Play Classics Reviews, Sound Quality, Feedback

[MRC01]

In this thread, @Mario Martinez of Play Classics invites us to listen to some of his company's recordings and asks for our impressions and feedback. Since that thread is full of requests for albums & such, I figured I would start a thread dedicated to our listening impressions. That way we don't need to sort out these different topics.

 

[MRC01]

I listened to the Mozart and Beethoven wind quintets and Wolfram's performance of Bach's Goldberg variations. I listened to the 96-24 "Master" versions of these recordings. Overall, they sound fantastic, among the nost natural & realistic I have heard. Don't let the details in this feedback belie how much I enjoyed these truly fine recordings.

Wind Quintets

Mozart

Voicing: natural and realistic; each instrument's timbre is captured so well they could be in the room with you. And this is consistent throughout the range, capturing how each instrument voices differently from its bottom to top octave.

Tonal balance: neutral and linear. Neither "cold" nor "warm", no emphasis or dips, blessedly free of the presence lift so often artificially added to recordings.

Dynamics: big with clean un-strained cresdendos. And the natural instrument timbre changes from PPP to FFF are also captured.

Image: consistent & precise with 3-D depth. Oboe L front, clarinet LC front, piano C behind, horn RC behind, bassoon R front.

Detail: breathing and incidental noises (key action, etc.) can be heard, adding to the realism. Nice layers of detail, when some instruments play FFF it doesn't mask the quieter ones which can still be heard.

Notes: excellent overall, though the extreme high frequencies sound attenuated. Some might say it lacks "air" or is just a touch "soft", like listening from the 5th row instead of the 1st row. Perhaps miced too far away to pick this up?
The liner notes mention a flute player, but flute doesn't appear in these pieces.

Beethoven

Here, the clarinet player sounds shifted L a bit, sounds almost on top of the oboe player, leaving a bit of a gap at the LC position where the clarinet was in the Mozart. Otherwise, same as the Mozart, a fantastic recording.

Goldberg Variations

Voicing: the piano timbre sounds just a bit on the bright side of natural, with a hint of buzz in some of the top notes (not really a buzz, just a hint of one), a natural effect with live piano that is slightly emphasized here, still quite realistic.

Tonal balance: smooth and linear, with a bit of lift in the mid treble. The bass extends linear and deep without losing clarity, rare in piano recordings.

Dynamics: wide and natural, micro dynamics reveal subtle variations in the individual notes emphasized in the cords.

Image: some solo piano recordings shift L and R with the scale, or sound like a giant "wall of sound". Not this one. It's consistently centered.

Detail: timbre detail is excellent, capturing the unique sound of the different ranges on the piano. Incidental noises (piano action, breathing, rustling clothes, etc.) are much quieter than most other piano recordings. Either Wolfram's technique minimizes these noises, or the mics are just far enough away to pick up less of this.

Notes: similar to the wind quintets, extreme high frequencies are attenuated. This doesn't affect the voicing or timbre, as the rolloff is only at very high frequencies. It slightly softens the sound, like listening from the 5th row instead of the 1st row.

Question: spectrum analysis shows all of the tracks on both albums have a deep, narrow frequency dip around 657 Hz. It looks too narrow to be audible, indeed I don't notice it during listening. Any idea what causes this?
Spectrum analysis also confirms my above subjective assessment that the highest frequencies are attenuated.

 

[Gregm]

(I posted this in the other discussion)

Good morning Mario, morning everyone

I downloaded the 24/96 flac versions of Modern Times & Harmonie du Soir.
These are some initial impressions -- very brief notes.*
Instantly recognisable instruments ("naturalness"): for example, instead of hearing a well-recorded horn, I was listening to a horn. I also noticed a refreshing lack of compression in dynamics -- either you let dynamics flow freely or you do an excellent slight compression job

The soundstage, the ambience and the sense of space and drama that escapes into the reproduction are excellent. I wonder, can your method be used for large orchestral pieces as well?

*I will listen more carefully in the days to come.
Overall, I thoroughly enjoyed listening to these two albums, thank you again for your kind offer!

 

[Bart]

Thanks again for the "Modern Music" and Rachmaninoff files. I had previously already listened to the two CDs by the Bretón String Quartet (string quartets by Bretón and Guridi) and the other Harmonie du Soir CD (Mozart and Beethoven wind quintets).

I enjoyed the string quartet CDs and the solo piano (Rachmaninoff) CD very much. The sound here is both intimate and full, leaving nothing to be desired.
(I imagine solo harpsichord might sound equally well if recorded this way.)

The Modern Times recording comes accross as a little recessed and flat (but the piano part in it stood out positively). Perhaps even a tiny bit "boxy". I listened through headphones and loudspeakers, same impression.
The wind quintet recordings suffer a bit less from this, but still noticeably so.

To be sure I compared the Modern Times CD to several other recordings of the same pieces and the initial finding didn't disappear.

These are just my impressions.

 

[Mario Martinez]

Thanks again for the "Modern Music" and Rachmaninoff files. I had previously already listened to the two CDs by the Bretón String Quartet (string quartets by Bretón and Guridi) and the other Harmonie du Soir CD (Mozart and Beethoven wind quintets).

I enjoyed the string quartet CDs and the solo piano (Rachmaninoff) CD very much. The sound here is both intimate and full, leaving nothing to be desired.
(I imagine solo harpsichord might sound equally well if recorded this way.)

Hi Bart, thanks for the feedback.

Just to clarify, the string quartet recordings were made before we started our TRT sound project. They are not recorded under the same conditions as everything else so for the purpose of our thread they should not be taken into account.

The Modern Times recording comes accross as a little recessed and flat (but the piano part in it stood out positively). Perhaps even a tiny bit "boxy". I listened through headphones and loudspeakers, same impression.
The wind quintet recordings suffer a bit less from this, but still noticeably so.

To be sure I compared the Modern Times CD to several other recordings of the same pieces and the initial finding didn't disappear.

These are just my impressions.

It would be really helpful for us to have the reference of the comparisons you made. Could you please tell us which album did you compare it to?

Thanks

 

[Mario Martinez]

The soundstage, the ambience and the sense of space and drama that escapes into the reproduction are excellent. I wonder, can your method be used for large orchestral pieces as well?

Our hall is not big enough to fit an orchestra. I am guessing that should you have the space and time to prepare it you could probably obtain similar results in a hall big enough to hold a full orchestra. But we have to work with what we have which serves the purpose for chamber music quite well.

 

[Mario Martinez]

I listened to the Mozart and Beethoven wind quintets and Wolfram's performance of Bach's Goldberg variations. I listened to the 96-24 "Master" versions of these recordings. Overall, they sound fantastic, among the nost natural & realistic I have heard. Don't let the details in this feedback belie how much I enjoyed these truly fine recordings.

Wind Quintets

Mozart

Voicing: natural and realistic; each instrument's timbre is captured so well they could be in the room with you. And this is consistent throughout the range, capturing how each instrument voices differently from its bottom to top octave.

Tonal balance: neutral and linear. Neither "cold" nor "warm", no emphasis or dips, blessedly free of the presence lift so often artificially added to recordings.

Dynamics: big with clean un-strained cresdendos. And the natural instrument timbre changes from PPP to FFF are also captured.

Image: consistent & precise with 3-D depth. Oboe L front, clarinet LC front, piano C behind, horn RC behind, bassoon R front.

Detail: breathing and incidental noises (key action, etc.) can be heard, adding to the realism. Nice layers of detail, when some instruments play FFF it doesn't mask the quieter ones which can still be heard.

Notes: excellent overall, though the extreme high frequencies sound attenuated. Some might say it lacks "air" or is just a touch "soft", like listening from the 5th row instead of the 1st row. Perhaps miced too far away to pick this up?
The liner notes mention a flute player, but flute doesn't appear in these pieces.

Thank you MRC01 for your very detailed feedback.

The mics are placed outside of the stage area.

In absolute terms the distance from the mics to the instruments is not big (about 4 meters from the mics to the center of the piano). But this is not a symphonic hall. It is a small Chamber music hall so those 4 meters can relatively be quite more.

Yes I think it would make sense to say that the pickup point is far enough to produce that high frequency roll off you are describing.

Beethoven

Here, the clarinet player sounds shifted L a bit, sounds almost on top of the oboe player, leaving a bit of a gap at the LC position where the clarinet was in the Mozart. Otherwise, same as the Mozart, a fantastic recording.

We do not do any mixing, panning or any other mixing table work. The image is produced by the stereo pickup and the placement of the instruments within the stage. It works quite accurately because of the treatment and calibration of the hall (pretty much like it happens with the "not masking effect" when one instrument is playing loud and others soft. The differences in the Beethoven and Mozart are due to the different placement of the musicians on the different recordings sessions.

They usually place their music stand on a place they feel comfortable with and do not move until we finish the recording of the piece. But when they come back to record the next piece they sometimes place themselves in slightly different positions.

I think (mea culpa) I should mark these places on the floor so they always use the same spot throughout the whole album.

Goldberg Variations

Voicing: the piano timbre sounds just a bit on the bright side of natural, with a hint of buzz in some of the top notes (not really a buzz, just a hint of one), a natural effect with live piano that is slightly emphasized here, still quite realistic.

Tonal balance: smooth and linear, with a bit of lift in the mid treble. The bass extends linear and deep without losing clarity, rare in piano recordings.

Dynamics: wide and natural, micro dynamics reveal subtle variations in the individual notes emphasized in the cords.

Image: some solo piano recordings shift L and R with the scale, or sound like a giant "wall of sound". Not this one. It's consistently centered.

Detail: timbre detail is excellent, capturing the unique sound of the different ranges on the piano. Incidental noises (piano action, breathing, rustling clothes, etc.) are much quieter than most other piano recordings. Either Wolfram's technique minimizes these noises, or the mics are just far enough away to pick up less of this.

Notes: similar to the wind quintets, extreme high frequencies are attenuated. This doesn't affect the voicing or timbre, as the rolloff is only at very high frequencies. It slightly softens the sound, like listening from the 5th row instead of the 1st row.

Question: spectrum analysis shows all of the tracks on both albums have a deep, narrow frequency dip around 657 Hz. It looks too narrow to be audible, indeed I don't notice it during listening. Any idea what causes this?
Spectrum analysis also confirms my above subjective assessment that the highest frequencies are attenuated.

The mics here are placed at the same distance than with the Mozart-Beethoven (they are always at the same spot for every recording). So that would explain the high frequency behaviour.

About that "buzz", if it is what I think it is, what you are hearing is the vibration of the capo section of the piano (with is a problem that we had with this instrument at the beginning of its breaking in). It might be interesting to read about this. Here is a link to a pdf file that explains all the details of the instrument, its problems and ways to fix them to obtain a beautiful sounding piano.
https://rennerusa.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/Selecting-and-Voicing-the-Renner-Hammer.pdf

On page 9 point 2 it talks about this particular problem that we had with this piano at the beginning.

"Noise in the capo section—This is most noticeable in the first capo section of certain brands of piano. If you hear an objectionable tone, try muting the front duplex with your finger while playing the note. If the objectionable tone goes away while the duplex is muted, then deep needling higher in the shoulder may help. Do not permanently mute this front duplex section, as this will cause a substantial loss of power."

Like I said, the problem was solved prior to recording the Rachmaninoff. So the Rachmaninoff and the upcoming Tchaikovsky should not have any of that.

 

[Bart]

Hi Bart, thanks for the feedback.

Just to clarify, the string quartet recordings were made before we started our TRT sound project. They are not recorded under the same conditions as everything else so for the purpose of our thread they should not be taken into account.

It would be really helpful for us to have the reference of the comparisons you made. Could you please tell us which album did you compare it to?

Thanks

I'm sorry, I didn't realize this. I do like those SQ recordings very much.

Best examples in my collection are perhaps Ensemble Wien-Berlin + James Levine (DG) for the Poulenc sextet, and The Gaudier Ensemble + Susan Tomes (Hyperion) for L'heure du berger. They sound more "three-dimensional" to my ears. I'm normally not even that concerned with the spatial aspect of music, but this was really the first thing that struck me when listening to the Modern Times CD. By the way, it doesn't prevent me from enjoying the music.

 

[Mario Martinez]

I'm sorry, I didn't realize this. I do like those SQ recordings very much.

Best examples in my collection are perhaps Ensemble Wien-Berlin + James Levine (DG) for the Poulenc sextet, and The Gaudier Ensemble + Susan Tomes (Hyperion) for L'heure du berger. They sound more "three-dimensional" to my ears. I'm normally not even that concerned with the spatial aspect of music, but this was really the first thing that struck me when listening to the Modern Times CD. By the way, it doesn't prevent me from enjoying the music.

The Ensemble Wien-Berlin + James Levine (DG) is in our comparisons page: http://www.playclassics.com/comparison3
You can hear them side to side on the excerpt that we use for comparisons...

 

[Bart]

The Ensemble Wien-Berlin + James Levine (DG) is in our comparisons page: http://www.playclassics.com/comparison3
You can hear them side to side on the excerpt that we use for comparisons...

OK, thanks for the information.
I had used my own CDs for comparison and preferred the ones I mentioned as far as the spatial aspect is concerned.

 

[Mario Martinez]

In the comparisons page both audios are lossy formats, but it serves de purpose of comparing back to back both recoding over the same material. That gives a very good idea of the plus and minuses of each of the recordings. The DG recording does have a different (more open) sense of space, but on the other side the piano is lost or covered by the other instruments while it is playing the busy accompaniment...

 

[Bart]

In the comparisons page both audios are lossy formats, but it serves de purpose of comparing back to back both recoding over the same material. That gives a very good idea of the plus and minuses of each of the recordings. The DG recording does have a different (more open) sense of space, but on the other side the piano is lost or covered by the other instruments while it is playing the busy accompaniment...

The comparison page is a nice and handy tool, the lossy format is no problem at all for the purpose it serves, imo.
I'd only prefer longer fragments to listen to - I'm a slow guy

I agree with you on the piano, I had mentioned it in my first post ("the piano part in it stood out positively").

 

[MRC01]

...
Yes I think it would make sense to say that the pickup point is far enough to produce that high frequency roll off you are describing.
...
We do not do any mixing, panning or any other mixing table work. The image is produced by the stereo pickup and the placement of the instruments within the stage. ... They usually place their music stand on a place they feel comfortable with and do not move until we finish the recording of the piece. But when they come back to record the next piece they sometimes place themselves in slightly different positions.
...
About that "buzz", if it is what I think it is, what you are hearing is the vibration of the capo section of the piano (with is a problem that we had with this instrument at the beginning of its breaking in). ... the problem was solved prior to recording the Rachmaninoff. So the Rachmaninoff and the upcoming Tchaikovsky should not have any of that.

Thanks for your detailed reply. Very interesting insight to the recording process.

 

[Blumlein 88]

Thank you MRC01 for your very detailed feedback.

The mics are placed outside of the stage area.

In absolute terms the distance from the mics to the instruments is not big (about 4 meters from the mics to the center of the piano). But this is not a symphonic hall. It is a small Chamber music hall so those 4 meters can relatively be quite more.

Yes I think it would make sense to say that the pickup point is far enough to produce that high frequency roll off you are describing.



We do not do any mixing, panning or any other mixing table work. The image is produced by the stereo pickup and the placement of the instruments within the stage. It works quite accurately because of the treatment and calibration of the hall (pretty much like it happens with the "not masking effect" when one instrument is playing loud and others soft. The differences in the Beethoven and Mozart are due to the different placement of the musicians on the different recordings sessions.

They usually place their music stand on a place they feel comfortable with and do not move until we finish the recording of the piece. But when they come back to record the next piece they sometimes place themselves in slightly different positions.

I think (mea culpa) I should mark these places on the floor so they always use the same spot throughout the whole album.



The mics here are placed at the same distance than with the Mozart-Beethoven (they are always at the same spot for every recording). So that would explain the high frequency behaviour.

About that "buzz", if it is what I think it is, what you are hearing is the vibration of the capo section of the piano (with is a problem that we had with this instrument at the beginning of its breaking in). It might be interesting to read about this. Here is a link to a pdf file that explains all the details of the instrument, its problems and ways to fix them to obtain a beautiful sounding piano.
https://rennerusa.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/Selecting-and-Voicing-the-Renner-Hammer.pdf

On page 9 point 2 it talks about this particular problem that we had with this piano at the beginning.

"Noise in the capo section—This is most noticeable in the first capo section of certain brands of piano. If you hear an objectionable tone, try muting the front duplex with your finger while playing the note. If the objectionable tone goes away while the duplex is muted, then deep needling higher in the shoulder may help. Do not permanently mute this front duplex section, as this will cause a substantial loss of power."

Like I said, the problem was solved prior to recording the Rachmaninoff. So the Rachmaninoff and the upcoming Tchaikovsky should not have any of that.

Do you mind me asking which mics you are using currently? These recent downloads I received do sound different than previous work. I'm not ready to give my full evaluation yet. They are an improvement I believe.

 

[Mario Martinez]

Do you mind me asking which mics you are using currently? These recent downloads I received do sound different than previous work. I'm not ready to give my full evaluation yet. They are an improvement I believe.

We have not changed the mics or anything else in our physical recording setup. We have been using the same mics on the same spot of the hall with the same arrangement from the very first album. We have only made changes on the calibration. You can read this explanation so you can see how it works: http://www.playclassics.com/trtsound

 

[Mario Martinez]

The Modern Times recording comes accross as a little recessed and flat (but the piano part in it stood out positively). Perhaps even a tiny bit "boxy". I listened through headphones and loudspeakers, same impression.
The wind quintet recordings suffer a bit less from this, but still noticeably so.

Hi Bart, I would like to try something out.

I have tweaked the calibration slightly just to see if I could erase that "boxy" problem without destroying anything else. I am sending you a code to download this beta version of the calibration to see if it solves the problem or at least goes in the right direction. I have just done the first movement of the Poulenc. Please let me know how you feel about it...

 

[Sal1950]

MADDONE Mario, Talk about making things hard.
Tonight I made a comparison between the new Rachmaninoff release and the two older piano recordings I have, Cabrera Plays Debussy, and Albeniz Iberia. They are so close it's hard to make any definite calls but I'm fairly confident the soundstage is a couple feet wider on the Rachmaninoff than the older two. Rachman also sounded a bit more set back than the older files while they were a bit more forward, brighter sounding. But that's a very marginal call on the FR balance. The inner detail and transparency of all three is still the best recorded piano I've experienced and I won't even attempt at any call between them.
This is all some beautiful art you've created and you should be very proud of the outcome, thanks for sharing with us.

 

[Bart]

Hi Bart, I would like to try something out.

I have tweaked the calibration slightly just to see if I could erase that "boxy" problem without destroying anything else. I am sending you a code to download this beta version of the calibration to see if it solves the problem or at least goes in the right direction. I have just done the first movement of the Poulenc. Please let me know how you feel about it...

Mario, thanks for asking for my opinion. I would like to be of help, but I doubt I can.
I struggle to hear a difference, which leads me to believe that either the issue you're addressing differs from the one I mean, or the adjustment is so subtle that my ears are not capable of appreciating it.

In my perception the sound is a little on the 'dry' and 'flat' side, right from the start. Whether this is due to the recording method or the space the recording was made in, or the combination, I am unable to tell. For me it works really well with solo piano (Rachmaninoff), but less so with ensemble.
In general I prefer somewhat livelier acoustics, but when I listen to the entire Modern Times CD I do get completely drawn into the delightful music.

 

[Harmonie]

This came up on our first thread: PlayClassics TRT v2.0 master file giveaway for ASR members

Let me lay it out here again for everyone who is new to it.

You can use this SPL file to calibrate the volume of your system to the volume of the actual performance.

The file is a 40 second stereo pink noise at -20dB. 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 guitar) are recorded with the same level, so once you calibrate you playback system you will be hearing all the recordings at real live level.

The guitar is 6dB softer than this. If you wanted to get real live levels of the guitar you would have to turn the volume down by 6dB.

Here are the links to the files:

TRTsound_SPL75dB_master
TRTsound_SPL75dB_dvd
TRTsound_SPL75dB_cd
TRTsound_SPL75dB_mp3

Have fun

Hello Mario,

I downloaded the 75db files yesterday and calibrated with my Spl meter around ~74db corresponding to -17db on my Dac.
True - it changes totally !!
With such level the Piano (conversations) is natural, not forward - just in it's place and true, in Stories, the guitar on my Dac -23db is revealed at the right, natural volume level of a beautifully interpreted acoustic guitar.
Close your eyes and you know the piano or guitar are these.

Thank you again for everything, it's a really nice incentive and gives a good spirit on this website.

 

[Sal1950]

I downloaded the 75db files yesterday and calibrated with my Spl meter around ~74db corresponding to -17db on my Dac.

Interesting, it also returns a -17db level setting on my calibrated AVR.