The worlds most realistic recordings? - Simpson Microphones calls for listeners

The worlds most realistic recordings? - Simpson Microphones calls for listeners

As part of our on-going research & development, Simpson Microphones (Poland) would like to hear from musicians & listeners of classical music.

After the recent introduction of a new class of microphone we are in the process of conducting subjective trials, in order to gauge the subjective improvements that accompany a large reduction in mechanical distortion.

As you may or may not be aware, until the introduction of the Model A, microphones had not fundamentally changed since the 1930s, so this is an exciting time for recorded music.

When we perform location testing, due to the improved mechanical performance of the new class of microphone our recordings are very hard to tell from the real source, but we are interested in how this improved mechanical performance affects your listening experience.

All we want you to do is listen to the following recordings and tell us how you perceive the sound quality (please include details of your listening system):

Early Music Clip A.mp3

Early Music Clip B.mp3

* high-resolution .WAV files or CD also available by request

These recordings were taken during a live concert that was part of the Jaroslaw Early Music Festival (Poland) and feature string ensemble with Soprano, Male Alto, Tenor , Bass & choir.

The material is from the period 1600-1700, the composers are Antonio Caldara & Arcangelo Corelli.

The recordings themselves are 2-microphone stereo recordings, calibrated to sound essentially identical to the real source.


You can post your impressions here or write them anonymously via email to this address: [email protected]

For example, do you notice a reduction in the sound of 'mechanical stress' in the recordings? - a feeling of dynamic freedom? - reduced ear-fatigue? More natural timbre?

Thank you for your time & help, we hope to hear from you soon.


Andy Simpson

 

Even through my home computer, the two samples sounded really good. Much more "alive". super sound quality.

 

I'd be fascinated to listen and would also be interested in the technology behind the mic if you have some further info.

From my perspective, probably not worthwhile critically listening to an mp3, but if you could supply links to wav or apple lossless, I could burn a CD from them.

 

I prefered clip b it sounded more valvey to me.Both very nice though.

 

Ditto with LBR : links to the high res stuff please.

 

What are we to compare these recordings with if we don't have an identical recording made with standard microphones?

Its a very nice recording, but I couldn't have said it was using a special mic if you hadn't told me.

Set up an ABX test so we can compare your new mic with a more standard choice.

 

the mp3 files sound like decent recordings, at least within the limits of the mp3 source.

However file B sounds completely different in terms of recording/production/mastering to file A.

 

http://www.simpsonmicrophonesarchives.com/

not sure if he wants us delving right in there..... lol...

Some good stuff, the jazz in the Krakow folder is exceptionally well recorded.

 

As we are talking about a question of mechanical performance I would say that mp3 is adequate to illustrate.

However, there are CD format .WAV files here:

www.SimpsonMicrophonesArchives.com/Early_Music_A.wav
www.SimpsonMicrophonesArchives.com/Early_Music_B.wav

Download will be quite long as the files are rather large!

Thanks for your help.

Andy

 

Thanks for listening. Do you have details of your listening system (very useful for cross-reference)?

Interestingly, one clip was performed with the ensemble standing up and the other seated (with soloists & choir).

During the concert (recording) I noticed a large difference in their performance simply from the players standing or sitting, which is no doubt both acoustic & psychological.

Andy

 

Thanks for listening & comments.

The term 'alive' is very interesting and comes up often where I demonstrate this technology.

I generally take this to be a perception directly related to the improved mechanical performance, which is related to the (superb) mechanical performance of the ear.

In other words, where sound recordings exceed a certain threshold of mechanical distortion (the limit set by the mechanical performance of the ear) this is perceived as a source that does not 'exist freely in the air' (or is not 'alive').

These microphones are the first (only) able to approach the mechanical performance of the ear, which I think is what you notice (even with computer speakers).

Do you have details of your computer speakers?

Andy

 

Thanks for listening - perhaps the .WAV files posted above will be more conclusive? There is sometimes an issue of mp3 decoding.

As mentioned above, I would guess that you refer (with your 'mastering' observation/comment) to the difference of the players (from standing to sitting).

Very impressive ears around here!

Andy

 

Please feel free to dig around in there!

The jazz recordings you mention were an interesting session where we setup to monitor at matched SPL (large speakers either side of the group).

The group found this most unusual and it was a close call to tell between the group and the reproduction. Unfortunately, we didn't have time to really calibrate to an ideal match as the session was very short.

If you want to comment further on the jazz recordings I would find your impressions equally useful/valid as the microphones & technique were identical to the ensemble recording.

Andy

 

Sat down and stood up, lol, not sure i could have figured that out, but nice to know what it was.


Andy, i've listened to pretty much every file you have on the website and i have a few general comments.

Obviously there is some variance in the mastering/processing in each case but there are three things that stand out and are reasonably universal.

The recordings display and excellent level of dynamics, both macro and micro, they are able to show the finest nuance of detail as well as the largest shifts in perspective and playing power. i'd hazard a guess that this is due to a very effective coupling between the microphone element itself and the air.

At the same time the performances seem less than completely natural in their sense of recorded acoustic. i don't feel like i'm getting the 'full room' in any of the recordings. I'm thinking maybe the low background noise, reduced sense of acoustic comes from directionality of the microphones. Maybe you are trading strong acoustic coupling and dynamics for reproduction of the performance space. Maybe an extra ambient line is needed.

I also have a slight issue with the tonality in some of the pieces i'm not sure if this is time domain or frequency response related, but there's an occasional hint of 'cuppiness', ever so slightly, on a few tracks.

it's a while since i listened to any of it, but if you are interested let me know and i'll pin it down to a particular track and give you the track timings.

Nice recordings though, well done.

 

I was confused at first too, but after I heard the chair noises between pieces I realised what had happened.

You are quite right about the 'air-to-diaphragm coupling' being responsible for the increased mechanical performance.

This perception is very interesting.

My first thought would be that you are most likely listening at levels (somewhat or well) below that of actual concert SPL?

Since (most of) these recordings were calibrated for 'best match with the source' in direct-comparison, at matched SPL, there is a significant factor of both auditory masking & equal loudness.

Both of these factors can drastically reduce perception of environmental cues as with reduced listening levels they approach both threshold of hearing (not linear accross the band) & threshold of auditory masking by the environmental noise-floor of your listening environment.

Also, there is the factor of self-masking where as we reduce listening level we alter the spectral balance between direct & indirect sound and so we alter the balance according to auditory masking.

In other words, if you listen at below performance SPL I would expect you to perceive 'less room than natural' and if you listen at above performance SPL (!) I would expect you to perceive 'more room than natural'.

I would say that this is a frequency domain perception - possibly related to equal loudness effects, or mechanical interactions causing unusual emphasis of non-linearities in speakers.

Other than this, some of these recordings are from customers of mine and others I made (jazz & early music for example are mine).

I would perhaps agree that some of them have questionable calibration, but the customer is always right!

If you have time for finer details please put them in an email. I would find it most useful. If you could include details of listening system that would be of great help.

Thanks again.

Andy

 

I'll do the listening system thing now.

Preamp- naim 72 with brand new design internal gain and time alignment cards. This is hairshirt minimalism, but not 'naim sounding', a very dynamic pre-amp with real see through transparency.

Power amps: Tag mclaren monoblocks. Will swing 250+ comfortably.

DAC: back end of a Cambridge audio 840cd player. New clocks, new power supplies, new output stage, class A.

Music server: lossless versions of everything.

Speakers: Epos es 14, old standmounts with no crossover, the tweeter has a cap to protect it and thats it. they are effectively active. And a big Rel sub, suitably integrated. you could be right about the speakers, polyprop mid drivers!

Listening room, acoustically managed 18x11 attic, soft furnishings and i listen near field, so i'm getting very little of my room, i'm in front of the first reflection point. Listening levels, 'practical' upto 100db, no hint of clipping unless it exists in the signal.

 

Thanks for the details.

It sounds as if you take your listening very seriously.

Yes, it could be a mechanical interaction with the drivers you described, which certain samples illustrate and others don't.

When you say 100dB is practical, I would assume you refer to RMS loudness or are we talking about peak?

Andy

 

Nice recordings. The most obvious thing for me was the excellent dynamic performance with strong leading edges to the notes. Also noted nice discrimination of instrumental position and particularly distance. Although the recordings were excellent however, I couldn't say that they were beyond the performance that can be obtained from good standard mics well set up IMHO - I've got other excellent recordings too.

With regard to the comments on the 'acoustic', I also noticed that the early music samples (the only ones I've listened to) were quite dry. However, based on those two samples only it did seem to me that I could hear the acoustic well enough, just that it was genuinely dry. I'd be very surprised if this was recorded in a church - maybe you can confirm Andy?

System was Ear Yoshino CD, Music First pre, Allnic monos, Avantgarde speakers.

 

To address your specific questions:

- I don't know that I've ever noticed 'mechanical stress' in any recording, so no. Maybe I just don't understand the jargon though
- yes re: dynamic freedom
- no re: reduced ear-fatigue
- definitely no re: more natural timbre

 

Thanks for listening & comments.

I find this very interesting and will give it some further thought.

This is also interesting and makes me wonder about equal loudness again with regards to the perception of reverb.

The recording was made in a 'gothic' church, which featured a significant reverb, but as this was a concert recording there was a very large audience present, which did very much reduce the reverb in the room from that of rehearsal.

How loud would you estimate your listening level at the time? (above/below realistic performance levels)?

I wonder if you (or anyone else) would perceive the reverb differently with headphones (especially isolating type)?

Thanks.

Andy