CSD / ringing issues at certain frequencies, this can mask detail. And frequency response variations can accentuate some frequencies which relatively masks others, obscuring both timbre and detail.

I see.

So the term "micro-detail" is really kind of bogus, right? If the recording engineer records the violinist close-up, the recording will contain micro-detail .... but you would have heard that same stuff if you had been standing at the same spot as the mic used in recording, right? And if the recording engineer records the violinist further away, that micro-detail is greatly reduced ..... as it would have been if you, also, were standing further back from the violinist.

So "micro-detail" is really just a term for the sound of a closely-recorded performer rather than one recorded from further away.

Thanks for the explanation!

Jim

 

[amadeuswus]

Ysaye's violin sonatas are among my favorite works and I've collected a few different performances over the years.

Thanks for noting this Hilary Hahn performance. Have you come across this version by Alina Ibragimova (one of my favorite violinists)?

Ysaÿe: Sonatas for solo violin

<img src="/jpegs/banners/ibragimova-alina.png" width="100" height="161" hspace="10" align="left" alt="Alina Ibragimova" longdesc="Alina Ibragimova" />Ysaÿe’s Sonatas for solo violin were sketched out in a fevered twenty-four hours during the summer of 1923, a response to the question of why—in...

www.hyperion-records.co.uk

 

[MRC01]

So the term "micro-detail" is really kind of bogus, right? If the recording engineer records the violinist close-up, the recording will contain micro-detail ....

Not necessarily. Close micing is a contributing factor but no guarantee. It's necessary but not alone sufficient for micro-detail. To get micro-detail, recording engineers also have to get everything else right.

So "micro-detail" is really just a term for the sound of a closely-recorded performer rather than one recorded from further away.

Partially. Just because it's close miced doesn't mean they did everything else right. Micro-detail refers to what happens when the recording engineers get everything right, and you play it back on a system that is good enough to hear the difference, so it sounds like you're on stage with the musician, or in the 1st row.

 

[MRC01]

Thanks for noting this Hilary Hahn performance. Have you come across this version by Alina Ibragimova (one of my favorite violinists)?

Ysaÿe: Sonatas for solo violin

<img src="/jpegs/banners/ibragimova-alina.png" width="100" height="161" hspace="10" align="left" alt="Alina Ibragimova" longdesc="Alina Ibragimova" />Ysaÿe’s Sonatas for solo violin were sketched out in a fevered twenty-four hours during the summer of 1923, a response to the question of why—in...

www.hyperion-records.co.uk

Not yet, and sadly, I don't see it on Qobuz. But thanks for the tip.

 

[Deleted member 21219]

Partially. Just because it's close miced doesn't mean they did everything else right. Micro-detail refers to what happens when the recording engineers get everything right, and you play it back on a system that is good enough to hear the difference, so it sounds like you're on stage with the musician, or in the 1st row.

Okay. I see that you're saying "on a system that is good enough to hear the difference." Does this mean a high-grade DAC, with a high-grade amplifier, and then high-grade speakers? Or does it just mean high-grade speakers?

The reason I ask is that some people (manufacturers, advertisers and reviewers) use the term "micro-detail", but they use it differently than the way you seem to be using it. Some of them say that their DAC, or their amp, or their speaker delivers micro-detail that other brands of DAC, amp or speaker don't. IOW, they're saying that there is micro-detail in every recording that their type of equipment (and only their type of equipment) will extract. It doesn't matter whether you're listening to a Robert Johnson recording from the '30s, or Infected Mushroom, a philharmonic orchestra or Johnny Cash.

I always found that impossible to believe. Your explanation, OTOH, makes more sense.

BTW ...... I enjoy classical music. I have heard the detail that you mention (which I call "close-field" detail, after reading what @sarumbear has written) and I find it distracting. I greatly prefer to listen from the distance commonly associated with performances of whichever sort of music I'm listening to. But ..... to each their own.

Thanks again.

Jim

 

[MRC01]

Okay. I see that you're saying "on a system that is good enough to hear the difference." Does this mean a high-grade DAC, with a high-grade amplifier, and then high-grade speakers? Or does it just mean high-grade speakers?

When it comes to playback limitations, it's usually the room, speakers or headphones; upstream components can play a role but that is less common.

The reason I ask is that some people (manufacturers, advertisers and reviewers) use the term "micro-detail", but they use it differently than the way you seem to be using it. Some of them say that their DAC, or their amp, or their speaker delivers micro-detail that other brands of DAC, amp or speaker don't. IOW, they're saying that there is micro-detail in every recording that their type of equipment (and only their type of equipment) will extract. It doesn't matter whether you're listening to a Robert Johnson recording from the '30s, or Infected Mushroom, a philharmonic orchestra or Johnny Cash.

Their words, not mine. I can't account for that.

I always found that impossible to believe. Your explanation, OTOH, makes more sense.

I'm glad you added this note because I was starting to think you were trolling. Now I see that you were not.

TW ...... I enjoy classical music. I have heard the detail that you mention (which I call "close-field" detail, after reading what @sarumbear has written) and I find it distracting. I greatly prefer to listen from the distance commonly associated with performances of whichever sort of music I'm listening to. But ..... to each their own.

As a musician, I am familiar with the sound of the violinist sitting right next to you, so I am sympathetic to that, even though it's very different from what you hear in the first row. But some recordings go too far in that close miced direction. Making good recordings is mix of art and engineering to achieve the right balance that suits the music. It's complex and difficult. And there is no one right way. Live acoustic music sounds different in different rooms, from different perspectives, so there is a range of different sounds you can capture that are all equally "high fidelity". Yet that is not to say anything goes. No recording is perfect, some are better than others and many are just plain flawed.

 

[mSpot]

Not yet, and sadly, I don't see it on Qobuz. But thanks for the tip.

The album is on the Hyperion label, which means that it isn't available on any streaming service (except for the new Presto Music Streaming). Hyperion had a policy of not releasing their catalog on streaming, but that is likely to change now that they have been acquired by Universal Music Group.

Here's her performance in the WQXR studio.

 

[amadeuswus]

The recording quality is also fantastic. Unmatched transparency, lifelike timbre, micro-detail, tremendous dynamics. It's a bit dry with just a touch of room reverb, which I prefer.

The recording engineer for Hilary Hahn's disc was Antonio Oliart Ros, who is also responsible for many Boston-area productions at WGBH and for live broadcasts of the Boston Symphony. I couldn't find the recording venue details for the Ysaye ... I wonder if it was done at Fraser Performance Studio at WGBH.

Antonio Oliart Ros brings artistry to sound recording at GBH and beyond - The Boston Globe

The Grammy-winning audio engineer behind the BSO’s radio broadcasts has recorded scores of virtual classical concerts.

www.bostonglobe.com

 

[MRC01]

The recording engineer for Hilary Hahn's disc was Antonio Oliart Ros, who is also responsible for many Boston-area productions at WGBH and for live broadcasts of the Boston Symphony. I couldn't find the recording venue details for the Ysaye ... I wonder if it was done at Fraser Performance Studio at WGBH.
...

Yes indeed, that was the location. Fraser Performance Studio at GBH Educational Foundation, Nov & Dec 2022.

 

[Liya]

The album is on the Hyperion label, which means that it isn't available on any streaming service (except for the new Presto Music Streaming).

Hyperion catalogue is not available
on Presto Music Streaming.

 

[mkt]

Ysaye's violin sonatas are among my favorite works and I've collected a few different performances over the years. Yesterday I listened to Hilary Hahn's new recording and it blew my mind. She shreds, she sings, and everything in between, with seamless artistic integrity. The recording quality is also fantastic. Unmatched transparency, lifelike timbre, micro-detail, tremendous dynamics. It's a bit dry with just a touch of room reverb, which I prefer.

Qobuz

Listen to your music in high quality

play.qobuz.com

Hilary Hahn, Eugène Ysaÿe - Six Sonatas For Violin Solo Op. 27

Explore songs, recommendations, and other album details for Six Sonatas For Violin Solo Op. 27 by Hilary Hahn, Eugène Ysaÿe. Compare different versions and buy them all on Discogs.

www.discogs.com

And it's in atmos on Apple Music which means you get 3D micro-detail

 

[mSpot]

Hyperion catalogue is not available
on Presto Music Streaming.

I have no personal experience with Presto Music Streaming, but I see this on the Presto website:

 

[Liya]

I have no personal experience with Presto Music Streaming, but I see this on the Presto website:

View attachment 300892

That means you can listen to your purchases in the Presto Music app.

 

[Digby]

I don't like the way much classical is mic'd up today. I prefer what Decca were doing in the 50s and 60s - it seemed to have an ambience and sense of scale that modern stuff doesn't have (too many microphones, too close?), often doesn't sound as coherent to me.