oldtimer Posted February 10, 2014 Share Posted February 10, 2014 OK Dave I fed lappy jr straight into the amp with a decent monoprice cable for 1/8 stereo out to left and right rca's in. Of course now the files are not the same as before. What I thought were key clacks are now missing, which is very nice. The obvious to everyone differences such as the in your face presentation of the first and the more spacious presentation were noticed, in both I still detected the usual damper/striker noise associated with the instrument. The second file came off much nicer this time than previously and better than I expected given some of the comments and my past experience on the laptop speakers. I did hear without consciously trying what I think Quiet Hollow was referring to in the second file. To me it sounded like a person sub-vocalizing, which is not uncommon in performers, but I can't say for sure that what I heard actually came from the performer. These are my impressions after one listen, with the laptop fed into a sunfire amp, no additional processing, driving forte II's in stereo. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris A Posted February 10, 2014 Share Posted February 10, 2014 OK, so let's listen more and talk less...I've put up two recordings of the Chopin "Waltz in C# Minor" on my blog site. You can listen directly or download as you wish...Listen, and comment. Dave, it's difficult for me to put the room acoustics out of the picture - I also thought that this showcased two very different piano players - rubato on the second track is much more effective, IMHO. Probably due to the presence of very desirable venue acoustics in the second track. The first track has some issues - sounds way too close to the microphone for a piano on this particular piece, and there is spurious distortion in the left channel: sounds like processing or limiting artifacts of some sort. No sense of space, no "grandeur": very dry sounding. The second track has significant venue acoustics and distance to the microphone. The sub-harmonics of the listening space are very impressive to my ears, but there is also much higher venue noise and recording noise (probably 5-10 dB or more) than the first track. This distracts from the recording, IMHO, but not enough for me to prefer the other track. As you can tell, I actually prefer the second track by a large margin, but it is very subdued in higher frequency harmonics from the hammers - sort of like Carol Rosenberger's Water Music of the Impressionists (from 1983), of which that CD is actually much too subdued for my tastes in terms of the hammer attacks/higher harmonics being suppressed. YMMV. Chris Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mallette Posted February 11, 2014 Author Share Posted February 11, 2014 Okies,,,we're starting to get some momentum and a variety of opinions. Keep'em coming! Dave Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldtimer Posted February 11, 2014 Share Posted February 11, 2014 I agree this go around that the second was a more enjoyable listen overall. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marvel Posted February 11, 2014 Share Posted February 11, 2014 I like he first one. My opinion. The distant recording of track two annoys me no end. As others said, a little dull, smeared together by the room. I like having it sound like it's in my room and my room isn't that big. Dave, I just kept reading your blog... I didn't know, I can only imagine. It's too familiar, gotta sign of for a while. Blessings, my brother. Bruce Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mallette Posted February 11, 2014 Author Share Posted February 11, 2014 Thanks, Bruce...for your participation and kind thoughts. Dave Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thaddeus Smith Posted February 11, 2014 Share Posted February 11, 2014 So, I heard everything described by the previous posters. And I found myself enjoying both tracks for their unique presentation of the music; both had quirks and potentially unattractive bits and pieces, but when observed as a whole they were still pleasant. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mallette Posted February 11, 2014 Author Share Posted February 11, 2014 Right now, considering ending the "blind" part of this on Friday...though I'll leave the files up for a while. Get your licks in! Dave Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ski Bum Posted February 11, 2014 Share Posted February 11, 2014 (edited) Ok, so I tried the updated tracks, trying to pay close attention to production artifacts. I did notice a couple, such as the spurious noise (click) in the right channel of track 1 @~0:35, and in the left, same track, @~2:54 which sounded almost like static. That sort of seems like nit picking, though. Having gotten to know Dave via his posting here and his blog, and having read the impressions of others, I can't help but look at these recordings as examples of capturing the "virtual presence" and analyze them through that lens. Both recordings manage to achieve this to a high degree, at least when I play them back here. Track #1. I amended my original post with photos that seemed representative of the conditions and perspective that these recordings convey, but I'm still trying to wrap my head around how the mics were placed in this track. The image generally seems like the photo I posted, but isn't quite right. The disparity between the L and R channels almost make it seem that there are two pianos at times, or that the mics are actually under the lid of the piano, which kind of disrupts the illusion a bit. On the good side, the few technical blips mentioned were pretty minor, all the low level stuff seems to be real sound (I'm now listening with the HVAC off and other tricks to keep it quiet in here), that to my ears contributes to the virtual presence. Ok, I don't have it in me to do analytical listening to track #2 to point out any clicks or pops or noise, but I will say this track manages a more consistent illusion as there are no unusual near field imaging quirks to disrupt it. I still kind of prefer the intimacy of track #1, though. What exactly are you going to reveal on Friday I wonder? Edited February 11, 2014 by Ski Bum Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mallette Posted February 11, 2014 Author Share Posted February 11, 2014 What exactly are you going to reveal on Friday I wonder? Be there or be square... Dave Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ski Bum Posted February 11, 2014 Share Posted February 11, 2014 How representative of the conditions of the recordings were the photos I put in post 31? Was that the sort of context and sonic image you were trying to paint in the listener's mind with these recordings? If so, mission accomplished. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ski Bum Posted February 11, 2014 Share Posted February 11, 2014 Thanks to you, Dave, I'm now stuck analyzing the recording of piano in other recordings too. Curses! Right now I've got some Andre Mehmari spinning, and the recording technique seems similar to yours in track #1: close up and personal; the keys and hammers are obviously off to the left but the whole instrument is there from left to right, spanning the sound stage. This recording has bass and percussion superimposed on top of that, and it comes across as very dry and "studio" sounding, not much illusion of a real event. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mallette Posted February 11, 2014 Author Share Posted February 11, 2014 How representative of the conditions of the recordings were the photos I put in post 31? Was that the sort of context and sonic image you were trying to paint in the listener's mind with these recordings? If so, mission accomplished. No comment...yet. Thanks to you, Dave, I'm now stuck analyzing the recording of piano in other recordings too. Curses! Right now I've got some Andre Mehmari spinning, and the recording technique seems similar to yours in track #1: close up and personal; the keys and hammers are obviously off to the left but the whole instrument is there from left to right, spanning the sound stage. This recording has bass and percussion superimposed on top of that, and it comes across as very dry and "studio" sounding, not much illusion of a real event. Make no assumption yet as to the source of those files. As to comparison to other recordings, awesome! Great idea. Dave Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jacksonbart Posted February 11, 2014 Share Posted February 11, 2014 Ok, down loaded them. # 1 has some distortion as the higher levels appeared to be a bit hot on the recording, Seems Mono, very little stereo separation, clean in the low volume passages, more bass. As if in a large room in the house. My personal preference as it seemed like a personal performance but could have sounded better. #2 has hiss, does "listen/seem" to contain the room interactions, more distance, but still seems mono, like a single microphone farther away. Room is lively, I would guess a different performance or the same but with say 50-100+ people unless in a reverb like a church, then I have no idea , Reminiscent of Nimbus Audio CDs I have for natural recording, except they have applied more noise reduction and leveling. Via Audacity I could make both sound "better" but perhaps not as real but I am sure these are not final cuts of anything. Thanks for the experiment, regardless of how things pan out. Cheers Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mallette Posted February 11, 2014 Author Share Posted February 11, 2014 Top notch! Dave Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mallette Posted February 13, 2014 Author Share Posted February 13, 2014 Well, tomorrow I'll post the details. Reasonable participation but I'd like to have had more. Talking about music is like listening about painting... Dave Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ClaudeJ1 Posted February 13, 2014 Share Posted February 13, 2014 (edited) You definitely know how to record piano very well. #1 sounds like I have a pianist playing a real piano right in my living room. #2 sounds like the same guy playing a concert in a large room and I'm 20 rows back. I disagree about the "mono" comments. It's definitely stereo, with the piano facing me on #1, where I hear the left hand in the right/center and the right hand in the left/center, with the actual width of a grand piano just about right in my reference 2.1 presentation. Edited February 13, 2014 by ClaudeJ1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mallette Posted February 14, 2014 Author Share Posted February 14, 2014 Outstanding, Claude. Dave Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mallette Posted February 14, 2014 Author Share Posted February 14, 2014 Okies, guys, here's the details on the two files. More can be found about file1 on my blog under "A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Future," including a mike plan diagram. I'll include just salient details here: File 1 - First location recording (1998) I'd done in my adult life chasing serious resolution and due to my resolve, after bringing back my TT after a 10 year hiatus to CD, to find out why some many of my CDs sucked. 1 RCA BK-3A (c. 1936) ribbon microphone, and an Ockava ML-52 ribbon mike. 2. HHR Radius 10 Vacuum Tube Preamp 3. Sony DAT Deck No mixers, no processing. Mike>Preamp>DAT. Once I'd switched out the file I wrong-headedly normalized (really dumb move, Dave) with the good intention of trying to have both files at equal levels, you all listened to the master. It was recorded in a building with a 3.5 second, slap-free reverberation time. Those thinking it was a studio can be forgiven, but I think you'll hear the space if you listen again knowing that. As explained in the blog, the mike plan was developed because I'd heard almost no stereo piano recording I liked. I was shooting for mono recording with a since of space, more like a piano actually sounds. It plays back on my system as I was attempting...pianist is hard left, and there is a bit of spread of sound to about the middle and much less on the left. As was observed by one listener here, DynaQuad actually muddies up the image here as the out of phase signals are also from 90 degrees to the left microphone. I switch it out for this. Last thing this needs is the instrument to be brought further forward! The DAT deck, whose model I forget, cost me plenty but served for years. No characteristics of its own I could ever detect. Wish I still had it. Total cost of equpment (The RCA was given to me by a friend...WAY outta my price range!) was about 2k. File2 - I am going to minimize my comments as I can't find the bleeding disk to freshen up. It was engineered by John Atkinson of $tereophile and a couple of others from there. The equipment cost $$$$$ and some was so expensive it was loaned. Cables alone would put Klipschorns in a number of deserving homes. There may be more details from the first time I ran this (I think a couple remembered...thanks for your discretion) in the way back if you want to see if you can hunt it down. I can say this: I feel really good. I didn't count, but I am sure I broke even against people who place themselves in audio Mt. Olympus. That is MORE than adequate for me. It tells me that Joe Average Audiophile can equal or beat any acoustic recording on the market with a bunch of Rat Shack cables and other readily available stuff. That DAT deck can now be equaled technically with any number of sound cards at 20% of the price. Granted, good mikes aren't dirt cheap, but I paid around 800.00 for a matched pair of those Octava's and I think they are WAY underpriced and are superior to condensors until you get into the VT very high end of those. If there is a point, it is that audio engineering of acoustic space/time events requires only that one: 1. Place the mikes where your ears want to be. 2. Get the signal to storage with no unnecessary detours. It isn't magic or rocket science. I've learned since then, and have made arguably better recordings...but the differences weren't in the basics as much as in the execution. I did go from Rat Shack to Mogami...but that was mainly for reliability and easy handling. Finally, it's interesting what you learn about peoples systems from their descriptions. I won't comment, but some things were quite obvious. It wasn't a system thing, but it was clear from the post that one had the files reversed. He corrected it later! Since I am writing, can't refresh myself on the name right now.I'll be happy to attempt answers at any further questions. Thanks for participating...we should do more of this! Dave Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mungkiman Posted February 14, 2014 Share Posted February 14, 2014 Very interesting. Thanks for the demonstration and the follow-up! 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.