Which speakers are the Classical Music Pros using?

[Longshan]

Yes. I paid $700 ultimately for my second-hand Revel speakers. The tuba was…more…much more.

And I only own two speakers, but there are four more tubas in this room alone.

Musician don’t expect a sound system to create reality—they live that reality in person. They only need enough cues that they can fill in the blanks from their own experience.

Rick “who messes with audio for different reasons” Denney

Nice tuba!

Here's my horn:

 

[MRC01]

... The tuba was…more…much more.

I also play sax, bari is my favorite. But I never owned one cuz I could get a decent used car for the price of a good bari, and I don't play often enough to justify that. So whenever I played in local community jazz bands I always played whatever dusty old spare sax they had.

 

[Floyd Toole]

I don't have any relevant experience, sorry.

The variable was the loudspeaker. This was before 1986.

Read the paper.

Yet, the preference testing between the Revel Salon 2 and the JBL Array 1400 shown on page 399 of the second edition of Toole's book:
"When they are put against each other in double-blind tests, the audible differences are small, somewhat program dependent, and listener ratings tend to vary slightly and randomly around a high number. In the end there may be no absolute winner that is revealed with any statistical confidence; the differences in opinion are of the same size as those that could occur by chance." What interests me are what factors result in such similar preference testing, other than the on-axis response from the transition zone up to 5 kHz or so. Here are the measurements:

View attachment 157120


Don't forget the effects of diffraction, whichs is part of why Kevin Voeck of Revel had advocated for use of listening window, rather than on-axis. I believe that this is why Harman replaced the on-axis response with LW in their predicted in-room response. Toole wrote an interesting article on the measurement and calibration of sound systems.

Instead of asking more and more questions, perhaps you could answer this yourself for, example, the Newman KH310 or Genelec 8351b.

The variable is the loudspeaker. Consider allergy testing in medicine, where the variable is the allergen. One could quibble about why an endless number specific varieties, why partially or extensively hydrolyzed allergens, or partially or extensively denatured version were also tested.

One would have to show that the anechoic on-axis or listening window measurements of the Beolab 90 were identical first. I haven't seen that, so it's possible, but I'd like to see that first.

I don't know when Toole began working for Harman, but at the time of the paper under discussion, he was at the NRC, so you're standing decades later and attributing false motivations, commercial or otherwise, to what seems to me to be an earnest attempt to begin using available tools to address interesting questions regarding loudspeakers at a time when the available body of literature was quite limited.

That's possible. It's been discussed elsewhere.

I've only seen several. Look again at the first one you posted. There's nothing about the shuffler that doesn't allow for speakers against the front wall, and in fact, Harman has special testing for on-wall speakers.

The first commercially available QRD diffuser was in 1983. It would be nice if Toole et al had access to a time machine at the NRC. Unfortunately, we cannot go back and ask them to accommodate a seemingly infinite number of requests. We simply have what has been published and are stuck interpreting and extrapolating, but we're stuck with what we've got and can't change it, despite our wishes to the contrary.

In my opinion, the most interesting method for addressing individual parameters of loudspeaker performance, as opposed to the loudspeaker itself as the variable, only became remotely feasible in the recent past through simulated testing: https://users.aalto.fi/~ktlokki/Publs/JASMAN_vol_146_iss_5_3562_1.pdf

However, I doubt that the interest and resources would be brought to bear, plus the usual criticisms regarding the listeners would apply, plus the question of whether simulation adequately models reality, etc.

Sorry, I rather doubt that I have adequate knowledge and resources to begin to address the multiple posts and questions with which you're likely to respond.

What's the general consensus in regard to on-axis frequency response measured in anechoic conditions at one metre?

Don't forget the effects of diffraction, whichs is part of why Kevin Voeck of Revel had advocated for use of listening window, rather than on-axis. I believe that this is why Harman replaced the on-axis response with LW in their predicted in-room response. Toole wrote an interesting article on the measurement and calibration of sound systems.

Just a quick comment to make an important point - loudspeaker systems should be measured in the far field - i.e. at 2 m or more. The one meter "distraction" originated with the old sensitivity metric of "one watt in at one meter" - now 2.83v in at 1 m. When that sensitivity is measured, it correctly should be measured at 2 m or more and then calculated back to what it would be at 1 m. Only single transducers, small ones at that, can be reliably measured at 1 m.

You are correct that the listening window is a better guide to direct sound performance of loudspeakers - it conceals poorly audible diffraction effects and reveals easily audible resonances. But it is nice to have both. The concept of a "listening window" originated back when I was at the NRC. Then it was an average of +/- 15 and 30 deg horizontal and +/- 15 deg vertical. The permanent microphone array was set up to measure it quickly. The angles now are different because we changed to 10 deg measurement increments. BTW I was invited to join Harman as the Corporate Vice President of Acoustical Engineering in 1991.

 

[youngho]

I am not sure that I fully understand your questions but I'll give it a go.

The study used three different speakers: one monopole with wide-ish directivity, one monopole with narrowing directivity and one dipole with narrow constant directivity.
None of the speakers was particularly flat on-axis nor apparently had very smooth directivity.

From second edition of Sound Reproduction: "As can be seen in Figure 8.10, all three loudspeakers had comparably smooth and flat axial frequency responses. Off axis, AA shows the progressively increasing directivity of the woofer up to the crossover to the tweeter around 3 kHz. The tweeter then exhibits the wide dispersion of a small diaphragm, until the eventual offaxis falls off the tweeter as it becomes more directional at short wavelengths. Loudspeaker E, the three-way design, exhibits this kind of undulating pattern twice, once when the woofer transitions to the midrange around 500 Hz and again when the midrange transitions to the tweeter around 3 kHz. Loudspeaker BB, the fullrange
dipole, is quite well behaved, showing a relatively uniform decrease in output with increasing angles off axis." These speakers were available in 1984. The Beolab 90 and other speakers that benefitted from decades of development were not.

In other words there were several and not just a single variable at play:

• on-axis FR was different,
• off-axis FR was different,
• directivity characteristics were different,
• diffraction-generated artifacts were different,
• low frequency extension was different,
• the floor bounce cancelation effect was different,
• room interaction was different.
All these variables will contribute to sound quality and thus affect the perception of spatial quality, so one cannot say which one or ones are responsible for the perceived better spatial quality.

I don't know that the importance of how these things contributed to sound quality had been realized yet, and some may still not be settled. Much of this came as a result of decades of study. For example, papers from the Archimedes Project highlighting the potential importance of the floor reflection on timbre and spatial quality weren't published until the mid-1990s. Another differing example would be diffraction and floor bounce, which are still matters of some controversy.

To make matters more complicated when listened to in stereo all three speakers rated similarly in terms of spatial quality.

This has been addressed enough times that I'm surprised you're still bringing it up.

We could remove the effects of room interaction and floor bounce cancelation from the equation by listening in anechoic conditions, of frequency response by EQ'ing flat on-axis and listening on-axis, of low end extension by high-passing all speakers. We would end up with directivity as the only variable, tainted somewhat by diffraction-generated artifacts and potential box resonances.

1984, and we've already discussed how it's not that simple as you write above, so no point in going over that again.

Because in order to determine the effects of directivity no other variable can interfere with the listening assessment perhaps the BeoLab 50 or 90 would be good candidates for the test because, if I'm not mistaken, they allow the user to change their directivity characteristics (at least in part of the spectrum); one single variable at play.

No time machine to allow this in 1984, plus I haven't seen data to show on-axis or listening window measurements with directivity changes, as I said before.

In my experience it is possible to perceive a sense of space with mono recordings over a pair of speakers. I have never tried listening to a mono recording with a single speaker (my Tivoli One isn't a fair comparison) but I would expect less "spaciousness", with the sound more concentrated on the location of the source/speaker. And without reflections (anechoic) I suspect that different directivity width will not affect spatial quality because it is not interacting with the room.

How about trying it, instead of speculating? Further discussion of your speculations are not likely to be fruitful. In any case, if you read the original paper, the individual spatial quality component regarding spaciousness was actually "reproduction of ambiance, spaciousness & reverberation" from the musical selection. Further discussion regarding the paper is not likely to be productive for anyone, otherwise.

I am not questioning the importance of smooth directivity in reverberant, untreated rooms. Directivity is on the one hand a matter of taste and on the other a way to control how your speakers interact with the room. From my understanding and experience, and even taking into account that it is ultimately a matter of taste, wide directivity is, like omni, not suitable for narrow rooms (unless you like it).

After decades of study, Harman still produces a variety of loudspeakers with a variety of approaches to directivity. I have my own model for possible approaches to listener preference based on five factors derived from work by Tapio Lokki and Soren Bech.

You probably agree that the most significant difference between mono and stereo is the latter's ability to produce phantom source localisation and multi-dimensional spatial presentation (soundstage). These stereo effects result from using two speakers (and idealy a 2-mic 2-channel recording) but there seems to be some conflict between obtaining image "sharpness" and increasing "spaciousness". D'Antonio and others seem to agree that early reflections are damaging to both image "sharpness" and the "reconstruction" of the original venue acoustics (when there was one) and that is my experience too. And even though ultimately it's a matter of preference, if (you find that) early reflections are damaging then wide directivity does not make sense unless the room is very wide.

Toole has already discussed how different listeners may have different preferences in this regard.

In regard to your cellist analogy there is a very concrete difference in goals between a musical instrument and a sound reproduction device or system, the former creates sound and the later reproduces recorded sound. Unless the cello was close mic'ed or recorded outdoors the mic will have picked up ambience cues. If your room's acoustic footprint is too strong (a reflective room, or wide-directivity speakers which interact more with the listening environment) it will overlay itself to or mask the recorded ambiance and mess it up. Whilst the result of this interaction may sound pleasing with pop/rock studio mixes it is in my view and/or for my taste damaging with classical music.

Based on the many solo violin and piano recordings that I have, I think it's possible that you would be very surprised about how many classical solo instrument recordings are actually engineered.

Young-Ho

 

[MRC01]

... In regard to your cellist analogy there is a very concrete difference in goals between a musical instrument and a sound reproduction device or system, the former creates sound and the later reproduces recorded sound. Unless the cello was close mic'ed or recorded outdoors the mic will have picked up ambience cues. If your room's acoustic footprint is too strong (a reflective room, or wide-directivity speakers which interact more with the listening environment) it will overlay itself to or mask the recorded ambiance and mess it up. Whilst the result of this interaction may sound pleasing with pop/rock studio mixes it is in my view and/or for my taste damaging with classical music.

... Based on the many solo violin and piano recordings that I have, I think it's possible that you would be very surprised about how many classical solo instrument recordings are actually engineered. ...

I have recordings spanning that range, from close-miced dry, to distant miced with so much room effect it masks the sound, and every grade in between. I've seen at least one mic technique where they mic it both ways, up close and further away in the room, and mix the mic feeds at relative levels that suits their taste.

Either way, this full range of approaches can be construed as "natural" in some sense. It's nothing like the level of processing in other genres which completely squashes the life out of the music.

 

[youngho]

I have recordings spanning that range, from close-miced dry, to distant miced with so much room effect it masks the sound, and every grade in between. I've seen at least one mic technique where they mic it both ways, up close and further away in the room, and mix the mic feeds at relative levels that suits their taste.

Either way, this full range of approaches can be construed as "natural" in some sense. It's nothing like the level of processing in other genres which completely squashes the life out of the music.

Yes, but @tuga wrote "the mic." From what I can tell, It's relatively less common for classical music, even solo instruments, to be recorded with one microphone (Yarlung and Water Lily examples to the contrary). The Channel Classics approach seems reflect the close + far approach (see here), based on what I've heard--they use the Grimm LS1 speakers, by the way.

 

[krabapple]

I have recordings spanning that range, from close-miced dry, to distant miced with so much room effect it masks the sound, and every grade in between. I've seen at least one mic technique where they mic it both ways, up close and further away in the room, and mix the mic feeds at relative levels that suits their taste.

Either way, this full range of approaches can be construed as "natural" in some sense. It's nothing like the level of processing in other genres which completely squashes the life out of the music.

It is not necessarily or only the 'processing' but the simple fact that much popular music is recorded in virtual 'space'. There is no room being recorded. The 'event' may be a construction. Electric/electronic instrument output may be fed directly into the board. Other sources may be close miked or recorded in an isolation booth. Parts are recorded separately and edited/layered in production. And there's nothing wrong with this, it was going on long before digital recording appeared.

And it happens in 'classical' too.

 

[tuga]

Based on the many solo violin and piano recordings that I have, I think it's possible that you would be very surprised about how many classical solo instrument recordings are actually engineered.

Many labels have a channel on Youtube; it's a good place to find out what mic'ing techniques they're using (although overly close mic'ing tends to be easy to spot even over computer speakers).

The problems with close mic'ing are that it picks up mechanical sounds and mouth noise which are not audible from the audience and also that it changes the timbre of instruments and vocals by favouring particular ranges over of others due to the radiation pattern which changes depending on the notes being played:

 

[Shorty]

[…] That said, I prefer the recordings and sound system to create reality or at least sound as natural and lifelike as possible. Classical music recordings do this consistently well, the engineering & mastering seems closer to the original mic feed, sounds like they use a much lighter hand during mixing and mastering. Modern music recordings, not so much. They are consistently over-processed and artificial sounding. Just yesterday I browsed through Stereophile's RTDF for 2021, found most of the recordings on Qobuz and listened to each for a few minutes. This once again confirmed my opinions. I believe this is intentional and can think of 2 reasons for it:
1. Non-classical genres typically want the music to sound louder than other music when streaming: loudness wars.
2. They consider the excessive (in my opinion) post-processing to be an artistic rendition of the sound: natural realism is not their goal. They want it to sound punchy and exciting. One man's "punch and exciting" is another man's "artificial and fatiguing", and ultimately turns me off to the music. […]

The loudness wars may still rage in the vast majority of commercial popular music, but luckily there is a lot of non-classical music produced with adequate dynamic contrast. (And, by the way, I remember from a review of a re-release of a ‘Living Stereo’ record on CD a complaint about less dynamics on the newer release. This was over twenty years ago!)
Regarding your remark about post-processing: yes, it seems we have to be pummelled into submission by dynamically compressed music, mixed for radio stations all using even more compression.
But there’s of course another side to post-processing: the vast majority of records with classical music have the impossible task of giving the listener the impression she/he is in a concert venue - a task only possible by technical manipulation. Popular music, on the other hand, is free from this restraint: the record is not the processed registration of a live event; it is the event in itself. The manipulation is an integral part of the creative process.

 

[MRC01]

Many labels have a channel on Youtube; it's a good place to find out what mic'ing techniques they're using (although overly close mic'ing tends to be easy to spot even over computer speakers).

The problems with close mic'ing are that it picks up mechanical sounds and mouth noise which are not audible from the audience and also that it changes the timbre of instruments and vocals by favouring particular ranges over of others due to the radiation pattern which changes depending on the notes being played:
...

I don't mind close micing. It definitely sounds different, with a lot more "zing" to the timbre of the instruments. Though it can still sound natural and realistic, the sound one hears on stage with the musicians. Personally, I hear that close sound more often than the audience sound, as my wife and I both play music and I attend local rehearsals more often than I attend concerts. Neither do I mind a distant perspective recording, that too can be a lifelike portrayal of the music from a real-world perspective, just a different one. There is a wide range of recordings that I would consider "equal yet different". That is, equally realistic or natural portrayals of the music, yet from different perspectives. Each makes tradeoffs, does some things well and other things no so well.

What bothers me, what my comments above refer to, is recordings that are over-processed: heavy dynamic compression and equalization. I don't suffer from the delusion that all classical music is an unprocessed mic feed. But classic music engineers and producers usually strive to faithfully recreate the natural sound of the musical event with some semblance of realism. By contrast, most of the modern recordings of music in other genres are using heavy post-processing as "an integral part of the creation process" as @Shorty says above. All too often, it's much too heavy handed and counterproductive as it doesn't serve the music, it obscures or squashes it. Of course, this is a difference of taste and opinion. Lots of people must feel otherwise, because recording producers and engineers keep doing it this way!

To make an analogy with video, classical music recordings are like a photographer's calibrated monitor that has been set up to portray the full range of brightness & saturation. Many modern recordings are like the video monitors on display at the store, with contrast and saturation cranked to ridiculous levels in order to make it look punchy and grab people's attention. It hurts my eyes to look at them, as it hurts my ears to listen to those recordings.

 

[Kal Rubinson]

But there’s of course another side to post-processing: the vast majority of records with classical music have the impossible task of giving the listener the impression she/he is in a concert venue - a task only possible by technical manipulation.

That constraint is not relevant to classical multichannel recordings.

 

[Newman]

A recording engineer with a lot of acoustical music experience, Mark Waldrep, has unequivocally stated that close-mic multi-mic recording enables much more enjoyable recordings when played back. The absence of close mics simply cripples the potential final result.

To be honest, that's what matters.

Also, trying to simulate the experience of sitting in the audience is a classic -- pardon the pun-- case of wrong goal.

Firstly, it's impossible to do, for human psycho-perceptual reasons. The mere act, of being in the same room as the performers and witnessing live and being in an audience, is said by perception experts to engage different channels of communication and neuro responses, and that sitting at home alone or with a few friends and experiencing music playback will never open the same neural channels. So, even if audio technically became perfect and managed to exactly, perfectly recreate the same sound waves and sound field at home as at the live venue, we as humans will absolutely not experience it as the same sound. We can abandon that notion right now.

Secondly, once we treat the in-home experience as a thing in itself, instead of false notions of replication, the door is open to maximizing that experience as a thing with its own unique qualities of perception, engagement and pleasure. This is the way forward. This is what the music playback industry can do for us. I know in my home country the national broadcaster's classical music recording efforts involve collaboration between the orchestras (represented by conductors and key musicians), the sound engineering, and the production teams. These three groups don't do their independent processes and pass it on to the next: instead, they are all engaged from conception to final product, aiming to deliver something into our homes that is most enjoyable, most artistic, and most musically communicative. Multi-mic and close-mic techniques are, I gather, essential core ingredients that enable the best results. (And, at the playback end, surround sound.)

cheers

 

[Somafunk]

If you’re interested in how recordings are mic’d/recorded then Christian Hensons (spitfire audio) channel is worth a watch/follow

 

[Blumlein 88]

A recording engineer with a lot of acoustical music experience, Mark Waldrep, has unequivocally stated that close-mic multi-mic recording enables much more enjoyable recordings when played back. The absence of close mics simply cripples the potential final result.

To be honest, that's what matters.

Also, trying to simulate the experience of sitting in the audience is a classic -- pardon the pun-- case of wrong goal.

Firstly, it's impossible to do, for human psycho-perceptual reasons. The mere act, of being in the same room as the performers and witnessing live and being in an audience, is said by perception experts to engage different channels of communication and neuro responses, and that sitting at home alone or with a few friends and experiencing music playback will never open the same neural channels. So, even if audio technically became perfect and managed to exactly, perfectly recreate the same sound waves and sound field at home as at the live venue, we as humans will absolutely not experience it as the same sound. We can abandon that notion right now.

Secondly, once we treat the in-home experience as a thing in itself, instead of false notions of replication, the door is open to maximizing that experience as a thing with its own unique qualities of perception, engagement and pleasure. This is the way forward. This is what the music playback industry can do for us. I know in my home country the national broadcaster's classical music recording efforts involve collaboration between the orchestras (represented by conductors and key musicians), the sound engineering, and the production teams. These three groups don't do their independent processes and pass it on to the next: instead, they are all engaged from conception to final product, aiming to deliver something into our homes that is most enjoyable, most artistic, and most musically communicative. Multi-mic and close-mic techniques are, I gather, essential core ingredients that enable the best results. (And, at the playback end, surround sound.)

cheers

If I may offer a critical reply from a purist. In the earlier part of your post you've thrown the baby right out with the bathwater. We abandon the goal of life-like reproduction? Haven't you experienced the benefit of pursuing a goal knowing it is always somehow unobtainable and yet the pursuit can give us fantastic results if we don't give up? Always getting closer, but never able to fully arrive there.

Now I'll not argue that excellent results aren't possible using the close mic, multi mic approach. Nor that with large groups especially it is easier to get good results. Without a definite goal however some results are better than others and not everyone is shooting for the same result, but rather a plausible nice result with no one able to definitively say what is nice and what is not.

 

[Blumlein 88]

If you’re interested in how recordings are mic’d/recorded then Christian Hensons (spitfire audio) channel is worth a watch/follow

Certainly nice mics. I'd like to hear the same group if they used the Royer Stereo ribbon as a main mike and used a pair of KM83's as flanking omnis to capture the low end and room sound. I think that simple setup could sound very good, better than the close miking perhaps.

 

[Descartes]

I find interesting that many classical recording studios use B&W speakers! And yet there is a lot of bashing for the brand on this forum!
Why is that?

Also, my favorite recordings are from 2L multichannel audio using Genelec all around!

Genelec ‘The Ones’ power Morten Lindberg’s stunning immersive studio - Genelec.com

In the world of immersive music recording, no-one has done more than Grammy-winning sound engineer and music producer Morten Lindberg to set the gold standard for what can be achieved in this field. To raise the bar of sonic excellence even further, Lindberg has recently upgraded the monitoring...

www.genelec.com

Besides listening to music in that room, I would love to see big Sci~Fi action movies!

 

[orangejello]

I find interesting that many classical recording studios use B&W speakers! And yet there is a lot of bashing for the brand on this forum!
Why is that?

My experience with B&W speakers in the past was that they weren’t very good and that much better alternatives are readily available. So I it seems that it Is possible that good recordings can be produced despite poor monitoring speakers and that classical recording engineers are not rarified being but are susceptible to the same marketing pressures and biases as most other people. I know an engineer who bought Dunlavy V monsters for the studio because he told me that customers expected to see impressive stuff. B&W many be what customers expect to see these days.

 

[Newman]

If I may offer a critical reply from a purist. In the earlier part of your post you've thrown the baby right out with the bathwater. We abandon the goal of life-like reproduction? Haven't you experienced the benefit of pursuing a goal knowing it is always somehow unobtainable and yet the pursuit can give us fantastic results if we don't give up? Always getting closer, but never able to fully arrive there.

Now I'll not argue that excellent results aren't possible using the close mic, multi mic approach. Nor that with large groups especially it is easier to get good results. Without a definite goal however some results are better than others and not everyone is shooting for the same result, but rather a plausible nice result with no one able to definitively say what is nice and what is not.

Your reply suggests you didn't fully grasp my point. Using your baby analogy, it can't be thrown out with the bathwater if it doesn't exist. So I definitely am not throwing any baby out.

The neurological components that get used when attending a live music performance are not the same neurological components that are used to listen to recorded music at home. Neurologically speaking, it's like tuning to a different communication channel, not just from FM1 to FM2, but from FM to being chased by elephants to floating in space. You can't 'build' the former out of the latter components. It's like trying to build a bicycle out of mechanical clock parts: the best you can do is something really poor, whereas you could have used those parts to make a really good mechanical clock. It's the wrong goal. It has nothing to do with purity: it is just the wrong idea altogether.

The only reason we think it is the right idea, is because we misunderstand how the mind creates experiences. When we are listening to music at home, we create a listening-to-music-at-home experience, as a unique thing in itself. We can maximize the qualities of that, or we can muck it up by refusing to acknowledge its unique truth and trying to make it something else. What purist would want that?

Once the purist realizes the truth (that even a perfect reproduction of the sound waves hitting the ears in the live venue, into the ears at home, will be experienced as something clearly deficient at home, and can actually be produced as something that works better for the at-home listener by producing it in a different way), then they can be a purist to that. That's me.

And good recorded music producers need to recognize this. Some definitely do, especially in classical: they develop each product (each recording) by maximizing its qualities on its own terms as an at-home listening experience, and using their skill to best communicate musically for that situation. They know, from experience, that putting a mic where the listener sits and nothing else will NOT communicate what they, and the musicians, wanted to. And they know what will do a better job. Being purist to that idea is better IMO.

Sadly IMO, one or two labels pander to the misguided notions of audiophile purists on this topic. Same labels have been seen boasting of their use of analog tape recorders, or DSD not PCM, and for the same reason: give 'em what they ask for.

cheers

 

[mSpot]

If you’re interested in how recordings are mic’d/recorded then Christian Hensons (spitfire audio) channel is worth a watch/follow

Here's a study of different microphone positions for a variety of orchestra instruments:

They created an interactive website where you can listen to an instrument from different recording positions:
http://soundmedia.jp/nuaudk/
Choose an instrument, and when you click play, it will cycle through sound clips from different microphone positions. Click on a microphone letter to skip directly to that position.

 

[tuga]

Your reply suggests you didn't fully grasp my point. Using your baby analogy, it can't be thrown out with the bathwater if it doesn't exist. So I definitely am not throwing any baby out.

The neurological components that get used when attending a live music performance are not the same neurological components that are used to listen to recorded music at home. Neurologically speaking, it's like tuning to a different communication channel, not just from FM1 to FM2, but from FM to being chased by elephants to floating in space. You can't 'build' the former out of the latter components. It's like trying to build a bicycle out of mechanical clock parts: the best you can do is something really poor, whereas you could have used those parts to make a really good mechanical clock. It's the wrong goal. It has nothing to do with purity: it is just the wrong idea altogether.

The only reason we think it is the right idea, is because we misunderstand how the mind creates experiences. When we are listening to music at home, we create a listening-to-music-at-home experience, as a unique thing in itself. We can maximize the qualities of that, or we can muck it up by refusing to acknowledge its unique truth and trying to make it something else. What purist would want that?

Once the purist realizes the truth (that even a perfect reproduction of the sound waves hitting the ears in the live venue, into the ears at home, will be experienced as something clearly deficient at home, and can actually be produced as something that works better for the at-home listener by producing it in a different way), then they can be a purist to that. That's me.

And good recorded music producers need to recognize this. Some definitely do, especially in classical: they develop each product (each recording) by maximizing its qualities on its own terms as an at-home listening experience, and using their skill to best communicate musically for that situation. they know, from experience, that putting a mic where the listener sits and nothing else will NOT communicate what they, and the musicians, wanted to. And they know what will do a better job. Being purist to that idea is better IMO.

Sadly IMO, one or two labels pander to the misguided notions of audiophile purists on this topic. Same labels have been seen boasting of their use of analog tape recorders, or DSD not PCM, and for the same reason: give 'em what they ask for.

cheers

Close-mic’ing has three characteristics which I find damaging to the recording of classical music:
- it changes the timbre of instruments, something which can be partly addressed but not completely solved with EQ
- consequently it requires more EQ
- it requires multiple tracks and mixing of those tracks
- it picks up unmusical mechanical and mouth noises which are distracting and not audible in live conditions from the audience

Some labels like BIS or can use spot mics in an orchestral music recording in a balanced way, others like Reference Recordings overdo it and the result is to me somewhat hyper-realistic though undeniably exciting to listen to, and there’s the extreme approach e.g. Harmonia Mundi which I just avoid buying or listening to.