London - Barbican 22 Dec 2010

[Richard]

Yes indeed, thanks for the wonderful videos, Juliette!

Although I was sitting almost right behind you, I didn't realise you were videoing the concert. I thought you were just taking a few sneaky photographs, so very well done! i.postimg.cc/9fYxy370/smilie-big-grin.gif

Lots of love,

Richard xxx

[Simba]

Seems to have been an amazing concert, and it was on my Birthday XD, but being in India, couldn't possibly attend it , I can't wait for someone to put up her latest version of Mary did you know, I wanted her to sing that again sometime after so many years, and she did!

I have a question, why did she wear the same set of dresses for all these Christmas concerts and also the Taiwan Concert And the China thing, AND the Songs of Praise thing also? (White dress) lol...May be she likes it much?

[Roger-G]

Dec 27, 2010 3:59:43 GMT Libby said:

I don't know if it's the acoustics or because she's had a cold, but her voice sounded really different to me. It must be the acoustics, because she sounded absolutely amazing on Songs of Praise. Not that she didn't sound amazing here, it just seemed to capture a different tone of her voice.

Hayley did have a bit of a cold, but the acoustics will be largely responsible for the difference. These days the acoustics in the hall are governed by the sound reinforcement (amplification and speakers) more than the shape of the auditorium. Also depending where you sit relative to the various speakers you get a different pattern of multiple sound images. And it's not generally realised that the use of in-ear monitoring, or in Hayley's case foldback speakers, affects how the singer projects his/her voice.

All these factors are different at every venue, even though you soon get mentally attuned to the sound when sitting in one particular concert.

I have recorded four Winter concerts, two last year and two this, in order to create my own Winter CD free from the the post-production on the 'real' CD. Although they were all recorded on the same equipment and I have done some discrete levelling, the difference in the voice when songs from different locations are played back-to-back is quite remarkable.

[amptique]

A big thanks to all who provided reviews, videos, and photos of Hayley's Christmas Concerts. I really enjoyed them.

BillR

[John H]

Dec 27, 2010 14:21:59 GMT Roger-G said:

Dec 27, 2010 3:59:43 GMT Libby said:

I don't know if it's the acoustics or because she's had a cold, but her voice sounded really different to me. It must be the acoustics, because she sounded absolutely amazing on Songs of Praise. Not that she didn't sound amazing here, it just seemed to capture a different tone of her voice.

Hayley did have a bit of a cold, but the acoustics will be largely responsible for the difference. These days the acoustics in the hall are governed by the sound reinforcement (amplification and speakers) more than the shape of the auditorium. Also depending where you sit relative to the various speakers you get a different pattern of multiple sound images. And it's not generally realised that the use of in-ear monitoring, or in Hayley's case foldback speakers, affects how the singer projects his/her voice.

All these factors are different at every venue, even though you soon get mentally attuned to the sound when sitting in one particular concert.

I have recorded four Winter concerts, two last year and two this, in order to create my own Winter CD free from the the post-production on the 'real' CD. Although they were all recorded on the same equipment and I have done some discrete levelling, the difference in the voice when songs from different locations are played back-to-back is quite remarkable.

I think we are getting a bit too technical here. The sound on Juliette's videos doesn't match the way I remember hearing Hayley on the evening.
OK, I wasn't in quite the same place in the auditorium, but I don't think an odd 20 feet or so would make that much difference.

The clue lies in Juliette's comment

So... The surprise of my little shy camera...

You don't expect perfect sound reproduction from a compact camera.

Thank you Juliette . Your videos are a wonderful reminder of a fantastic evening.


John

[Roger-G]

Dec 27, 2010 15:07:46 GMT John H said:

I think we are getting a bit too technical here. The sound on Juliette's videos doesn't match the way I remember hearing Hayley on the evening.
OK, I wasn't in quite the same place in the auditorium, but I don't think an odd 20 feet or so would make that much difference.

The clue lies in Juliette's comment.

Oh I quite agree John that the recording device will make the biggest difference of all and that a consumer-grade device will seriously affect the result. That almost goes without saying and is a layer on top of all the aspects I described.
I was intending to explain why recordings will always be different and why one shouldn't necessarily ascribe variations to e.g. a cold.

Juliette should be proud to have produced those enjoyable mementoes of a wonderful occasion, considering all the difficulties involved in recording a live event and without being 'spotted'. Personally I don't even try to record video.

[Simba]

Well you will never get a perfect reproduction of the sound, no matter what kind of camera or mobile device, you are recording it from, the voice will sound different. Only if it is recorded from the mixer device to which the mike and everything else is connected, will you get the actual sound of what you hear when you were there at that place. That's the difference between those professionally recorded videos (like the BBC video), because the sound is separately being taken from the mixer device, they'll have all the sounds separately, each coming from different instruments, so that the output is perfectly reproduced.

You can check this out by listening to a pro-recorded video and a normal one of the same concert or song...there's a huge difference. And the place where you are only affects the voice by a small percent...

[martindn]

I am sure that the acoustic characteristics of the hall has a considerable effect. For example, the Buxton Opera House sounds very different from the Birmingham Symphony Hall (these are the last two locations where I heard Hayley sing).
I actually found that the Buxton sound did not seem as "dead" as on the previous occasion when I was there, but I think being at the front and very near the performers, as I was at both of these concerts, makes a difference too. So how much of the difference between the two shows at Buxton was caused by position inn the hall, and how much by the different set up of the sound system? Did Arnaud "tame" the dead acoustic, or was it still dead if you sat in a different location? I would be interested in the impressions other people, sitting in dfferent parts of the auditoria, formed of the "sound" of these two locations. I know that Buxton is reputed to be rather "old fashioned" acoustically, whereas Birmingham has a reputation second to none (it always sounds very "bright" and very detailed to me).

As for the Barbican, I have never been there so can't comment. Can anyone describe that it is like acoustically.

Martin D

[Martin]

Dec 27, 2010 17:28:36 GMT martindn said:

As for the Barbican, I have never been there so can't comment. Can anyone describe that it is like acoustically.

Martin D

Hi Martindn
Barbican is an International renowned concert hall so take it from me the acoustics are good.

Martin

[hammer]

Hi Juliette, it was nice to meet you at the Barbican ,and I am glad you enjoyed the show .Thanks for your report ,and the videos ,they came out really well .I hope to see you at some more shows next year-hope you ,and all at HWI have a happy New Year. Mike

[Libby]

Simba, Hayley often wears the same dresses for her concerts that are close together. I'm glad she wears dresses more than a few times, because I would miss seeing them. In my opinion, the white dress was the perfect dress to wear for this tour, because the white and silver make it the perfect "Winter Magic" dress. The white is the winter part, and the silver is the "magic" part.
The white dress also fits for the "Moon Represents My Heart" song, because the moon is white.
I really like the red dress, too.

I'm sure we'll see some new dresses next year.

[Roger-G]

Dec 27, 2010 17:08:17 GMT Simba said:

Only if it is recorded from the mixer device to which the mike and everything else is connected, will you get the actual sound of what you hear when you were there at that place.

No.
"What you hear when you are at that place" as you put it, is the output from the mixing chain amplified and relayed through the speakers, and arriving finally at your ears where you are sitting.

If at your seat you have a microphone and recorder it will record the very same sound that your ears have heard, but degraded somewhat according to the quality of the recording devices. (I use a lapel mic wired to a professional audio recorder). We all know that the sound is not ideal because of all the acoustic effects mentioned previously, but it IS a faithful reproduction of your personal experience.

A 'direct' recording made from the output of the same mixer, but not taken through the speakers, will of course be better quality but unfortunately we are not allowed to do that. The microphone method is the best we can do at the venue.

[Roger-G]

Dec 27, 2010 19:18:04 GMT Martin said:

Dec 27, 2010 17:28:36 GMT martindn said:

Hi Martindn
Barbican is an International renowned concert hall so take it from me the acoustics are good.

Martin

I would certainly agree with that.

I think there is much less difference between concert halls these days because the science of acoustics is so refined. Design of a structure no longer relies entirely on 'golden ears' since computer programs are used to select and shape suitable materials, and instruments can measure reflections and delays. There are few really bad venues now - the Albert Hall was of course notorious until the 'mushrooms' were fitted.

But if you hear the same performer in different halls the sound does have its own characteristics, and that comes out most strongly when listening 'cold' to a recording when you are not influenced by the surroundings.

[martindn]

Hi Roger-G and Martin,

Yes, I'm sure the Barbican is excellent, and I know all about the history of the Albert Hall, which has had problems.

But what does that mean? I suppose it means you can hear the sound, clearly and undistorted in any seat in that hall. Well, it is never undistorted, and I think that is the point.

One way in which concert halls differ the degree of natural (and electronic, where sound systems are used) reverberation. Old fashioned halls like the Buxton Opera House were designed to minimise natural reverberation by absorbing the sound, a bit like an anechoic chamber. That's what i mean by a "dead" sound, but where amplification is used reverb can be added electronically.

The Birmingham Symphony Hall actually has tunable acoustics by moving sound absorbing panels around. The Bridgewater Hall is similar. In fact the Bridegewater Hall has seats that are designed to have the same sound absorbing characteristic whether or not they are occupied, so that is it possible to accurately tune the accoustics during a sound check for a performance.

That being said, I know from personal experience of the Brimingham Symphony hall that you can hear everything in wonderful detail. I think you could hear a pin drop in that auditorium from anywhere else within it, it is easy to pick out individual instruments within an orchestra for example.

But quite apart from the ability to hear individual sounds, there is also the way that the hall propagates the different sound frequencies. The Birmingham Symphony Hall has a bright acoustic, which I think means it is good at propagating the higher frequencies. A lot of modern concert halls are like that, giving a sound that some say is more like a digital than an analogue recording. Some other halls have different frequency characteristics. Our own De Montfort Hall in Leicester (where I have been tonight incidentally) is said to be very good acoustically, but is much less "bright" than Birmingham. So is Buxton.

So "good" acoustics can cover a huge range of different experiences, even perhaps in the same hall for the same performance. So Roger, although I think you are right in that modern halls are designed to have a "bright" acoustic, not all of our concert halls are modern. The older ones were built when our knowledge was much less refind. Despite this, many of then are excellent.

I think the worst place acoustically that I have heard Hayley perform was Koko, where the iTunes free concert and recordings took place. But I still thoroughly enjoyed hearing her.

Martin D

[Juliette]

Dec 27, 2010 3:59:43 GMT Libby said:

I don't know if it's the acoustics or because she's had a cold, but her voice sounded really different to me. It must be the acoustics, because she sounded absolutely amazing on Songs of Praise. Not that she didn't sound amazing here, it just seemed to capture a different tone of her voice.

Thanks again for the videos, Juliette!

You are very welcome! It is a pleasure to share it with you all!

As for the sound of her voice, indeed my camera doesn't give an exact rendition of the sound of her voice that night. First of all, it's only a 'little' camera Secondly, my camera tends to amplify high sounds.

Yet, two things I'd like to add:
When Hayley started to sing, her voice seemed to sound a bit different from usually, however I had never seen Hayley live then, my only comparison was videos.
Second thing: I have to admit that the sound wasn't perfectly set, as the volume of Hayley's microphone was set really high and sometimes was about to get distortion. I was even fearing that the videos' sound wouldn't be good because of that.

So I guess we have to combine all these elements to explain why Hayley's voice sounds a bit different from usually in the videos.

Juliette