Hear the LIVE versus Recorded on your own system - The VMPS SESSIONS

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic. Read 17215 times.

Russtafarian

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 1117
  • Typical reaction to the music I play
Succcessfully downloaded and listening to the tracks in hi-rez via Squeezebox Touch.  Sounds like I was there (and I was... there). 

John, you're right.  The minor room colorations I noted when listening to the immediate playback at the event are not as noticable listening at home.  The Chopin tracks are especially captivating.  More comments after I listen a bit more.

Russ

rbbert

It appears that there are 13 tracks?  Is that right (1581 MB)?

You can make a DVD-V with just 24/96 LPCM audio using Lplex, or a DVD-A with DVD-Audiofile.  Both are free programs for Windows, DVD-Audiofile has a Mac version also.

Looking at the frequency analysis / spectrum, there appears to be (significant?) musical audio content to beyond 30 kHz!

mjosef

I got 13 tracks also...when unzipped they identify as wave files, is that right?

John Casler

It appears that there are 13 tracks?  Is that right (1581 MB)?

Yes 1581 mb is correct.  That is all of it.  Last track says 42, but Dave may have to explain how the numbering works.  I think many of the Merv Harding Group tracks run seamlessly.


Quote

You can make a DVD-V with just 24/96 LPCM audio using Lplex, or a DVD-A with DVD-Audiofile.  Both are free programs for Windows, DVD-Audiofile has a Mac version also.

I will likely have to work on that, as well as those who now have the tracks who want to play them in their systems.

Quote

Looking at the frequency analysis / spectrum, there appears to be (significant?) musical audio content to beyond 30 kHz!

Dave will be glad to hear that :thumb:

John Casler

I got 13 tracks also...when unzipped they identify as wave files, is that right?

If it says 1581mb then I think that is all of them.

John Casler

Succcessfully downloaded and listening to the tracks in hi-rez via Squeezebox Touch.  Sounds like I was there (and I was... there). 

John, you're right.  The minor room colorations I noted when listening to the immediate playback at the event are not as noticable listening at home.  The Chopin tracks are especially captivating.  More comments after I listen a bit more.

Russ

Yes, now you see why Brian was "MORE THAN PLEASED" at the sound.  Not only did the RM50's AMPZILLA's, Wyred4Sound, WyWires and Audience gear make the best reproduction chain, Dave and James did an INCREDIBLE JOB at miking, engineering and recording these recordings.

The Piano Recordings alone are IMHO breathtaking.

I remember walking down the hall hearing the Drum Solo, and rushing in to get a seat and see this GREAT drummer wale away, and after I turned and sat down saw that it was the RECORDED version!!!! :o

These are something special, especially if you were there to hear the original.

Regarding the double room sound distortions.  It is nessessary evil as you cannot get away from hearing them twice.  Keep in mind this means ALL the distortions including the bass modes and nodes.  Playing them back in YOUR room will reduce the double impact we had to deal with at the show by adding a totally different set of room related distortions thus reducing the 2 x the same room to 1 x 1 the same room + 1 x 1 from a different room (yours).  As well, if you have a highly treated listening environment like I do, then you are VERY CLOSE to the Playback of the ORIGINAL performance.

 Using headphones will also give you the tonal reproduction to a great result, but not the soundstage and imaging.


It is an interesting premise.

And I should alsomention some of the HIGHEST KUDOS to Big B, for finding some EXCELLENT talent.  All of these performers were 1st rate.
« Last Edit: 25 Jan 2012, 05:29 pm by John Casler »

Housteau

A Little Info On The Recordings

The numbers for the different tracks are often just reference numbers for me.  They are generated by the recorder itself and I use them just to keep things in the proper order.  So, a number in the 40s doesn't mean that there were originally 40 recorded tracks.  Everything we did was included.

A full write-up on the recordings was sent with the hard copies mailed out so far, but being away from home now I don't have access to it to be able to post it here.  Maybe John could do a scan of it and post it as a photo?

Until I get back home I can attempt some explanations here on what was done and why.  Three separate recording systems were used at THE Show, but only two were used for playback.  One was my Korg Mr-1000 recording @ 5.6 Mhz DSD in stereo X/Y and the other was James Harger's set-up using mics set to an M/S pattern to an Alexis masterlink @ 24/88.2, also in stereo.  Jim also had the capability to mix in a third vocal mic on the fly.  My playback at the show was the second playback.

The third recorder was one of mine capable of taking in all the tracks being recorded in 24/96, my stereo X/Y mic, James's stereo M/S pattern mics, and lastly his solo vocal mic.  I did this so I could have all the tracks to work with once I got back home.  I thought this was necessary because setting up a true live vs recorded event may not net you the best recordings possible, because you are recording to approximate playback to what the audience just heard from their seats, and I wanted to eventually end up with good recordings for home playback as well.  The best way to do an A/B is with pure stereo (two track) recording.  But, when you have a vocalist also playing the piano, such as Anne on the first two tracks, a stereo recording may give you the best A/B, but the recording will have the vocalist off to the one side and recessed, just as the audience experienced.

That is just what my two channel recording from the Korg did.  I thought the piano came out really well but the vocals were recessed and far off to the left, not a good recording, but a good A/B to live.  My mic position at this time was about 3 feet in front of the piano, about 4 feet high pointing into the open lid with Anne just off to the left.  On the other hand, Jim mixed in a third vocal mic for Anne and the first song for Christine (track three I believe).  So his playback sounded like a very good recording, but was not a true A/B.

Beginning with Christine's second song Jim and I repositioned Christine so she was in front of the piano (she was not both singing and playing) and the mics in front of her so we both could do pure two track recording, him with M/S and me using X/Y.  And that it how it stayed for the next two days with the quintet.

On these tracks you have, tracks 1, 2 and 3 are a mix taken from my multi-track Tascam DR-680 of my stereo X/Y mic and Jim's vocal mic.  This is a mix that was not played back at the event, but if it had been it would have been very similar to Jim's.  This mix allowed me to place Anne and Christine direcly in front and in balance with the piano.

Tracks 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 were also taken from my Tascam from my stereo X/Y mic.  I chose these recordings instead of those from the Korg due to some slight noise, probably a cable issue later resolved.

All of the recordings from the quintet were from my Korg recording in 5.6 Mhz DSD.  When recording is pure two track the stereo image, balance and soundstage are all created when the recording is made.  That is set by the position of the musicians around the stereo mics and the mics within the room.  Once again this was tweaked for the best A/B at the event and not for the best recording.

So, once at home I only slightly manipulated the files to get a better balance between the instruments the best I could on a few tracks for the best home listening, while still staying true to the reality of the event.  In a straight stereo recording that is difficult to do and so these are not perfect, but I feel they are better while still reflecting the truth to those that attended.  I believe both that and what John mentioned about the double room effect really helps these in sounding a bit better better at home than at the event.  Although that big room with those speakers, wow, it is hard to top that spacious open feel and impact at the Flamingo.  I guess the idea of better is subjective.   

I am glad to read the positive comments on them. 

doug s.

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 6572
  • makin' music
as a computer audio newb, please be patient w/my question.   :lol:  i downloaded the wav files to my computer, and then used itunes to play them back thru the analog out of my computer to my stereo rig - what sort of resolution am i getting?

thanks,

doug s.

Russtafarian

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 1117
  • Typical reaction to the music I play
Thanks for the write-up Dave.  You answered a number of questions I had about the recording process.

When mixing the M/S recorded tracks, does varying the level of the mid mic signal vs. the side mic allow you to manipulate the perceived stereo soundstage?  If so, what does it sound like?  I know it's an esoteric question, but just curious.

Russ

Russtafarian

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 1117
  • Typical reaction to the music I play
as a computer audio newb, please be patient w/my question.   :lol:  i downloaded the wav files to my computer, and then used itunes to play them back thru the analog out of my computer to my stereo rig - what sort of resolution am i getting?

thanks,

doug s.

Doug, I'm not the best resource for answering the technical side of your question.  But you can rip a reference CD track to a wave file and play that back on your system to tell you how transparent or colored your computer's playback is. 

Russ

Housteau

as a computer audio newb, please be patient w/my question.   :lol:  i downloaded the wav files to my computer, and then used itunes to play them back thru the analog out of my computer to my stereo rig - what sort of resolution am i getting?

thanks,

doug s.

Doug, I am not sure either.  I am running a Mac Mini server to a DAC using Amarra and Pure Music software, which bypasses iTunes and the Apple preferences.  In your case I think it depends on if you are using iTunes with a PC, or a Mac.  I believe one will play at the files resolution and the other may default to the system preferences that you have set.  So it could be 16/44.1.

But, in either case going analog right out of a computer will generally not allow you to hear all of what is actually there.  If you cannot borrow a USB DAC from someone, you might want to consider converting the tracks down to 16/44.1 wav.  That will allow you to burn a standard CD from them using iTunes for your CD player.

mgalusha

Just started listening to these on my work system, very nice. Thanks to John, Dave and Brian for making this available. Can't wait to hear them on the 'big' system.  :thumb:

Mike

John Casler

as a computer audio newb, please be patient w/my question.   :lol:  i downloaded the wav files to my computer, and then used itunes to play them back thru the analog out of my computer to my stereo rig - what sort of resolution am i getting?

thanks,

doug s.

As another "non-geek, techno-challenged" audiophile, I might also suggest going into your soundcards "properties" and seeing if you can adjust or change the "resolution" to at least 24/96 or greater.  Not sure if it will make any difference on the analog end, but it couldn't hurt if the card will let you do it.

John Casler

Just started listening to these on my work system, very nice. Thanks to John, Dave and Brian for making this available. Can't wait to hear them on the 'big' system.  :thumb:

Mike

Hi Mike,

As I mentioned in my e-mail, I will be looking forward to your comments.  Brian started this Live versus Recorded process several years ago with the intent to always eventually offer the recordings to customers and friends too.

However, the logistics of burning, and mailing discs, as well as collecting names and addresses, not to mention some artist concerns seriously impacted that goal.

Over the years, Brian studied the results each year, and even designed the RM50 with the goal of moving closer to the LIVE sound via a recorded reproduction.  Many manufacturers have attempted such a task and all succumbed to the difficulties involved.  B, just kept plugging away, and this year moved even closer to the goal.

As well, he assembled artists who were quite good, and the newer "computer file" sharing technology has made this a great thing to share with the like minded.

I have always been drawn to well recorded LIVE recordings like those produced by Jim Merod and Steve McCormack at BLUEPORT and Bob Attiyeh at Yarlung Records.

I think the rawness of these make them valuable to just see what can be done.

Stimpy

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 1222
iTunes system requirements list that a 16 bit sound card is required.  Also, when switching through the various audio codecs supported by iTunes, 44.1KHz is the highest sampling rate offered.  So, 16/44.1 it is, at least through iTunes itself

as a computer audio newb, please be patient w/my question.   :lol:  i downloaded the wav files to my computer, and then used itunes to play them back thru the analog out of my computer to my stereo rig - what sort of resolution am i getting?

thanks,

doug s.

John Casler

Let me see if I can import the scan of the sheets Dave sent with the files.







rbbert

The newer verions of iTunes (after 10.0 or 10.1 I think) will go up to at least 24/192 if the hardware supports it and the right options are chosen.

Housteau

Thanks for the write-up Dave.  You answered a number of questions I had about the recording process.

When mixing the M/S recorded tracks, does varying the level of the mid mic signal vs. the side mic allow you to manipulate the perceived stereo soundstage?  If so, what does it sound like?  I know it's an esoteric question, but just curious.

Russ

I am not a big fan of M/S.  It is more complex and that is why I prefer the simpler X/Y method.  But, yes M/S does require adjustments to get it to where you want it.  In M/S the one mic faces straight ahead in a cardioid pattern (picking up info mostly in front of it). 

The second mic needs to be set to what they call a figure 8 pattern and is placed with its side to the front.  A figure 8 looks something like a double cardioid where info is picked up on both the front and back of the diaphragm, but not from the sides.  When positioning the mic with its side towards the front, the mic signal gets processed and one half of the figure 8 gets to be the far right and the other the left.  Mix that with the other mic with the center fill and you create the full stereo soundfield.  Those adjustments all matter.  One of the variables is the width of that soundstage created being either too wide, or narrow, as well as the center possibly being too vivid.

I forgot to mention that those tracks are not volume matched although many do flow into each other well.  The volume is dependant upon the dynamic range of the recording.  There was no compression used in recording, or mastering these.  They hold the full dynamics of the music played.  Those with wider range, very soft to louder sounds, will have a lower volume, such as Brian's cymbol crash.  Do turn them up.   
« Last Edit: 25 Jan 2012, 09:54 pm by Housteau »

Housteau



Let me see if I can import the scan of the sheets Dave sent with the files.



I see that I made a mistake on the track listing.  Track #3 should be Recording Chain C and not B.


NavyDoc

  • Jr. Member
  • Posts: 91
  • Virabus mari victoria
After waiting three hours for the file to download (I reside in Cambodia, no high speed internet) I was able to listen to the tracks.  Sound quality was excellent!

Thank you for making these recordings available to the AC community.