Definitely got the jump on Naxos for that 9th. They've got one in the can from the Colorado Symphony; Leslie jones from Skywalker Studios recorded it using something like, 42 microphones...? They were all keen to finally give the 9th the "immersive" treatment, and free the listener from that Center-Row-AA position the classical world is convinced God Himself has decreed as the One True Proper Perspective for listening to symphonic recordings. I first read about it in Mix Magazine, and just shook my head at the apoplectic shock that registered in the comments section. "Blasphemy!" they cried. "You are painting a mustache upon the Mona Lisa!"
For those purists to whom it did not occur, yes, a mere two mics might be a way to adequately represent what the performance venue had to offer. Yes, adding ambience to your surrounds does place a listener in a more defined space.
So fracking what. A composer scores his ideas for an orchestra to interpret - there's your first unavoidable modification in the music right there, before the ink is even dry. And, who decreed that a concert hall in itself is the "only proper" space to perform a piece in the first place? You want your "authentic" impression of a piece? Then gee, it must have really put your tux-tails in a tizzy when the Stage Manager made the ensemble back-off the edge of the stage to put those gas-fired stage lamps up front, huh. And who says the audience is required to dress up...or, the ensemble, for that matter? And, has it ever occurred to any of these purists that, stereo IS a recreation of a special effect resulting in the creation of a "theoretical space", in the first place!
So, unless you were up in the composers piano room, taking dictation as he SANG the original idea for you before assigning it to real-world instruments...you're ALREADY enjoying special effects, listening modifications and the art and craft of the recording engineer anyway! [rant over]
While 42 mics my give you every possible position to highlight various sections and solos throughout the orchestra, I can see where Tacet ups the ante using movement to add character to various runs and melodies. Having not heard it yet, I only have the stereo video clip from their site to judge. My first impression feels a little too radical on the movement aspect of the possibilities, though: when I hear a melodic line whizzing from one speaker to another, I would want it to sound a bit more organic. For instance, starting a passage over there, and completing it way over there sounds a bit too obvious (and, *sigh* yes, "gimmicky") when the movement loses the sound processing or ambience at the tail-end, as if the panning were an afterthought, and not the three-dimensional impression they were going for. Oh yeah, I know little touches like this work in 3D cinema, as movement telegraphs the sense of depth when the two skewed, polarized images coming into one. But for an otherwise well-thought-out and choreographed effect, why wouldn't the ambience stay in the origin position, to decay naturally?
The segment I heard was a bit busier than I might like for my first exposure to this technique, and albeit in stereo over headphones; a 5.1 soundstage might indeed take that stark change of perspective and even it out (or, it could make the movements even more drastic, I fear).
I no longer have to sit in Row AA Center. I've got my own soundstage, sitting between 5 speakers. Or seven. (Or, just wait until Atmos takes this and runs with it-!) And heck, I can cram 'em all into one corner of the room, I paid for that freedom. The shape, the size, the proximity of the ensemble in question, is now in my hands - I say what this recording will sound like in my own personal space.
So, thanks to Tacet, for nudging my possibilities just a little bit further out there!
(And, for you purists? Relax, I have it on expert authority from physics profesionals...just because one or two recordings come onto the market in a recording form you did not approve? Turns out, that DOESN'T mean all your rickety old stereo and mono LP's are going to vanish into nothingness - not even the ones on your own shelves; as it turns out, science doesn't work that way.)
