Play Classics final calibration: TRT sound 2.4a …no more R&D

[Mayfair]

Hi Mario,

 

If it's not too late, I would like to take up your kind offer and my choice would be 'Around the World With Kreisler' by Olga Yukushina and Elizaveta Yaroshinskaya.

 

Thank you

[albcap]

Hi Mario,

 

If I'm still in time, I would like to try the Goldberg Variations played by William Wolfram.

In any case, thanks a lot for your offer!!

 

Thank you

[Mayfair]

On 10/15/2021 at 12:08 AM, Mario Martinez said:

May I ask you all a question about something that I do not understand from my perspective?

 

I understand that everyone on this forum (there must be thousands of people here) is interested in high fidelity audio reproduction. I also understand the relationship between better gear - more accurate reproduction. But it seems to me that most people have forgotten that reproduction is just one part of the chain. Accurately reproducing a bad recording is never going to make it into a good one.

 

My question is: have people forgotten that? Are they not aware of this?

 

I sometimes go into other threads to see what people are recommending just to listen to other recordings and compare their production work with ours.

 

Some of the things I encounter are quite astonishing and I am only talking about classical music. People praise recordings that are completely artificial. The type that seem to be most popular is the violin piano type where you could listen to the whole album to find yourself asking at the end: was there a piano playing in it? I can imagine what the pianist himself must have thought when he was fist presented with the results of that recording.

 

I do not know if the cause is a lack of ever having heard the real thing or may be people just find that artificial product more enjoyable. But there is obviously something going on and I feel that I am not getting the grip of it.

 

I strongly believe that our approach is the right one, but seeing how little repercussion it has I feel that our project may be completely offline with the general public.

 

Music lovers from classical music forums will not even try to listen to our albums because our artists are not “famous” plus they would not want to get their ears contaminated with anything other than recordings from big labels, and audiophiles (in their majority, not the 15 of you) are to busy talking about cables and gear to pay attention to the quality of the material they are going to feed their systems with.

 

What is going on? …am I missing something?

First, thank you for the code to download "Kreisler Around the World".   I immediately noticed the naturalness of the sound and the "presence" of the  instruments.  It's a very enjoyable recording, in terms of both the performance and the sound.  I wish all my recordings, let alone my classical ones, sounded this good. 

 

I also agree with the commenters who have mentioned that for them, ultimately it's the performance that's the critical factor.  The quality of the recording is a factor, too, but in practical terms, that involves me searching for and buying specific masterings by a particular artist of a recording  (e.g., pre-loudness wars jazz/pop/rock/blues/country or Mercury Living Stereo classical recordings from the 1950s), rather than choosing entirely different artists and recordings because the recordings sound better.

 

I've got recordings by performers such as Vladimir de Pachmann, Fritz Kreisler, Josef Hofmann, Walter Gieseking, Artur Schnabel, and Leopold Godowsky that are recorded on what would today (and 50 years ago) be considered primitive recording technology.  But I don't find it hard to listen past the limitations of the original recordings through to the excellence of the performers.  That is very much helped by the efforts of Ward Marston and others who have done superb work to restore and rescue old recordings by old masters for modern listeners whose grandparents or even great-grandparents hadn't been born when the original recordings were made.

 

So, I agree with others who suggest trying to spread the word about your technology and its benefits to well-known performers, sound engineers  and audio review publications who have the clout, readership and contacts to lobby the major labels and who might convince them that they can sell more recordings and make more money, all other things being the same, if their recordings also sound as good as yours do.  I'm sure some of them must read blogs like Audiophile Style, so I think and hope that your efforts will not go unnoticed on the supply side, and wish you every success.

[JonahM]

Hi Mario,

 

I am new to the forum, I was made aware of your post by Archimago  who used one of your recordings to test his latest DAC. I would very much appreciate the opportunity to compare his observations to my system. My choice would be 'Around the World With Kreisler' by Olga Yukushina and Elizaveta Yaroshinskaya.

 

Thank you very much.

[John Dyson]

On 10/8/2021 at 11:29 AM, Mario Martinez said:

 

Maybe we should look at this from a different point of view. My statement is that our system's sound is transparent. But it would be impossible for you to evaluate its transparency by just listening to one instrument. Yes, it may sound good to you but how can you really know how "true" to the physical instrument that sound is if you really have not had the chance to listen to the real one?

 

I think a better way to evaluate the transparency of the system would be to listen to a playlist of one track of each album. Then you will be hearing all different kinds of instruments one after the other and also some of the same instruments used in different places of the stage.

 

Now, you know there is no mastering or mixing involved, so all instruments are portrayed just the way the system captured them (we did not make any corrections to any particular instrument or range of an instrument) so, if what you are hearing in the playlist sounds natural to you then my theory is that that can only be the result of a transparent recording system.

 

Here is a playlist I made with one example from each album so you can try this approach: http://www.playclassics.com/streaming?g=2898-2887-2870-2852-2839-176-2820-140-130-115-87-16-2796-27-48-75-7-2910&ps=1&pt=1&p=a-135-136&i=a&c=a&o=s&gf=m

 

 I have little/no ability to judge artistic aspects of material, but I can tell that the performances are really good.   The technical quality  improvement goes far beyond the mere signal processing issues that I normally focus on.  Your results successfully address the often mediocre capture of the audio in the real-world environment.   The capture on your recordings is wonderful.

 

The temporal coherency of these recordings is pretty darned impressive.   The various  signal components appear to arrive at the correct time (milliseconds).  There is NO fuzziness or smear at all in the recordings.  I cannot detect any sort of obnoxious room effects -- I mean, these sound *clean*, moreso than my first, quick technical check.   Normally, I hear temporal distortions without needing to concentrate -- the common distortions on consumer recordings are badly distracting almost like -40dB hiss.   However, even when concentrating on your recordings, there is NO 'ugliness' that is so common elsewhere.   Even on 'high-brow', but non-boutique recordings, the problems are often severe...   There appear to be no such problems on your recordings.   Frankly, I am going to put your recordings aside for another 8Hrs and listen again....  Bordering on disbelief about how good they are.

 

This 'correcteness' in your recordings goes FAR FAR beyond the little phase/electronic temporal problems from any reasonably good analog or digital reproduction system (speakers notwithstanding.)   Your 'collection' (micing/etc) technique addresses the largest problem with accurate reproduction -- often not-so-wonderful elsewhere.

 

Frankly, I think that I am enjoying your demos -- doesn't happen very often any more 🙂.   In the right forum, and with good communications skills, your effort might be a globally  important component of helping re-center the audiophile public back to 'realistic reproduction' instead of  attempted work-arounds of hopelessly damaged recordings and signals.  This project demonstrates that incessant 'tweaking' can only help so much.   Redesign/re-thinking, moving beyond 'tweaking' is sometimes the only way to make very significant improvement.  Obviously here, this shows that there are STILL people who can innovate instead of 'copying & tweaking schematics'. 🙂

 

Again, GOOD STUFF.

 

[Mario Martinez]

There is a Spanish cellist that just recorded an album with Sony. I have heard the album to check the technical aspects of the recording. It does suffer from that common effect that makes it seem as if the cello and the piano had been recorded in different spaces and then put together in the mixing table. Plus it seem they have manipulated the dynamics of both instruments separetly placing them at different floor levels with different levels of compression.

 

I would like to contact this artist to offer him the possibility of recording his next Sony project in our studios. This would be a great opportunity to introduce our sound into the market. But if I call him and tell him that we can do a better job he is just not going to believe me, and if I tell him to listen for himself he might not know what to listen for.

 

I do not want to disclose the album info here into the open, but if anyone wants to listen to it please send me a PM and I will send you a link where you can stream it. I would like to know just how obvious you think the difference is, and if you are ok with it I could use your testimonies to try to convince him.

[Mario Martinez]

20 hours ago, John Dyson said:

The temporal coherency of these recordings is pretty darned impressive.

 

Here is a picture of a recording session in one of todays mainstream classical studios:

 

And here is a picture of the setup we use to record every ensemble here at Musicstry Studios:

 

 

The first picture is a very good example of what is regularly done today. It seems to me that engineers tend to think that the more mics the better. It does look more "busy" in the picture so I guess it also makes it easier to sell the job to the next musician/customer.

 

The truth is, it is not better, it actually complicates everything. All those temporal incoherences you were talking about are cause by this. When you have so many mics recording the same instrument at different distances you are setting yourself up for that temporal trap.

 

The sound that comes out of the instrument arrives to each one of those mics at a different time. If you have mics at three different distances every time the instrument produces an attack you will pick up that attack at three different points in time. What do you do with that at the mixing table?

The people that use these techniques will tell you that if the distance is not big enough then the ear cannot perceive them as different attacks. That might be true, but what it certainly does not do is make the attack any cleaner.

 

But this is not the most important side effect. To me the worst part is how this affects the timbre/color and balance of the instrument (which is the part that is almost always ignored).

When you put together the sound of two mics that picked up the same instrument at different distances you are going to have phase problems that are going to affect the whole range of the instrument in different ways. You can try to "fix" one part of the range of the instrument by sliding the file of one of the mics a bit backward of forward on the software but you will be messing up even more other parts of the range of the instrument.

 

This kind of problem cannot be fixed, so the only solution is once again the same as before. Just as with the attack, the "theory" is, bring up the sound of a set of mics that was placed at a similar distance and use the others at very low levels. If you add them to the mix at very low levels then the human ear cannot perceive these phase problems.

 

But why would they want to do that? Their answer will probably be: ...to enrich the sound.

 

Really! ...so you are telling me that a grand piano needs his naturally gorgeous sound to be artificially enriched?

 

Maybe the problem is that their main set of mics was not able to capture the richness of the natural sound properly to begin with. Had they been able to do that they would not have needed any of the other mics.

 

 

 

[semente]

I would like to thank @Mario Martinez for his generous offer.
I have been very enthusiastic about the PlayClassics project since I first learned about it. Having accompanied the development of the calibration process I am happy to say that the sound is now free from any audible artifacts which could otherwise disturb the listening experience. The sound quality is unsurpassed both with vocals, solo instrument and small ensemble music.
It's a very interesting experience to listen to different performers and instruments playing with such a tonal and acoustical seamlessness, almost as if I were listening to a single musical event. And the level of unmatched realism, almost bewitching, makes the musical listening experience far more engaging than what I'm used to with the more typical commercial recordings.
I am very much looking forward to listening to PlayClassics' future releases.

[Mario Martinez]

On 10/20/2021 at 9:17 AM, Mario Martinez said:

When you have so many mics recording the same instrument at different distances you are setting yourself up for that temporal trap.

 

To me the worst part is how this affects the timbre/color and balance of the instrument (which is the part that is almost always ignored).

 

When you put together the sound of two mics that picked up the same instrument at different distances you are going to have phase problems that are going to affect the whole range of the instrument in different ways

 

Here are some samples I have made to try to illustrate this. They are not actual recordings; I have generated them in the computer to simulate what actually happens in the real world.

 

The purpose of these samples is to show how mixing into one track the sound of two microphones placed at different distances from an instrument artificially alters the timbre/color and balance of that instrument.

 

This sample is the sound that we are going to use as the source material, it would be the real sound of the instrument if you had it in front of you. It is an “A4”. It is composed of 5 harmonics. The color you hear is determined by the structure of its harmonics (power and inharmonicity): Instrument.mp3

 

This other sample is the sound we would get if we were to make a recording placing one mic 7.8 centimetres further away than the other. 7.8 centimetres is half the wave length of the 5th harmonic. That means that by the time the sound reaches the second microphone, the first one is going exactly the opposite direction with regards to this particular frequency. So when you put them together at the mixing table this frequency practically disappears: 7.8 cm apart.mp3

 

This would be the same thing at a distance of 13 centimetres therefore eliminating the 3rd harmonic: 13 cm apart.mp3

 

And the same thing at a distance of 39 centimetres therefore eliminating the 1st harmonic: 39 cm apart.mp3

 

As you can see, none of these recordings have been able to capture the true color of the sound of the original note. They have all altered the timbre into something else. The first one made the note much darker, the second one made it much more nasal, and the third one made if much thinner.

 

But the harm does not stop there. If you were to use the third setup (39 centimetre) to record every single note of the range of this instrument, what do you think would happen? If you are thinking that everything would sound thin then you are in for a surprise.

 

The 39 centimetre setup will cancel out the 440Hz frequency of any sound no matter where that frequency appears within the harmonic structure of the note. For some notes (like our “A4”) that means it will be cancelling the 1st harmonic (therefore sounding thin) but for others, like a “D3”, it will be the 3rd harmonic thus making it sound nasal, or the 5th one (for “F2”) making it sound dark.

 

At the end you will end up with a collage of different timbres distributed along the range of the instrument that not only are incoherent with each other but also untrue to the real color of the source.

[CJH]

Here are my quick remarks sent to Mario after listening to "Felix and Fanny".

 

Mario:

Yes. I also just purchased "Around the World". Both are beautifully recorded works of art. The quality of recording reminds me of the MFSL Direct to Disc albums with so much less electronics and mastering fiddling in the way as to allow the music to be natural and true to the event. It is easy to hear the additional complexity of the instrument sound (overtones) and performance artistry (without the timing distortions of multi-mikes and excessive processing) in a wonderful recording space. Congratulations. My next purchase will probably be Albinez.

 

Really appreciate Mario's explanation above concerning harmonic distortions. Now I understand why his recordings sound fuller in the lower midrange along with tighter imaging at the same time. Normally it means a slight boost in upper frequencies to get tighter imaging. But here, due to the reduced smearing of harmonics, we get a full, realistic tonal balance along with tight imaging--easy to hear in the violin and cello presentation.

 

CJH

[lotusaurus]

Mario,
Thank you very much for your generous gift and your patience in waiting for my comments. I received Around the World with Kreisler and the samplers and thoroughly enjoyed them, although I wasn't familiar with most of the music. Not necessarily a bad thing for "auditioning": I have no pre-conceived ideas about how the pieces should sound.

 

Disclaimers: I'm not a musician, have no music training and don't have a high-end system, but family members play violin and piano in the house, so I at least have some idea of how these sound. I found the recorded sound very impressive - certainly I can't think of anything else I have that sounded as good in terms of how real the instruments sounded. I can't in all honesty say that the piano was always lifelike, but most pieces in the samples were very good indeed. (For context, I've yet to find a realistic piano recording and I've trawled through various forum suggestions.) The violin was very sweet and entrancing, and showed "bite" when it needed to. I found the staging in Around the World with Kreisler very convincing: from my listening position, the piano was in the centre and the violin was slightly to the left and a little higher.

 

While I don't understand all the nuances of how the recordings were made, I can say that I found the final results to be exceptionally good.

[Nikhil]

Hello Mario,

 

I missed this thread in all the other discussions.  If the offer is still open, I would be interested in the Cabrera please.

 

I think you have to be patient to see success in your endeavor.  Like you have said earlier, it will need a special occasion for a breakthrough but if you keep at it I am sure you will succeed.  Starting a discussion like this is definitely a good way to engage with your potential audience.  I would also suggest that you create a technical White Paper which you could offer to those interested in your work.  You should also speak to your team about preparing a media kit which you can send to those in the business.  If there are Classical Music publications, I suggest you approach them via regular channels.  It is a fair amount of work but you do need to engage with the industry.

 

Having seen your work from the very first recordings that you shared with us on here I can vouch for the high quality of your content and of your work.

 

Regards

 

 

 

.

[HenryOHenry]

Mario, I purchased and listened to the Mozart and Beethoven Wind Qiuntets and enjoyed both the performance and sonics. However, I have to take issue with some of your statements as regards the state of the classical music industry. If by the industry you mean the big labels, they, to my mind, no longer define the industry. Today we are dealing with a plethora of relatively smaller labels like Channel Classics, Reference Recordings, and Pentatone, who consistently make outstanding records. I also happen to think that reproducing the actual performance should not always be the goal. Engineering offers us the opportunity to manipulate the sound and create effects. While artificial, it certainly does not always lead to bad or boring recordings. In short, I don’t believe there is one right way to do it. That is not to say that your way doesn’t have a lot of merit. Even if we grant that traditional recording techniques change the timbre of instruments, I believe that these changes will only be evident to a very small subset of listeners, i.e. those who are very familiar with the natural sounds of those particular instruments. As I said, I thoroughly enjoyed the one PlayClassics recording that I tried and would certainly consider purchasing more depending on the repertoire, but I doubt that most listeners would find it better than recordings from other labels. Personally, I found the sound quite smooth, but (I must confess) a bit laid back.

 

All the best.

 

On 10/15/2021 at 3:08 AM, Mario Martinez said:

May I ask you all a question about something that I do not understand from my perspective?

 

I understand that everyone on this forum (there must be thousands of people here) is interested in high fidelity audio reproduction. I also understand the relationship between better gear - more accurate reproduction. But it seems to me that most people have forgotten that reproduction is just one part of the chain. Accurately reproducing a bad recording is never going to make it into a good one.

 

My question is: have people forgotten that? Are they not aware of this?

 

I sometimes go into other threads to see what people are recommending just to listen to other recordings and compare their production work with ours.

 

Some of the things I encounter are quite astonishing and I am only talking about classical music. People praise recordings that are completely artificial. The type that seem to be most popular is the violin piano type where you could listen to the whole album to find yourself asking at the end: was there a piano playing in it? I can imagine what the pianist himself must have thought when he was fist presented with the results of that recording.

 

I do not know if the cause is a lack of ever having heard the real thing or may be people just find that artificial product more enjoyable. But there is obviously something going on and I feel that I am not getting the grip of it.

 

I strongly believe that our approach is the right one, but seeing how little repercussion it has I feel that our project may be completely offline with the general public.

 

Music lovers from classical music forums will not even try to listen to our albums because our artists are not “famous” plus they would not want to get their ears contaminated with anything other than recordings from big labels, and audiophiles (in their majority, not the 15 of you) are to busy talking about cables and gear to pay attention to the quality of the material they are going to feed their systems with.

 

What is going on? …am I missing something?

 

[Bob Stern]

@HenryOHenry:  I'm sincerely interested to know what specific piano recordings you think sound as good as the Schumann album by Hernández.  I listened briefly to several I own on a few labels as a point of reference, and none of them had such a beautiful natural treble.  Also, I suspect one of the reasons I was so impressed with Hernández' touch and rubato is that the sound quality allowed me to hear the nuances more clearly than on most of my other recordings.

[HenryOHenry]

Hi, Bob. I thought I made clear that I’ve only listened to the Mozart/Beethoven Wind Quintets but after your recommendation I might very well have to buy the Schumann album as well. (If Mario is reading this, maybe he can send me the gift code.)

 

Let me take this opportunity to retract my description of the Wind Quintets record as laid back. I just listened to the Mozart with the volume turned up a little more than I would normally and am not sure that “laid back” is the proper description. It could be that I need to acclimatize to the sonics. It sounds different from what I’m used to, but not sure how.

[rando]

@Mario Martinez I will restrict comment to the album I requested to hear in 2.4a, "Chopin - Polish Songs."

 

My first contact with this album was on January 19, 2017 when I took you up on the offer to hear it in high-res.  Since that day these files have slowly distanced themselves from instantly appealing artistry into a synthetic tone shifted studio remix.  However well the PlayClassics sound is received today on Instrumental albums.  I cannot in all honesty declare it a success on Vocal works.  Quite bluntly I am left questioning if either artist would sign off on this release today.  So far has it diverged from the original statement.  

 

I would very much like to hear your impressions on the drastic changes to this album.  Focus in my account has purposely not been given to how the piano sounded even when it gained lifelike qualities in some passages.  The mix of both instruments, where piano is playing a lower importance role as accompaniment, is so simple it's incredibly hard to stand out as accomplishing something.  Any element a hair away from exuding consonant professionalism in the duo lowers the entire output drastically.   

 

Would it be possible to hear again the files you were distributing on January 2017 again?  To my deep consternation they were accidentally erased robbing me of the lovely voice you captured Iwona Sobotka in.  You might laugh at this reaction, Mario.  Or see it as exactly what you hope to create.  

[Mario Martinez]

On 11/17/2021 at 7:13 AM, rando said:

@Mario Martinez I will restrict comment to the album I requested to hear in 2.4a, "Chopin - Polish Songs."

 

My first contact with this album was on January 19, 2017 when I took you up on the offer to hear it in high-res.  Since that day these files have slowly distanced themselves from instantly appealing artistry into a synthetic tone shifted studio remix.  However well the PlayClassics sound is received today on Instrumental albums.  I cannot in all honesty declare it a success on Vocal works.  Quite bluntly I am left questioning if either artist would sign off on this release today.  So far has it diverged from the original statement.  

 

I would very much like to hear your impressions on the drastic changes to this album.  Focus in my account has purposely not been given to how the piano sounded even when it gained lifelike qualities in some passages.  The mix of both instruments, where piano is playing a lower importance role as accompaniment, is so simple it's incredibly hard to stand out as accomplishing something.  Any element a hair away from exuding consonant professionalism in the duo lowers the entire output drastically.   

 

Would it be possible to hear again the files you were distributing on January 2017 again?  To my deep consternation they were accidentally erased robbing me of the lovely voice you captured Iwona Sobotka in.  You might laugh at this reaction, Mario.  Or see it as exactly what you hope to create.  

 

I am sorry you lost the 2017 files. I wish I could replace them but we no longer have them in our servers.

 

I am thankful for all the feedback (positive and negative). As a research project I just try to keep and open mind because I know everyone has their own reasons and perception to backup their comments and it is all useful to us.

 

I understand that you might like the 2017 files better than the current versión but that does not mean that they are more transparent. Our project is not about making a "good sound" but capturing color and balance as transparently as possible no matter what the final result end up being like.

 

Back in 2017 we were on the 1.x versión of our "TRT sound" calibration. That calibration was developed using albums 1 through 7. All those albums were recorded using only one piano (the one we had from the start), two voices (soprano and tenor) and a classical guitar.

 

In 2018 we purchased a second piano. We spend 3 months looking for the right one trying to find an instrument with the best posible harmonic balance across its complete range. 

 

Using our old 1.x calibration on this new piano made it clear to us that we had been unconsciously deviating our calibration to compensate for the smaller bass of our first piano. So, no matter how good those recording sounded we felt that we had to correct them because we now knew they were not completely transparent.

 

It took us a few years of tweaking to get to a calibration where both pianos would render as what they really are in real life (showing their good and bad aspects). There is no perfect piano, some have a better treble, other better bass, it is always a compromise.

 

Getting these two pianos to sound as what they really are helped us improve the transparency of our calibration. As a result the new versions of albums 1 though 7 sounded less heavy on the bass and the calibration also worked with the new albums which now included the new piano, cello, bassoon, french horn, clarinet, oboe, flute and violin.

 

All these things also had an effect on the voice. On the old calibration Sobotka's voice was surrounded by an artificially lifted up bass that made it sound "smoother" and that may have created a "nice" or "beautiful" effect but just as it happened with the piano it was not as transparent as it is now.

 

About the artists, they are aware of our constant development and give us constant feedback on our calibrations. This past summer we talked with Mr. Cabrera (he regularly accompanies both artists Sobotka and Corujo) and he assured us this new calibration was the one that best render the true qualities of both voice albums (soprano and tenor).

Anyway, I am not trying to justify anything. Like I said, I understand that you may like the old version better but we just could not keep it that way knowing that it was biased.

 

[rando]

Mario, 

 

Thank you for taking the time to address the larger portion of feedback gained from this round of calibration. 

 

Professional choices made by PlayClassics are brought to us for examination on a fairly steady basis.  In all previous encounters the amount and type of changes wrought through refinement of your studio processing techniques portrayed a lighter touch.  Philosophical elements of musical reproduction much closer to the prevailing sentiment displayed on this site were an excellent match.  Their wellspring of undiluted fresh content purer by far than board heavy manipulation increasingly finding wider use across all genres.  

 

Since the date I first encountered your label in early 2017.  This site has undergone many changes which are not solely restricted to operational namesake.  Core experienced members possessing the intellect and training to openly discourse on the various facets of stereo reproduction from a broad historical viewpoint have largely moved on.  A weightless sense of freely experimenting has overtaken strict adherence towards established discriminatory practices that lead towards good sound.  I wish it were not so, but your label has struck out in this direction alongside them. 

 

Having accepted your offer to replay a single album's worth of files on my system(s) with the intent to report a truthful response.  What arose was need of criticism lacking in most regards except comprehension by the larger pool of readership it would encounter.  I very much doubt you fail to revisit every day in 2017, or any other year since the conception of this project, in pursuit of fulfilling the vision of your artists and yourselves.  Had I intent to dismay.  This direct and dismissible rebuttal would've taken a very different form.  One lacking encouragement.       

 

I look forwards to encountering your next set of ideas packaged into a calibration more suitable to my ears.  

[Mario Martinez]

On 11/17/2021 at 5:55 AM, HenryOHenry said:

Hi, Bob. I thought I made clear that I’ve only listened to the Mozart/Beethoven Wind Quintets but after your recommendation I might very well have to buy the Schumann album as well. (If Mario is reading this, maybe he can send me the gift code.)

 

Let me take this opportunity to retract my description of the Wind Quintets record as laid back. I just listened to the Mozart with the volume turned up a little more than I would normally and am not sure that “laid back” is the proper description. It could be that I need to acclimatize to the sonics. It sounds different from what I’m used to, but not sure how.

 

Hi Henry, thanks for the feedback. I sent you a code to download the "Romantic Piano" album.

 

I think you are listening to version 2.4b on both albums (the Mozart and the Schumann). After my last post on October 22nd I started trying something out. I got good results so I decided to update all our albums like we always do (...I know I said I would not update anymore)

 

This new version (2.4b) has been up and running in our servers since last November 12th. Anything downloaded on or after that date would be this new version. I think Henry is the only one that has done that. (you would know for sure because the tracks are tagged with a date and a version number)

 

I understand how "tiring" all this updating can be but, should anyone want to try it, everyone is welcome to update their albums to version 2.4b.

[klassikmann]

@Mario Martinez

I'm interested to update Iberia to 2.4b. In particular because I (and firedog) detected considerable differences not only in terms of measurement data but also clearly audible. So I'm curious to compare the 2.4b calibration with the older ones.

 

Herbert

 

[Mario Martinez]

2 hours ago, klassikmann said:

@Mario Martinez

I'm interested to update Iberia to 2.4b. In particular because I (and firedog) detected considerable differences not only in terms of measurement data but also clearly audible. So I'm curious to compare the 2.4b calibration with the older ones.

 

Herbert

 

 

Yes, sure, I just sent it to you. Thanks.

[CJH]

I would like to compare 2.4b of "Around The World". Thanks.

CJH

[HenryOHenry]

7 hours ago, Mario Martinez said:

I think you are listening to version 2.4b on both albums (the Mozart and the Schumann).

 

 

Correct.

[Mario Martinez]

As of yesterday, all albums have been updated to versión 2.4c. The main reason of this last revision is the feedback provided by @rando concerning the soprano album.

 

I only have myself to blame for this, but I think I may have been "not paying attention" to the effect that the various calibrations have had on the voice albums because I was using the instrumental only as a reference.

 

2.4c is the result of that same analysis including both voice albums (soprano and tenor). It should be an improvement on every album (voice and instrumental)

[rando]

Thank you @Mario Martinez

 

I just listened to a few tracks using the online player.  After letting first track play through, I played back first 20 seconds of track 2 locally using the previous iteration (2.4a) and current one (2.4c) online.  Then I queued up same in a local player using versions 2.0 and 2.4a.  As a third check I compared 2.0 and 2.4c. 

 

Allowing for the reduced frequency range of lossy playback.  I come back to the fact despite flaws my ears center on the atmosphere and artistry as portrayed in 2.0 being more enjoyable.  There is a noticeable lack of environmental noise music rises and falls back into.  Or for that matter a number of other elements that separate a good audiophile recording from choices made to gain mass appeal or appease other demands.

 

Chief among these is the truthful accounting of space recording took place in not being large enough to increasingly take on voluminous proportions as your process moved forwards.  Because the voice is so varied and integral to our mental actualization.  Studio manipulation to add reverb (and other elements) strips away or desiccates natural and profound reactions to promote a synthetic perfectionism.  Had you chosen to use a very soft hand in mastering decisions we would not be having this discussion. 

 

Were it my place I would upload the snippet referenced above for others to listen what changes have been wrought.  So long as you and your artists are happy with the net changes - I wish you all the best of luck going forwards and note the encounter was overwhelmingly pleasant until we reached a point of splitting company.