PlayClassics TRT v2.0 master file giveaway for WBF members

[Mario Martinez]

Do you use devices prior to the actual recording to calibrate, or is it all digital?

I know what the others are talking about. I could go a little more in depth on it but honestly it's easier to start a diagnosis.

Hi Folsom,

No, we do not use any devices. We do not manipulate anything on the instruments or the stage either. All the acoustic work has been done on the hall itself and it remains the same for all recordings.

See if this makes sense:

Say we built a full range instrument designed to PRODUCE the same color on everyone note. If you allowed that instrument to vibrate freely (without the constrains of any walls around it) you would be able to HEAR that same color on every note. (Let's name this sound "A")

Now imagine you take that instrument into a room. The walls on that room will constrain the way the instrument vibrates. Depending on where on that room you place the instrument the distances from the different walls will affect each note in a different way. So the color of the instrument will not be homogeneous any more. It will now PRODUCE a slightly different color on every note. (Let's name this sound "B").

If you want to listen to it you will have to place yourself somewhere within that room. Depending on where on that room you place yourself the distances from the different walls will deform the sound of each note in a different way. This color deformation will not be homogeneous. For each note, you will now HEAR a different color from the one the instrument produced. (Let's name this sound "C")

But it does not stop there, because you are not listening live, we are making a recording. So instead of your ears, we are using two microphones and some gear to record that sound. Depending on your choice of mics, mic arrangement and gear the recording chain will also deform the sound. This color deformation will not be homogeneous either. So for each note, you will RECORD a different color from the one your ears would have heard. (Let's call this sound "D")

So, what are we doing? Our project is about getting as close to "A" as possible. We worked the hall to minimize the differences between "A", "B" and "C". Then we developed a calibration to take care of the rest.

How do we know if we actually got to "A"? We are using our setup to record voice, piano, guitar and drums (I am taking the rock out of the list because the bass and the guitar are not acoustic instruments). These instruments are extremely different from each other. Yet, we are recording them all the same way. They could have all been recorded on the same take. The fact that the sound quality is transparent across all those instruments means we have been successful on achieving our goal of actually recording that "A" sound (call it "true" sound, "absolute" sound… you name it)

 

[Folsom]

Mario, you're discussing things no one is really talking about. We understand what you're saying.

There's nothing "wrong" with the rock album from a perspective of imagining etc.

The problem isn't the dynamic range, either, it's fine. But it appears like it's low because the music is too soft and lacks body. It's funny because the imaging and physical character of the instruments is absurdly good. You get a stronger visual of instruments than with anything else out there.

What's causing this? Maybe it's the type of microphone? Maybe it's the mic-power? Maybe the device that records?

Any which way despite the undeniable amount of information that's maybe revolutionary in recording, the presentation is a little "one note" since the body and sharpness is lacking. It's like when you drink a high-fructose soda, you never hit a peak of sweetness like with regular sugar.

Ironically the flamenco singer is almost brutal in sharpness, but a little narrow in sound.

 

[Mario Martinez]

Mario, you're discussing things no one is really talking about. We understand what you're saying.

There's nothing "wrong" with the rock album from a perspective of imagining etc.

The problem isn't the dynamic range, either, it's fine. But it appears like it's low because the music is too soft and lacks body. It's funny because the imaging and physical character of the instruments is absurdly good. You get a stronger visual of instruments than with anything else out there.

What's causing this? Maybe it's the type of microphone? Maybe it's the mic-power? Maybe the device that records?

Any which way despite the undeniable amount of information that's maybe revolutionary in recording, the presentation is a little "one note" since the body and sharpness is lacking. It's like when you drink a high-fructose soda, you never hit a peak of sweetness like with regular sugar.

Ironically the flamenco singer is almost brutal in sharpness, but a little narrow in sound.

Hi Folsom,

Thanks for your feedback, this is very interesting

I think we might be talking about the same thing, we are just "blaming" different factors.

You described the rock sound to have a "lack of sharpness". You pointed out gear factors as the possible cause for this lack of sharpness. Yet, you also described the flamenco to be "brutal in sharpness", but the rock and the flamenco samples were both recorded using exactly the same gear (actually not just the same gear; they were both recorded in the same hall, on the same stage, with the same mics, mic arrangement and placement. They could have been recorded on the same take.)

Would it be possible to think that all these things you are describing are not flaws caused by the recording gear but that they are actual qualities of the performances themselves.

If our technology is working properly that is actually what we should expect. For example: different violinists and their respective violins have different capabilities. Some violinists can really project their sound to cut through a full orchestra while others cannot. The purpose of our technology is to present each performance as what it really is without altering any of its qualities. Only if we are successful on doing this will you be able to use these recordings to judge their performances with the same perception you would have if you actually heard those performances live.

 

[Believe High Fidelity]

Would it be possible to think that all these things you are describing are not flaws caused by the recording gear but that they are actual qualities of the performances themselves.

This is what is so fascinating about this approach. I agree with all of Fosloms points on the recording, but given the approach to the recording it makes one pause for thought.

After listening a few more times and taking into account the uniform way of recording it just seems our rock track is just an example of a not so good performance. We may end up just wanting to cling to the familiar sound caused by B/C/D type influence because that is what we are used to.

Now I am even more intrigued by this recording approach. Lets get some rock using covers of music we are familiar with for the next round

 

[Mario Martinez]

Now I am even more intrigued by this recording approach. Lets get some rock using covers of music we are familiar with for the next round

+1

Thank you so much Joshua!

I think we are right on it now

 

[Zero000]

Please send me download links for:

"We have some flamenco (voice and guitar) some drums solos (drums set of 11 pieces) and some instrumental rock (guitar, bass, drums)"

Thanks.

 

[Folsom]

Hi Folsom,

Thanks for your feedback, this is very interesting

I think we might be talking about the same thing, we are just "blaming" different factors.

You described the rock sound to have a "lack of sharpness". You pointed out gear factors as the possible cause for this lack of sharpness. Yet, you also described the flamenco to be "brutal in sharpness", but the rock and the flamenco samples were both recorded using exactly the same gear (actually not just the same gear; they were both recorded in the same hall, on the same stage, with the same mics, mic arrangement and placement. They could have been recorded on the same take.)

Would it be possible to think that all these things you are describing are not flaws caused by the recording gear but that they are actual qualities of the performances themselves.

If our technology is working properly that is actually what we should expect. For example: different violinists and their respective violins have different capabilities. Some violinists can really project their sound to cut through a full orchestra while others cannot. The purpose of our technology is to present each performance as what it really is without altering any of its qualities. Only if we are successful on doing this will you be able to use these recordings to judge their performances with the same perception you would have if you actually heard those performances live.

It's only the Flamenco singer that has the sharpness, not the instruments.

Every other instrument on all recordings has a lack of sharpness, which lowers the body and timbre character qualities.

I'm still amazed how the process paints such an extraordinary image.

And I've heard more than enough of all the instruments to know it's not the performance that is lacking the qualities that will bring solidity and weight, as the instruments hit "peak".

 

[Mario Martinez]

It's only the Flamenco singer that has the sharpness, not the instruments.

Every other instrument on all recordings has a lack of sharpness, which lowers the body and timbre character qualities.

I'm still amazed how the process paints such an extraordinary image.

And I've heard more than enough of all the instruments to know it's not the performance that is lacking the qualities that will bring solidity and weight, as the instruments hit "peak".

I see, ...I think I understand what you are saying now.

There is only one thing that could explain a difference between the flamenco singer and every other instrument: the flamenco singer ended up recording closer to the mics than anybody else.

They were here for just one hour trying things out. They ended up making the recording this way to try to compensate for the fact that her voice was not so big and the guitarist sound was big. So if you look at the sketches you can see that the flamenco singer was closer to the mics than anybody else on any other recording. Had they been here long enough, I am sure they would have been able to balance themselves to be able to sit next to each other on the stage.

So maybe that is the cause for you to be hearing that difference between the flamenco singer and the rest. And it would make sense too because when the source is closer to the mics you do get more direct sound from the source and less reflected sound form the hall which could very well translate into that sharper sound.

 

[Folsom]

Any ideas on approach to gain back what was lost? It would be pretty amazing to have an entirely full sound. Higher sensitivity mics? Mic's that are known to be toward a harder, maybe even harsh, sound? Higher voltage phantom power mics? Mixing with traditional mics? Third or fourth mic that are more in the audience position? I'm sure you know more than I do on all of that.

If there were no short coming I have no idea why you wouldn't get a great slew of all genres wanting to record with you.

 

[Mario Martinez]

Any ideas on approach to gain back what was lost? It would be pretty amazing to have an entirely full sound. Higher sensitivity mics? Mic's that are known to be toward a harder, maybe even harsh, sound? Higher voltage phantom power mics? Mixing with traditional mics? Third or fourth mic that are more in the audience position? I'm sure you know more than I do on all of that.

If there were no short coming I have no idea why you wouldn't get a great slew of all genres wanting to record with you.

Thanks Folsom,

This is very interesting feedback, you are the first person to report this

We built our setup to record classical music. The stage has been purposely built to give a mixture of direct and reflected sound. Which is what you hear when you go to a concert hall. As a matter of fact, if it had not been for the problems with the balance between singer and guitar we would have recorded the singer sitting next to the guitar further away from the mics. Had we done it that way, you would have not noticed any difference between the flamenco singer and the rest of the instruments.

That been said, I do not think there is anything wrong with either type of take (I mean the more direct one from the flamenco singer and the wetter ones from the rest of the instruments). The way I hear it, there is nothing missing from the instruments that are further away from the mics, you are just hearing them with more reflexions. You might prefer one over the other, but I think it is more a matter of taste.

If we wanted to get everyone to sound the way the flamenco singer does, I think the best course of action would be to work on the hall (not the gear). We could change some things on the hall to make the whole stage area drier. That would give you that "sharpness" effect on all the instruments no matter where they were placed on the stage. But if you are recording classical music that might get you further away from a concert hall like experience.

Maybe the best thing to do would be to keep everything as it is for the classical recordings and dry out the stage to record other genders like the flamenco, rock, etc...

 

[Folsom]

Have you heard this album?



It's the most sterile album ever, but doesn't have a softness to it. (the guitars aren't even played through amps IIR)

In general classical orchestras do sound softer, probably because they're not typically mic'd close. Some instruments may be, but in general many recordings lack a little. That's also a reason I don't listen to a lot of them. Live attendance is a little more thrilling since there's some real timbre etc, and to achieve that would be great. I see no reason to repeat a more boring side of recording.

 

[amirm]

If there were no short coming I have no idea why you wouldn't get a great slew of all genres wanting to record with you.

Don't know about that. A ton of "talent" out there relies and demands sweetening their work prior to production. It is like saying women want to go out without makeup. Nature beauty is hard to find....

 

[NorthStar]

Have you heard this album?

View attachment 28778

No and I don't want to; it's violent bikers music. I stay away of that genre...the song's titles, the album's title, all is violent.
• http://www.allmusic.com/album/countdown-to-extinction-mw0000082896

The music totally sucks; I wouldn't even call that music...it's irritation/distortion sounds that are painful for the ears and soul of a man/woman/child.
The lyrics are violent too. What kind of people want to listen to that crap, beats me, big time!

It has zero value and it has zero technical recording value...mics & all. It's a constant bore of maniacal disruption.
It must be a tough life for the ones who mix and record that type of violent and 'cacaphony' of irritating sounds to the extreme.
Young punks, some, plus the bikers might find some refuge in it; not me...no refuge @ all.

But I like classical music, and Led Zeppelin. :b

 

[Mario Martinez]

Don't know about that. A ton of "talent" out there relies and demands sweetening their work prior to production. It is like saying women want to go out without makeup. Nature beauty is hard to find....

I totally agree

This system is very hard on the artists. It exposes them completely. Here they are responsible for all aspects of the recording (the color, the balance...), just like they would in an acoustic live performance without any amplification. Classical music artists are used to doing this. They do it at every performance. But I do not know what the position of artists from other genres would be.

 

[NorthStar]

I play acoustic and classical guitars, and alto and soprano steel flutes; and I recorded my own music in the naked, with two mics approximately 3-4 feet from my instruments, and separated by roughly the same distance. No amplification, no effects, pure/natural/transparent/unedited in the flesh. ...Analog and digital. So I have a slight idea after years of doing that the way it sounds on the reproduction side.

Sure, I also play the electric guitar, have a bunch of digital effect pedals, I also play all other type of flutes, clarinet, harmonicas, piano, ...had an electric guitar amp, and recorded several electric instruments, I have pickups for my acoustic guitars, guitar preamp, pickup for my flutes, tra-la-la. But it's the acoustic stuff without any amplification and without digital effects and without bla-bla-bla that I'm more pleased to be playing and listening to, in vast general...more satisfyingly rewarding. I just make sure that I'm below the red zone. And yes I experimented different positioning of the mics over the years...1-2-3-4...

So my appreciation for your transparent recordings, Mario, is even more an extension of my own personal experience...real concrete transparency.

Keep on doing it...you are on the right path to eternal bliss...audio nirvana. And us with our hi-end stereo @ home we'll benefit from your work.
Chapeau! ...And also for your sharing generosity.

 

[Folsom]

That's why it can make for some of the best albums, when bands and groups are bold enough to go for it.

Of course I'd expect more stuff from Anouar Brahem or such.

 

[Mario Martinez]

Here is how we are doing so far:

We have given out 36 albums. 17 for Albeniz Iberia, 17 for Cabrera plays Debussy, 2 for Chopin Polish Songs and none for Songs of Paolo Tosti.

In addition to the Gift Codes we have also received some donations; I want to tell you I am really grateful for that too.

Please feel free to post your impressions. Should you have any questions about the recordings, the web page, ...anything, please do ask, I will be happy to answer all your questions.

 

[Believe High Fidelity]

The music totally sucks; I wouldn't even call that music...it's irritation/distortion sounds that are painful for the ears and soul of a man/woman/child.
The lyrics are violent too. What kind of people want to listen to that crap, beats me, big time!

It has zero value and it has zero technical recording value...mics & all. It's a constant bore of maniacal disruption.
It must be a tough life for the ones who mix and record that type of violent and 'cacaphony' of irritating sounds to the extreme.
Young punks, some, plus the bikers might find some refuge in it; not me...no refuge @ all.

Most people of the next gen will look to Taylor Swift as the great music of their past and the current generation whatever is popular at that time. All relative

Megadeath is classic. Too bad it doesnt appeal to you. Most audiophiles have little taste for this type of music and that is a shame.

 

[Mario Martinez]

Here is an SPL file you can use to calibrate the volume of your system to the volume of the actual performance.

You can download it on any of our regular formats (Master, DVD, CD, MP3)

While playing this file in stereo, adjust the volume of your system until your SPL meter reads 75dB at your listening point.

All our recordings (except for the drums and rock) are recorded with the same level, so once you calibrate your playback system you will be hearing all the recordings at real live level.

The drums and rock are 24dB louder than this. If you wanted to get real live levels of the drums and rock you would have to turn the volume up by 24dB. But I would not recommend trying to achieve that volume on your systems for the safety of your ears.

Here are the links to the files:

TRTv2.0.master_SPL75dB
TRTv2.0.dvd_SPL75dB
TRTv2.0.cd_SPL75dB
TRTv2.0.mp3_SPL75dB

Have fun

 

[fas42]

I would just make the comment that people are so used to rock recordings that have at least a reasonable level of compression applied to just about everything, to give the tonality a juicy, fat sound - and people miss that! The result is that playing a commercial track at modest volumes still has impact, a cheap radio can make a fair fist of getting the sound interesting - exactly what the record company wants. The simple solution here, with this rock recording, is to up the volume level! Played at realistic levels, all the dynamics will be there - but audiophiles are incredibly timid people with their volumes, I've noted ... .