PlayClassics Truthful Recording Technology v1.1

[Mario Martinez]

Four months ago we opened a thread called: http://www.computeraudiophile.com/f8-general-forum/playclassics-master-file-giveaway-computer-audiophile-members-26426/

 

We offered everyone to download an album to try the sound of the Truthful Recording Technology on their systems. I want to thank everyone for taking the time to listen. That really was a wonderful experience.

 

We have developed a new calibration update (version 1.1) that we would like to share with you. We use a fixed setup to record everything. We only use two mics with no mixing or mastering. Our technology is all about calibrating the hall and the recording chain to be transparent. The better the calibration, the more transparent the setup will be.

 

All our albums have been updated with this new calibration. We have uploaded the new masters to our web page. Everyone is welcome to download this new version of their albums. Whether you got a gift code or you directly purchased the album please say so and I will be happy to send you a gift code to download this new version.

 

We will also continue to send gift codes to those of you who have not had the chance to try this yet.

 

PlayClassics, the art of true music

Musicstry Studios, discover the Truthful Recording Technology

[Mario Martinez]

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]

 

Thanks odelay

 

Yes, If you want to compare them side by side there is exactly a 6dB difference between v1 and v1.1

 

The purpose of this, and all our previous calibrations, is to take care of room resonances. Our project is about trying to develop a fixed setup that is transparent.

 

This calibration takes care of some room resonances at very low frequencies. Once we cleared those resonances we ended up with some headroom so we raised the volume.

[Mario Martinez]

Point made. I agree I was being a bit reactionary. My concern is that living in a digital world I'm cautious about whom I allow past the gates. Anyone wanting personal information needs a better reason than my being able to hear a song.

 

It's a different universe, and while we may be scattered off into wildly divergent directions, there's one thing that will never change. If I don't know you, I can't trust you.

 

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

 

I do not need to have any information whatsoever to send you the codes to download the files. I would send them to you using your CA nickname.

 

Our web page is configured as an open access web page. you can listen to all our music online without having to register. You do not have to pay or watch adds to use our music. You can use this music for your personal enjoyment, for your business or for educational purposes.

 

This is not a commercial project. This is a research project. It started 7 years ago. The main goal of the project is to develop a recording setup that would allow the artist to take full control of every aspect of the recording. You can read this paper "The performer's place in the process and product of recording" by Amy Blier Carruthers (Royal College of Music, London)

 

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

 

After you read that you can read our solution to this problem:

 

About - PlayClassics, the art of true music

 

That should give you an understanding of why we are doing this.

 

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

[Mario Martinez]

I would! I like the approach, makes total sense, and now I think it's actually odd we hadn't thought of that before.

 

I think I should have started by explaining this four month ago...

 

That paper was published on the 2nd PSN Conference on 2013. We started working on our setup on 2009 long before the they published that paper.

 

Maybe I should open a new thread just to talk about this

[Mario Martinez]

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?

 

No. The only thing I have done is what Ricardo has pointed out on his illustration.

 

That blue area represents the artificial boost caused by this uncontrolled room resonance. That boost alters the tone on the very low end notes of the instrument. Correcting that boost corrects the tone. The only difference between v1 and v1.1 should be on the very low end notes of the piano.

 

Once we corrected that problem we had a lot headroom, so we raised the volume by 6dB. The main purpose of the correction is to fix the tone problem on the very low end notes, the volume thing is just a side effect.

[Mario Martinez]

Hello Mario!

Could I have the new code for Iberia?

I do not quite understand:

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

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

 

 

It is the same recording with a new calibration.

 

Ours is a research project. The main goal of the project is to develop a recording setup that would allow the artist to take full control of every aspect of the recording.

 

Why would we want to do this? Here is a paper by Amy Blier Carruthers (Royal College of Music, London) that explains the problems performers face when recording their work: "The performer's place in the process and product of recording"

http://www.cmpcp.ac.uk/wp-content/up...Carruthers.pdf

 

Our Technology solves these problems:

About - PlayClassics, the art of true music

 

Our solution is based on a fixed setup. Two microphones always placed on the same spot outside of the stage. Left mic is left speaker and right mic is right speaker. There is no mixing or mastering involved. No engineer or producer tweaks the sound for any "aesthetic reason".

 

The hall and the recording chain have been carefully calibrated to be fully transparent. This calibration (v1.1) allows us to obtain recordings with a pure sound faithful to the true sound of the instruments. This is what gives full control to the artist. The recorded sound is controlled by the artist on the stage.

 

We started working on this project on 2009. The first thing we did was work on the room. We finished the room on April 2, 2013. Then we started working on the calibration. We worked on developing measurement systems that would allow us to calibrate correctly. During that time we ran many different calibrations. With each calibration we were getting closer and closer to transparency. On October 1 2015 we published our work with the best calibration we had then.

 

This is an ongoing project. We keep developing ways to measure the room and improve the calibration. We knew we had a very small problem on the lower part of the spectrum, but we did not have a way to measure and correct it. Now we did come up with a way to measure it and we were able to solve the problem. Now that the problem is solved we would like everyone to have the updated version.

[Mario Martinez]

Sorry to say, but there are brief episodes of a quite low level static-like distortion in the recalibrated tracks of Iberia, which are definitely not in the original files. This noise is clearly audible in quieter moments of the music. Some of the more distinct examples are:

track 1: 3m 51s

track 2: 2m 02s

track 6: 3m 54s

 

The distortion events sometimes also make the piano sound rather like a tremelo effect is being applied. A distinct example is track 1 at 3m 58s. Again, this definitely does not afflict the original files, but is in the new 96 kHz files and the derived 48 kHz and 44.1 kHz files.

 

Below are screenshots (click them to enlarge) of spectrograms of the clean original (with +6 dB gain to approximate the level of the recalibrated version) and distorted recalibrated track 1, and their difference, at 3m 58s.

 

Thank you, this is great feedback

I will look into this and report back when I know what is going on.

[Mario Martinez]

Thank you, this is great feedback

I will look into this and report back when I know what is going on.

 

I have confirmed it and yes, the files are "broken".

 

I am already reprocessing them. I will be uploading them as soon as possible.

[Mario Martinez]

I have just finished uploading the new files. These would be version 1.1a.

 

This time I have left the gain untouched so you can easily compare v1.1a vs v1.0. I have re-sent the codes to everyone on this thread. (I hope I did not miss anyone).

 

I have also sent you a "Version Comparison" sample (about 1 minute) that has been process with both calibrations.

 

Thanks for your patience

[Mario Martinez]

Track 3 of the Iberia album is the one I have been receiving all along, not one of those "broken" tracks.

The 1.1a version has the piano sound duller or mellower than the pre version track, more recessed, even though I only reduced the gain from -17 for the pre version to -21 for the 1.1a.

I still prefer the pre version sound, livelier, crispier. Perhaps more to do with my personal taste, I don't know. I listen to Steinway grand every now and then in concerts at first or second row seats.

 

Both versions have the same gain:

This time I have left the gain untouched so you can easily compare v1.1a vs v1.0.

 

You said you are listening to v1.0 at -17 and v1.1a at -21. That means you are listening to v1.1a 4dB lower than you should. That alone should explain everything.

 

Please play them back at the same level so you can compare them on an equal footing

[Mario Martinez]

Mario,

Sorry I did not make myself clearly enough.

By pre-version, I meant the track prior to the adjustment you made to reduce the resonance and then you named the adjusted track "version" 1.1. The pre version track was the one I compared with version 1.1 in post 29 above. Version 1.1 was boosted by 6db and the gain of 1.1a was the same as 1.1. So the pre version track I prefer was the old one that was named Demo5 I think. I am not too sure of the exact name because in playlist I changed Demo5 to read Iberia.

 

Hi Francis,

 

v1.1a does not have the same gain as v1.1. It has the same gain as v1.0

 

Here is an explanation of the three versions we gave so far:

 

Version 1.0: this is the version we gave away on the first thread: http://www.computeraudiophile.com/f8-general-forum/playclassics-master-file-giveaway-computer-audiophile-members-26426/

 

Version 1.1: this version was 6dB louder than v1.0. All the files (with no exception) of this version were broken. This is a faulty version and all files should be trashed.

 

Version 1.1a: this version has the same exact gain as version 1.0 (not v1.1)

 

You should only have two versions: v1.0 and v1.1a

 

These two versions have the same gain, so you should play them at the same volume to compare them properly.

[Mario Martinez]

Hi Odelay

By livelier I meant vivid, moving, emotionally invoking, forward with sound being projected towards the listener. Some people use the word "musical" which I think is only attributable to the artist or the performance and not to the sound being reproduced by an audio system.

 

By the way I have also finished listening to the tenor track Ideale. Version 1.1a is duller and more recessed than version 1.1, and in this case both versions have the same gain.

 

 

Please see my previous post.

[Mario Martinez]

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...

 

Let me explain what we are doing

 

By "room resonances" I mean "room modes". "Room modes" cause "standing waves". "Standing waves" alter the loudness of a particular frequency on a particular spot of the hall. You can not completely eliminate "room modes" but you can control them. So here is what we did:

 

We built the acoustics of our hall to minimize the effect of these room modes. Then we calibrated our recording chain to completely eliminate them. This way have a fixed recording setup with a flat frequency response. So when you play an instrument on the stage, the recording has a tone that is true to the instruments across all frequencies because we took care of these standing waves. That is why we do not need to mix or master anything because once you take care of these "room resonances" there is nothing to fix.

 

All we did was cancel the effect of a standing wave that was altering the frequency spectrum at 95Hz. If you listen to the Version comparison demo you will hear the difference on the very low notes of the left hand.

[Mario Martinez]

The pre 1.1 (call it Demo4) together with the 1.1a track 3 Iberia, in playlist at the same gain. Demo 4 is livelier, crispier and more forward and is still the one I prefer. By more forward, I mean the ambience of the piano goes beyond the plane of the speakers towards the listener whereas the 1.1a only has it behind such plane. To me, Demo 4 is more real, more akin to live. Perhaps that is merely personal preference.

 

Hi Francis,

 

I understand your description perfectly.

 

I have been working on this all morning. After taking out the resonance, I should have measured for overall balance (which I did not do). Taking out the resonance, also altered the overall balance. The bass in v1.1a is less than the bass in v1.0. That is what is producing the effect you are talking about.

 

Instead of reprocessing everything right away (which takes a long time) I have processed just the version comparison demo with a new calibration v1.1b that fixes this problem. I have uploaded the demo with the three different versions (v1.0, v1.1a, v1.1b)

 

I will send codes to everyone to download these version comparison demos. I hope I got it right this time

 

I will wait to see if everything is correct with this one before I reprocess all the albums.

[Mario Martinez]

Thanks to both of you.

 

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

 

Yes, of course. I will keep trying until we get it right.

 

We started working on our calibration 3 years ago. The first steps were very obvious. But the closer you get to transparency, the more difficult these steps get.

 

One more point. In v1.0, the piano strings have lots of harmonics--something I like.

I know the instrument may well be the same 7' Yamaha, but if I have to make a wild guess with no information at all, I would say it is a Bösendorfer

 

The piano in the version comparison demo is the same one as the piano in all the other recordings. The position of the piano is exactly the same. The tuning is also exactly the same (I do the tuning myself to make sure there is no difference from one recording to another).

 

The pianist is Enrique Bernaldo de Quirós. Every pianist makes the instrument sound different. That is the good thing about using a fixed setup, you can compare the sound different pianists get out of the same piano. That is something you cannot do with regular recordings because they are never made in the same exact conditions.

 

1. For the Iberia track 3, I listened with gain -17.

These 3, -20.

 

The demo and the Iberia were all recorded with the same gain. Please try to listen to it at the same gain so we make sure we are comparing under the same conditions.

 

4. In all three tracks, the piano moves towards the right channel. So I listened with left at -20 and right, -23.

 

If you look at the sketches on the original thread you can see that the piano is places on the stage so that the keyboard is in front of you with the tail to the right.

 

Do not try to center the image. What you are describing corresponds with the reality. Please use the same gain on both channels. Using a different gain for both channel throws everything off. it alters the image and the tone.

[Mario Martinez]

Thank you Mario for the explanations.

Actually I started listening to the 3 tracks with the same setting as the Iberia track 3.

At -17, I found the sound to loud and one step at a time, I eventually settled on -20. Maybe -21 is still good enough.

As for the left and right setting, I also started with the same as that for the Iberia track 3. But then finding the sound to much to the right, I reduced the right setting one step at a time as well.

 

The volume thing is ok as long as you use the same volume for all three demos.

 

But using a different gain for the left and right channels is a problem. If you do that then everything falls apart. The image you described is correct as it is. If you look at the sketches, the tail of the piano is to the right. If you raise the volume on the left channel you will be boosting what the left mic picket up. It would be like covering one of your ears while you are attending a concert.

[Mario Martinez]

2. v1.0 and v1.1a are of the same absolutely phase. v1.1b has such phase changed and I have to convert its phase by Korg for comparison with the other 2.

 

I have checked the files, and all three files have the same phase.

 

Even though we are making minimal changes, the effect of these changes can be quite large depending on what aspect of the sound you focus your attention on. What you may be hearing as a phase change is probably just due to the new balance on the sound. Plus there is something else to consider; ORTF is a spaced stereo technique. Both channels are "out of phase" with each other. That phase difference is actually what constructs the image in front of you. If you play ORTF in mono or if you alter the gain of both channels then you will be getting phase issues.

 

 

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'?).

 

Yes, this "original" thing may very well be playing a big role on the way we compare both files.

 

But please remember that v1.0 is not "original" in any way. It may be the first calibration you have heard, but bear in mind that we have been doing these for the past three years, ...and we might be doing it for the next 30

[Mario Martinez]

I have a new one. This would be version 1.1c.

 

I have uploaded all the version comparison demos on to a free access directory so that anyone can download them without the need for a code. Here are the links to all the version comparison demos:

 

http://www.playclassics.com/v1.0.zip

http://www.playclassics.com/v1.1a.zip

http://www.playclassics.com/v1.1b.zip

http://www.playclassics.com/v1.1c.zip

 

v1.0: this is the one from the original giveaway thread

v1.1a: this is our first attempt to try to take away the resonance on the low part of the spectrum (95Hz)

v1.1b: after trying to take away the resonance the overall balance changed, so here we tried to restore it

v1.1c: here I measured again for the resonance. This time I came up with 85Hz (not 95Hz). I did not touch the overall balance.

 

The resonance we are trying to fix is on the left hand of version 1.0 from second 36 to second 46.

 

This might be the right one, but you never know, so just in case this takes a long time, I am uploading version 1.0 of all the albums to the web site. I will upload the definitive version once we do have a solution to this problem

[Mario Martinez]

The resonance we are trying to fix is on the left hand of version 1.0 from second 36 to second 46.

 

Hi Luke,

 

You can clearly hear the problem we are trying to fix on the lowest note of the left hand progression right on second 46. On version 1.0 the tone of that last note is altered by the effect of the resonance. On version 1.1c (had we done it right this time) the tone on that last note should be cured from that.

[Mario Martinez]

Hi Mario,

 

Where did this Wagner/Liszt(?) recording come from?

I don't remember seeing it mentioned before...

Is this a new performance?

 

I am listening to it on headphones at the moment but hope to compare v1.0 and v1.1c more carefully in my system during the weekend.

 

Best,

Ricardo

 

 

Hi Ricardo,

 

this Wagner/Liszt will be included on the new album by Enrique Bernaldo de Quirós.

 

So far we have recorded the Wagner, a Schubert Sonata, and Liszt's Hungarian Rhapsody no12.

We still have to record the Beethoven's Bagattelles

[Mario Martinez]

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.

 

second 29 might be a good spot too. The three chords on the left hand have a d# (the second one from the bottom of the keyboard). The fundamental on that note seems to be the one that excites that stationary. It has a very narrow Q so it is excited only by that note (and the first partial on the lower d#) In version 1.0 those three chords are blurred by the effect of the stationary. You can hear the chord clearer on v1.1c.

[Mario Martinez]

1. The filter around 85 Hz in 1.1c is sharper than the one used in 1.1a/b.

 

Yes, the problem with v1.1a and v1.1b is that I was hitting the wrong spot (95Hz). The stationary seems to be at 85Hz.

 

On the other versions I was trying to clear that stationary (at 85Hz) by erroneously filtering at 95Hz so I had to go deeper and wider to get the desired effect at 85Hz. Doing that I was clearing things that I should have not cleared. That is what altered the overall balance on v1.1a. Then I did v1.1b to try to reset that overall balance, but that is not the right thing to do.

 

I know this is a tinny little thing, but the sum of all this tinny little things is what gives you the equilibrium that renders real to the hear. That equilibrium point is very narrow, so it can easily be destroyed. That is way on doing this we are always going back and forward to progress just a little.

 

2. 1.1a/b has a dip at 500-600 Hz, 1.1c does not.

 

Yes, I did apply a little fix there too on v1.1a and v1.1b. Sorry about that, I did not mention it at the time because I did not think we were going to take it this far. From now on I promise I will not leave anything out

 

After the big chord on second 11 he plays a downward progression of five repeated figures. The third figure on second 12 has a change of color. This is the same kind of problem, but instead of 85Hz this one is at 560Hz. I took it out at v1.1c so we could deal with one thing at a time. First fix the 85Hz. Then go for the 560Hz.

[Mario Martinez]

Commenting Iberia by PM I had mentioned a mild congestion on the first note of "El Puerto", a C# if I'm not mistaken, which is little lower in frequency than 85Hz.

I wonder if this resonance is related with what I was hearing...

 

R

 

 

that would not be affected by the 85Hz problem, but the 6th and 8th partials of that note hit 420Hz and 560Hz. If those are boosted then the sound becomes "nasal" (which I think is what you might mean by "congested"?)

[Mario Martinez]

I would like to try something new.

 

I think fixing this minor problems by applying little patches over calibration v1.0 is not going to work.

 

In order to get good results we might have to re-calibrate from scratch. Do not worry, we are not going to change the sound. We are always aiming at transparency, so even if we do the calibration 100 times we will always end up at almost the same identical place. But this time, I am aware of this little problems, so I will try to deal with them from the beginning.

 

I might take me a few days, but I will report back as soon as I have something that I am convince of

[Mario Martinez]

I would like to try something new.

 

I think fixing this minor problems by applying little patches over calibration v1.0 is not going to work.

 

In order to get good results we might have to re-calibrate from scratch. Do not worry, we are not going to change the sound. We are always aiming at transparency, so even if we do the calibration 100 times we will always end up at almost the same identical place. But this time, I am aware of this little problems, so I will try to deal with them from the beginning.

 

I might take me a few days, but I will report back as soon as I have something that I am convince of

 

 

Sorry I have been away for so long. I said it would take a few days but it ended up taking five months. Nevertheless I think it was all worth it. We now have a new calibration v2.0 and I am very happy with the results. This is not a patch or a fix over v1.0 it is a completely new calibration. If anybody wants to try it out please visit this new thread:

 

PlayClassics TRT v2.0 master file giveaway for CA members