Sat front row at the symphony...

Once I had the pleasure of some college students playing a 4 instrument string ensemble at my home. The warmth, volume (!) and nuance of 4 string instruments blew me away. My gear couldn't even get close to reproducing that.

It was later I concluded we listen to gear and not music. Sure music is playing through our gear but it's the gear we select, fuss with, trade, upgrade, lust after, plan for and play with. Music is merely the media for our gear to shine with. 

I go to live concerts all the time. I think it's all a different sort of listening experience. Vinyl. Digital. Cans. Big speakers. A big concert hall, club, small chamber hall. Each one has its own merit. You cannot go to a hall and hear Leonard Bernstein, but you can listen to him on your system. The atmosphere of the live venue is nearly impossible to recreate. But, then there are the recordings that were made to be recordings. I head Karajan's final concerts with the Berlin Phil in Carnegie Hall. I have never quite heard an orchestra sound like a small chamber group, with every single player seemingly connected to one another. So, true, that will have to live in my memory, but I do love being able to listen to Karajan on my big rig...

Thank you Mahler123 for your comments on this subject.  Good ideas well presented.

@clearthinker Vanessa Mae does not wear long dress and often is standing up as a soloist :)

Flame on!

Vienna is the Mecca of Music.

Sat in the back corner of the Musikverein beside the organ. Could not even see the musicians. Brahms Double Concerto with the home team. The music was rich, opulent and just as good as in the stalls. That hall is magic.

* The first chairs of the Vienna Phil are on par with any soloist in the known universe. (They were the soloists in the Brahms Double.) Their former first cello had tone production that put Rostoprovich and Yo Yo Ma in the shade.

When you get two diametrically opposed opinions, there's only one way to settle it. Go to Vienna and decide for yourself. For the price of a pair of interconnects. The Vienna Opera House is another great sounding hall. Sat in the front row and it was so loud. So very very gloriously loud. And yes, you can reproduce that sound in your room. Don't let anyone tell you otherwise. They're just repeating accepted wisdom.

Daytime attractions in Vienna include the Art History Museum (Kunsthistorische) which has the largest collection of Breugels outside Holland. The MAK has Klimt and you'll have the place to yourself. For the horsey set, there's the Spanish Riding School. The food is pretty good. The coffee sensational. And the Munich Hi Fi show is four hours drive away. Still time to get organized and go.

My 50 year career in music was pretty well divided into 25 years as a symphony musician and 25 years as a recording engineer.  The major orchestra I performed in played in some of the world's best concert halls.  Two of the best were the "Musikverein" in Vienna and Theatro Colon in Buenos Aries.  As an example of the use of sound reinforcement, Royal Festival Hall in London is outstanding. They quietly, over the period of more than a year, gradually introduced the system until critics praised the hall as becoming more and more refined, like the ageing process of a fine violin.  They were enraged to find that they were duped when the secret was revealed !  My first encounter with the hall left me with the impression that it was impossible to fill that huge hall with sound, but on another visit a dozen years later, when the system was activated, it was a very comfortable hall in which to play.

    Just as properly placed microphones that provide a sightline to all parts of an orchestra give an honest sonic description of the ensemble, so does listening from a vantage point in the hall from which all instrumentalists are visible.  Though there are a few exceptions, most venues place the orchestra above the level of the main floor's audience.   Listening from the front row of any hall requires the listener to accept that three-quarters of the orchestra is being "filtered" through the first few rows of instrumentalists.  Not an ideal listening situation although it might appeal to some.  

    A reasonably well known reviewer often was critical of the orchestra in which I performed.  It wasn't until an unusual circumstance forced him to sit in a different seat that he realized that his longtime seat was at a "null" point in the hall.  His criticisms were correct when made from HIS seat !

   This is a good place to quote Duke Ellington : "If it sounds good --- it IS good" ! There is a seat in every hall for every kind of listener and the quest to find it is worth the price of admission.   Keep buying those tickets !!

Every time I improve my tonearm I think that NOW the system sounds like live music.

Then I go upstairs to the grand piano ...

Front row may not be the “best” place to sit, but in some halls it is the most impressive place for unforgettable experiences. That applies to i.e. Philharmonie in Berlin. 

I had the opportunity to perform in the Berlin "Philharmonie" .   During rehearsals I was able to go out in the hall and listen to the orchestra.  When I returned, my colleagues asked what the hall sounded like.  I told them that I was amazed at how the Germans had re-invented monophonic sound.  It was like listening to an orchestra from one end of a long funnel !  There was absolutely zero of the effect that we audiophiles refer to as "imaging".  By design ?

mahler123,

You're right.  I have known a few professional musicians who aren't interested in an audiophile home system.  They get plenty of exposure to live natural sound in their work, so for recreation they are content with run of the mill sound.  I even met an elderly brass player who gave up playing his instrument soon after he retired.  He wanted to pursue other interests outside of music.  

But I have also known other pros who have good audio systems.  A pro violinist friend owned Maggie speakers with modest electronics and agreed with me about the uncolored tone of those speakers compared to dynamic speakers.  He cared about both live and audio system sound.  He played and owned an expensive Ruggieri 17th century violin, but didn't care to spend significant money on better audio electronics.  Later, he got a modern violin by a maker he met.  I played this modern violin, and it was quite good for its tone.  It would be valued today at $30-50K and offered more sonic pleasure than any uber expensive set of audio electronics.  As an excellent amateur violinist, I share the priorities of my pro violinist friend.

It seems that you have good ears for objectively describing sound, and know that close distances offer maximum detail.  I don't deliberately listen for extraneous nonmusical sounds that are only heard close up, but merely tune out the extraneous sounds because I am too busy enjoying the musical details.  It is still a fact of nature that mechanical sounds are part of any instrumental or vocal sound.  The first row (better yet, the stage) reveals everything, warts and all, but the balcony only a shadow remnant of the total tone.  The only thing the balcony offers is an interesting visualization of the instruments, which I admit is hidden from the 1st row.

As for fatigue, I listen at soft levels, so I have no fatigue.  Extraordinary clarity in my audio system enables me to be satisfied at soft levels, whereas people with less revealing dynamic speakers and euphonic electronics need much higher SPL's to get reasonable detail.  String quartets from the 1st row naturally are at 40-50 dB with peaks of maybe 75 dB.  A Mozart orchestra is about 60-70 dB mezzoforte.  Of course, Mahler can yield 100+ dB with all the brass blasting away.  But there are plenty of soft passages in Mahler.  The long opening of the 1st symphony is about 20-30 dB, before the buildup to the first cymbal crash.  In the balcony, the impact is considerably diluted and muddied.  

terraplane8bob,

See if you can find the Absolute Sound article on top 10 concert halls, about 1985.  Earlier I wrote about how the 25th row of the Musikverein (#1) was pure reverberant muddy garbage, but the 5th row was quite good.  I never got the opportunity to sit front row center.  I envy your pro experience of having played on that stage.  For listening, I would choose a close seat in any high school lecture hall over the 25th row in the Musikverein or any other esteemed hall.  There is a lot of ignorant hype from audio writers with limited musical experience.

While in Vienna, the host of my group let us organize several string quartets.  We each played for 5 min in an Esterhazy palace.  I have no idea of how much furniture was in the palace 300 years before I played there.  Listening fairly close to other groups, the sound was reverberant garbage.  The high society people 300 years ago were not sound critics, but were there to hobnob with each other and chatter without paying much attention to the music, just like today.

I find attending a live orchestral performance a unique sound experience because of how much more involving it is for the listener. I can think of some composers, like Mahler or Shostakovich, whose compositions can be so complex that listening at home, even with a great system, the music can be difficult to follow. Somehow at a live performance you’re forced to listen more intently. I personally prefer the first few rows of the mezzanine at my hometown hall,partly because the sound is so round and full but also because I can see each musician. “Oh, so that’s what produces that special  sound.”

Thanks for sharing your experience.  I've sat in all parts of Chicago's Symphony Center for various concerts and to me, every section has its particular virtues. 

Listening to and attending live classical music concerts may not be as immediately accessible as other forms of music, but go to a few, develop your own style of listening to and experiencing the music (and this is critical -- there's no one "right" way to experience and listen to classical music), and you will be rewarded for a lifetime. 

It's also not just Bach and Beethoven and Mozart -- "classical" music encompasses centuries of traditions (baroque, classical, romantic, modern, might be the broadest categories), and it's very okay to enjoy a particular era or composer and not others.  But, it's a whole universe to explore and find out what speaks to you.

Lastly, the level of musicianship and the level of complexity in the music at a top tier classical concert is almost unimaginable, whether it's an orchestral concert, small ensemble, or a solo or duo.   

So, thank you for sharing this and hopefully this will help spread the word that there is amazing and vital stuff music being created and performed in "classical" circles.

This is why I find the difference between a sound system costing $5000 and one costing $700,000 almost trivial. Both are too far from the live concert hall sound to make much difference. I have heard $50,000 speakers that did not sound as good to me as a pair of $1400 Magnepans demonstrated in the same room. 

@viber6 and @terraplane8bob  I am an amateur choral singer and recording engineer who has done both at venues such as Disney Hall, Soroya (CSUN) and Royce Hall (UCLA).  I was also a classical music reviewer at UCLA (1970s).  I have over 48.500 LPs/CD/78s. 

Performing with live orchestras, I never get the front sound/full picture but do get tremendous pure direct sound from the percussion, rear strings, horns and some woodwinds depending on my position at the rear. 

My audio system rarely reproduces that sound but does reproduce the excitement of the performances.  Most of my recordings are studio rather than orchestral halls (which I am thankful for as too many modern recordings are drenched in reverb/distant sounding).  

For home listening, I prefer a less reverberant and more direct sound.  That also provides greater body to instruments and voices.  For me, performance comes before sonic delights.  I have several friends with high end sounding audio systems who don't listen to mono recordings, stick to either analog or digital only.  They are missing out on great performances.  Funny how they enjoy my alternative older mono & analog and newer digital recordings on my audio system but don't choose it for their listening. 

For orchestral hall listening, while several friends prefer front row, especially for chamber works, I prefer row 10 generally.  As a music reviewer, I regularly traded away my front row tickets at Royce to for 10th row seats   So, every listener has their preference.  At the opera, (400+ Dorothy Chandler performances), the closer I get the better, both visually and sonically, up to the 10th row. Too far forward degrades both.  

drbarney1, right.  Low mass planar drivers. like Magnepans are uncolored compared to expensive dynamic speakers.  Dynamic speakers can play louder than Maggies, however their coloration and veiling at 100 dB aren't worth listening even below 80 dB where Maggies and electrostatics shine.

davidvicek,  yes, classical music is very complex.  That's why it is important to obtain as much detail as possible in order to fully appreciate the music.  Playing opera or pieces like Russian Easter Overture by Rimsky Korsakov, the violin parts contain hidden passages that are only audible by the violinist.  When I listen to recordings or at a concert, these passages are totally hidden.  That's why only a close seat has any chance of revealing the full complexity.  Despite the visual advantages of more distant seats, the basic laws of physics say that details are absorbed by greater distances, esp at high freq.  To illustrate, the wavelength of a 10 kHz note is about 1 inch, while the wavelength of 20-100 Hz is 10-50 feet.  At a distance of 100 feet in the front balcony, there is much greater absorptive loss at 10 kHz compared to 20-100 Hz.  The perceived tonal balance in the balcony is therefore akin to a speaker without a tweeter, compared to close seats.

I sat front row center for Hiromi "The Trio Project" in the concert hall at Lafayette College and it was one of the best concert experiences ever for me.  I prefer to sit close for smaller groups so I can hear the actual instruments rather than the sound coming out of the house PA.  I've never been to a symphony concert but I can imagine that the front row would be rather intense.

Also  at the Chicago Symphony Hall the FOH mix position happens to be at the center rear of the balcony also if you look carefully above the musicians heads you will notice the condenser mic's placed there held in place with transparent fishline.

I played in many orchestras and jazz groups and my preference is to participate in creation of the music and the sound is quite awesome from this vantage Point.

Most sound you hear from your system is heavily produced and subject to substantial manipulation by the sound engineer. The quality variations are quite extreme and you never know what's been done to it.  My personal view is that sound quality for a lot of recorded classical music is not that terrific.  It's very good but lacks the openess that is most desirable.

It was purely by accident, but one of the best things that ever happened to me was attending large-scale classical concerts and opera performances well before my obsession with high-end audio, and continuing through the years when I had the most gear. It was transparently obvious that no audio system could possibly replicate the experience of a live orchestral or operatic event in a large hall with good acoustics. Accordingly I never expected that from my audio gear, then was often pleasantly surprised by how well it did with classical LPs.

In ’74 or ’75 I somehow landed a gig as an usher for the Boston Lyric Opera Company’s weekend performance of an opera (whose name I forget) starring Beverly Sill. This included rehearsals and evening performances in the Boston Opera House. Given the work, I was able to hear all of this from an ever changing assortment of spots in the hall. I wasn’t yet immersed in audio then, but I was immersed in music of all kinds, and this experience was unforgettable--especially the opportunity to meet the gracious & friendly Beverly Sills and tell how beautiful I thought her voice was...

I'm not sure I'm being accurate as to what fleschler is saying here, but to me he's saying there are a whole bunch of absolute sounds. There's no "the" in TAS. I have to agree, too. In any case, the question is now whether your sound system can grant you at least a glimmer of actually hearing those many Absolute Sounds. If the system does get satisfyingly close to this, then stop beating yourself up over it for a while.😂

fleschler,

I agree with nearly everything you said, but differ only about very close rows.  Like you, as a performer, there is nothing like stage sound for detail, direct immediacy.  Using that criteria, only the 1st row is the next best thing to the stage.  Even the 2nd row is veiled by comparison.  Another reason is the absorption of sound from anyone sitting in front of you.  If I were a sitting giraffe with my head way over people, then the 2nd row might be nice.  

At the last concert I attended, I was sitting in the 1st row center.  The first piece was a piano concerto.  The orchestra was moved back, with the 1st violins and cello section at an equivalent 3rd row distance.  The next piece was pure orchestra, with the 1st violins and cello section moved forward to the usual 1st row distance.  There was a tremendous increase in detail from violins and cellos.  Many audiophiles change cables and find worthwhile differences, but the difference in direct brilliance between rows 1 and 3 is orders of magnitude greater.  That's why I can't stand the loss of brilliance further back than row 1, despite the visual advantage of greater distances.

I did some recordings.  My best work was with small ensembles on a shallow stage where my close mike placement could still yield good balances.  Even my cardioid Neumann KM 184 mikes picked up enough ambience to let the sound breathe.  I realized that why I disliked many commercial recordings was because of the addition of distant mikes to pick up more ambience.  I found that this excessive ambience mixed with the close mikes was responsible for smearing of details.

Yes, performance first, sound second.  I would rather listen to 1928 recordings of legendary violin masters like Fritz Kreisler on youtube, than today's violinists in pristine sound.  

@viber6 Well, I partially agree with you. Had you sat in Royce Hall/UCLA back in the 60’s to 80’s prior to the big remodel, you would NOT have appreciated the brighter/thinner sound in the first row versus the 10th. It was direct alright, but did not sound cohesive. I heard over 70 classical concerts, orchestral and instrumental. There were always empty seats up front, for a reason. Unfortunately, not many great performances any longer to attend so I haven’t auditioned the sound lately. As to Disney Hall and Soroya/CSUN, yes, closer produces a more precise and dynamic sound.  I also record chamber music in a large private home for Viklarbo and sit further back than 5' or 10' from the performers.  Too close for the size of the room.  No loss in resolution at 15' to 20'.  

I too dislike the distant miking for purposes of adding "ambiance." I want to hear the full tone of the instruments. Studio recordings can add plate or tape reverb, etc. but not lose the main/basic sound. My favorite jazz recordings were made in the late 50s and 60’s on "antiquated" tube equipment, mics and mixers with magnetic tape, in studios like Contemporary. There’s some reverb but mostly direct, colorful, dynamic sound recordings. I love em." I have 7,000 78s and at least 70,000 vocal recordings on CDs and LPs. half from the 78 recording era. Performances never to be duplicated.

Viber 6's comment, "If I were a sitting giraffe with my head way over people, then the 2nd row might be nice."  That is a great way of articulating my previous comment about achieving a "sight line" to every instrument in an orchestra. From that vantage point the listener [or microphone] can perceive all three dimensions of a large group of musicians : width, depth and height.  Sitting directly in front of such a large group of 100 or so instrumentalists does not provide the important element of depth.  I cannot dispute the choice of those who choose to do so because that choice is legitimate, just not complete.  Any seat in any hall may be to a listener's liking but most likely not to every one's taste. It reminds me of a friend who was the manager of a large motorcycle dealership.  One day, as I looked over the huge sales floor filled with hundreds of motorcycles, I asked how they expected to sell so many different styles and types.  His response was, "There's an ass out there for EVERY seat" !   I guess the same could be said for the seats in any concert hall ?   

    A music reviewer was once a guest at one of our audio listening sessions and made an interesting comment.  He suggested that it would be a good idea for orchestral recordings to list the "perspective" in which they were recorded.  i.e. -- from the perspective of the conductor, a musician within the group, a listener nearby in the hall or one in the balcony.  We all can identify recordings that emulate those "perspectives", can't we ?   Of course it was a suggestion that went nowhere because of the complexity involved but was interesting nontheless.

    It is no surprise to learn of such varied tastes in listening habits any more that the differences we see in the viewing of "art objects" or the enjoyment of culinary creations.  As an old friend used to say, "That's why they make chocolate  AND vanilla" !

fleschler and terraplane8bob,

I love the sound of my violin under my ear (fortunately I play well) which I admit isn't applicable to most listeners.  There is a vast difference between inches away and even only a few feet away.  I used to go to major auctions of violins and try out many violins.  I listened to good violinists playing a few feet away.  I was shocked when I then tried the same violin under my ear--I could hear many tonal flaws in the violin which I had no idea from listening to them just a few feet away.  So for ultimate listening pleasure, only the stage sound will do for me.  Sitting at a music stand listening to my partner, his/her precision of execution is way beyond even sitting in the 1st row as a listener.  These days I play in a small orchestra connected to a choral group.  I hear several types of instruments and choral soloists at very close range.  There is no elevated stage, so the line of sight is pure, and there is no problem as in a typical hall where the first few rows have obstructed line of sight.  The tonal purity and detail are way beyond what a typical listener in a hall can get.  What I value as exciting, crisp tonality, most listeners think it as too bright/thin.  What I consider as dull and veiled, they think is just right.  That is unfortunate, because they didn't grow up with intimate contact with real instruments.  It is a major factor in why most audio manufacturers produce mediocre veiled speakers and euphonic electronics, all designed to produce a facsimile of this laid back sound that most listeners are familiar with.

In addition to the Turnabout LP's of Rachmaninoff Symphonic Dances, the 1950's Mercury Living Presence recordings are some of the few examples of close perspectives that deliver clarity and impact.  In mono and stereo, the few main mikes were placed 10 feet over the conductor's head to deliver detail and enough but not too much spatiality which would muddy the sound.  My recordings were inspired by the Turnabout and Mercury recordings.  I used two Neumann KM184 cardioids near the conductor's head angled 90-110 degrees according to the width of the ensemble, with the diaphragms separated about 10 inches.  I got pinpoint imaging and top clarity, better than Mercury because I didn't need additional spaced omnis.  My recordings have less depth than commercial recordings.  I have found that you cannot have high clarity and lots of depth at the same time.  You have to make a choice.  Close distance is associated with less depth.  Far distance yields more depth but poor clarity.  Medium distance gives some clarity and some depth, which is what almost all recording engineers strive for.  But it is an unacceptable compromise to me.  As an aside, go on vacation to European towns where there is lots of music on the street.  Turn the corner, and allow yourself to be pleasantly surprised at new sounds like streetcar bells, random street musicians.  You don't say, "oh what depth"--but you marvel at the clarity and sudden impact.  I don't care WHERE the sound comes from, but I want to be stunned by the clarity.

In a room, 15-20 feet away is still close enough for good detail and impact.  The 1st row in a hall might be 10-15 feet away.  But the front of the balcony is at least 100 feet away, and the sound is markedly rolled off in HF.  The midrange is veiled from all the multipath time delayed arrival from hall reflections.  Terrible sound, like a speaker stuffed with drivers in every direction.  A total mess.

I’m pretty mellow when it comes to what I consider acceptable fidelity in a live context. I figure it’s all real. Just different versions of real. Even when everything is electrified or sound-reinforced.

By the same token, though, some of the best sound I’ve ever heard came from listening to and playing acoustic guitar(s) and other acoustic instruments in the tiny upscale guitar room at McCabe’s Guitar Shop in Santa Monica CA. There’s also the sound I’d hear while playing with my buddies in my or their living rooms. The sound of pianos played at the piano store or the stringed instruments being played at the violin store. The Romani violin & accordion I heard at a joint in Budapest. Or was it somewhere in the Czech Republic?

The violin and accordion at an intimate place in Budapest.  That's a better place to hear these instruments than a prestigious concert hall.  I had a similar experience at Preservation Hall in New Orleans in 2005.  P Hall was a small cave of a room with walls of rocks and 3 benches for about 20 people. The unamplified brass and piano were exciting. All for $6 for 30 min of music, including audience requests.  Now $40, still a great deal, in comparison to a concert hall where most seats are distant.  For small ensembles, cafes are the best.  They have small ensembles in large halls just as a matter of economics, not for the optimum way to hear them.

In NYC subways, good musicians perform on the platform between the noise of trains coming.  Get close, and throw them some change for 1-2 minutes of music.  You'll learn more than from going to audio shows, dealers or concert halls.

@viper6 Yes, I’ve heard live music in NYC subways throughout the 2000s’ to 2018, the last time I visited.

LA is blasting classical music to deter homeless people from gathering at metro stations The Los Angeles Metro is using classical music on its light rail system to deter homeless people from congregating and sleeping in a downtown station.https://www.latimes.com/entertainment-arts/story/2023-04-04/loud-classical-music-macarthur-park-metro-los-angeles-decibel-meter

I still won’t use the LA subway for all the classical music they play because it is dangerous and dirty, plus it is 25 miles south of me (I reside in the San Fernando Valley part of LA City). Mexico City has a superior subway as well as the sterling Tokyo one.    And this appropriate article: https://www.dailywire.com/news/psychological-torture-chamber-l-a-subway-plays-classical-music-critics-go-bonkers?fbclid=IwAR3WEcUPGnV5BKOf4vI-gRaCcGIC7dJuNaqgwD_qFVKKbDoyDmAA8T3EYlw

Los Angeles County continues to promote public transit growth/development and continuously greater funding despite the current funding sufficient to provide free transportation for all who need it. Simultaneously, fewer riders of public transportation and attacks on private vehicle transportation through the elimination of streets to bicycles. 

Orchestral music, at its best, is enjoyed sumptuously not in rows 1-5, but beyond that, centrally from the 5th through the 8th rows.  Professional, performing musicians understand the concept of "soundstage" and where it is best heard.

@7452jf,

Completely agree with you in your statement regarding California Center for the Arts, Escondido. I’ve been there a handful of times myself, and in fact one of my daughters was briefly enrolled (one year) at Classical Academy Middle School directly across from.

Please tell me you’ve attended “The Rady Shell at Jacobs Park.”

:-)

@lfssbn1 YES +1

The talk here about optimal seating when attending live orchestral performances is definitely fascinating and helpful for me, and I appreciate all the contributions here.
Gives me something to think about next time.
As the saying goes, anything worth doing is worth doing right.
Should $ and circumstances allow, I would be well advised to enjoy the performance optimally.

I think that most people who see performances in Concert / Symphony Halls will disagree with you on the front row seat as the best seat in the hall.  Be it clamshell like here in Chicago or shoe box (I prefer), like Boston, surprisingly up in the rafters, the gallery seats sound the best but for many reasons, sitting closer most people will prefer.  Solti used to listen to the orchestra from the gallery.  Also, Heinz Hall used to be a movie theatre and it went through many revisions to make it properly project sound from the orchestra to the seats. Typically the front of the first balcony, somewhere in the middle of the main floor as long as you don't sit underneath the balcony is fine.  In Symphony Center, Chicago, the first row at least used to be cheaper than the seats behind it.  I remember years back my brother and I made a last minute decision to have an early dinner downtown at Russian Tea Time and we got hammered on vodka, vodka flights with various zakuski.  When we heard that Gidon Kremer was performing at Orchestra Hall we made a last minute dash to get seats and we did;  front row, just left of the center seat.  Can't count all the performances I've seen there but it was my first time in the front row and it was fun, to say the least.  Drunk and sitting right below Kremer and Barenboim, recliners would have been better suited but we certainly got an in your face performance.  It was so loud,  rosin and horse hairs were drifting down on us, plus Gidon gets excited and stomps his feet during the performance and even subtle voice cues from Daniel.  It was a performance to remember and I'd do it again

vitussl101,

As you said, "When we heard that Gidon Kremer was performing at Orchestra Hall we made a last minute dash to get seats and we did;  front row, just left of the center seat.  Can't count all the performances I've seen there but it was my first time in the front row and it was fun, to say the least.  Drunk and sitting right below Kremer and Barenboim, recliners would have been better suited but we certainly got an in your face performance.  It was so loud,  rosin and horse hairs were drifting down on us, plus Gidon gets excited and stomps his feet during the performance and even subtle voice cues from Daniel.  It was a performance to remember and I'd do it again."

You said it best, better than myself.  Your vivid writing style communicates the vivid sound and performer antics.  There is nothing like the front row for all that.  Rows 5-8 are merely polite dilutions of that.  Rows 5-8 are better for balance, but which performance will you remember--in your face excitement, or polite balance?  You've been seated further back many times, but THIS ONE you will remember and you will do it again.  

Conductors like Solti know they get the most excitement from their stage position on the podium.  But they listen further back for different purposes.  They want to hear how the large orchestra projects to distant locations, so they can judge how a typical distant listener hears all the instruments.  They learn about acoustics and balance of various instrumental groups, so they can modify their conducting approach to suit the thousands of audience members.  

A few times I couldn't get front row center, and had to choose extreme right or extreme left.  If I got left, then the violin section's backs blocked the sound, and it was veiled.  Most soloists are to the left of the conductor, so strictly speaking, my best seat is front row, 1 or 2 seats to the left of center so I will be closest to the soloist.

@dabel - I've been to the shell, but not for symphony.  We did see the Commodores, War, and George Benson there.  Great show!  Sure we'll spend more time at the Shell as summer comes along, but really enjoy the 5 minute drive home from CCPA.

Adolf Herseth, the spectacular trumpet soloist with The Chicago Symphony Orchestra, once told a story in a radio interview with Bill [?] Russo about Fritz Reiner who, in my opinion, was the most important conductor the orchestra ever had.  Apparently, Reiner decided that the brass section was "killing everything" and advised them to "cut it in half".  He went out into the hall and listened to the results of his instruction and was pleased.   However, when he returned to the podium, his instructions were soon altered as he continually asked for more and more from the brass section to which he had just given instructions to the opposite.  Herseth said that it didn't take long for the brass to be playing the same level that had been playing previously !  It seems that the podium in Orchestra Hall was located in a "null" that no one realized existed until Reiner experimented with his fabulous brass section !   Podiums are apparently not the best spot in the house from which to listen.  Whodathunkit ?

@7452jf,

I thought as much ... ;-)

Yeah, there is much to be said for within walking distance. Sure beats the Embarcadero drive south (at times) when something such as the California Center for the Performing Arts sits so close by.

My understanding of symphony halls is that the conductor needs to visually communicate with the orchestra, and this is the primary reason why the podium is positioned where it is on the stage. Sound at the podium is secondary, although important, and possibly, the best sounding position. Halls are acoustically designed, for the audience’s enjoyment. This has been my understanding throughout all my years in the music business, and I am not to disagree with anyone. All interesting and welcoming comments above. Enjoy......My best, MrD.

terraplane8bob,

Another point to consider.  Trumpets project the most of all the brass.  They project in a very directional manner, maximum straight to the audience.  The conductor may be off axis and may not get the full beamy energy of the trumpet.  That's the reason the podium could be softer than the direct beam to a significant audience distance.  It is the loudest instrument, esp in the upper midrange 3-4 kHz where the human ear is most sensitive.  When I heard the trumpet beaming to me at midhall center, it was loud and brilliant.  But softer instruments like strings and woodwinds are lost in midhall compared to the stage or 1st row.  Even the other brass instruments are way softer than the trumpet--the trombone projects at a lower angle than the trumpet, the French horn projects behind to the floor, and the tuba vertically.  All these softer instruments get diffused away the more distance their sound has to travel.  But the trumpet is like a directional megaphone.

My Audiostatic 240 electrostatic panel is straight and highly directional.  Heard straight on axis, it transmits the purest sound that way, without HF rolloff.  I don't mind keeping my head aligned straight, to get the beamed sound from the left and right with full toe-in.  All other electrostatics have curved panels, and give flawed off axis sound in a multitude of directions, with resultant time smearing.  This is what happens with all distant seats in the hall.  Only the trumpet survives the distance-induced time smearing.

What was most interesting to me was the Shostakovich 10th.  There were some sections in that piece that were so loud, that it was like I turned up my system as loud as it could go.  I had no idea that an orchestra could play that loud.  I guess the term I am looking for is dynamics.  It can also play extremely soft and quiet.  This is what makes listening to an orchestra live so captivating, IMHO.

Dynamics, both micro and macro, are truly an important and major characteristic of music reproduction, live, and through an audio rig. I am not speaking of rock concert loud ( which can be distorted to the ears ).......As the op says, to be able to go from soft and quiet, to loud, shows more of the passion of the work, by the composer, conveyed through the conductor and the orchestra. Without it, realism is lost.....This has been my continued experience for over 50 years, and without deviating from the purpose of this thread, my tweaked and modified Lascalas, allows these characteristics to shine through, with any and all amplifiers. Captivating, for sure...and with all types of music. It is wonderful that the op experienced this, and a welcome to the Audiogon community, to share in this excitement. Bravo ! I am yet to hear an audio system, that captures what the op ( as well as myself and others ) has experienced, as the recordings themselves are a major limiting factor. Enjoy, and my best....always, MrD.

I once saw Art Blakey and the Jazz Messengers in New York, just before he died.  He used dynamics in his band, the only time I've ever heard a jazz ensemble play soft and loud.

@mikeydee , " He used dynamics in his band ". AB & the JMs must have been a wonderful experience as well. Every live, unamplified performance of any kind of music I experienced, showed an amazing amount of dynamics, which has not been duplicated, ime, ever, with an audio rig. Horns come closest to portraying dynamics, again, ime, but still not the same, as the real thing. My best always, MrD.

viber6  -- Oh yeah. A long, long time ago I saw the Preservation Hall Band at Preservation Hall. Truly excellent. It didn't hurt that I was maybe 16 at the time and was able to get a beer (my let's-have-fun older cousin headed up the trip, not my parents). I later saw the Preservation Hall Jazz Band at a slightly different locale, the tony Ambassador Auditorium in Pasadena. Thanks for jogging my memory!

@viber6 For 20 years I had various stats.  My favorite was the Acoustat 2+2.  My last was an ML Monolith III.  My new wife (1st died) hated them for their beaminess, lack of dynamic contrast, inadequate bass and overall brightness (replaced by Legacy Focus 23 years ago).  I enjoyed hearing Maggies, SoundLabs which are are essentially straight panels, Alsyvox, etc. flat speakers.  So, I certainly agree that I prefer flat panel stats and planars to curved ones.  

Each concert hall has their own sonic signature as I am certain you must know. 
 

That said, as a general rule, a few rows back will give the most balanced sonic experience. 

The idea that “the conductor’s perspective” (location) is best is flawed. Good orchestral composers and orchestrators are keenly aware of and exploit the fact that instrumental sounds blend to create specific desired colors and textures when heard from a distance. Just one example, a unison musical line played by a clarinet and a flute will sound very different and with a unique tonal color when heard from a distance than it will heard up close. The “detail” and separation heard up close may not be at all what the composer intends for the composition.

@mikeydee Glad you enjoyed it. A great Orchestra and venue. A  close colleague  of  mine plays with the PSO.

Also, their association with Reference Recording gives us wonderful things to listen to at home.

frogman,,

You're right that instrumental sounds have different colors, textures, tonal balance at close vs further distance.  But look into the mind of the composer.  He/she thinks of a melody in the mind, tries it on the piano, then writes it down.  Often the first complete work is solo piano, or piano 4 hands, or 2 or 3 pianos.  Later the piano work is arranged for orchestra.  A good example is Mussorgsky's original solo piano version of Pictures at an Exhibition.  Later, Ravel orchestrated it, which is the most popular version heard, but there were other composers who had different orchestrations.  

On youtube, there are recordings with simultaneous views of the complete score (written music).  As a musician, I want to know what the score contains.  Even a solo piano score contains details that I didn't realize were there even after thinking I knew the work well.  As for more complex orchestra works with many different instrumental groups, the score shows that a typical audience listener is missing the majority of what the composer had in mind.  An example is the prelude to Act 1 of Wagner's Lohengrin.  The score shows EIGHT violin parts.  I had thought there were only 2-4 after 50 years of thinking that I knew the piece well.  Only a 1st row listener (better yet, a stage performer) can hear much more of the details in the score.  From the 1st row at a performance, I could appreciate much more of the truth, which is in the score.  From greater distances, it is hopeless if you want to hear all the detail.  But the stage is best.  Mercury Living Presence recordings have the main mikes 10 feet over the conductor's head, to capture the most detail, with a good amount of space.  Most other commercial recordings are far inferior.

fleschler,

The most accurate and natural speaker is plasma. Totally massless, small driver the size of a tweeter, very efficient. Unfortunately, they are dangerous for ozone and other noxious gases, fire hazard from the burning flame from high voltages. Nelson Pass was hospitalized for an asthma attack after using a plasma speaker.

The next best transducer is the electrostatic principle. The lowest moving mass, total control from the membrane/stator sandwich. But all commercial stat speakers have severe flaws. To make up for the inefficiency and need to be near full range, large panels are needed. Even STRAIGHT large panels deliver smearing, due to the different distances to the listener ears from thousands of locations on the large panel. In this regard, the WORST speaker I ever heard was the Dayton Wright XG8 (10?) I heard in 1980. It was a 4 foot square panel.

The next meaningful experience was with Art Dudley when he worked for Edison Price. I heard the small Stax F81 and F83 speakers there. The F83 was a double stacked F81. I loved the midrange/HF purity of the F81 which was less than 3 feet tall. I had hoped the larger F83 would overcome the severely low 73 dB efficiency of the F81. It did, but unfortunately the 6 foot height caused severe rolloff of HF compared to the F81. I later figured out that the larger panel area, the more multipath time smearing occurs--worse time alignment. The best stat for tonal purity remains the original Quad 57 whose tweeter panel is very skinny and only about 30" tall. Later Quads are veiled by comparison, utilizing the flawed concept of time delay and much larger panels.

Putting all this together, I have a concept for the best possible stat speaker. If I were a famous audio designer, I could charge $ 1 million for this concept. But there is no market for accurate stat speakers in an a-phile market that cares more for boom boom loud dynamics and deep bass. So I reveal it here, in the hopes that some manufacturer who cares more for sonic accuracy and purity takes notice. Here goes--a large enough panel handles a wide freq range with reasonable SPL capability. But the panel is curved concave to the listener instead of convex like ML, Soundlab. The panel is a slice of a sphere whose radius of curvature is the listener distance. Say the distance is 8 feet. The slice might be 1 foot wide and 4 feet tall. The circumference of an 8 foot radius sphere is 8 x 2 pi = 26 feet. So this is like the curved edge of a 55 degree pie slice vertically, and a nearly straight 1 foot horizontally. The only listener requirement is to sit at the exact focal center of this spherical slice. That way, the direct radiation path which has the most HF extension reaches the listener from all parts of the panel with perfect time alignment. There is still a flaw from off axis parts of the panel reaching the listener with different freq balances, similar to a cardioid mike with rolled off HF off axis. This design is still better for accuracy than any large stat ever made. The smaller, the better, as in the Stat F81 and original Quad, if your music requirements are up to 80 dB. For me, I don’t want to hear junk from today’s speakers designed for loud SPL’s. I’m not impressed by 100 dB of junk when those speakers are badly veiled at 20-60 dB.

Another big problem with large panels is the bloated image, totally unnatural. A singer delivers sound from a mouth about 1-2 inches in diameter. A trumpet is like a 1 inch diameter tube whose horn flares to only a few inches, etc. So a wide range dynamic tweeter that goes down to 1 kHz can do a reasonable job for accuracy and proper image size. Dynamic tweeters are reasonably low mass and much more accurate than dynamic midrange and LF drivers. But all current panel speakers deliver bloated images. In my focused design, the image would be more true to life. The only instruments that are properly reproduced by current panel designs are large ones like pianos and pipe organs.

My Audiostatic 240 from 1980 is 2 straight panels mounted on a dummy support, so you can angle the 2 panels any way you want. The best results are from concave angling, with both panels beaming to each ear. I got the most bass, HF and SPL with this arrangement. But for best focus and purity in midrange/HF with admitted sacrifice of bass, I only use 1 panel which is 5" wide x 48" tall. Beamed right to my ear, it is the closest to my concept of a better design. On audiostatic.com, the MDi is shown for 3000 euros, although there is no opportunity to hear it before you buy, unless you travel to his suburb of Amsterdam, Netherlands.  The designer, Ben Peters is old, so I don’t know the delivery details. The panel is 11" x 44" so it looks like a smart design with the least compromises.