Article: Attending a Mahler 3rd Recording Session: An Audiophile’s Perspective

23 hours ago, sdolezalek said:

Great experience and great article!  But your comments on the sound coming out of the Sennheiser headphones seems to just be begging for answers to questions I didn't see above: 1) how much of that quality is lost in the mixing process; 2) how much is lost through the recording format/process; and c) where else does the degradation result from the stream you were hearing?  

13 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

I think this is something both of us are very interested to find out. The only way to have any guess, is to wait for the recording to be released. We will also need to talk to those involved about any differences heard and if they are intentional or an unavoidable result of the process.

Yes, the amazing sound quality of the listening mix was certainly one of the most remarkable aspects of this experience. To really dig into this, we would need to A/B this listening mix with the editing mix later on in the post-production, and then the final mastering for release. I will ask the BIS team about this. If the perceived difference actually holds in listening comparisons, we can then dig into the causes, but in a short recording session like this, everyone was too busy to really get into this. 

11 hours ago, GillesP said:

...so I’m wondering, even if the article seems to say the contrary, if you were not listening to an analog mix (direct from the mics console) before any A/D processing. All I see is the headphones connected to an amp but the incoming wiring could be anything.

The listening mix was definitely after A/D. As you may have caught in the technical details, each microphone feeds to an ADC/preamp, and all the microphone digital streams get aggregated into a single fibre link between the stage and control room. So, while there is still one A/D and one D/A conversion, plus digital mixing going on, this mix has not undergone the editing and other processing that Marion mentioned in her answers.
 

22 hours ago, mcgillroy said:

"even on a very basic DAC" 

 

So someone is surprised by the quality of RME conversion...?

 

RME doesn't get the mojo hype other brands get. But once you sit down even with a Babyface FS you'll notice that these things sound very good. There is a reason RME are ubiquitous in classical recording and broadcast contexts. It's not only their reliability, it's also that they sound good.

13 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

 

I don't think surprise is totally the right word. A portable DAC with limited power supply and filtering options is a very different animal than a flagship DAC. I don't speak for Rajiv, but I'd say that's the gist of what he was getting at. 

Please don't misread my comments as a knock on RME — they make great products. 

The surprise was the level of sound quality I was getting from a headphone and amp that was far more modest than the flagship setups Chris and I have been listening to.

16 hours ago, mkt said:

What do you think of the BIS recordings 5.1 vs stereo?

I don't have any experience with BIS 5.1 mixes, as I'm primarily a 2ch headphone listener.

15 hours ago, audiobomber said:

 

When you were listening through the headphones, were you in the sound field of the orchestra, or were you completely isolated?

Great question! Several people have asked me if perhaps the perceived quality of the listening mix was due to visual cues, or sound leakage from the hall into the control room.

The answer is neither.

The only visual cues we had were from the small monitor in front of Rob. But if you notice, the camera angle is not the way a concert is typically televised. This was a closeup of the conductor, with small PIP frames of different angles. To be honest, the only time I even looked at this monitor was when Rob and Osmo Vänskä were discussing things between takes.

As regards leakage of sound from the hall — there was none.

So yes, this perception of listening mix sound quality was not augmented by other factors, it was aural only.

9 hours ago, austinpop said:

 

 

Please don't misread my comments as a knock on RME — they make great products. 

 

The surprise was the level of sound quality I was getting from a headphone and amp that was far more modest than the flagship setups Chris and I have been listening to.

I think many in the audiophile playback realm do not understand what gear is used to record, mix and master the music.  You will get a better understanding if you hang out on discussions in the pro audio world.  Just read the sections about Microphones above.  You should hear all the discussions around mic pre-amps!  Then there is on-site AC power.  Some folks bring battery power for the recording gear! 

The pro audio world is learning and growing just like we are.

Take a look at Sweetwater.com for audio interfaces:  https://www.sweetwater.com/shop/studio-recording/audio-interfaces/

RJF

Excellent review of this most interesting recording session, Rajiv. Like several others who have commented, I'm struck by the super high fidelity experience you describe with the listening mix and the Sennheisers. And, assuming that the final product does not equate to this earlier experience, I'm wondering where in the recording chain some fidelity is lost. I guess the short answer is a) you need to listen to the final product; and b) you may not ever know the answer to this question. 

A couple other questions/observations:

1) Do you have plans to try to attend and describe other recording sessions? It would be really interesting for you, and for us, to see how different record companies and producers and engineers approach these sessions. 

2) Given that so many orchestral recordings, especially of full orchestras, are now accomplished by recording two or three live performances, and then stitching these together into a single recording, I'm wondering how the recording process differs in this situation. I would also be especially interested in hearing the producer's opinion on the musical advantages and disadvantages of recording live performances vs. studio recordings. One of the revelations of your article was just how intimately involved the producer is with purely musical decisions during the recording process. 

1 hour ago, Always.Learning said:

 

1) Do you have plans to try to attend and describe other recording sessions? It would be really interesting for you, and for us, to see how different record companies and producers and engineers approach these sessions. 

 

Or perhaps just interview producers and engineers (and producer/engineers).  

At least part of the answer, I suspect, as to why the in recording session sound was so intense is that there was no 'toning down' of the raw sound as picked up by the microphones; the latter are optimally placed to pick up every last detail, giving the mixing people plenty of 'meat' to work with. They in turn 'nicefy' the presentation, so that people who are not used to such intensity won't be aggrieved by what they hear on very conventional playback systems; OTOH audiophile rigs either by intent or unconsciously, "smooth off the rough edges", so there another layer of 'nicefying' is added - by contrast, the recording equipment playback is meant to have the 'raw truth' as clear as possible.

1 hour ago, HeeBroG said:

Well done Rajiv; very interesting article indeed. Apart from all the great points so far I was also intrigued by how well versed and musically learned the producer must be to collaborate with a conductor of such calibre.

100%
 

I was amazed at this aspect. 

13 hours ago, fas42 said:

At least part of the answer, I suspect, as to why the in recording session sound was so intense is that there was no 'toning down' of the raw sound as picked up by the microphones; the latter are optimally placed to pick up every last detail, giving the mixing people plenty of 'meat' to work with. They in turn 'nicefy' the presentation, so that people who are not used to such intensity won't be aggrieved by what they hear on very conventional playback systems; OTOH audiophile rigs either by intent or unconsciously, "smooth off the rough edges", so there another layer of 'nicefying' is added - by contrast, the recording equipment playback is meant to have the 'raw truth' as clear as possible.

This is what I meant when referring to my choir singing in close proximity to orchestra musicians. The details and intensity of each instrument (starting from the closest of course) is much greater than when it is ironed out by the hall reverberation from far away. I was suggesting that the listening mix contained mostly the direct sound from the instruments for analysis, the hall being captured only to be added later for the final product. 

This is the sad fact that even Atmos recordings of symphony orchestras seem to still be made with the SACD technique of having the front speaker output the instruments and the back the hall sound with now maybe some more height info added. To my mind, a conductor viewpoint of a symphony recording would be more to the point (there are some recordings that approach this) but maybe positioning a microphone over the conductor’s head would record too much extraneous noises… ;-)

19 minutes ago, GillesP said:

This is the sad fact that even Atmos recordings of symphony orchestras seem to still be made with the SACD technique of having the front speaker output the instruments and the back the hall sound with now maybe some more height info added

Only some do this. 

45 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Only some do this. 

I agree of course. Speaking of Mahler's 3rd, here is a version that is definitely a fine Atmos rendering, even though it is a reissue:

https://music.apple.com/ci/album/mahler-symphony-no-3/1452505617

A tremendously interesting article, thanks.  (I was particularly interested as, like you, I've long been a fan of Vanska and his BIS recordings.)  Your comment about the clarity of the playback struck home with me, as someone who has had some involvement with recording.  My experience convinced me long ago of the importance of the source - as opposed to amplification and transducers - although the order of importance is often reversed in consumer discussion.  The importance of good, hi-res recording can't be overstated I think, in achieving something that sounds 'real'.  And getting good material through the system with as little processing as possible really does seem to make a big difference.  I found it with recording.  I find it with playback.  Loss arising from processing load might one day cease to be an issue - but we don't seem to be there yet.

What a neat experience!  I am glad you had the chance to experience this and shared it with the rest of us. Personally, I had no idea what the recording process was like for such an event. I had some ideas about what it might be like, turns out i was very wrong.

Do you and Chris now think that there is more sound quality possible in our recordings that's somehow lost in the process a recording takes to get to the consumer now that you have had this experience?

28 minutes ago, AudioDoctor said:

Do you and Chris now think that there is more sound quality possible in our recordings that's somehow lost in the process a recording takes to get to the consumer now that you have had this experience?

I now think a recording is like a journalist’s story about an event. The final product is a result of the all the experiences, knowledge, goals, emotions, likes, dislikes, etc… of who created it, plus the demands of consumers if the product is to be sold. 
 

I’d say there is always more sound quality possible, if that’s a goal of those responsible. 

1 hour ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

I’d say there is always more sound quality possible, if that’s a goal of those responsible. 

And it wont come in the form of MQA...  ;-)

So we're back at the mastering matters. interestingly, I polled two people I know who do audio work professionally and both of them use the HD650 headphones.

On 6/29/2023 at 1:25 AM, The Computer Audiophile said:

evaluating audio components by listening to recorded music and comparing that to live music is a fools errand. Think you know what a violin sounds like? You don't know what the producer wants the violin to sound like, and which specific violin, in which specific hall?

Its been discussed recently about, for some, the importance of life-like sound but agree one cannot know about its accuracy. I guess , a violin shouldn't sound like a kazoo though.

<QUOTE> @austinpop

I used to own an HD650 for several years, so I thought I knew what I was going to hear. Boy, was I wrong! As the session got underway, and the orchestra started playing, Chris and I both looked at each other in amazement. The sound quality of this live listening mix was just extraordinary! </QUOTE>

Great article and what an experience!

Interested in your comment about the microphone feed through the HD650's. Did any of that superior sonics make it through to the final recording, or did the chain (circle) of confusion take its toll?