PlayClassics Truthful Recording Technology v1.1

[odelay]

Not one to look a gift horse in the mouth, I'd like to download the new version of Iberia. Thanks Mario [emoji846]

[odelay]

I for one, have greatly appreciated the opportunity to hear Mario's recordings. If it weren't for his generous offer, I'm not sure I would have.

 

No doubt you will get better feedback than I can offer.

calibration v.1.1:

- boosted volume by +5-6dB

- room acoustics/reverb is less pronounced

- this seems to help - giving more clarity to faster passages

- treble is more rounded, gentler on the ear.

 

But I may be way off base, as I tended to use rough analogue volume changes between v1 and v1.1.

 

I tend to favour lower volume recordings for the extra control they allow on my limited stepped attenuator. So vote for keeping recording volume low for future recordings [emoji846]

[odelay]

Thanks for clarifying that Mario [emoji846]

 

Ordinarily, I appreciate hearing the room. I guess it's case of too much of a good thing?

[odelay]

We are giving out full albums in 24bit 96kHz format. That means you would be downloading files up to 1.5GB

http://www.cmpcp.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/PSN2013_Blier-Carruthers.pdf

I hope that explains everything. I would be happy to send you a code to download any album. Would you like to try?

 

Interesting - the tension between perfection and free experimentation in particular. Finding production methods that reduce that pressure can only be a good thing. I commend your efforts to move in that direction.

 

Having been following the Kind of Blue thread of late, I compared a few 'So What' versions I have while reading. Now I wonder what this would sound like if Mario produced it!

[odelay]

I first compared the Iberia piano track.

I PREFER THE OLD TRACK..

 

Interesting. I am curious to listen again for the imaging. I didn't notice any differences in that... Besides the gain, I could really only discern a little more clarity - but only during the faster passages.

 

Mario seemed to confirm that he removed some room artefacts (and boosted the gain by 6bdB as you note). That seemed to explain what I was hearing.

 

Mario - was there anything you did that may have altered the stereo imaging?

[odelay]

Thanks for the image Semente.

 

Nice to get insights into the process, Mario [emoji846]

[odelay]

I do not quite understand:

-they re-recorded the works (with the "new" room)? or

-or the original recordings are improved (what process)?

 

See Maria's last few comments.

 

Same recording. As Ricardo showed in his image, some room resonances in the lower frequencies were removed.

[odelay]

Looking again at Ricardo's Audacity image, Mario's filter reduced the bass energy ever so slightly (between 35-140Hz - but primarily between 80-100Hz. My small room seems to resonate through 40-60Hz range). Looks pretty small. I'll leave it Mario to explain how that might have contributed to the change in soundstage you heard.

[odelay]

Well, bugger me!

I didn't hear that AT ALL!

... until listening now with iZotope upsampling switched off in A+. Now it is hard to miss. I'll have to reassess my iZotope settings now. Hmm...

 

Good luck Mario. I'm keen to hear calibration 1.2... when you figure that one out [emoji846]

[odelay]

Thanks for the updated files, Mario :-)

 

To my ears, they sound significantly better with the reduction of room resonance. I'm still hearing a little more (resonance) than I want. However, my cut-off frequency may be a little off...

[odelay]

Interesting take Francis.

 

Could you elaborate a little on what you mean by 'livelier'?

 

Are you saying you like that you prefer hearing all the room resonance?

 

Or is it something else? (Which may or may not be a side-effect)

[odelay]

Re: Francis

I certainly wasn't questioning your rig :-)

 

I mentioned tweaking my cut-off frequency earlier. I meant to say 'per-ringing'. Oops. My bad.

 

With Orr-ringing very low, I could not hear all the distortion in v1.1. Equally, room resonance is greatly reduced. Tuning my iZotope settings using v1.1b, I'm liking what I'm hearing. Good ambience/decay/room resonance, without it muddying up the transients too much on the faster/busier passages.

 

Btw - big fan of 2L. I've been using their Nordic Sound! demo album as a reference or years. My rig had changed, but that's been one constant. My rig and or ears aren't up to your level Francis - never remember hearing reverb so clearly up the walls. Sounds awesome! :-)

[odelay]

Thanks for clarifying that (again!) Mario :-)

 

While understood it when you first described it, I realise I was conflating the room mode distortion with the natural reverb from the acoustic space!!!

[odelay]

Always appreciate getting a fresh perspective.

But at the end of the day, it is you who sits in that listening chair :-)

[odelay]

Being the small minded sod that I am, I'm incapable of listening for more than one thing at once. The lack of bass in 1.1a. Was totally lost on me.

 

I think I would agree with Francis - the the bass on 1.1b is too much (to my ear - with my current settings/set-up). Frequency balance on 1.0 does seem preferable - but maybe that because it's the 'original' (so we take it be 'correct'?).

 

I found it easier to just compare 1.0 with 1.1b... 'Cause I'm small minded that way...

 

Mario - glad you're using samples to test. It may well be worth playing around a little more?

 

I'm most curious to know more about what you're doing ... Although that may spoil the fun of trying to work it out for ourselves [emoji4]

[odelay]

I admire your approach Mario. I'm keen to hear how the calibrations evolve. Hope you can find a way to deal with the 95hZ room node without messing with the frequency response of v1.0 (which seems pretty good to my ear).

 

I had wondered why the mikes were set up like that. Could you tell us a little more about why you have used the oblique angle you have?

 

Apologies if you have already. I wasn't able to find much detail on the recording set up on your website. It may be worth including more there - unless that gives away too much ;-)

[odelay]

Thanks Mario - I'll be curious to hear if 85hZ is the magic number [emoji846]

[odelay]

Oh Mario, you are cruel!!

 

I had 1.0 & 1.1c on repeat for what seemed like an eternity... and couldn't pick 'em. Indeed I seemed to pick the wrong one!

 

Only after that torture test, did I see your post on the 46sec mark.. After I picking my ego off the floor, I ran a few short comparisons. I could hear some room resonance - but only just. Seems slight to my ears - with my modest rig.

 

That section was better on 1.1c - more clarity (to my ears). The rest of the demo seems pretty unaffected. Only doing micro comparisons did I get the impression that the bass was lower on 1.1c (such as at 36-46 and maybe at 58sec?). But only a wee bit. Nothing to feel like I was missing anything. Indeed, I prefer 1.1c.

 

Doing such micro-processing on all your recordings sounds like a whole world of pain. But I guess there must be more humane/automated ways to get the job done?

[odelay]

Thanks for doing the spectrum analysis. Interesting.

[odelay]

Good to confirm all that Mario.

 

I get what you're saying about these nodes spoiling the realism, but can also enjoy a little imperfection in my music. I'm not a musician, so much is lost on me.

 

But great to learn about some of the intricacies of the production process. Appreciate you sharing them, Mario [emoji846]

[odelay]

I wish you well on that venture Mario.

I'm keen to hear what you come up with [emoji846]