NEW David Geffen Hall in Spatial Audio Binaural-

[@joentell]

Now, this is a great idea! I'm on my way out, but I've added it to my watch list.

[@timw2498]

Geffen hall is warm with a good bass response and a warm sound. Avery is shrill and hard sounding. Carnegie is good, but I’d say Geffen is best hands down.

[@TheVaughan5]

I understand that Carnegie Hall’s legendary acoustics were compromised when that hall was renovated some years ago. The bass from Geffen Hall sounds artificially exaggerated but overall is clearer.

[@josezarzo2607]

Thanks for sharing. For my taste ( I play principal horn with the Gran Canaria Philharmonic in Spain and play in the acoustically perfect Alfredo Kraus Auditorium in Las Palmas ) Carnegie Hall still is number 1 ( warmth of sound ) the new David Geffen Hall is very close but for me number 2 , Avery Fisher Hall is the lesser noble of the three, so number 3

[@benaheide]

Can you do one between just David Geffen and Carnegie? I definitely hear the improvement from Avery Fisher but it definitely appears to still miss the warmth of Carnegie.

[@SonicPresence]

We are planning on making some more comparisons so stay tuned! That warmth of Carnegie is so classic.

[@gridley]

Something about Carnegie seems to have an extra touch. But it's hard to be objective without a full side-by-side comparison. The renovated Geffen is now visually a more welcoming space. Certain reviews, however, have judged its sound to be dry, but your recordings make me unsure about how much of a shortcoming that is or isn't. Boston (presumably in Symphony Hall): kzbin.info/www/bejne/sGGknoiPmapnfLc Vienna (presumably in the Musikverein): kzbin.info/www/bejne/epC9mJxuoJihnac Concertgebouw (definitely the Cocertgebouw): kzbin.info/www/bejne/gmTUn4KohMuWd9k Berlin (presumably the Philharmonie): kzbin.info/www/bejne/eJnCn3udl82MiMk

[@circiter2411]

Thanks for posting those links! One thing, however, must be mentioned: It is important to bear in mind that your examples come from commercial, so-called "studio recordings" of those orchestras, not from the binaural perspective (which is closest to our actual hearing), but recordings captured with closely-placed, multiple microphones which where then hyper-produced, super-post-produced, and considerably edited. They are (alas) not an adequate representation of the acoustic experience of a human being attending live performances in any of those halls, even if the recordings in question were indeed carried out in the orchestras' home auditoria. Recordings are very different things from live performance and the slightest electronic intervention takes the sound in a completely different direction than unamplified acoustic spaces. On the other hand, the examples posted by Sonic Presence have the least possible amount of electronic intervention for a recording (or at least that is what they seem to claim): Just the twin mics capturing the sound.

[@jakenowell5211]

For me, I think that Carnegie is still very good, but could be too boomy depending on the piece. I think that Avery has clarity, but not as warm as the other. I think Geffen sounds a lot like the Elbphilharmonie and its a good medium

[@gryzaczekgryzaczek6070]

Nice measurements ! Could You post pictures from each hall, showing orchestra layout and seating capacity during Your recordings ? Have You got recordings from other locations, in each hall ? Are the audio tracks not allerted by KZbin compression in any way ? Or maybe You can share .wav recordings ? Cheers !

[@SonicPresence]

Unfortunately we don't have photos from these exact recordings, but we plan to do more in the future, with different locations and pieces. Send us an email and we can send you the full res .wav used in this video! info (at) sonicpresence.com

[@Bassic778]

Even with KZbin compression, I'd rate them Geffen first, Fisher second, and Carnegie third. Both Geffen and Fisher seem to have a wider and deeper soundstage compared to Carnegie.

[@SonicPresence]

Thanks for your feedback, Keith!

[@circiter]

@ Keith Copeland: Besides the depth of the soundstage, there is the way these halls contain and render the range and color of the orchestra... Fisher Hall sounds here, and in my years of memories, like a tin can, so reluctant it seems to capture any of the deep voices of the orchestra. Bass tones are extremely flattened and discolored, if they are present at all. Carnegie has always had that honeyed, golden aura, like a robe... and a certain touch of tubularity (I gather that's what you perceive as narrowness of field), which--despite your reservations--can be tremendously effective when you are in the hall. Geffen is less tinted, more natural, bright, even... and the sound seldom feels compacted... it definitely has a wider soundstage than Fisher and, to a lesser extent, Carnegie. So I rate Geffen and Carnegie as different alternatives, both pleasurable, whereas I can only say I am really glad the old Fisher Hall is gone forever.

[@Bassic778]

@@circiter I can't argue with your assessment since I've never been to any of these venues!

[@papagen00]

I went to Carnegie Hall after its 1986 renovation and was not impressed with the new acoustics. Have not been back since. I like the Geffen Hall sound best of the 3.

[@circiter2411]

Perhaps you never heard of it. Carnegie Hall restoration workers accidentally (??) left a slab of concrete that had been poured after the boards of the stage were removed for restoration. This slab provided a firm surface on which to move ladders and elevators for the work on the walls and ceiling of the stage. It was supposed to be temporary, but was left in place (again, somehow, accidentally) when the stage was reboarded. Almost a decade later, the concrete was found when the stage was deboarded again, for surface replacement (something that apparently happens every 10 years, now). It was only then, that the concrete was removed (in its entirety) and that the resonance of the stage boards returned to its original state. Since then Carnegie Hall recovered its former glorious sound. Below, I have placed a link to a 1996 article in the New York times, reporting the facts and reviewing the "post-concrete" sound: www.nytimes.com/1996/03/05/arts/assessing-carnegie-hall-without-the-concrete.html