Jump to content
IGNORED

PlayClassics test files to compare file formats


Recommended Posts

Insightful, thanks.

Dear Semente, I'd like to respond directly to you.

The photos that you posted earlier on this thread were photos from my home studio. I have 2200 square feet of space (the lower two levels of my house) allocated for studio use. The picture you've shown are from one room (the Piano Room) which is about 400 sq feet and also holds my 1885 Steinway B. It's a 'cozy' room that people fly from around the world to record in. Also, it's affordable because I'm the landlord. After 2008, we became the oldest owner operated commercial studio within 100 miles of San Francisco. The recession caused many studios to fail or be bought out and in danger of becoming condos. The music industry can really suck at times.

 

The rest of the studio has 2 additional rooms (isolated) for placing musicians in separate areas for performance (a technique commonly used in most studios and one that I still use when hired as an independent engineer (not for Blue Coast Records). We also have a very large control room (about 500 sq ft and very high ceilings) and a separate tape/computer room which houses the 2" tape machine, 1/2" tape machine and all the computers drives. My studio is not the place to record a symphony, though, we have had up to 15 musicians performing at once.

 

There are plenty of recording techniques engineers employ. I prefer a mic technique that is not too close (as is done in most commercial studios and especially in the Nashville studios I've been too) and not too distant. There is a depth of bass frequency that I enjoy when the mic is placed closer. In the E.S.E. technique for Blue Coast Records, there are no overdubs or headphones used. That said, all the mics are picking up sound from everything.

 

I don't do this for the sound, but rather for the performance of the musicians. They play better dynamics, hear better and performances are enhanced when musicians hear real sound rather than through headphones. (I use headphone in other sessions, just not Blue Coast Records... correct headphone balance is essential for a great mix).

 

The free downloads are out takes and music. It's not a great place to judge our music. I'd prefer that you ask me for a song or two that in exchange you'll write a review on.... something from our catalog.. and post a link. I'll sign you up for our newsletter anyway and you can unsubscribe as you like.

 

I lean towards a great performance taking place over optimizing for sound. Musicians enjoy coming to my home studio because they feel comfortable. I live on a hill, it's relaxing and I don't have to worry about large trucks driving by and ruining the sound (which happened to me at Chick Corea's studio in Los Angeles many years ago -- I was hired to record a solo piano record and he had the best pianos, sadly not the quietest spot).

 

I would agree with you that the room, the path from mic to recording format (which includes cables -- ours we build ourselves), preamps, etc.. all make a difference. It also makes a difference having more people in a room, weather and what food is at the session. I optimize for musical performance, though my recording chain can be as much as $30,000 per channel (mic, cable, preamp). Whether I mix to DSD or Tape, I prefer to mix through an analog console and do not use plug ins. I'm sometimes hired to mix from PCM and choose to run through the same analog console to get a bigger sound.

 

Something to note... not all my recordings are from my home studio. As a hired gun engineer, I've recorded in Grace Cathedral, Capitol Studios, a cabin at 9000 feet in the Rockies, the Monterey Jazz Festival (and several others), several studios in NYC and an estate near London in a library room (which was up for a Grammy long ago). One of my most recent successes was recording at the Newport Beach Audio Show in the hotel room with guests present and a cell phone going off. These have been some of the most popular of our recordings. Quiles & Cloud - Special Event 39 Newport | Blue Coast Records

 

The first Blue Coast Records album cost over $150,000 to have the top studio on the west coast "room". A place called The Site (which sadly no longer exists). I mixed it there and at Skywalker so that no one could say it wasn't a great room. I believe several of the songs available for free download are from that session. At the time the idea wasn't to start a label, but to create a new stereo and surround sound recording technique. Those sessions are a series of experiments placing the musicians in the large room and also in the echo chamber (to mimic a cave for the Flamenco guitar recordings).

Blue Coast Records | Exceptional Acoustic Recordings

 

After that, and to make financial sense, we chose to record most of the sessions at my studio. This allows for musicians come through town to jump in the studio quickly and affordably.

 

My recording chains are as clean as they come. The venues I choose to record in are where the musicians play their best. I love remote recording and capturing sound live. If I could travel the world and record in caves, homes, boats, where ever, I would do it. :)

 

If you have any additional questions, please feel free to ask. Email is best.

 

Happy Holidays,

Cookie Marenco

Blue Coast Records

 

ac7a8l.jpg

 

 

5ls6k4.jpg

 

 

Hi Jud,

 

Wouldn't you agree that if or because different microphone techniques produce different results we can more or less anticipate the result prior to listening?

Couldn't the same be said of the acoustics of a recording venue? We all know that a church will produce a different and recognizable sonic signature from a listening hall, a basement or a large studio like the one in Abbey Road.

Or that anyone who's familiar with the performance potential of different loudspeaker topologies can anticipate the qualities and limitations of a small two-way stand mount from a photo or even the specs sheet, even if we can't describe how it sounds unless one listens to it?

 

I used the word "crippling" between quotation marks for a reason, explained earlier in the same post: from the mic onwards the signal can only deteriorate in different levels of magnitude..."crippling" refers to this deterioration.

At this point I can only comment on some of the technical decisions.

Hopefully I will receive the email that will allow me to download the samples and then I will "report" on the result of my listening as well as my "tasting" impressions. :)

 

I have also mentioned in a previous post that such recording setup might sound "nice" for rock/pop standards and at present I am keeping my mind open.

After all, BCR recordings are of "audiophile grade" quality.

 

R

 

«

an accurate picture

Sono pessimista con l'intelligenza,

 

ma ottimista per la volontà.

severe loudspeaker alignment »

 

 

 

Link to comment
I would like to offer some test files so you can compare the sound of the different file formats and report your conclusions. See if we can find out how much the file format really affects the final experience.

 

For the purpose of this thread, I have made one track containing about 16 minutes of music. Piano solo, soprano and piano, tenor and piano and flamenco voice and guitar.

 

All this music has been recorded exactly the same way. Our physical setup (hall-stage-mics) is a fixed setup, and our recording chain is also a fixed setup from microphones to master. So it would be like listening to one long song with different instruments in it.

 

We do not do any mixing or mastering. Our masters are simply the raw sound of the take. Left mic is left speaker and right mic is right speaker. There is no dynamic range compression. What you are hearing is the full dynamic range of the performance. And we record everything with the same gain, so once you find a realistic sound level on your equipment you should be able to listen through all the excerpts without the need to adjust the volume. This way you will be getting a sense of the real levels of the performance.

 

I have uploaded 1 zip file to the server containing this one track in 7 different formats:

flac 24bit 96kHz

flac 24bit 48kHz

flac 24bit 44kHz

flac 16bit 96kHz

flac 16bit 48kHz

flac 16bit 44kHz

lame mp3 320kbps 48kHz

 

These test files have been directly processed from the 24bit 96kHz master on the protools session. The volume is exactly the same for all of them. If you want to download just say so and I will send you a PM with the code and the link to the files.

 

P.S. I would rather not give an opinion on this. I would not want to influence anybody's perception in any way. I am just happy to be able to provide the test material and I even more happy to find out what you all think.

May I please receive the files for testing?

Link to comment
  • 2 weeks later...
I would like to offer some test files so you can compare the sound of the different file formats and report your conclusions. See if we can find out how much the file format really affects the final experience.

 

For the purpose of this thread, I have made one track containing about 16 minutes of music. Piano solo, soprano and piano, tenor and piano and flamenco voice and guitar.

 

All this music has been recorded exactly the same way. Our physical setup (hall-stage-mics) is a fixed setup, and our recording chain is also a fixed setup from microphones to master. So it would be like listening to one long song with different instruments in it.

 

We do not do any mixing or mastering. Our masters are simply the raw sound of the take. Left mic is left speaker and right mic is right speaker. There is no dynamic range compression. What you are hearing is the full dynamic range of the performance. And we record everything with the same gain, so once you find a realistic sound level on your equipment you should be able to listen through all the excerpts without the need to adjust the volume. This way you will be getting a sense of the real levels of the performance.

 

I have uploaded 1 zip file to the server containing this one track in 7 different formats:

flac 24bit 96kHz

flac 24bit 48kHz

flac 24bit 44kHz

flac 16bit 96kHz

flac 16bit 48kHz

flac 16bit 44kHz

lame mp3 320kbps 48kHz

 

These test files have been directly processed from the 24bit 96kHz master on the protools session. The volume is exactly the same for all of them. If you want to download just say so and I will send you a PM with the code and the link to the files.

 

P.S. I would rather not give an opinion on this. I would not want to influence anybody's perception in any way. I am just happy to be able to provide the test material and I even more happy to find out what you all think.

Thanks could you please send me the link to the files?

Link to comment
I would like to offer some test files so you can compare the sound of the different file formats and report your conclusions. See if we can find out how much the file format really affects the final experience.

 

For the purpose of this thread, I have made one track containing about 16 minutes of music. Piano solo, soprano and piano, tenor and piano and flamenco voice and guitar.

 

All this music has been recorded exactly the same way. Our physical setup (hall-stage-mics) is a fixed setup, and our recording chain is also a fixed setup from microphones to master. So it would be like listening to one long song with different instruments in it.

 

We do not do any mixing or mastering. Our masters are simply the raw sound of the take. Left mic is left speaker and right mic is right speaker. There is no dynamic range compression. What you are hearing is the full dynamic range of the performance. And we record everything with the same gain, so once you find a realistic sound level on your equipment you should be able to listen through all the excerpts without the need to adjust the volume. This way you will be getting a sense of the real levels of the performance.

 

I have uploaded 1 zip file to the server containing this one track in 7 different formats:

flac 24bit 96kHz

flac 24bit 48kHz

flac 24bit 44kHz

flac 16bit 96kHz

flac 16bit 48kHz

flac 16bit 44kHz

lame mp3 320kbps 48kHz

 

These test files have been directly processed from the 24bit 96kHz master on the protools session. The volume is exactly the same for all of them. If you want to download just say so and I will send you a PM with the code and the link to the files.

 

P.S. I would rather not give an opinion on this. I would not want to influence anybody's perception in any way. I am just happy to be able to provide the test material and I even more happy to find out what you all think.

Yes please send me the files

Link to comment
  • 2 months later...
I would like to offer some test files so you can compare the sound of the different file formats and report your conclusions. See if we can find out how much the file format really affects the final experience.

 

For the purpose of this thread, I have made one track containing about 16 minutes of music. Piano solo, soprano and piano, tenor and piano and flamenco voice and guitar.

 

All this music has been recorded exactly the same way. Our physical setup (hall-stage-mics) is a fixed setup, and our recording chain is also a fixed setup from microphones to master. So it would be like listening to one long song with different instruments in it.

 

We do not do any mixing or mastering. Our masters are simply the raw sound of the take. Left mic is left speaker and right mic is right speaker. There is no dynamic range compression. What you are hearing is the full dynamic range of the performance. And we record everything with the same gain, so once you find a realistic sound level on your equipment you should be able to listen through all the excerpts without the need to adjust the volume. This way you will be getting a sense of the real levels of the performance.

 

I have uploaded 1 zip file to the server containing this one track in 7 different formats:

flac 24bit 96kHz

flac 24bit 48kHz

flac 24bit 44kHz

flac 16bit 96kHz

flac 16bit 48kHz

flac 16bit 44kHz

lame mp3 320kbps 48kHz

 

These test files have been directly processed from the 24bit 96kHz master on the protools session. The volume is exactly the same for all of them. If you want to download just say so and I will send you a PM with the code and the link to the files.

 

P.S. I would rather not give an opinion on this. I would not want to influence anybody's perception in any way. I am just happy to be able to provide the test material and I even more happy to find out what you all think.

Thank you I would like to try the file.

Link to comment
  • 1 month later...

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...