Jump to content
IGNORED

PlayClassics master file giveaway for CA members


Recommended Posts

Thanks for this very nice offer.

 

I would like to try Cabrera plays Debussy.

And always keep in mind: Cognitive biases, like seeing optical illusions are a sign of a normally functioning brain. We all have them, it’s nothing to be ashamed about, but it is something that affects our objective evaluation of reality. 

Link to comment
  • 2 weeks later...
Thanks for this very nice offer.

 

I would like to try Cabrera plays Debussy.

 

I have had a chance to listen undisturbed to this twice now. This is an excellent, honest, un-hyped piano recording. The performance and recording quality are such that when I begin listening I quite naturally listen all the way to the end. It is un-fatiguing, engaging and enjoyable. An excellent example of unprocessed recording done well with a good musician and someone who knows how to place their microphone. A piano recording you can play at realistic sound levels.

 

Well done.

And always keep in mind: Cognitive biases, like seeing optical illusions are a sign of a normally functioning brain. We all have them, it’s nothing to be ashamed about, but it is something that affects our objective evaluation of reality. 

Link to comment
  • 2 weeks later...

I for one am very happy to see the discussion here about these recordings. Mr. Martinez has given out a valuable reference. Two mics, the same place in the same hall for these different performances. A documentary approach. An approach after my own heart felt opinions regarding proper recording technique.

 

So much time has been spent talking about the Absolute sound of real music in real space as a reference. The problem is without recordings like PlayClassics has made available you have no chance of accurate appraisals of your playback accuracy. Someone pointed out there is little energy above 15 khz. Yet from an audience perspective without close miking on these instruments that is usually the reality. I have read of people speaking of natural sounding unforced detail in good playback. Here you have the real thing, no need for uptitled response or close miking, plenty of detail and naturally unforced. I would not be surprised if a good many systems have been dulled to compensate for the majority of recordings done with multiple microphones and these excellent recordings may sound a touch dull. Nevertheless these recordings provide you a way to evaluate the balance, and imaging of your playback hardware with some genuine insight because of the way the recordings were done. Close the loop somewhat by hearing some acoustic guitar and a large piano then you will be able to fairly judge how well everything hangs together in your playback system.

And always keep in mind: Cognitive biases, like seeing optical illusions are a sign of a normally functioning brain. We all have them, it’s nothing to be ashamed about, but it is something that affects our objective evaluation of reality. 

Link to comment
  • 3 weeks later...

I would like to try the drum samples Mario.

 

Thanks in advance.

And always keep in mind: Cognitive biases, like seeing optical illusions are a sign of a normally functioning brain. We all have them, it’s nothing to be ashamed about, but it is something that affects our objective evaluation of reality. 

Link to comment
First I should make clear what I am saying below is not to criticise but to see whether Mario spots the same issues and if he does, he will find a way to improve the recording of drum solos next time.

snip...

 

For playing other tracks provided by Mario, for example, the Iberia piano solo and the tenor accompanied by piano, the gain for both channels in my system is set to -20/-20. For this drum track I need to crank it up to -7/-7.

The good points:

*the kick drum sound is solid and punchy, rivalling the best that I have, for example, the Sheffield drum record.

*the image of the whole drum set is well contained within the soundstage between the two speakers; I have heard demos portraying the drummer with a span of a giant, 15 to 16 feet across

*sound is clean, crisp and transparent

BUT

apart from the high hat (a minute into the track) being on the left (should be on the right if the drummer is facing the audience) and this few listener will care anyway,

*the high frequencies generated by the cymbals are subdued relative to the low ones made by the kick drum; the splash, shimmer and crash of the cymbals are dull in relation to real live; the hits on the dome/bell of the cymbal are better but still not realistic enough

*the snare and particularly the cymbals sound recessed in relation to the kick drum and are disproportionate in energy to the latter; in other words, too bottom heavy or top too light;

*the kick drum sound does not project or cross beyond the plane of the speakers towards the listener; in live it does

*the inverted absolute phase track improves the receding highs of cymbals as well as their relationship to the bottom generated by the kick drum but still inadequate. The inversion also pushes the kick drum sound more towards the listener, that is, more akin to live.

 

I up sampled the track to 24/192 and adjusted the DAC to the same rate. High/low relationship improves but still short of mimicking real.

 

Just a thought and I don’t know whether if the microphones are raised further up and pointed down to the cymbals, the balance with the bottom end would be much improved or not.

 

I mention these instead of keeping silent because I am confident Mario would be able to record a drum solo closer to live next time.

 

I think your description of the sound is spot on. I do think the drummer's body in between is some of what you hear. I also wonder if the lack of sheen and what I perceive as a truncated decay on the cymbals isn't due to the mikes. I don't recall if Mario told us what mikes he is using (or I missed it if he did). Many mikes will have a rolled off response off axis. For many types of music that is okay. Using ORTF the cymbals might have been off axis enough the full treble response is reduced. If I had a suggestion it would be to either move the mikes closer or move the drums out further toward the mikes.

 

This is nit picking as overall this is still a fine recording.

 

As for the volume setting difference, well drums have a very large difference between peak and average levels. These tracks have peaks around -1 db so there isn't much more you could do on the recording level without clipping. You could compress them of course. That is not in the spirit of the purist approach Mario is taking.

 

While this isn't in the purist spirit either I applied a simple 6 db per octave boost starting at 5 khz, and much of the missing sheen and perhaps half the decay of the cymbals was there. So that also makes me think that maybe the mikes are down off axis. It sounds almost as if someone tweaked up the recording level just a bit right near the 1 minute mark. Such actions are how the slippery slope away from a purist approach happens of course.

And always keep in mind: Cognitive biases, like seeing optical illusions are a sign of a normally functioning brain. We all have them, it’s nothing to be ashamed about, but it is something that affects our objective evaluation of reality. 

Link to comment

Please Mario, don't take my comments for criticism or as suggesting they needed fixing.

 

I did think the cymbals were a bit less sparkly than a live drum set from say 15 feet away. But I was not there in the hall and you obviously were.

 

My comments about a little compression and EQ were more an example of how people get on the slippery slope of trying to make it "more pleasing" or "more natural" than reality with good intentions.

 

It is interesting, that I could apply the EQ I talked about and do a 3:1 compression and get very much that punchy sparkly Rock drum sound. It still was cleaner and more pleasing than heavily manipulated recordings, and added some of the space of the hall back in. People who want that artificial effect could get it this easily. Instead conventional wisdom is don't try and record a Rock drum set with less than 8 mics close in.

 

I understand all of this was an experiment on your part, and meant no criticism of what you are doing. I am privileged that you made these available to us. Thank you for doing so.

And always keep in mind: Cognitive biases, like seeing optical illusions are a sign of a normally functioning brain. We all have them, it’s nothing to be ashamed about, but it is something that affects our objective evaluation of reality. 

Link to comment
Those look suspiciously similar to Schoeps microphones as "Straus pairs": an omni and a cardiod microphone taped together to allow flexible adjustment of the polar pattern during postpro. The setup origined from the days when "wide cardiod" mics were not available and was named after the German Tonmeister Volker Straus.

 

from that page:

 

Then we set up the mics.

 

The mics were two stereo pairs of Schoeps 48V phantom powered omni microphones. The two left channel mics and the two right channel mics were set up as close to the physically same location as possible. It was our aim to get acoustically identical signals into each stereo pair. We placed a Jecklin Disk between the two mics for better stereo separation.

The secret to good sound.

 

And always keep in mind: Cognitive biases, like seeing optical illusions are a sign of a normally functioning brain. We all have them, it’s nothing to be ashamed about, but it is something that affects our objective evaluation of reality. 

Link to comment
Hi Dennis,

 

It would be nice to read your opinion and francisleung's on these recordings.

I have downloaded Duet No.5 and found that the closer proximity of the microphones is noticeable, although we are listening to the acoustics of a different room and now have two drum sets instead of a single one which in turn could lead to false conclusions.

You mentioned that Mario's mic's were picking up the drum sound off axis and that this would produce a certain amount of treble roll-off.

The LessLoss mics are pointing straight at the drums and the top octaves are indeed more noticeable...I wonder how much of that is due to the axis angle or if it's also got something to do with the distance.

I also find that there's a slightly annoying roughness in the high(?) treble, it would be interesting to know if anyone else can hear it as well.

 

R

 

Well, I don't want to discuss other files from other sources very much in Mario's thread.

 

These are much closer, and I believe the room is more reflective while also not supporting really low frequencies as well. Another big difference is the use of omni mikes. Theoretically omnidirectional with the same response in all directions. The pointing of the mike will make very, very little difference. Plus omni's simply have a different more sparkly sound to them than the cardioids that Mario would have been using in an ORTF arrangement. I didn't hear any roughness even at elevated volumes.

 

I do think this recording is probably too close to sound like what drums sound like from even a front row audience perspective. Perhaps the roughness is what I hear as too much of the instrument noise. Some slapping or ringing of the rims of the drums etc. Sounds you wouldn't hear from 20 feet away.

And always keep in mind: Cognitive biases, like seeing optical illusions are a sign of a normally functioning brain. We all have them, it’s nothing to be ashamed about, but it is something that affects our objective evaluation of reality. 

Link to comment
  • 3 weeks later...

Hello Mario,

 

Would love to try the Rock recording you are now giving out.

 

Thanks (again)!

And always keep in mind: Cognitive biases, like seeing optical illusions are a sign of a normally functioning brain. We all have them, it’s nothing to be ashamed about, but it is something that affects our objective evaluation of reality. 

Link to comment
Listened to the rock recording. First, very skilled players. Second, obviously a very accurate presentation. Third, to my taste at least, for future such recordings the bass must be louder with respect to the other instruments. In the couple of sections where the guitar and drums held back, the bass playing was beautiful, but when the guitar and drums were full out the bass got somewhat lost in the background. I don't know if this would require the guitar and bass to play at unrealistically low levels in order for the bass not to overload the room. And finally, I understand why there were no vocals - it's hard to imagine even an opera singer being heard very well against that background.

 

I have listened to it and largely agree with your comments Jud. I do think perhaps more separation between the musicians would have helped. Also perhaps having the bass on the side opposite the drums and the guitar in the middle. That might have helped the bass to stand out more without needing any adjustment in loudness.

And always keep in mind: Cognitive biases, like seeing optical illusions are a sign of a normally functioning brain. We all have them, it’s nothing to be ashamed about, but it is something that affects our objective evaluation of reality. 

Link to comment
  • 3 weeks later...
I have been working on these experimental samples (Drums and Rock) and I have realized that there is something I overlooked.

 

The only thing that is different about these samples is the fact that the instruments themselves are much louder than the ones we usually record. The fact that they are so loud is what made us lower the gain on our setup by 24dB in the first place. All other things being equal that should have been enough to make this sample sound as good as everything else. But that did not happen, so what happened then?

 

Our hall is calibrated to work with classical music instruments playing at chamber music volume levels. We measured its response to calibrate it so that we could control the sound that the hall would deliver onto the microphone setup. But those measurements were always done at the volume levels used in chamber music.

 

These rock instruments are 24dB louder. At this volume levels, the hall is not behaving the same way. We had never measured the response of the hall for these volume levels, but now that we are doing this experiment we did measure it and we found out that the response is different enough to throw things off.

 

We have developed a filter that compensates for this deviation. I have applied it to both the drums and the rock samples and it seems to work just fine. I am very interested that you do hear these samples with the filter, if it works we should be able to make truthful rock recordings too :)

 

I would be interested in hearing the filtered sample as well Mario.

 

By filtering are you simply doing some gentle EQ?

 

I have not yet posted my opinion of the second rock recording, but I agree with semente that some compression makes this have the solid punchy sound you expect of rock recordings. It has that sound and still portrays the benefits of your method of recording.

 

Of course all of this is the slippery slope of modern recording. A little EQ here, a touch of compression there. Pretty soon you end up needing the standard minimum of 8 mics for just the drums. :)

And always keep in mind: Cognitive biases, like seeing optical illusions are a sign of a normally functioning brain. We all have them, it’s nothing to be ashamed about, but it is something that affects our objective evaluation of reality. 

Link to comment
I don't see it so much as a slippery slope but more like an inevitability.

 

Drums are loud, very loud, and it's had to match vocals or acoustics instruments like a guitar or a piano with the high SPL produced by drums.

The Cowboy Junkies were forced to amplify the vocalist in the famous "Trinity Sessions" that were recorded live with a single Calrec mic because of this imbalance.

And whilst one can control the output level of electric instruments like guitars and basses one, we have been listening to rock band music for many years and are used to "that" certain sound with typical tonal and level balance.

 

I find Mario's efforts commendable but have serious doubts that on can get good results from recording amplified music in a documental fashion an a single pair of mics, even if we were to adjust the acoustics of the hall in order to EQs the sound to something more akin to what we are used to listening in a rock recording.

 

R

 

Well if you start with a philosophical approach of one mic per channel or only using pairs for stereo, and a wish to provide the cleanest, most direct, most un-processed sound possible, once you start doing other things it does become a philosophical slippery slope. Since I started recording exactly with that idea I do understand how it plays out at least a little bit.

 

Mentioning the Trinity Sessions, I attributed the ability to get all that and the vocalist to the abilities of the Calrec mike. It was quite a shocker to hear instead Margo Timmins was singing through a PA!!

 

What I think can be done even with rock is to get something that is much like the sound live. That people have been conditioned to think of Rock sound as what comes out of the studio doesn't change that. It simply points to the desire sometimes for recordings to be more real than real. So my opinion that a little tasteful compression (and maybe gentle contouring via EQ) might get the sound close enough more people would accept and enjoy the result while still showing benefits of a minimalist approach. Whether Mario wishes to go that route is his choice of course. No definitive right or wrong in it.

And always keep in mind: Cognitive biases, like seeing optical illusions are a sign of a normally functioning brain. We all have them, it’s nothing to be ashamed about, but it is something that affects our objective evaluation of reality. 

Link to comment
I don't see it so much as a slippery slope but more like an inevitability.

 

Drums are loud, very loud, and it's had to match vocals or acoustics instruments like a guitar or a piano with the high SPL produced by drums.

The Cowboy Junkies were forced to amplify the vocalist in the famous "Trinity Sessions" that were recorded live with a single Calrec mic because of this imbalance.

And whilst one can control the output level of electric instruments like guitars and basses one, we have been listening to rock band music for many years and are used to "that" certain sound with typical tonal and level balance.

 

I find Mario's efforts commendable but have serious doubts that on can get good results from recording amplified music in a documental fashion an a single pair of mics, even if we were to adjust the acoustics of the hall in order to EQs the sound to something more akin to what we are used to listening in a rock recording.

 

R

 

Well if you start with a philosophical approach of one mic per channel or only using pairs for stereo, and a wish to provide the cleanest, most direct, most un-processed sound possible, once you start doing other things it does become a philosophical slippery slope. Since I started recording exactly with that idea I do understand how it plays out at least a little bit.

 

Mentioning the Trinity Sessions, I attributed the ability to get all that and the vocalist to the abilities of the Calrec mike. It was quite a shocker to hear instead Margo Timmins was singing through a PA!!

 

What I think can be done even with rock is to get something that is much like the sound live. That people have been conditioned to think of Rock sound as what comes out of the studio doesn't change that. It simply points to the desire sometimes for recordings to be more real than real. So my opinion that a little tasteful compression (and maybe gentle contouring via EQ) might get the sound close enough more people would accept and enjoy the result while still showing benefits of a minimalist approach. Whether Mario wishes to go that route is his choice of course. No definitive right or wrong in it.

 

And of course recording percussion with anything else is always trouble.

And always keep in mind: Cognitive biases, like seeing optical illusions are a sign of a normally functioning brain. We all have them, it’s nothing to be ashamed about, but it is something that affects our objective evaluation of reality. 

Link to comment

Have had a chance to listen to them now. Marginal improvement on the drums. A bit more improvement on the rock track. Not a big game changer. Sounds like you scooped out the level in the lower mids maybe? Maybe it let more of the definition of the harmonics come through cleaner?

And always keep in mind: Cognitive biases, like seeing optical illusions are a sign of a normally functioning brain. We all have them, it’s nothing to be ashamed about, but it is something that affects our objective evaluation of reality. 

Link to comment

I wonder if people listening to this music are playing at high enough volume. Remember you need to crank it up by 24 dB. If your system can do it cleanly this recording rightly sizzles with lifelike energy. Turn it up only half this much and it is lackluster.

 

Which is an example of why such music needs compression in most cases. You couldn't play this loud enough in a car. With reasonable compression you could and get a sonic impression generally like the real thing. Or even in your quiet listening room it gives close to the right idea at lower volume.

And always keep in mind: Cognitive biases, like seeing optical illusions are a sign of a normally functioning brain. We all have them, it’s nothing to be ashamed about, but it is something that affects our objective evaluation of reality. 

Link to comment

I'll try the new version too. Thanks.

And always keep in mind: Cognitive biases, like seeing optical illusions are a sign of a normally functioning brain. We all have them, it’s nothing to be ashamed about, but it is something that affects our objective evaluation of reality. 

Link to comment
"normalised" drum track 3

For my personal taste, the cymbals and drums are now balanced, with the gain of the former being raised relatively much higher now. At the present level, more details are being heard and I would say this track is a real test for an audio system's high, mid and low frequency capability. The drum set sounds so real to me!! I think this track is especially useful for assessing the transient response of an audio system--the rise and decay. Also imaging of the drum set is of proper size. I think many of the high end systems I have come across won't be able to pass both of these counts.

BTW, the overall gain is higher; for the "after measurement" version, I set the level to -7 and for this new one, I need to reduce it to -9.

This track displaced the Sheffield Lab drum record track which is now to be reserved for comparing with its direct to disc uncle only.

Listening to the different versions, I have learned from Mario how a recording could sound so differently by applying different adjustments.

If Mario gives the flamenco track the same "normalisation", I think it may become another gem.

 

I agree with your description of the sound, but you bring up what is to me an interesting conundrum. While it sounds now like it is a great test of an audio system's transient response, the rise and the decay it is less than it was before. If you were to match peaks upon playback, the transients before this latest processing would be steeper, and the decay would drop more quickly than it does in the current version. I know it sounds more energetic and difficult for a system, but it is in fact less so. The limiting etc make it have an average loudness which is higher and sound punchier. What it really means is the difference between peak and lower levels is pushed closer together. Transients are less steep.

And always keep in mind: Cognitive biases, like seeing optical illusions are a sign of a normally functioning brain. We all have them, it’s nothing to be ashamed about, but it is something that affects our objective evaluation of reality. 

Link to comment
Hi esldude,

I take your point from a technical assessment that the transients of the present “normalised” version are less sharp than the previous “after measurement” version.

Let me explain from an observational and practical point of view.

In the previous version, the cymbals and high-hat sound was at a relatively low level even when the kick drum was already “comfortably” loud. So unless the gain in an audio system is turned to a deafening loud level, the cymbals and high-hat wouldn’t sound live or loud enough for easy perception of their details. But then for sure I would not try to raise the gain to such a revealing level when evaluating a friend’s system or an importer’s showroom system because that may entail damage to a driver in the speakers or even an amplifier. In this regard the previous version may only be useful for testing the response of a system in relation to the snare, toms and the kick drum, but not the transient response of the cymbals and high hat.

Now in this “normalised” version the cymbals and high hat sound has been raised to a high enough level, I am able to hear and discern more details from them. As much as the transients may well be less sharp than in the previous version, they are there aplenty and the track may now be used safely to evaluate the whole spectrum, including the high frequency performance of an audio system.

 

I think I get what you have in mind. And just listening it sounds quite apparent. But that is the gotcha with such evaluation. Yes, you hear more, but it is because of the foibles of hearing that really it is less. The transient response of the high hat and cymbals has in fact been reduced. It was so quick before your hearing almost misses it. Now that it has been 'slowed' in its rate of change your hearing catches more of it and hears more of what went on. Sounds like a much better way to evaluate, but that is illusory. A system could pass this version and fail on the original.

 

Which is all okay. It is important not to make decisions about 'transient' response this way because it will lead you astray in the ultimate transient ability of your system.

And always keep in mind: Cognitive biases, like seeing optical illusions are a sign of a normally functioning brain. We all have them, it’s nothing to be ashamed about, but it is something that affects our objective evaluation of reality. 

Link to comment
  • 2 years later...

Okay downloaded the master and have them playing now. 

And always keep in mind: Cognitive biases, like seeing optical illusions are a sign of a normally functioning brain. We all have them, it’s nothing to be ashamed about, but it is something that affects our objective evaluation of reality. 

Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...