Mario Martinez Posted August 15, 2016 Author Share Posted August 15, 2016 The 2.0 Iberia.It is crispier, cleaner and more lively. A slight veil in the 1.1 version that I did not notice has been removed. It is louder now and I need to reduce -2db in gain compared with the 1.1. The piano is now "perceived" more realistically in the centre of the soundstage. If I am asked to demo a piano track, this is the one. Thank you Mario. Thank you Francis for your wonderful feedback! I really like your description about that "slight veil". It is amazing but it always works that way. We have spend the last three years working on different calibrations. With every calibration we were getting closer and closer to transparency. Funny thing is, you never noticed that "slight veil" until you got to the next version. The only thing that kept us going was having a setup that allowed us to directly compare the sound of the latest version with the sound of the live source. You could hear there was a difference and that difference got smaller and smaller with every version. By the time we were at v1.0 the difference was so small we thought we could not go any further. So we published what we had thinking it was the best you could possible get. It was only after this Computer Audiophile experience that I took the courage to try it one more time. And it worked, those differences are now gone. I still cannot believe we got here Mario Martínez Recording Engineer and Music Producer Play Classics, classical music at its best Link to comment
Jay-dub Posted August 15, 2016 Share Posted August 15, 2016 I'm interested in the Iberia and the Cabrera plays Debussy. Last year I took the Tosti, and I've enjoyed it, but I don't really pay attention to the sound of the piano when listening to voice; Debussy's brilliant piano is probably better for listening to how a piano can come alive in a particular space. Once I have more than half of the label's catalog from a free promotion, it's definitely time to make a donation… Link to comment
qdwieertteyrujpo Posted August 15, 2016 Share Posted August 15, 2016 I am sorry to hear about this problem with the downloads. Some people have already reported some issues. I do not know if this will help everybody, but this is what we did to solve them: Firefox allows you to resume the download if it stops for any reason (probably Chrome or Safari do that to, but I just have not used them). The size of the Albéniz Master is about 1.5Gb and the size of the Cabrera Master is about 1.0Gb. The files are quite big, so they take a long time to download. If the connection stops at any time you do not have to restart the download. You can resume it right at the point where it stopped. All you have to do is click on "Downloads" under the "Tools" menu and resume the download. I hope that helps... Must be me, but I can't get this to work. When trying to open in Firefox, it takes me to the old version, and trying to copy the path name into a download manager does not work either. I guess I have to pass on this. Link to comment
DuckToller Posted August 15, 2016 Share Posted August 15, 2016 Mario, I need to express my highest level of enchantment for the way you are proceeding with the CA members (your future customers ;-). This is an attitude to be higly regarded and seldom found in "the business". If you still in need for feedback, I'd take the Iberia and Debussy :-) Cheers, Tom Link to comment
bkinbk Posted August 15, 2016 Share Posted August 15, 2016 Must be me, but I can't get this to work. When trying to open in Firefox, it takes me to the old version, and trying to copy the path name into a download manager does not work either. I guess I have to pass on this. Try clearing your browser cookies. If you can't or don't want to do that, use Firefox in private mode so that you're not cookied into the old page. Link to comment
Mario Martinez Posted August 15, 2016 Author Share Posted August 15, 2016 Must be me, but I can't get this to work. When trying to open in Firefox, it takes me to the old version, and trying to copy the path name into a download manager does not work either. I guess I have to pass on this. Hi Dieter, I sent you a PM with an alternative way. Hope that works... Mario Martínez Recording Engineer and Music Producer Play Classics, classical music at its best Link to comment
francisleung Posted August 15, 2016 Share Posted August 15, 2016 Thanks Mario, I do not understand how and what you actually do to compare the 1.1 or 2.0 versions with the LIVE SOURCE. Anyway I do not need to know because I am not making any recording. You know how to improve step by step is suffice for users like me. Link to comment
Guidof Posted August 18, 2016 Share Posted August 18, 2016 Hola Mario: Thank you for the Iberia and Debussy codes. i haven't had the time yet to make very extensive and careful comparisons with version 1.0. But my first impressions are of a new level of lifelike presentation of the piano sound that I'd put up there with the best from a label like Steinway -- if not better. It's not only the clarity and detail, but also the balances across the frequency spectrum from bass to treble that seem more convincing than in v 1.0. When 1.0 was indeed excellent, 2.0 is simply stunning. i am not sure what is meant by the 'calibration' that you have posted about, but whatever it entails, you seem to have perfected it to an extent that is quite uncommonly found in commercially available piano recordings. Now, if you could also achieve the same results in other instrumental settings, say a string quartet or a jazz piano trio . . . Best regards, Guido F. For my system details, please see my profile. Thank you. Link to comment
livelistenlearn Posted August 18, 2016 Share Posted August 18, 2016 Dear Mario, Would very much appreciate the opportunity to listen to your new ‘calibration’. If you would be so kind to send me the codes for Albéniz Iberia and the Cabrera plays Debussy recordings... Thank You. Link to comment
firedog Posted August 19, 2016 Share Posted August 19, 2016 Hi- Thanks for the links, Mario. I also had trouble downloading them, but after I few times I finally got the complete files. I haven't extensively compared versions, but I've listened to the Iberia 2.0 a couple of times, and will repeat my earlier thoughts: this is the most realistic piano recording I've heard. It sounds like what you would hear if the pianist was performing in front of you in a live chamber music setting - and that's how it should sound, I think. None of that harsh, close up sound that most piano recordings have. Natural piano sound with the real sound of a room. Thanks again. Main listening (small home office): Main setup: Surge protector +>Isol-8 Mini sub Axis Power Strip/Isolation>QuietPC Low Noise Server>Roon (Audiolense DRC)>Stack Audio Link II>Kii Control>Kii Three (on their own electric circuit) >GIK Room Treatments. Secondary Path: Server with Audiolense RC>RPi4 or analog>Cayin iDAC6 MKII (tube mode) (XLR)>Kii Three . Bedroom: SBTouch to Cambridge Soundworks Desktop Setup. Living Room/Kitchen: Ropieee (RPi3b+ with touchscreen) + Schiit Modi3E to a pair of Morel Hogtalare. All absolute statements about audio are false Link to comment
jtm Posted August 19, 2016 Share Posted August 19, 2016 Hi Mario, I really appreciate all the care and efforts you and your team are putting into these recordings. Being one of the participants of v1 files I also would very much appreciate the opportunity to listen to your new versions. If you would be so kind to send me the codes for Albéniz Iberia and the Cabrera plays Debussy recordings I would be highly delighted. Thanks ! Link to comment
wouterk Posted August 19, 2016 Share Posted August 19, 2016 Hi Mario, I will make the Iberia comparison later against the v1.0. My impressions of Debussy are very positive indeed: the piano sound is majestic, detailed with clear attack. I listened to the entire album without any fatigue, putting down my newspaper to really listen to an excellent performance. It joins your Iberia as one of my all time piano registrations for natural sound quality - I am very impressed and wish you all the success you and your company deserve! Link to comment
Mario Martinez Posted August 21, 2016 Author Share Posted August 21, 2016 It's not only the clarity and detail, but also the balances across the frequency spectrum from bass to treble that seem more convincing than in v 1.0. When 1.0 was indeed excellent, 2.0 is simply stunning. i am not sure what is meant by the 'calibration' that you have posted about, but whatever it entails, you seem to have perfected it to an extent that is quite uncommonly found in commercially available piano recordings. Hi Guido and thank you very much for taking the time to listen. I really appreciate your feedback! I am glad you brought out this balance improvement. The purpose of our calibration procedure is to provide the recording setup with a flat frequency response. The balance is now better because it is more accurate to what the instrument actually does. Now, if you could also achieve the same results in other instrumental settings, say a string quartet or a jazz piano trio . . . We have not gotten to those yet but we will and I will let you know as soon as I have something The other thing that we do have is the flamenco, drums and rock sound tests. We heard version 1.0 of those sound tests on our previous thread PlayClassics master file giveaway for CA members The flamenco was good, but when we got to the drums and rock it just did not make it. Version 1.0 was not completely transparent, and it did show more on those samples. But here we are again. We have a new calibration that has shown to be more transparent (I would say totally transparent) and I think that should really make a difference on how those samples will sound. I would like for us to listen to those samples. If the sound is consistent with what we are hearing on this classical albums then I think we could safely say we have reached transparency. Who wants to try? Mario Martínez Recording Engineer and Music Producer Play Classics, classical music at its best Link to comment
PGRPGRPG Posted August 23, 2016 Share Posted August 23, 2016 Hi Mario, very interesting approach to "customer's voice". I'm interested to hear the results of your hard work. Could you please send me appropriates codes for Debussy and Albeniz ? Thanks Sent from my iPad using Computer Audiophile Imac 27" I5 8Go - El Capitan - Audirvana 2.6.3 & Audirvana Remote - Airfoil 5.1.0 - Streamer/DAC Marantz M CR510 - HiFi Cable Super MaxiTrans 2 - B&W 602 S2 Link to comment
Silvio Pereira Posted August 23, 2016 Share Posted August 23, 2016 Dear Mario, Can you send me the codes for the Cabrera album for both new calibrations (I have the original one)? Thank you for this unique offer, Silvio Link to comment
baddog Posted August 24, 2016 Share Posted August 24, 2016 Hello Mario - Once again thanks again for the kind and thoughtful offer, I would be interested in the Albéniz Iberia and Cabrera plays Debussy. All the best to you! Silver Circle Audio | Roon | Devialet | Synology | Vivid Audio | Stillpoint Aperture | Auralic | DH Labs Link to comment
Skip Pack Posted August 24, 2016 Share Posted August 24, 2016 Please send me the codes for Albéniz Iberia and the Cabrera plays Debussy. I have the first version of Iberia, and the comparison should be very interesting. Thank you, Skip Pack Link to comment
Nikhil Posted August 24, 2016 Share Posted August 24, 2016 Mario, Just checking if the same layout has been used for the 2.0 recordings. From your post in the earlier 1.0 thread: Our approach is completely different. We only use two mics and they are placed 12 feet away from the piano. And we do not modify anything on the instruments or within the stage. We do all the acoustic work outside of the stage. Here is a picture of our setup. The proportions on the picture are real. The person in red represent the place where the mics are placed outside of the stage. The piano is a 7 foot Yamaha. Custom Win10 Server | Mutec MC-3+ USB | Lampizator Amber | Job INT | ATC SCM20PSL + JL Audio E-Sub e110 Link to comment
Mario Martinez Posted August 24, 2016 Author Share Posted August 24, 2016 Mario, Just checking if the same layout has been used for the 2.0 recordings. From your post in the earlier 1.0 thread: We did not re-record the albums. The recording are the same (so the physical setup is the one that was used to begin with) What we have done is develop a new calibration on the gear side of things (the physical setup remains the same) We have run that calibration on all our previous recordings (except the Debussy Preludes because that was recorded long ago with a different physical setup) Mario Martínez Recording Engineer and Music Producer Play Classics, classical music at its best Link to comment
Mario Martinez Posted August 24, 2016 Author Share Posted August 24, 2016 I would like to explain something about the Drums samples. This might only affect people who are using large stereo setups to reproduce these recordings (by large I mean the distance from the listening point to the speakers) You might find that when you playback the Drums samples on your systems, the image of the Drums set is bigger than it should be in relation to the playback image of the piano. I have taken the time to draw some more pictures see if I could explain why this is happening Here is a sketch of how all our piano recordings are made. The picture on the left corresponds to the recording setup. The picture on the right would be the image produce on your systems: As you can see, the recording setup is built so that we can achieve a realistic size image during playback. Now, here is a sketch of how we should have recorded the drums: Had we done it this way, the playback image of the drums would have had a realistic size too (at least compared to the playback image on the piano recordings) But this is what we did: We were lazy enough not to move the piano out of the stage (guess we should have) so we ended up recording the drums closer to the mic than they should have been. That is the reason for the playback image of the Drums samples being a little bigger than it should (specially if you compare it to the piano recordings) I hope this makes sense Mario Martínez Recording Engineer and Music Producer Play Classics, classical music at its best Link to comment
Mario Martinez Posted August 25, 2016 Author Share Posted August 25, 2016 Here is some more useful information about the image of both, the piano and the drums: There is nothing wrong with the images other than the fact that they are out of scale with each other. If you wanted to "see" a playback image of real size all you would have to do is move the speakers to match the scale of the recording setup. Here is a sketch of the piano setup. To reproduce a real size image of the piano the speakers should be placed 11,365' apart. (If you played the drums here then the drums image would be too big) Here is a sketch of the drums setup. To reproduce a real size image of the drums the speakers should be placed 7,456' apart. (If you played the piano here then the piano image would be too small) We could have easily kept the same scale in both recordings by placing the drums in the same place as the piano. That way both images would have been "in sync" with each other no matter what the size of your system was. Mario Martínez Recording Engineer and Music Producer Play Classics, classical music at its best Link to comment
Nikhil Posted August 25, 2016 Share Posted August 25, 2016 Here is a sketch of the drums setup. To reproduce a real size image of the drums the speakers should be placed 7,456' apart. (If you played the piano here then the piano image would be too small) This is really interesting info. My speakers are approx this distance from each other. Custom Win10 Server | Mutec MC-3+ USB | Lampizator Amber | Job INT | ATC SCM20PSL + JL Audio E-Sub e110 Link to comment
Jud Posted August 25, 2016 Share Posted August 25, 2016 Hah, I forgot about commas versus decimal points momentarily and was wondering why I would need to have my speakers miles apart! Mario, very nice indeed to see you back here with these files of very beautiful music. Though I'm traveling and can only listen through headphones for a while, I would very much appreciate the code for the new Albeniz Iberia and Cabrera Debussy. Thanks! One never knows, do one? - Fats Waller The fairest thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the fundamental emotion which stands at the cradle of true art and true science. - Einstein Computer, Audirvana -> optical Ethernet to Fitlet3 -> Fibbr Alpha Optical USB -> iFi NEO iDSD DAC -> Apollon Audio 1ET400A Mini (Purifi based) -> Vandersteen 3A Signature. Link to comment
mansr Posted August 25, 2016 Share Posted August 25, 2016 Hah, I forgot about commas versus decimal points momentarily and was wondering why I would need to have my speakers miles apart! http://hitchhikers.wikia.com/wiki/Disaster_Area: "Regular concert goers judged that the best sound balance was usually to be heard from within large concrete bunkers some thirty-seven miles away from the stage" Link to comment
Mario Martinez Posted August 25, 2016 Author Share Posted August 25, 2016 This is really interesting info. My speakers are approx this distance from each other. So does it work? Do the drums produce a real size image on your system? Our monitors are 11.365' apart so I really have not had a chance to try it myself... Mario Martínez Recording Engineer and Music Producer Play Classics, classical music at its best Link to comment
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now