Jump to content
IGNORED

PlayClassics TRT v3.0 sneak preview


Recommended Posts

Apologies accepted :)

 

Do not worry about it, I completely understand that this "file testing" might bring up other subjects too.

 

What I wanted to know in the original OP is whether or not you felt this new calibration was an improvement over the previous one.

 

But besides that, if you feel these files may be useful for any other purpose please go ahead and use them I will be happy to do that. We already used them once on another thread to compare file formats...

 

Mario Martínez

Recording Engineer and Music Producer

Play Classics, classical music at its best

Link to comment

To me it sounds like you've completely sorted the upperbass resonance or reverberation, and with the improved balance the soundscape is now much more credible.

 

The downside is that the limitations of my speakers are now a bit more obvious...

"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
On 3/3/2018 at 1:51 PM, Mario Martinez said:

Hello everyone!  I finally have something new that I would like to share with you.

 

We have spent the last 18 months working on a new version of our Truthful Recording Technology. We are about to launch it to the public but before we do, I would love to share it with you here at the Computer Audiophile.

 

This new version features a new piano with a new placement on the stage, some minor adjustments on the acoustics of the hall and a completely new calibration. The recording gear and the placement of the mics remains the same. Our philosophy has not changed a bit. We are just digging deeper into our original project.

 

I have prepared one zip file containing three samples. Two piano solo works from two different pianists and one wind quintet piece (piano, oboe, clarinet, bassoon and french horn):

- Fantasía Bética (Manuel de Falla) played by Andreu Riera.
- Liebeslied (Sergei Rachmaninoff) played by Mariana Gurkova
- Quintet in E flat major for Piano and Winds Op16. 3 Rondo. Allegro, ma non troppo. (Ludwig van Beethoven) played by the "Harmonie du soir" ensemble.

 

The files can be downloaded in any (or all) of our usual formats (Master, DVD, CD, MP3). All you need to do is click on the appropriate link below:
Samples TRT v3.0 Master
Samples TRT v3.0 DVD
Samples TRT v3.0 CD
Samples TRT v3.0 MP3

 

Here is a sketch of the piano recording:

5a9b156aba10c_TRTv3.0piano.thumb.png.c11569075f388fe03507b0cdda3d269b.png

 

and a sketch of the wind quintet recording:

5a9b15914cef4_TRTv3.0winds.thumb.png.abd2224e971e650f75cce667335dbb44.png

 

the person in the red shirt represents the placement of the mics.

 

I hope you find this interesting. I would really appreciate your feedback :)

Mario, thanks for letting us in on your work - once again. I want you to know that your piano recordings are the finest I've ever heard! I especially love your Debussy recording with Cabrera. Every time I play it, I have to remind myself that there is no grand piano in my living room. It sounds THAT real. People who don't understand the value of stereo microphone technique, should be forced to listen to your recordings. I think they'd change their minds quickly enough!

Anyway, thanks again for letting us download what have become among my favorite recordings and keep up the great work!

George

Link to comment

Over the last ten days I have been listening to Mario's tracks downloaded from this thread and given him my views based on my own sonic preference and audio system. So here are what I said and perforce others with different preferences and audio systems may have different views:

 

1. Hi Mario,
I have compared track 3 of the drum solo, version 2 and version 3.
Let me say how I carried out the comparison.
I put both tracks into the playlist and set to repeat. In other words the same setting in the audio system for both and I do NOT know whether version 2 or version 3 is playing until I stop and look at which is which.
Version 3 performs better than version 2 in the following ways:
The image of the drum set is larger and closer to a real set being put into the listening room. Version 2 has a more compact image (shrunk to smaller size). With version 3 having a larger image, items of the set have better separation between them. Moreover the snare, the cymbals and high-hat appear to sound sharper and more delineated. 
It is clear version 3 sounds better to me and therefore I have deleted version 2 from the files (except the archive in hard disk) and put in version 3 as the reference. 
**Two other tracks of version 2.0 are now in my reference playlist on desk top:
1. Ideale 05 track, Songs of Paolo Tosti vocal and 
2. Iberia 03 track Book 1 piano
If you have these 2 tracks in version 3 and give them to me, I would be glad to carry out a similar comparison and tell you my findings.
 

2. Hi Mario,
I have listened to the Beethoven Wind Quintet. It is of reference quality, bravo!
Most likely because of my audio system itself I have to adjust the right channel much louder than the left to obtain a balance, -24/-18. Sound of all instruments come out from the centre between the inside spans of the two speakers, some 6" ft wide, all in 3D. 
Also because my audio system again: placement of the players are NOT in accordance with your layout----I have the clarinet and oboe in front of the "tip" of the piano body whilst the bassoon and french horn are at the back behind the piano sound. Anyway to me it does not matter where they are placed so long as the overall sound is balanced. 
An excellent recording indeed!

 

3. Hi Mario,
I have now got round to the 3.0 piano track.
For my personal taste, it is a gem though others who prefer recessed sound may think otherwise.
I put this Falla piece into play list together with your Iberia and the Beethoven track from 2L, Norway recorded natively at 24/352.8.
The 3.0 Falla wiped out the other two on my reference list.
*I personally like an immediate sound. The 3.0 piano is in 3D, with an image starting from the plane of the speakers to the rear wall (5 ft in depth). With this track I am akin to sitting in the front row of a studio, with the piano being placed 9 to 10 ft from me. The Iberia and 2L have the piano only 3 ft from the rear wall, a more recessed sound and not as open and transparent. 
*The 3.0 has a wider image, more harmonics and clearer vibration of the piano strings when compared with the other two.
* I have reduced slightly the level of the left channel and increased that of the right channel so that the hammers are just left off the centre. I an aware this placement is not in accordance with your stage layout. My personal preference and anyway I am able to get all the hammers/strings in a straight line, from the high notes at the speaker plane to the low ones at the rear wall. This to me is what I get from listening to a piano recital in a rehearsal room or concert, with it being placed horizontally and me sitting perpendicularly to it. 
@In conclusion, the 3.0 in my view is clearly an improvement over the 2.0 as evidenced by this and the solo drum track.
Well done!
 

 

Link to comment
On 3/5/2018 at 4:35 AM, firedog said:

Just listening to solo piano. Amazingly natural sounding.

Mario makes the best, most realistic piano recordings of any commercial recording outfit that I know of. They are truly a joy to listen to and every time I do so, it reminds of what I got into audio for in the first place!

George

Link to comment
On 3/12/2018 at 4:10 PM, fas42 said:

If I'm seriously trying to evaluate SQ of something, I would never, ever play the compressed format directly - I always convert MP3, FLAC, etc into WAV first, to give the recording and playback chain the opportunity of showing itself in the best light ... the greater the potential, the more the most subtle factor may play a part.

You do realize that whatever "damage" has been done by using a so-called lossless compression algorithm such as FLAC, is not eliminated by converting to WAV? All you are doing is converting the music, compression artifacts and all to another format. A more extreme example of what I'm saying would be to convert a 64 kbps MP3 (unlistenable to these ears) file to WAV and expect it to sound like the original, uncompressed recording from which the MP3 was made. The conversion does not eliminate the compression artifacts, it just converts them. 

George

Link to comment
27 minutes ago, gmgraves said:

You do realize that whatever "damage" has been done by using a so-called lossless compression algorithm such as FLAC, is not eliminated by converting to WAV? All you are doing is converting the music, compression artifacts and all to another format. A more extreme example of what I'm saying would be to convert a 64 kbps MP3 (unlistenable to these ears) file to WAV and expect it to sound like the original, uncompressed recording from which the MP3 was made. The conversion does not eliminate the compression artifacts, it just converts them. 

 

For a couple of reasons, only got around to starting to listen to Mario's tracks, yesterday. Very dynamic recordings, but on my laptop the difference between FLAC and WAV playback was very obvious - this has nothing to do with the recordings, nor the compression process in itself - and everything to do with the electrical activity in my laptop. I'm using Media Monkey for playback, which by comparing a number of software players turned out to be the best for my machine, of the ones I looked at.

 

The difference was in the reproduction of the intense, musical peaks; where the treble was an important component; subjectively, the FLAC "version" was if a thick cloth had been draped over the treble driver - the tweeter had been compromised.

 

Again, nothing to do with the track content!  And all about the the behaviour of my, non-optimised laptop's audio system ...

 

I'll add my thanks to Mario - sorry, I'm having Internet access issues at the moment, and other hiccups around the house, so not in the right head space to do proper comparisons of 2.0 and 3.0 versions at the moment ... sorry :/.

 

Link to comment
35 minutes ago, fas42 said:

For a couple of reasons, only got around to starting to listen to Mario's tracks, yesterday. Very dynamic recordings, but on my laptop the difference between FLAC and WAV playback was very obvious - this has nothing to do with the recordings, nor the compression process in itself - and everything to do with the electrical activity in my laptop. I'm using Media Monkey for playback, which by comparing a number of software players turned out to be the best for my machine, of the ones I looked at.

OK. Just wanted to point that out in case you were under the wrong impression. If WAV plays better on your laptop than does FLAC, then it looks like you've got the situation well in hand. 

George

Link to comment
30 minutes ago, gmgraves said:

OK. Just wanted to point that out in case you were under the wrong impression. If WAV plays better on your laptop than does FLAC, then it looks like you've got the situation well in hand. 

 

Bits prefer to be played back in the exact  format they were output by the ADC. In fact, unless they are the original bits, they will not sound the same. The same exact electrons must be used for best results!

Link to comment

Okay, just did a comparison of the 03 Drum solo, between 2.0 and 3.0 takes (in WAV, :P) - and what stood out was the better rendition of the cymbals work, "sweeter" and a greater sense of the space in which those instruments were sitting. Also, really liked the capture of the transient hit of the stick on the drum skins, the 'thwack' impact was as good as the "real thing", and was significantly better in 3.0 compared to 2.0 - that thwack is usually dulled in most recordings, the genuine article has tremendous bite to the sound and even on the laptop internal speakers that aspect in the recording comes across extremely well.

Link to comment
20 hours ago, pkane2001 said:

 

Bits prefer to be played back in the exact  format they were output by the ADC. In fact, unless they are the original bits, they will not sound the same. The same exact electrons must be used for best results!

Really? I wouldn't have guessed it!9_9

George

Link to comment
On 3/14/2018 at 12:50 AM, Mario Martinez said:

Apologies accepted :)

 

Do not worry about it, I completely understand that this "file testing" might bring up other subjects too.

 

What I wanted to know in the original OP is whether or not you felt this new calibration was an improvement over the previous one.

 

But besides that, if you feel these files may be useful for any other purpose please go ahead and use them I will be happy to do that. We already used them once on another thread to compare file formats...

 

Hey Mario! Do you mind telling us what microphones you use (make, model, pattern) and how they are deployed? As a sometimes recording engineer myself, I'd love to know. 

George

Link to comment
33 minutes ago, gmgraves said:

Hey Mario! Do you mind telling us what microphones you use (make, model, pattern) and how they are deployed? As a sometimes recording engineer myself, I'd love to know. 

Hi George,
 

The microphones are large-diaphragm cardioid microphones with no attenuation or cut-off (I would rather not say the make and model). We use a standard ORTF setup (capsules are 17 cm apart in a 110º angle). They are mounted on an elastic suspension hanging from their own cable (so the weight is on the cable and not on the elastic suspension)

 

Mario Martínez

Recording Engineer and Music Producer

Play Classics, classical music at its best

Link to comment
15 minutes ago, Mario Martinez said:

Hi George,
 

The microphones are large-diaphragm cardioid microphones with no attenuation or cut-off (I would rather not say the make and model). We use a standard ORTF setup (capsules are 17 cm apart in a 110º angle). They are mounted on an elastic suspension hanging from their own cable (so the weight is on the cable and not on the elastic suspension)

 

Thanks Mario. The ORTF arrangement gives good, real stereo. No wonder your recordings sound so great. I use ORTF myself sometimes (the angle depending upon the arrangement of the talent) Lately, I've been using a single point stereo mike in either it's natural coincident arrangement as cardioids, or in an MS configuration with M mike set to cardioid, and the S mike to figure-of-eight. The mike I use for this also has big diaphragm capsules (35mm). Though modestly priced, I find this mike (an Avantome CK-40) to be extremely flexible and rugged, with great, flat frequency response and FET electronics. It sounds great and makes superb stereo recordings.

 

ck40_2_940x400.jpg

ck40_3_940x400-1.jpg

George

Link to comment
19 hours ago, Mario Martinez said:

What we are doing with our mics is nothing new. There are lots of great examples of two mic recordings dating back to the 60s and 70s (ORTF itself dates back to the 60s). What is different is the way we see the relations between the acoustics of the hall and the placement of the mics.

 

Back then they took the acoustics of the hall as a given. That is what they had to work with. Getting a good sound was a matter of finding a better spot to place their mics on.

 

If you are not going to modify the acoustics of the hall no spot is going to be perfect. Some spots may have better balance, others may have better dynamics, others better tone or better image, but none of those spots will maximize the outcome of all this different aspects at once.

 

Our philosophy is different. We placed the mics first with just one aspect in mind (image). Then we worked the acoustics of the hall to try to maximize all the other aspects and developed a calibration that took care of the rest.

 

You obviously cannot do this under regular circumstances. It is too time consuming. You have to get the job done and you only have a few days to do the best you can. So you would never have time to do all this experimenting.

 

But we though it was worth a try. What would the results be if this was to be done exhaustively? Well, this is what we came up with. It really did take a long time but I would do it all over again :)

 

 

Well, Mario, whatever you do, the results are magnificent. And you are right; I almost never have the luxury of doing anything like that. I'm usually setting up in a club or a bar/restaurant, and get there just as the talent is setting up. A couple of years ago, I did get to record a solo piano in a winery/tasting room. The winery was closed (it was after winery hours), and I got to experiment a little with mike setup and I even deployed a pair of ambience mikes at the rear of the winery. It sounded pretty good, but it lacked the presence of your piano recordings. Every piano recording I have ever heard lacks the quality of yours. 

George

Link to comment
12 minutes ago, Mario Martinez said:

"The simpler British/European school of microphone placement produced the most realistic and purist sound, as can be heard in Decca and EMI’s iconic Kingsway Hall recordings. But these recordings were subtle rather than showy and could sometimes sound thin and unimpressive to untutored ears when replayed on cheaper stereo systems. There was also the disadvantage that the recording engineers needed specialist knowledge to determine microphone placement, and expensive studio session time was required to balance the sound as there was little scope for correcting errors at later remixing sessions. Predictably the American school produced the opposite results: the sound was less refined but more ‘in your face’, microphone set-up was faster and less skilled, and technical and music balance problems could be ironed out by post-session remixing.

In recent years the classical recording landscape has changed completely. Financial pressures and the consequent advent of ‘live’ concert recordings by orchestra owned record labels mean the more flexible and lower cost American model dominates, to the extent that the geographic labels are now redundant as multi-miking has virtually become standard on both sides of the Atlantic. This has, inevitably, resulted in compromises in sound quality"

 

This explains something to me - all of my classical CDs are older recordings, and nearly all from the European side - people complaining about unrealistic acoustic presentation makes more sense now ...

 

I do have a Telarc of show off orchestral works, which sounds a bit ridiculous - I find it quite amusing to listen to; and have wondered what they were trying to do ... your comments clarify the situation - thanks.

Link to comment
  • 3 weeks later...

Hello everyone,

 

I know I did say:

On 3/16/2018 at 9:38 PM, Mario Martinez said:

Looking at your comments I think it would be safe to say that this new calibration is an improvement so we are going to go ahead and release all our new material with this new sound.

 

But I could not help myself...

 

The previous calibration (v2.0) had some issues that we wanted to solve. I do think v3.0 was successful on fixing those issues but I also felt that the "general balance" (which was perfect on v2.0) was somehow altered on this new v3.0 (I did receive some private comments that I think were probably caused by this)

 

So I have been working on the "general balance" of this last calibration (v3.0) to try to restore it back to the balance of v2.0. As a result we now have a new calibration v3.1 (which I hope will be the end of our developing journey)

 

I have processed all our new albums with this new calibration (v3.1). They are all now available on our web. I think we are now ready to open a new master file giveaway thread...

 

 

 

 

Mario Martínez

Recording Engineer and Music Producer

Play Classics, classical music at its best

Link to comment

I have prepared a zip file with seven samples processed with v3.1

 

- one movement of a String Quartet

- one movement of a Wind Quintet

- the Flamenco sample number one

- the Drums sample number three

- one short piano piece by Mas Porcel

- one short piano piece by Webern

- Liebeslied by Rachmaninoff
 

If anybody wants to try these please post or send me a PM and I will send you the codes to download them.

Mario Martínez

Recording Engineer and Music Producer

Play Classics, classical music at its best

Link to comment

Mario, listening time has been short lately.  Also I have been searching for the Polish Songs album I downloaded thanks to a generous offer on your part previously.  I plan to compare this with the newer processings. 

 

From memory this album was impactful with great musicianship by both pianist and singer.  Whenever I started listening something within the first 15-30 seconds always struck me as ever so slightly, hard to define, too perfect or complicated for what I should be hearing.  Over the course of the song or entire album it never crept any further towards detectable no matter how many times I tried to revisit the sensation. 

 

There are any number of possible reasons for this including my leading theory currently.  Hearing my system fail to fully express all that was captured.  A known problem your recordings are exposing large holes within.  Even having said that, I would be very grateful if you would allow me to hear what the newest version brings.  

 

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...