Sat front row at the symphony...

I remember the good sounding Koss 1A electrostatic speaker.  It was a large panel stat, but it included a dynamic tweeter.  At the time, I wondered why a dynamic tweeter was used, when everyone knows that electrostatic membranes are better than dynamic drivers for low mass and control.  But that's true in the midrange only.  Dynamic bass drivers are clearly superior to electrostatic panels for dynamic power in the bass.  A full range stat panel has too many problems for time smear at HF which I discussed above.  I have the horn loaded Enigmacoustics Sopranino electrostatic tweeter which I use time aligned with my main Audiostatic speaker.  The throat of the Enigmacoustics is quite small, probably comparable in size to a dynamic tweeter but with lower mass, so I get stat delicacy with the focus missed by all large stat designs.  But I now see the wisdom of that well designed Koss 1A.

@viber6 I couldn’t disagree more.  Yes, following a score is a great thing and, sure, sitting up close one can hear MORE of the individual details, but not necessarily more details which in a good hall are all there and in proper scale.  In fact, you lose the details which are the unique sounds of the blends of instrumental colors.  Some of the music gets lost.  Great composers think in terms of many layers of nuance of instrumental color, not simply melody.

”Pictures At An Exibition” is a wonderful work and Ravel’s orchestration is a great example of why he is considered one of the great orchestrators.  His orchestration is by far the best and most popular.  Korsacov’s not so much. The composer of the work, Rimsky-Korsakoff was himself a great orchestrator and I suppose that an argument could be made for why, in spite of how great Ravel’s version is, the piano version is the best since it is closest to the composer’s intent.  

frogman,

Good points for discussion on several levels.  As musicians, we strive to blend our sounds and play together.  For orchestral playing, a 1st violin section in a large orchestra has 16 violinists who are told by the conductor to suppress individuality and play as 1 violinist.  However in small chamber groups, there is a single player on each part, so the quirky individuality can be heard.  In a string quartet, sometimes the viola and cello are in exact unison, so they try to blend and play as 1 instrument.  But the viola and cello have different tonal character even when playing the same note.  It is more interesting to hear the tonal differences so that even though the same note is being played, there is more color from the overlay of differences on top of the sameness.  One of my favorite old string quartets, the Budapest, had two violinists who had very different sounds and temperaments.  The 1st violinist, Joseph Roisman, had a dark, sensitive, introverted sound and personality.  The 2nd violinist, Alexander Schneider, had a more forward sound and extroverted personality and playing style.  Schneider told a story of how an audience member said the quartet was marvelous because they sounded like 1 instrument.  But Schneider thought if that was true, it was a lousy concert.  He wanted good ensemble, but with a recognition of the differences, with each of the four players contributing his own individuality.  I agree with the Schneider view, although there are plenty of quartet groups that strive for more blended ensemble and less individuality.

For orchestral music, each composer seems to have their tonal signature to produce a unique timbre when 2 very different instruments are playing unison.  Flute combines well with violin in their similar freq range.  Bassoon may combine with French horn for that unique timbre.   I can recognize the identity of a composer by the timbre of the combination, even if I don't quickly name the particular piece.  So how does the audience listener appreciate the spectrum of separateness vs total blending?  For a distant listener, the blending predominates.  For a close listener, there is more separateness.  If the musicians are skillful, they blend well no matter how far away the listener is.

Analogy with food.  You can have 3 types of food on the same plate in separate locations, each carefully flavored.  Alternatively, you can mix them and make a tasty soup.  Both are enjoyable experiences, but it is unlikely that the mixture, well homogenized, would be as tasty as the separate foods.  Steak and salad don't mix well, but separately each would be delicious.  

The wine connoisseur enjoys the total blended taste, but he goes further and tastes the various flavors as they may appear at different times during the savory tasting.  He wants to separate the flavors and in that way get more appreciation of the fine character of the wine.  Years ago, I tried a liqeur blend called "43."  It was said that there were 43 individual components, but I could only perceive a few.  A more trained connoisseur could taste many more than I could, and I will say he could get more out of that tasting than I.

All this is my roundabout way of saying that the more distant hall sound is more blended and homogenized, and the closer seat still has some blend but more detailed colors and distinct individuality.  Someone may like the blended, homogenized sound, but it is NOT more detailed.  Rather, the details of the differences are like homogenized soup, much less identifiable.  Distant sound is the product of acoustical multipath bouncing around of various instruments in the journey from the stage to the distant location.  These are the laws of physics, like it or not.  Blending yields less information.  The conductor on the podium has it all--good blending with the maximum detail and appreciation of all the instruments.

With respect, I think you miss the point. The composer’s intent always wins. It has to. The composer knows that listeners will not have the conductor’s perspective. Moreover, a conductor often has the assistant conductor sitting in “the house” and will ask him/her about balance issues. The best know instinctively how it will be heard from the audience’s perspective. IOW, the conductor controls the balance of instruments as he hears it up close, but mindful of and relative to how it will be heard from a distance.

I think that we as audiophiles tend to be detail junkies. There is a lot of beauty in a more nuanced approach to seeking “detail” in our music.

Composers (and performing musicians) both create their art for all types of listeners with different musical knowledge and different seating preferences.  Music is a business which needs to serve as many customers (listeners, performers, concert halls, etc.) as possible.  The hall needs to be filled for maximum revenue.  Even if most of the seats are unacceptable to me, someone has to sit in those seats and get some enjoyment.  The general public who sits in distant locations hears the balanced, but homogenized sound.  They are not detail oriented a-philes.  They don't analyze the sound, but are content to enjoy the music as part of a social outing.  If they are happy with that, fine.  The composer wants to please these listeners.

Composers also want to please discerning musicians and a-philes like myself. Composers carefully craft the score in great detail.  Composers are perfectionists who edit and revise their work out of pride in making a finished product.  I have studied violin seriously my entire life with 100's of coaches and played with numerous groups, so I know the importance of precision and detail in the service of better competency in performance and learning more about the composer's similar goals.  

I don't know if you have studied scores of music you know.  In my experience, distant seats have no chance of capturing more than a small fraction of the detail that is in the score, which is much better captured by a close listener.  The conductor is in an enviable position of hearing more of this detail and the best balance than anyone else on stage or in the audience.  To see the score and hear this detail from an optimum close position has increased my appreciation of the genius of the composer.  The detail oriented a-phile also puts lots of effort and money into hearing more detail which increases his appreciation of his music at home. "Wow, I never heard that detail before.  This music sounds even better."

As an aside, I'm sure that if you got new eyeglasses that enabled better vision, you appreciated more details in familiar objects.  More details enable more perception of beauty.  Isn't it nice to find a woman's eyes beautiful at 50 feet away with better visual acuity whereas with the old glasses it was a blur and not as beautiful.