The attached video is of the London Symphony Orchestra, hardly a radical group, playing Sibelius. The answer to many of your questions can be found at 6:15. The celli are in the center right of the orchestra, the bass viols on risers behind them dead center The 1st violin are on the left, the 2nds on the right, violas to the right of the 1st violins. This is just one of the many layouts commonly employed outside the US.
That placement of stuff is the exception rather than the rule in classical. That was my point all along. I have about 10 recordings of something like the Canon with CD leaflets going on about why the ensemble is the most authentic interpretation etc. If anyone thinks conductors are not self promoting egos doing stuff to differentiate themselves.. you are naive.
Speaking of multi-channel recordings, though I never really found all that much value in the rear channels of 5.1 surround for Classical recordings, that center channel (which was on the "Living Stereo" and "Living Presence" SACDS) really firmed up the center fill. I doubt I'll ever go back to 5.1 playback, the market really isn't supporting it all that much and like I said, the rear channels don't seem to provide much more than hall reverb. But that center channel was nice for "soundstage".
Are you referring to Pachelbel's Canon? I know most people started out with the Munchinger and Jean-François Paillard recordings, very early attempts that had little awareness of Baroque performance practices. Brian Eno, in one of his earliest "ambient" recordings, mocked the Paillard recording with his three variations on this recording for his "Discreet Music" album by stretching out the already slow tempi into taffy. My old boss, who had an Early Music radio show, like to play the Musica Antiqua Köln recording on Archiv. That recording was played with one on a part and uptempo in a comparatively dry acoustic. He got a lot of hate mail for that. It's my favorite version.
I assume you mean Pachelbel's canon, writen during a time when ensemble layout (and instruments) were in flux. No surprise that the "authentic" performance crowd might ponder layout, along with tuning, bridge height, etc. Hell, they're still debating whether the "double bass" is a member of the viol or violin families.
I'm sure a lot of renaissance and baroque gigs were played by whoever showed up. In grad school I was in an early music ensemble - instruments and singers. As singers were frequently absent, having paying gigs, we routinely got by with the forces at hand. I can remember one concert where so many singers were absent (as was the conductor) that instrumentalists were recruited to "fill in the gaps" in a 16 part a cappella mass. They got choice of parts, based on their most comfortable ranges. The remaining parts were then handed out to the rest of us. As a result, most of us were sight reading in performance. I believe on that occasion I sang an alto part. Long time ago: Ford was in the White House.
I bought this one after reading this and it showed up today. I am very much a classical novice but this one does sound excellent to me. Great imaging, clear and clean, and very powerful dynamics. It still does not sound nearly as "big" as being there but for a recording very impressive. I was surprised it was from 1984, this recording puts all of the talk about the problems with early ADC's into perspective. While ADC's are cheaper and better today than 40 years ago it is apparent that in the right hands they got the job done.
Recording is more art than science. And early ADCs sounded more like what was coming off the mixer than analog recorders, even back then. From what I've read, the Sony 3324 digital recorder was designed with a stationary recording head (unlike most other digital recorders that deployed helical scanning) and was capable of recording 24 tracks. I would suspect that recorder was an advance over the Sony 1610 used for many early digital recordings. The microphones were B & K 4003 omnis. They appear to have a slight dip in the lower treble followed by a + 3db rise centered at 15khz. Very smooth microphones, judging from other recordings I have heard.
Maybe. I listen to tower speakers nearfield. I'm about a meter from the speakers, they have a spread of about 5 feet and are turned out slightly - they are not directly on-axis. I'm in a small room. I've also got a powered sub. Some recordings sound real flat but this one doesn't, at least to these ears.
Yes. I've had speaker setups that didn't have the speakers as close and wide apart. That didn't resolve the inner voices as well. What I'm using now also is better for pop productions as well.
even envelopment can now be there, except in a domestic livingroom it might not be that impressive. Bit wider spacing with speakers makes the sound stage natural width, compensates lack of early lateral reflections that usually widen the stage with bigger listening triangle. Equilateral triangle in a such small listening distance feels too narrow.
i still have PTSD from reading those posts... :-D
You are correct JT it can be enhanced speaker placement or changed negatively by room modes and reflections. Soundstage is a product of the the recording process which is by far the most important part of the audiophile experience next to the performance and the music.
No there is no way I -or anyone- can hear a soundstage in decent classical recordings when stuff operates in mono through both speakers. The notion is ludicrous honestly.
