Jump to content
IGNORED

PlayClassics Truthful Recording Technology v1.1


Recommended Posts

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 Martínez

Recording Engineer and Music Producer

Play Classics, classical music at its best

Link to comment

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.

Link to comment
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 Martínez

Recording Engineer and Music Producer

Play Classics, classical music at its best

Link to comment

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 ;-)

TF cards - USB  -> GentooPlayer in RAM on Rpi4b, Ian’s PurePi II, FIFO Q7, HDMI-pro  -> Audio GD R-27 -> S.A.T. Infinity monoblocks -> Gallo Stradas + TR-3 sub / Erzetich Phobos

Link to comment
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 Martínez

Recording Engineer and Music Producer

Play Classics, classical music at its best

Link to comment

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 Martínez

Recording Engineer and Music Producer

Play Classics, classical music at its best

Link to comment

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

TF cards - USB  -> GentooPlayer in RAM on Rpi4b, Ian’s PurePi II, FIFO Q7, HDMI-pro  -> Audio GD R-27 -> S.A.T. Infinity monoblocks -> Gallo Stradas + TR-3 sub / Erzetich Phobos

Link to comment
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 Martínez

Recording Engineer and Music Producer

Play Classics, classical music at its best

Link to comment
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.

 

How do people can have so perceptible (is it the right word?) hearing. Do you guys have so hi-end revealing systems or do you measure everything with software?

It makes me think, that I probably listen to music in the wrong way...

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Computer Audiophile mobile app

Link to comment

I know what I am going to say may well disappoint Mario.

Just let me set out what I did in regard to the comparative listening.

Version 1.1c is new and I first put it together 1.1b through Korg Audiogate for converting them from flac to wav to suit MacBook Pro.

My previous comparison of version1.0 and 1.1a already weeded out the latter and in any case Mario had mentioned 1.1a was “broken”. So left it out this time.

Then I put the old 1.0 that I previously preferred and retained into auto playlist and there went also the newly converted 1.1b and 1.1c.

Listening through 3 of them, 1.1b was clearly more recessed than the other two and I deleted it from the playlist.

Remaining there were 1.0 and 1.1c in auto play, with same channel setting for both, -20 left and -23 right. I know Mario has advised both channels should have the same gain but I find it bothering to listen to a sound shifted much to the right.

I found v1.0 to be livelier and the image/sound more forward. To make sure I was not prejudiced, I let them play on repeat and mute, and went to do something else. Went back after a while and released the mute. I was able to distinguish which was which whilst they played in turn. Tried that again and I could still tell which was which.

Mario has mentioned the resonance is at 95/85 hertz. Honestly I was unable to discern and did not know what notes were affected.

I still prefer v1.0 and the resonance does not bother me at all as I do not hear or know where it is.

Link to comment
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 :)

 

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

"Science draws the wave, poetry fills it with water" Teixeira de Pascoaes

 

HQPlayer Desktop / Mac mini → Intona 7054 → RME ADI-2 DAC FS (DSD256)

Link to comment

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?

TF cards - USB  -> GentooPlayer in RAM on Rpi4b, Ian’s PurePi II, FIFO Q7, HDMI-pro  -> Audio GD R-27 -> S.A.T. Infinity monoblocks -> Gallo Stradas + TR-3 sub / Erzetich Phobos

Link to comment
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.

 

Doing a spectrum analysis of the files, I notice two things:

 

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

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

 

Listening, I honestly don't hear all that much difference. Perhaps it would have been easier to notice with a less busy piece of music.

Link to comment

Thanks for doing the spectrum analysis. Interesting.

TF cards - USB  -> GentooPlayer in RAM on Rpi4b, Ian’s PurePi II, FIFO Q7, HDMI-pro  -> Audio GD R-27 -> S.A.T. Infinity monoblocks -> Gallo Stradas + TR-3 sub / Erzetich Phobos

Link to comment
Doing a spectrum analysis of the files, I notice two things:

 

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

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

 

Listening, I honestly don't hear all that much difference. Perhaps it would have been easier to notice with a less busy piece of music.

 

Hi Mansr,

Since you did not mention 1.0 at all, may I ask:

1. whether or not it does not have any filtering around 85 Hz as indicated in your point 1;

2. whether or not it has no dip at 500-600 Hz as in point 2.

And

Does it have any other differences compared with 1.1c?

Link to comment
Hi Mansr,

Since you did not mention 1.0 at all, may I ask:

1. whether or not it does not have any filtering around 85 Hz as indicated in your point 1;

2. whether or not it has no dip at 500-600 Hz as in point 2.

And

Does it have any other differences compared with 1.1c?

 

Those observations were with 1.0 as reference. Sorry for not being clear about that.

Link to comment

Thank you Mansr for the quick reply.

So I can take it that except for the filtering around 85 hertz, 1.0 and 1.1c versions are identical insofar as shown by spectrum analysis.

I just wonder:

a. why I heard the differences mentioned in post 85 above that apparently have nothing to do with sound around 85 hertz; and

b. how come versions 1.1a and 1.1b have a dip at 500-600 hertz when Mario did nothing to alter 1.0 around such frequency.

Could it be the filter that is not linear and introduced the dip? But if so, why doesn't 1.1c have the dip as well? A different filter being used?

Resampling softwares have filters and two I have been using change the phase and the perceived forwardness of image (phase).

Link to comment
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 Martínez

Recording Engineer and Music Producer

Play Classics, classical music at its best

Link to comment
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

 

Great selection.

I'm looking forward to that recording.

 

Cheers,

Ricardo

"Science draws the wave, poetry fills it with water" Teixeira de Pascoaes

 

HQPlayer Desktop / Mac mini → Intona 7054 → RME ADI-2 DAC FS (DSD256)

Link to comment
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 Martínez

Recording Engineer and Music Producer

Play Classics, classical music at its best

Link to comment
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 Martínez

Recording Engineer and Music Producer

Play Classics, classical music at its best

Link to comment

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]

TF cards - USB  -> GentooPlayer in RAM on Rpi4b, Ian’s PurePi II, FIFO Q7, HDMI-pro  -> Audio GD R-27 -> S.A.T. Infinity monoblocks -> Gallo Stradas + TR-3 sub / Erzetich Phobos

Link to comment

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

"Science draws the wave, poetry fills it with water" Teixeira de Pascoaes

 

HQPlayer Desktop / Mac mini → Intona 7054 → RME ADI-2 DAC FS (DSD256)

Link to comment
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 Martínez

Recording Engineer and Music Producer

Play Classics, classical music at its best

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...