Jump to content

Challenge: Amateur vs. Stereophile "Gods"


Mallette

Recommended Posts

Forget about the pianos, artists, music. Comment on the engineering. Which do you prefer when for imaging and which sound more like a piano in the room with you, eyes closed and relaxed?

I'm not saying who did what until the returns are in. The recordings don't have a single piece they both performed, so I just tried to select two pieces of about the same length and from about the same period.

Those who know which is which please just comment, don't let the cat out of the bag. I'll let this go until it starts to wind down, then reveal all.

File1

File2

If they open in a player, go back and right click and choose "Save As." Burn'em to CD or play them straight. However, if you have good bandwidth and your computer is hooked to your system, no reason not to listen to them streamed. You may have to wait a bit to build a buffer.

Try'em loud, at "realistic" (your perception of how loud a piano would be in your listening room and distance), and soft.

The $tereophile gods are John Atkinson and Robert Farley, the amateur is a member of this forum.

Looking forward to your comments.

Dave

PS - Thanks again to srobak for the hosting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 56
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Hello Mallette -

Thanks for posting this - very interesting... here's what I heard on my system...

#1 - Closer recording and natural sounding.

#2 - Phasey. Maybe more distant than #1. Not bad at reduced volume.

As far as the engineering goes, I'd say #1 is a far better recording than #2.

Steve.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hello Mallette -

Thanks for posting this - very interesting... here's what I heard on my system...

#1 - Closer recording and natural sounding.

#2 - Phasey. Maybe more distant than #1. Not bad at reduced volume.

As far as the engineering goes, I'd say #1 is a far better recording than #2.

Steve.

Interesting. Any comments on image?
Dave

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dave, this is rough. Trying it first on the PC system, which has my nearfields (Alesis Monitor One) hooked up,powered by the 100wpc Alesis RA-100 amp. Still, the environment around the desk is not ideal.

Track 1 > I personally like the sound of this one better. Not nearly the reverberant field as track two. I can hear the bench squeak a few times. I can't really tell exactly where the piano is located, it's just out there in front of me somewhere. Using headphones I get the same impression.

Track 2 > I don't like the huge hall on this, the reverberant field is huge, which make the piano a little too distant for my tastes, but that's just me.The audience noise is a bit distracting and gets in the way a little bit. I can, however, tell exactly where the piano is sitting. The notes come from a specific place. At least that's what I'm hearing first...

CD in the living room next.

Bruce

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hello Mallette -

Thanks for posting this - very interesting... here's what I heard on my system...

#1 - Closer recording and natural sounding.

#2 - Phasey. Maybe more distant than #1. Not bad at reduced volume.

As far as the engineering goes, I'd say #1 is a far better recording than #2.

Steve.

I agree completely with this assessment. In addition, I thought the second recording was a little bright, possibly due to the apparent live nature of the room/hall....*SEE EDIT BELOW*


Of course, that version of "Claire de Lune" is one of my all-time favs for piano, so maybe I'm a little biased... [:D]

EDIT: I've had another listen, and I don't think it's fair to use these two different performances to compare recording techniques; they are too dissimilar. #1 was recorded under the piano top while #2 sounds like it was recorded for 30 feet away. There are a lot of unnerving room reflections in #2. I noticed in one of the particularly rambunctious sections of #1 that there was overmodulation; was this the original recording or the re-recording (this sounds like an old 50s or 60s performance)? There are too many questions here to make an informed, unbiased evaluation....

2nd EDIT: Armed with the further information stated about these recordings, I went back & listened on a pair of headphones (AKG-K701), I find the File 1 recording much more enjoyable to listen to, with the exception of a GRANDLY irritating distortion/buzz (overmodulation?) in the right channel which may or may not be part of the process of copying to mp3. I find it hard to believe that could be on the original recording...

I just wasn't as happy with the File 2 recording. The imaging/phase shifts were very disconcerting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks, Bruce and TNR, this is fun...

Mike? Please specify which is chocolate and which is strawberry.

Given that I've said in the past that source material is far more important than equipment, I am especially pleased with Bruce's listening at the computer. If you don't have a way to listen to these on your system, jump right in to the game by listening on whatever speakers you have on your computer.

Dave

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hello Mallette -

Thanks for posting this - very interesting... here's what I heard on my system...

#1 - Closer recording and natural sounding.

#2 - Phasey. Maybe more distant than #1. Not bad at reduced volume.

As far as the engineering goes, I'd say #1 is a far better recording than #2.

Steve.

I agree completely with this assessment. In addition, I thought the second recording was a little bright, possibly due to the apparent live nature of the room/hall....*SEE EDIT BELOW*


Of course, that version of "Claire de Lune" is one of my all-time favs for piano, so maybe I'm a little biased... Big Smile

EDIT: I've had another listen, and I don't think it's fair to use these two different performances to compare recording techniques; they are too dissimilar. #1 was recorded under the piano top while #2 sounds like it was recorded for 30 feet away. There are a lot of unnerving room reflections in #2. I noticed in one of the particularly rambunctious sections of #1 that there was overmodulation; was this the original recording or the re-recording (this sounds like an old 50s or 60s performance)? There are too many questions here to make an informed, unbiased evaluation....

Nope. Both are relatively recent (90's) recordings and are as close to master as possible. The comparison is fair, as both are stated by their engineers as an attempt to realistically portray the image of a piano.

The piano is widely regarded as the iceberg which engineers plow into full speed ahead.

Dave

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest David H

Forget about the pianos, artists, music. Comment on the engineering. Which do you prefer when for imaging and which sound more like a piano in the room with you, eyes closed and relaxed?

File 1 although has a lower noise floor seems to lack resloution.

File 2 sounds more natural improved imaging.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Looking forward to it, Fluffers. I'm enjoying this. It's rare we find a different way to look at things around here. We've been over and over the same stuff ad nauseum. It IS different. I'd be happier with a few more details that so far, but it's amazing how much you can learn about peoples systems and their listening from this sort of exercise.

Dave

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Piano is the most difficult to get right. Even when it is very right it can still not be right...

A few years back I got a CD of Bach's Italienisches Konzert BWV 971 to listen at work on the computer... for the longest time I was slightly horrified at the possibility that this recording might have been performed on an electric piano - it sounded way too clean and perfect. When I finally took it home to hear it on the big system I convinced myself that it was a real piano, still just a bit too well tuned and perfect sounding for my tatstes... but then I began to notice a strange intermittant clicking sound in the music that was slightly but not completely in time with some of the notes. After a while I determined what this was: fingernails! The artist was female and her fingernails were tapping some of the keys as she played! This recording to me is an example of pristine perfect engineering gone too far, I can never again enjoy it because of the perfect capture of those damn fingernail sounds...

As for the two files - keeping in mind that I am just listening on the Barbie doll house size computer speakers and have been led astray before, I like the second one, it sounds like a performance in a concert hall, the first one has more of a fifty yard line at midnight kind of ambience...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks, Paul. This is great. We're about 3-2 at the moment. I hope you get a chance to repeat on one of your main systems. I don't think anyone has tried lofi/hifi yet and that will also be enlightening.

I'm also hoping for some more of the Kwiverin' Klispch Klan to get involved. This IS a different sort of experiment and I don't recall one in my time here that allowed everyone to get involved this way.

MORE!

Dave

PS - I am now wishing I'd simply entitled it Recording 1 vs. Recording 2. Try to forget the title and simply concentrate on the qualities of each as they impact you. I may try this again under the revised title if we all enjoy and learn something from this. I'd LOVE to be able to do it with the same piece rather than just the same instrument. For one thing, the two instruments here are hardly in the same class.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd like to listen again, perhaps this evening when things are quieter around here.

The question was imaging. I find it tough to separate imaging from everything else, but I'll give it a try.

#1 was the piano that ate New York. Pianozilla. About 30' long. Given that it was so huge, it didn't shift about much.

#2 sounds like a piano in a real space. There's enough distance to find the location. On my current settings that puts it just a touch right of center stage. However, on my system, when there was lots of bass energy the image would jump a bit to the left.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now that I answered the question, I'd like to add a bit more.

I was predisposed against the Debussy because the performance was not to my taste. I thought the Chopin was better overall musicianship so it spoke to me right off. Sometimes, being a musician works against me for these kind of judgments as the actual performance overshadows everything else.

#1 was a silent background while #2 seemed to have latent hiss. When I listen later I hope to hear if that's just ambient noise of the respective spaces. Piano #1 had good overall tonality, but the closeness revealed some disconcerting registration problems in the piano itself as well as string buzzing in a few spots. Sounds like a Yamaha. #2 has a warmer overall sound. Perhaps a Steinway or maybe a Baldwin. If the piano had problems, the distance masked them.

I'll report more after listening under better conditions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for the re-listen according to the rules. The question is NOT just imaging, though that is important.

Your change of review says a lot!

Everyone: Try to ignore performance, selections, pianos, and everything except the engineering, noise, image, etc. Just the opposite of what we usually listen to. I know it's hard, but that's what we are after here.

Dave

Link to comment
Share on other sites

File 1 - Imaging is quite realistic. Piano positioned slightly left like it's angled toward me. It could pass for someone playing in my room. Sounds nice.

File 2 - Imaging is very large. Most notes are from dead center but others cover wall to wall in my room. From outside of the room it could pass for someone playing inside. From inside it is just to big. Sounds nice.

Sean

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To follow up on my original post, I've given another listen and my

impressions are essentially the same. Regarding imaging, as I said,

#1 is close and so yes, huge piano. But I don't think #2 is all that much

better; there is more ambient sound helped by the lower registers

in the Chopin, but the piano is stll pretty big.

My main preference for #1 is that it sounds more like a piano. On

my speakers and my ears, something isn't right with #2. In my first

post I said #1 was natural sounding. I should have said the timbre

was natural sounding if not the overall recording.

Someone also brought up the issue of the Debussy vs Chopin,

and how _that_ might influence people's opinions. I prefer Chopin

myself, even if I'm familiar with the Debussy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...