Mallette Posted March 22, 2009 Author Share Posted March 22, 2009 Alrighty. I am going to withhold all until I'm sure everyone that is going to do this has posted their impressions. Not only do I think you will be a bit surprised with the analysis, but with what it is revealing about your systems. In fact, I am able to determine how good your imaging is (OK, it MAY be your hearing!) from the reports. Some are dead on, some are dead wrong, others are somewhat ambiguious...just like real systems! I'm loving this. Didn't think such a "distance get together" was possible, but this is yielding fascinating data. Keep it coming! Dave Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marvel Posted March 22, 2009 Share Posted March 22, 2009 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... Bruce Listened on the LS powered by my 2A3 amps. Track 1 > I kinda like the sound of this, but it is sterile sounding. If you had it on as background music, it would be ok. My original comment ppretty much still stands. See my final comment comparing both tracks. Track 2 > This needs to be played back on a good sized system (the nearfields were okay at this). Perhaps because of the the ambience. The piano is still just to the right of center, which makes me feel good about the setup on the pc. Given that piano is percussive, note with a harder attack did seem to bounce off the left side on occasion. Could be my imagination. A note of caution - I had to make a second CD of these songs. The first one had the order of the songs reversed.I don't know what I did, but if I had not listened to them on the pc and just taken the first CD out to the living room, I would have been describing them backwards. I tried to come up with a good way to describe these two recordings and decided that they are like two different pictures of a hollow egg. The first recording is taken inside the egg. Sounds clean, the tone is pretty much all there, but you are inside the instrument. We don't usually listen to any instrument like that, so it isn't quite natural to our ears. Being inside it, there is no reference for it. You don't know where it is, what its surroundings are. The second is taken from outside the egg. Aahhhh, now I get it. It is right THERE! I can see/hear the room it is in, and have an understood frame of reference for the sound The walls, the audience... everything and person is where I would expect them to be. I am actually AT this performance, which for critical listening is where I would want to be. Bruce btw, this makes me want to listen to the original Simon and Garfunkel recording of Bridge over troubled waters. The piano was recorded with the top removed, and a single mic 15 feet overhead. It has a great sound. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mallette Posted March 22, 2009 Author Share Posted March 22, 2009 Bruce, I think you are going to be a bit surprised at the actual imaging as described and intended by the engineers (and perhaps both failed!), but no more on that for now. I'm telling you, we are generating fodder here for endless discussion and elucidation. Dave Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrWho Posted March 22, 2009 Share Posted March 22, 2009 For what it's worth, if the discussion is intended to be one of engineering methods, then I think it would be better to implement both methods at the same time so as to remove the influence of everything surrounding two totally different performances... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mallette Posted March 22, 2009 Author Share Posted March 22, 2009 I agree. However, that option is not available at this time. If enough data is derived from this experiment, it might happen. Dave Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuyOtherSoundEquipment Posted March 23, 2009 Share Posted March 23, 2009 I don't have nearly the same listening experience as most people here... however, listening with my Custom-3s and "Pocket Amp version 2 by Gary", I was able to clearly disern a couple of things: Recording #1: Very, very finely detailed, I would agree with others that the piano has to be huge. The bench squeaking is probably what primarily convinced me. As I listen to it a second time, I am willing to say that the piano sounds like it is firmly "placed", but I can't shake the feeling that it is behind me... odd Recording #2: Equally as detailed, but with less music and more ambient noises (audience mainly) which I did find slightly distracting. Now I feel like I'm sitting 5 rows back in the auditorium, looking foward at the performer on stage. Also more background hiss (not sure what to attribute that to). It'll be interesting to see just how dead wrong I am... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mallette Posted March 23, 2009 Author Share Posted March 23, 2009 More right than wrong, BOSE (rather unfortunate abbreviation []). Trust your ears. Experienced listeners are called "audiophiles" and never have any fun. For all, I will point out that both recordings are in front of live audiences. Dave Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheEvan Posted March 23, 2009 Share Posted March 23, 2009 There are few other hints that the Debussy piano swallowed a couple of mics...sympathetic string 'jangles' within the piano. They sounds like a little tonal insect buzz. It's clear in one spot. Many pianos display this behavior but an audience would never hear it. I think the detailed sound of the #1 is because of close mic. I personally like the audience perspective of #2 because it sounds more natural. Sounds will blend once they travel a bit. Instrument makers count on it. Recordists should respect that. Audiophiles should realize it and quit listening for wee bitty little itty sound details. If reality is good, #2 is gooder than #1 because it places me in the audience back 5-10 rows instead of sittign under the dang piano. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JJkizak Posted March 23, 2009 Share Posted March 23, 2009 Burned them with Forge without any modifications. #1 was very clear with great tone. #2 was giving me the impression it was recorded with a pillow over the microphones. Lacking in clear detail. Also like a typical phono cartridge LP recording with rounded off transients. (Of course in my opinion) Played at 98db SPL. I pay no attention to imaging with the powered center channel PLC-II JJK Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mallette Posted March 23, 2009 Author Share Posted March 23, 2009 Gentlemen, from my position here "in the know" technically about these files, I am learning more that I ever thought possible about perception and other peoples systems! It's going to be fun to "reveal all" but that isn't going to happen for a while. This will likely lead to more such experiments. I'll be running this one on two systems at the "Donnybrook" this Saturday and will post the results. More, more... Dave Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
philipbarrett Posted March 23, 2009 Share Posted March 23, 2009 File 1 - Obvious L/R phase cancellation shows it was probably recorded with a coincident pair technique (X-Y or M-S) rather than spaced mics. It was hard to get past this flaw while listening. It's a type of piano sound more typical of rock recording where it needs to cut through the mix & not clutter the center image (Toto - "Rosanna"). Mics are close to or even over the strings, piano sounds like a Yamaha or a Steinway. File 2 - Less phase cancellation but still present, same mic technique further from the instrument. Large capsule condensors, maybe tube and/or vintage? Noisy recording. Image shifts a little to the left during high register notes. Nice room ambinece although the piano itself is voiced a little soft for my taste. My out there guess would be a Baldwin or even Bosendorfer but I'd be safer to say it's a Steinway again. Are you going to tell us it's a Kurzweil? LOL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mallette Posted March 23, 2009 Author Share Posted March 23, 2009 Phillip, very right on one and wrong on the other...but the right suggests you know your stuff and I am looking forward to your reevaluation of the other one. Can't say which is which yet. I am NOT saying it's necessarilly relevant (because I don't know), but any chance you to have another listen on a different system? Dave Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
philipbarrett Posted March 23, 2009 Share Posted March 23, 2009 Phillip, very right on one and wrong on the other...but the right suggests you know your stuff and I am looking forward to your reevaluation of the other one. Can't say which is which yet. You're a tease & I'm close enough to come get ya (Dallas, great State of Texas)! My instinct says my #1 comments were fairly accurate, it would give a vinyl cutting lathe a challange. So onto #2 with AKG K701s. Is it the same micing as #1 except that ambient mics have been added in? Reason I state this is that the stereo image has a nasty habit of moving to the left & right when loud notes at either end of the register are played. I'm thinking this could be caused by the direct mics (whose imaging is overly wide already) overpowering the ambient mics at those passages. I also hear a little time smearing on the attacks. Then again, it's a Kurzweil isn't it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mallette Posted March 23, 2009 Author Share Posted March 23, 2009 >You're a tease & I'm close enough to come get ya (Dallas, great State of Texas)! Sorry, boss, but I really can't comment further at this point. [:#] So I'm in Seabrook, grate county of Harris, why don't you come to the "Donnybrook" next Saturday and have your curiosity satisfied? I'll hold a bed for you... Dave Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheEvan Posted March 23, 2009 Share Posted March 23, 2009 Interesting. I listened under quieter conditions and with greater volume. I'll have to concur with philipbarrett on some things, namely that #2 is 'veiled' in the sound. It's got a bit of the blanket over your speakers effect. With the higher volume, neither presented much of an image other than just being there in the room with you. And yes, #2 shifts around with high & low registers, especially at volume. But so does #1 in places. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marvel Posted March 23, 2009 Share Posted March 23, 2009 the stereo image has a nasty habit of moving to the left & right when loud notes at either end of the register are played. Abruptly so! Almost jumps to the left, I wasn't sure how to describe it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mallette Posted March 25, 2009 Author Share Posted March 25, 2009 I intend to have those who visit Saturday for the "Donnybrook" to participate in this and will post the results. Dr. Mims take should be particularly interesting as a muscian rather than audiophile. Dave Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Richard Posted March 25, 2009 Share Posted March 25, 2009 I intend to have those who visit Saturday for the "Donnybrook" to participate in this and will post the results. Dr. Mims take should be particularly interesting as a muscian rather than audiophile. I have refrained from commenting more than I have on the two recordings because of "insider knowledge". However, after Saturday's results are posted rest assured that I have quite a lot to say about the "gods" and their "skills". Wish I could make it to TX for the Donnybrook. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mallette Posted March 25, 2009 Author Share Posted March 25, 2009 Charles, et al, I appreciate the restraint. I think when I post that it will be enough and time to "let a 100 blossoms bloom and a hundred schools of thought contend." Dave Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marvel Posted March 28, 2009 Share Posted March 28, 2009 OK, Dave, you can't go to sleep until you post about your two test files. Or you have to start a new thread. [] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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.