.
12 votes for the original track
.
38 votes for the alternative tracks
..
38 votes for the alternative tracks
[ sorry for my english ]
.It was amazing the amount and quality of responses to the "test" that I have done. The aim was not pretentious. It was just an excuse to explain what are the "special editions" often posted on the blog and other things like "stereo calibration"... In this context I appreciate very much your answers, the more technical as well as a visitor who said "for me it's hi quality also the 128 kbit/s mp3" :)
.
I've had the opportunity to explain that many of the CDs that are posted are only for promotion, to offer, for review and others for testing purposes. Others are not even on CD, but in another audio format (because they are original recordings made in the studio) and sometimes I use alternative recordings, not for sale.
.
After all, how do you like best? Listen to music at a distance or be inside?
.
Tracks nº1 and nº4 are "equal", varies only the sound volume (being the volume of nº4 the highest). In both tracks the piano is heard in "mono", as if the sound source was just "one thing", shifted slightly to the left ear. This is the most common mode of recording, particularly when dealing with a single instrument.
Tracks nº1 and nº3 are "equal", varies only the sound volume (being the volume of nº3 higher). In both tracks the piano is heard in "stereo", centered to the listener, or as if the listener was the pianist.
.
This idea "of being inside the music" pleases me greatly. That is why I prefer to publish the tracks recorded in this way: focusing on "stereo" and around the instruments, with real stereo channels and calibrated. Not seem to be the only (to the surprise of their own, I think) because the majority chose the tracks nº2 and nº3, being the nº1 published in the original cd. I prefer the one that was published (in Bach "The Well-Tempered Clavier Book I" by Evgeni Koroliov), which is the middle ground between nº2 and nº3 :)
.
Enjoy, thanks ... and good music :)
.
.
.
Nº1 / 12 VOTES
.
.
Nº2 / 16 VOTES
.
.
Nº3 / 16 VOTES
.
.
Nº4 / 6 VOTES
.
.
[ special edition with stereo calibration ]
.
( ... )
.
Resultados inesperados (ou talvez não)
.
12 votos para a faixa original
38 votos para as faixas alternativas
.
Foi impressionante a quantidade e a qualidade das respostas ao "teste" que eu vos fiz. O objectivo não era pretensioso. Era apenas um pretexto para explicar o que são as "edições especiais" frequentemente postadas no blogue e outras coisas do género "stereo calibration"... Neste contexto eu apreciei muito as vossa respostas, as mais técnicas tanto quanto a do visitante que dizia que "for me it's hi quality also the 128 kbit/s mp3" :)
.
Eu já tive a oportunidade de explicar que muitos dos cds que são pubiblicados são para promoção, para oferta, para análise crítica e outros apenas para teste. Outros nem estão em cd, mas sim noutro formato de áudio (porque são gravações originais feitas em estúdio) e algumas vezes eu uso gravações alternativas, não disponíveis para venda.
.
Afinal, como é que vocês gostam mais? Ouvir a música à distância ou estar dentro dela?
.
As faixas nº1 e nº4 são "iguais", varia apenas a altura sonora (sendo o volume sonoro da nº4 mais elevado). Em ambas as faixas o piano é ouvido em "mono", como se a fonte sonora fosse apenas "uma coisa", deslocada ligeiramente para o lado esquerdo auditivo. Este é o modo de gravação mais comum, particularmente quando se trata de um único instrumento. As faixas nº1 e nº3 são "iguais", varia apenas a altura sonora (sendo o volume sonoro da nº3 mais elevado). Em ambas as faixas o piano é ouvido em "stereo", centrado para o ouvinte, ou como se este fosse o próprio pianista.
.
Esta ideia "de estar dentro da música" agrada-me muito. É por essa razão que prefiro publicar as faixas gravadas dessa maneira: centradas no "stereo" e próximo dos instrumentos, com os canais em stéreo real e calibrados. Pareço não ser o único (para surpresa dos próprios, penso eu) pois a maioria escolheu as faixas nº2 e nº3, sendo a nº1 a publicada no cd original. Eu prefiro a que foi publicada (em Bach "The Well-Tempered Clavier Book I" by Evgeni Koroliov), que é o meio termo entre a nº2 e a nº3 :)
.
Divirtam-se, obrigado...e boa música :)
.
.
15 comments:
"[ sorry for my english ]"
Don't be - your English "far better my Portuguese" :-)
Thanks for the very interesting experiment.
I chose 3 ahead of 2, but I think your "2.5" is great. Would it be as successful for orchestral works, or is it particularly suited to solo piano?
But thanks, especially, for the discovery of Koroliov!
Thank you very much, Fly! This was a nice experience! I like your "editions"...
Best wishes - and give Grigory Sokolov a try! (It's not because I'm waiting for Sokolov posts - I got almost all of his recordings, just want to recommend a great pianist to you).
Thanks,
Andy.
Andy:
I appreciate very much the pianist Grigory Sokolov, but not always what I like most is featured in the blog. The four pianists on the list are probably my favorites, and yet, practically have no cds of them on the blog ... :)
Arthur Rubinstein (two cds posted)
Sviatoslav Richter (one cd posted)
Stephen Kovacevich (one cd posted)
Vladimir Horowitz (no cd posted)
By the way, here are the list of CDs that I got from Sokolov. If you don't have any, tell me.
Grigory Sokolov:
Chopin - Sonate Op.35 Études Op.25
Chopin - 24 Préludes Op.28
Chopin - 24 Préludes Op.28, Sonate Op.35 & Études Op.25
Bach - The Art of Fugue
Bach - Goldberg Variations
Beethoven - Sonatas 4 & 28, Rondos
Brahms - Sonata in F and Ballades
Schubert - Sonatas D894 & D960
Thank you, Fly, for your kind offer - but I own all of the discs you listed. Rubinstein, Richter and Horowitz also belong to my favorites (although I prefer Cherkassky in comparison with Horowitz). Kovacevich I do not know at all.
All the best,
Andy.
Fly, what a terrific experiment and explanation. I am amongst those who chose #2, and now that you've explained it makes perfect sense...I am that guy who shifts position on the sofa to "center" the music between speakers and be "inside" it for the best listening experience, but I don't like too much gain as can introduce artifacts or distortion. Thus, #2 defines my preferences to a tee and validates your test was really tapping in to something genuine in the listener.
As for the 'favorite" pianists I am constantly amazed but the depth of talented pianists, old and new, to be discovered. I recently fell in love with Paul Lewis' Beethoven cycle, a little dark and idiosyncratic but always truly engaging. He has now turned his attention to Schubert which I imagine could be a good fit for his approach. I also have heard Racha Arodaky, whose Scarlatti disc was unique and excellent, has released CD's of Handel and Bach keyboard music. Ah, the journey can be neverending if one has the time and interest. I unfortunately, have more of the latter than the former currently.
Again, thanks for the Test, it was fun, and of course for all of the wonderful music!
Best to you,
Musique.
Fly: is there a typo in your English explanation? I think you meant Tracks 2 & 4 are equal, not 1 and 4??
I'm impressed with myself that I pretty much got it right. It took a lot of close listening to hear the change in perspective. I suspect it would be easier to hear differences in perspective for an orchestra rather than a single instrument, even a wide ranging one like a piano.
There is a lot of discussion in audiophile circles about the disadvantages of increasing loudness. It's easy enough to turn the volume knob - not sure why there would be an advantage to boosting loudness - except that people think louder = better. I'd like your thoughts on this.
-- Greg
Hi Fly, wow... that really a great test. For whatever version you release it would be a gift for us.
But just to tell you.. some of us apparently have capability to detect which one is the original track and less processed. Possibly is also because we have more competent equipment. Surprisingly that I'm quite capable or having quite a good ones too, after knowing this test. I test the tracks without reading all the comments... so I'm on my own.
I hope I don't ask too much... besides posting for the special edition, would you be able to post the original version (unprocessed) as well? Because if I have the choice, this is the version that I will get anyway. Whenever possible I always strive for the pure one (that's why in most of the time I drink black coffee. Though occasionally having it with sugar or milk to give me another experience). Because once I get the pure one, any variations could be derived from it. But not the other way around...
Just my two cents...
what a funny test, great idea, great blog, great bloggers here...what an enrichment for the classical web blogs. endless thanks from bohuslav
Musique:
I have the same opinion about Paul Lewis. The little attention given to the musician is only in the blog :) I'm not a supporter of the blogs that have 10 posts daily. I usually hear one or two CDs per day. From beginning to end, as it should be. I like to listen and gather information about the work, about the musicians, about the artists and their time...
Thanks for setting up an interesting and entertaining experiment.
I voted for 2 & 3 (07 April), and this was an entirely subjective preference.
The preferences expressed by 50+ people were quite random, which shows just how subtle the differences were between the 4 versions.
Greg:
I considered the difference in positioning the piano (right, left, center) and not on the volume. Thus, the track 1 is "equal" to 4: the same position and the volume varies. The track 2 is "equal" to 3: the same position and the volume varies.
I agree with you. I don't use equalizer and loudness. In most cases increasing the sound volume distorts and increases noise to music. It should be used carefully.
Time Flies:
Post the same CD in mp3 + flac / original + "special edition" is a lot! :) I've done in some cases on this blog but this requires spending too much time...
I'll try to do this when it is justified.
How do you make these special editions with stereo calibration? Is stereo calibration a filter that can be applied?
I checked the with Audiochecker 2.0 This is a (free) tool, normally used to check music files for being really CDDA.
In your case, only example 1 is clearly recognized as 100% CDDA, all other examples far below that.
The same would happen, if you, for example, convert the original to a lossy format and then back.
My conclusion: Please give your exellent offers the chance to reach us unmodified !
Thank you for this interesting test !
Dobermann:
(??!??) ... Sure! This is what is clearly explained in the posts of the "Test" (included in the pictures) about the track nº1: "Version of the original CD."
With all due respect I think this idea of "files for being really CDDA" an obsessive way. Why not buy the original? My grandfather listened to music on a radio with no quality, in mono, and was a passionate and knowledgeable expert. I learned a lot from him ...
I have explained to another visitor. Post the same CD in mp3 + flac / original + "special edition" is a lot! :) I've done it in some cases on this blog but this requires spending too much time... I'll try to do this when it is justified.
I will not change the philosophy of this blog. I'm sorry. There are many blogs where you can find many CDs as you want... or buy the original. Sorry and I hope you understand. After all, most visitors did not prefer the "original" (who knows what is the original? ... this would be a long conversation)...
Post a Comment