"Challenge" and "Donnybrook" wrap up and analysis

[Mallette]

OK, time to wrap it up. First, on the "Challenge." Since those reading this can go back and review the responses I am not going to quote any here, nor make any remarks about them.

If you are interested in this and have not downloaded and compared the files, do so before reading further if you wish to comment "blindly."

Click here to review your original post

I will open with George Mims analysis which I just received. I will add his friend Taft's when and if I receive them.

"File 2 sounded entirely too abrasive to my ears; too exact of a sound from the piano not allowing for dynamics that must have been heard in the room; too efficient, if you please of a playback of a performance. I see acoustic instruments as being wedded to the room they are being performed on in; somewhat similar to the way I have to acknowledge the pluses and minuses of what my ears actually pick up so to speak. Walls, floors, and ceilings have profound effects on an instrument's sound and equalizing of that sound to make up for detriments incurred can usually be detected as you know by a sophisticated ear. File 2 represented to me a conscious effort on behalf of the recording engineer to obtain an exact performance and immediate sound of the piano BUT I sensed no relief, no finesse, or sensitive musicality, etc. in the play back.

File 1 gave me the impression I was in the space and hearing the piano from an objective position in the room so that nuances were immediately clear but not overstated, the tone was warm and not harsh (could have been the instrument used) and not so immediate that it offended my ears. I detected the use of excellent microphones of a historic vintage without knowing what the facts were.

All this having been said, I considered File 1 to represent quite well a "musical" performance of the work performed, albeit, I questioned the tempo of the pianist at times.

Thanks again for a wonderful and memorable afternoon.

Peace, George"

Ok, so here's the scoop on how these were done:

File 1

This performance was recorded by me in a recital at the Church of the Annunciation, Lewisville, TX in 1998. The artist was Stewart Wayne Foster, winner of the First Dallas International Organ Competition and made on a Kawai grand piano that had been donated to the church. The acoustics of that building are near the best I've ever heard. It was the first piano recording I'd ever done and the first location recording of any kind in many, many years. At the time, I was trying to figure out why CD's generally sounded so unsatisfying and this was my first experiment in digital recording. I knew that piano was difficult, as I'd heard very few piano recordings that sounded very good, and most of them were mono. Many of them sounded as though the piano stretched from speaker to speaker no matter how close or far apart the speakers were. So, I concentrated on these objectives:

1. The plan had to contain the image and stabilize it over a variety of front speaker widths.

2. It should contain a good representation of the hall.

3. Audience noise had to be minimized without affecting the sound of the instrument.

4. The position of the pianist should be clear and firmly anchored.

If you think, as many do, of a stereo recording as two mikes positioned where you'd want your two ears to be, this is one of the few situations where that never quite seems to work. This is more of a dual channel recording with each microphone doing something entirely on it's own to make up a sound picture.

Images of both microphone plans will be found at the bottom of this post.

The focal mike (RCA KU-3A) is placed over and equidistant from the soundboard at roughly 45 degrees so that the rear lobe is over the audience to minimize audience pickup while maintaining ambience. The ambience mike (Oktava ML-52) is a few feet off the end of the piano and 90 degrees to the focal mike, also angled to place the rear lobe in the air. The ambience mike is placed at a lower volume to effectively pan it left to about the center. This ensures a reasonably accurate apparent source from most systems.

Equipment was:

RCA KU-3A Ribbon (1936)

Oktava ML-52 Ribbon (modern, Russian copy of RCA DX ribbon)

HHB Radius 10 VT mic preamp

Sony RM-500 DAT deck (16/44.1)

Basic cables, nothing special, all 100% genuine copper.

Release CD’s burnt directly from the original file bit for bit

The KU-3A runs between 3k and as much as 10k depending upon condition, but this one was given to me. The rest of the gear totals less than 2000.00.

Here is what I hear on my systems and many reported as well. Some appeared to hear something different, including an inverse image. Some appeared to have the files reversed. I am not going to comment on what these experiences might mean, but you SHOULD have heard the pianist on the left with the image of the piano extending to just about center. Very little if anything on the right except hall and reflections.

File 2

The engineers for this one were John Atkinson and Robert Harley of Stereophile magazine and released as one of their reference CD’s. The artist was Robert Silverman on a Steinway in the First United Methodist Church, Albuguerque, NM. They go on for 13 pages in the insert as to all the equipment they tried and the processes to achieve a lifelike image. I’ll confine myself to a single quote:

“The right-hand B&K was placed 90” high, a couple of feet to the inside of the end of the piano, about 3’ back, and tilted slightly toward the instrument. The left-hand B7K was also place 90” from the floor, but just to the left of the keyboard-again, about 3’ back. This gave a piano image extending almost the entire width between the playback speakers, with an enveloping dome of ambient sound.”

While I am not going to judge here, as that is your job, I MUST say I’m not quite sure what tilting an OMNIDIRECTIONAL microphone accomplishes.

Again, image of both plans at the bottom of the post.

Their equipment list:

2 B&K 4006 omnidirectional microphones

EAR 824 microphones

AudioQuest Lapis balanced microphone cables

Revox PR99 ½ track R2R

Digitized by Manley Reference A/D converter

CD prepared and edited with Sonic Solutions CD Pre-Mastering system

Mastered and Redithered to 16 bit resolutions with Meridian 618 Mastering Converter

I am not sure what all that stuff costs, but I’d like to have the money

Discuss amongst yourselves. Let me know of any errors, I did this in a hurry...

Dave

Both microphone plans:

[Mallette]

Whoops. Never got to the Frazier vs. Klipschorn. Later on that...

Dave

[sean5340]

This gave a piano image extending almost the entire width between the playback speakers,

you SHOULD have heard the pianist on the left with the image of the piano extending to just about center.

Looks like I heard it as intended.

Thanks Dave

[Mallette]

Indeed, Sean. You were first and dead on. How far apart are your speakers?

Dave

[sean5340]

My speakers are 10' 9" apart center to center. My ears are 10' 9'' from the front of the speakers in my sweet spot. The speakers are toed in 7" and tilted up on the fronts about 3/8". I have moved, toed and tilted countless times and finally settled on the current setup. In my room room speaker placement has had the most significant influence on the sound.

Sean

[Mallette]

Makes sense. The mike plan was designed to produce a grand piano image with about 15 feet separation. So you get a baby grand!

Dave

[Marvel]

My speakers are only 6 1/2 feet apart (center to center), with 2 feet more on each side of the room. I actually get a wider soundstage that way, compared to having them farther apart.I sit a little over 10 feet back.

Well, I'm not too embarrassed. I'm going to listen to those tracks again. I'll see if I still think your recording sounds sterile [*-)]

btw, I bumped the original challenge so folks wouldn't have to hunt for it...

Bruce

[TheEvan]

WiWith all that high-buck gear, how did the Stereophole recording end up so hissy and somewhat muddy?

I'm surprised that both are recorded so close.

[Don Richard]

WiWith all that high-buck gear, how did the Stereophole recording end up so hissy and somewhat muddy?

Poor engineering.

[Mallette]

WiWith all that high-buck gear, how did the Stereophole recording end up so hissy and somewhat muddy?

I'm surprised that both are recorded so close.

Other than the comment I made about tilting an omnidirectional microphone toward the source, which is all the comment I think really NEEDS to be made about them, I am not going to say much.

As to why mine is close miked, my objective was to place a piano in the listening room, not to recreate the Church of the Annunciation (4 sec. RT). Intended volume for the user was intended to be that of a grand piano at 12 feet or so.

No recording can be 100% successful (at this point in our technology) at being perfect in tone and image at all volumes and in all rooms. However, most of us have pretty good speaker setups and an understanding of what the sources we listen to SHOULD sound like in image and volume.

Dave

[Mallette]

Finally, input from George Mims friend and fellow musician, Taft Metcalf:

File 1:
Sound field "felt" like being in a good room, listening to a real piano. Sound image felt right, no sense of super wide or too narrow. No obvious compression or distortion. The piano "sang" through out it's range. I was very impressed with the realistic sound.

File 2:
The sound was dark, almost muddy, seemed to be confined to small space, almost "mono" in feel. As a pianist, it did not give the spacial, tonal sense of either playing or listening to a real piano in a room. The dynamic range seemed compressed and there was occasional shattering like distortion on loud high notes.



Comparing Klipsch and Frazier speakers:

Listening to George's recordings: The Klipsh speakers captured the feel of being at St. Martin's listening to the organ very well. The sounds and spacial sense were really impressive. The Frazier speakers are close, but the imaging is not as convincing. Also the bass sounds a little "boomy" and does not have the effortless power of the Klipsh.

Over all, I prefer the Klipsch speakers. The Fraziers are wonderful, but... !

Thanks, Dave, for the opportunity to meet you and listen to those fabulous speakers. A really pleasant afternoon!

It would be great to do this again, sometime!

Regards,
Taft

[Mallette]

If any of you who responded want to try it again, a few suggestions:

1. If you have a low powered or SET amp, remember that piano struck with force will pull BEAU COUPS of impulse power. Failure to deliver will have unpredictable results.

2. I know of nothing in the mike plan or method of recording to cause any movement of the image. None of my systems show any such movement.

3. Level is intended to be that of of a grand piano at about 12 feet or thereabouts from your seat. Significantly different levels will produce variable results in the image and tonal qualities.

4. The pianist should "appear" to be to your left with the image extending to or just past center.

I've no idea what the Stereophile guys had in mind, so I can't tell you what to look for in their recording, but I used the same volume for the test files by normalizing the two files to the same reference point of 0db. I don't normally do this to my recordings, but I felt any evils from the process to be less important than having to adjust the volume between the two comparisons.

My goal was, when listened to set up as I described above, to put a grand piano in your listening room.

Your milage may vary, but you'll be closer if you adhere to the above routing information...

Dave

[dtel]

Dave sorry I couldn't play, I made a CD twice and could not get my CD player to play it, the computer would play it but not my CD player. I did not post because I didn't want to cause a distraction, sounded good on the computer but thats not the place to listen. Interesting results, was fun reading.

[Mallette]

dtel:

You may know this, maybe not. If you just used Windows to burn the disc it may not be Redbook compliant. If so, a CD player will not recognize it. Since I don't know what you used to burn it, I can only offer a general suggestion.

Try burning it either with a CD burner application specifically as an audio disc, or use Windows Media player. Late model Media player can burn audio CDs. Make sure the app "closes" the disc. If you look at it with explorer, the file extension should no longer be ".wav," but ".cda" for CD Audio.

Hope that helps.

Dave

[Don Richard]

When I sent Dave the stereophile recording the opinion I had was, "what a wierd way to record a piano". My impression was, and is, that this recording would best be played on a system with the speakers 8 or so feet apart. One of the characteristics of a well recorded and/or mastered recording is the ability to translate the soundstage well on different types of systems. In this regard, that recording is a failure.

Every time that I have heard live classical piano the audience perspective was a nearly mono presentation. Usually the grand piano's keyboard is roughly 90 deg. to the audience with the reflector pointed generally toward the audience. From 7 rows on back the sound appears as a point source, with various amounts of ambient information, depending on the venue. Obviously, the Stereophile attempt sounds nothing like that.

I seriously question these two "experts" expertise. For all of their self-promotion one would expect an absolutely stellar recording from them, but that seems not to be the case here. Keep in mind that these two heavily promote silly tweaks like high dollar cables and magic rocks in their magazines, praising the "better" sound that results from using them. They also expound on the deficiencies of blind testing, whilst ignoring the biases created when they can see what component is being used when they do a comparative test. Self-serving seems a good description of the literature that they generate monthly. Based on the limited sampling of their recordings I've heard, lousy engineering seems a good description for their efforts in that regard.