morricab wrote:

Hi Romy, I have found that the Apogee loudspeakers ribbon drivers can quite successfully reproduce correct tone.  The reason why is this:  They have very little coloration from the driver materials themselves (no nasty resonances as the resonance is at only a few Hz), They are very linear (very low harmonic distortion), and are in an open baffle (so they do not excite cabinet resonances).  The planar magnetic bass driver in Apogees is slightly more colored but it gets the fundamentals (since it handles up to around 500 Hz) pretty correct.  If driven within its limits (depends on the size of the Apogee) the distortion is extremely low, again no box coloration, and very low noise from the driver itself.  One can get some idea of how colored a speaker will sound if on looks at the on and off axis response, the harmonic distortion, and the waterfall plot of a speaker.  An ugly waterfall plot nearly always guarantees a colored sound as all that stored energy is being released.  I think ribbons are capable of the purest tone and this also is the case in recording technology.  The most realistic tone I have ever heard on a recordings comes from ones that I know were made with ribbon microphones.  Normal condenser mics (ie. electrostatic) are good but they tend to wash the intensity of the tonal color a bit.  Ribbons preserve this intense natural color better and preserve very subtle dynamic contrasts. .....

Andy Simpson wrote:

You raise an interesting point regarding ribbons but are missing the bigger picture. With Romy's permission, I would like to invite you (and any other members) to listen to some recordings on my site: www.SimpsonMicrophones.com These show 'the ribbon sound' more than any ribbon mic - violin is a key instrument. After you have listened I will be glad to explain why. In answering why, I will give some reasons why the horn loaded speaker is superior to the ribbon (which is direct-radiating). I do not expect to find customers in a loudspeaker community - only enthusiasts with whom I might discuss some principles of audio. Romy - if this is not appropriate, please delete.

Romy the Cat wrote:

Andy Simpson wrote: You raise an interesting point regarding ribbons but are missing the bigger picture. With Romy's permission, I would like to invite you (and any other members) to listen to some recordings on my site: www.SimpsonMicrophones.com These show 'the ribbon sound' more than any ribbon mic - violin is a key instrument. After you have listened I will be glad to explain why. In answering why, I will give some reasons why the horn loaded speaker is superior to the ribbon (which is direct-radiating). I do not expect to find customers in a loudspeaker community - only enthusiasts with whom I might discuss some principles of audio. Romy - if this is not appropriate, please delete. Andy, you do not need to be apologetic, I have no rules against anyone to pull any commercial or marketing agenda – as long as you natural interest are noble then whatever you do is fine – well, you just need to be prepared to live with consequences if your natural interests are otherwise… :-) BTW, I moved your post into own thread, I hope you do not mind. I know a lot about microphones but there is subject in the microphones that fascinated me tremendously and that has very direct influence to the audio that I practice. Human hearing can concentrate to specific sound, microphone can’t. To get “concentration” people bring microphone closer to the source, in some instances locating the microphone way within the reverberation radius (distance what direct sound  is equal to reflected sound). However, this positioning severely fucks up (I can’t find another word) harmonic content of sound and I HATE the recording with up-close microphones. I know, the audio-idiots and the industry warships the recordings with microphones stacked into the singer’s throat or into the violin deck but I’m so sick of them that it is hard to express, even with me flourishing semantics… So, I wonder if exist any microphonic techniques that might position mics at significant distance, have tremendous transient capacity but at the same time would allow the listening awareness to “depth-observing” the recording event? Romy the Cat

Andy 

1)    Actually the most interest was in the fact that I was not asking two questions but one question at the same time as I see both of the questions are inner-related. I was under presumption that in my asking I automatically eliminate the visual contribution of audible image as it would make the answers too easy.

2)    In most of recordings the requirement for tremendous transient capacity and instantaneousness of dynamic change is substituted with artificial proximity and insultingly-extended HF

3)    “Clarity is not in 'frequency response' but in information, which is primarily time-domain.” – Good bless you – you know already about loudspeakers more then 99% of people who build them. However, the “clarity” is way more complex quality then just time-domain perfection. I have writhen an article about “audio clarity” a month ago but I did not post it as do not feel that it will be properly understood. Prior to posting it I am planning to post another one-two articles – about the nature of my inters in audio subjects. Sometimes when I have time I will do it…

4)    I do not “get” your association between dynamic freedom of direct-radiating speakers and horn-loaded speakers. There are very dynamic performing low-sensitivity direct-radiating speakers and there are anti- dynamic horns – it is all upon implementation and various “contingent upon”…

5)    Might I ask: what would be if an active element of a microphone were loaded to active load? What would be if the load would wary according to some kind of algorithm? Purely hypothetically: we have a source of signal and 3 microphones – one at 1 meter, another at 5 meter and the third at 10 meters. The second microphone actually record but the first and third used to subtract the signal of first microphone, to analyze relationship between volume and harmonics and to modify the loading/magnetizing characteristics of the second microphone. Perhaps it all has no sense but my interests to see if a microphone, or the microphone/preamp interface can be taught to react to loud, soft, close or far signals differently, similar to what human ears/mind does.

Romy the Cat wrote:

Andy  1)    Actually the most interest was in the fact that I was not asking two questions but one question at the same time as I see both of the questions are inner-related. I was under presumption that in my asking I automatically eliminate the visual contribution of audible image as it would make the answers too easy. 2)    In most of recordings the requirement for tremendous transient capacity and instantaneousness of dynamic change is substituted with artificial proximity and insultingly-extended HF 3)    “Clarity is not in 'frequency response' but in information, which is primarily time-domain.” – Good bless you – you know already about loudspeakers more then 99% of people who build them. However, the “clarity” is way more complex quality then just time-domain perfection. I have writhen an article about “audio clarity” a month ago but I did not post it as do not feel that it will be properly understood. Prior to posting it I am planning to post another one-two articles – about the nature of my inters in audio subjects. Sometimes when I have time I will do it… 4)    I do not “get” your association between dynamic freedom of direct-radiating speakers and horn-loaded speakers. There are very dynamic performing low-sensitivity direct-radiating speakers and there are anti- dynamic horns – it is all upon implementation and various “contingent upon”… 5)    Might I ask: what would be if an active element of a microphone were loaded to active load? What would be if the load would wary according to some kind of algorithm? Purely hypothetically: we have a source of signal and 3 microphones – one at 1 meter, another at 5 meter and the third at 10 meters. The second microphone actually record but the first and third used to subtract the signal of first microphone, to analyze relationship between volume and harmonics and to modify the loading/magnetizing characteristics of the second microphone. Perhaps it all has no sense but my interests to see if a microphone, or the microphone/preamp interface can be taught to react to loud, soft, close or far signals differently, similar to what human ears/mind does. Rgs, Romy the Cat

Bud wrote:

Andy, These are sensationaly deep recordings, just as you said they would be. DYNAMICS from a distance, and no artificially sick or flat notes, or hidden masses of groaning monsters. Romy you need to help this man, put his recordings on your broadband site, so we can send other parties in to learn about this...please? Bud

Andy Simpson wrote:

(2) Yes, in most recordings - which are unlistenable - multiple microphones are used in close proximity in order to artificially generate 'clarity'. The side effects (as you noted) are massively exagerated (but uncontrolled) dynamics, confusion, etc and these problems are much worse simply because the microphones used are bad enough at distance but terrible close. Almost as bad is where a single pair of the same usual condenser microphones are situated at 'audiophile' distance, where there is no dynamcs or clarity and recorded at the highest possible bandwidth. At least there is less distortion but still the same class of problem.

Interesting that you omitted in your response the “insultingly-extended HF”. I feel it one of the biggest problems as luck of “transients from distance” people foolishly substrates with a presents of bogusly-supplemented and artificially-presented HF.

Andy Simpson wrote:

(3) I would be interested to read your post on 'clarity'. However, I again restate that clarity is information and in sound information is time-domain (perfection). However, from my research, this 'perfection' comes partly from a place which you have not considered yet - at least not directly - which I will get to later.

In my article about 'clarity' I did not give any recipe of 'clarity' but debated that currently dominating definition of audio 'clarity' is a synthetic, industry-contrived idiocy.

Andy Simpson wrote:

(4) Regarding my association between dynamic freedom and horn-loading - this will be addressed (as mentioned above) in due course. There is no direct radiator which can match the best horn-loaded - but you know this. Of course, implementation is everything.....

I would not buy it “as is”. Implementation is everything but… there are many different aspects of dynamic. As I have written before I recognize not one phrase “dynamic” but at least 4 different aspects of dynamics. I would not say that horn-loading is by it’s nature excel in all aspects of dynamics. It is not to mention that there is expressed dynamic and perceived dynamic…

Andy Simpson wrote:

(5) To my way of thinking, it would make little sense creating a microphone whose transfer function depends on source loudness. If we are talking about the non-linearities of the ear (which I think we are) then I aim to make the microphone (& speaker) linear and let the ear be non-linear at playback (ie. playback at performance SPL, where the ear will react properly to the SPL).

The point was not to fight with non-linearities of the ear but to mimic the way how brain proposes the heard. For instance sound, relatively slow traveling in space will reach first microphone sooner than the second and it will be a constant delay. If the microphone #2 has an electro-magnetizing filed, electro-damping and active load then it would be possible to pre-stricture the microphone #2’s characteristics to be optimum for registering the signal of the very given amplitude. Sure, they all are juts fantasies…

Bud wrote:

These are sensationaly deep recordings, just as you said they would be. DYNAMICS from a distance, and no artificially sick or flat notes, or hidden masses of groaning monsters. Romy you need to help this man, put his recordings on your broadband site, so we can send other parties in to learn about this...please?

Romy the Cat wrote:

Bud wrote: These are sensationaly deep recordings, just as you said they would be. DYNAMICS from a distance, and no artificially sick or flat notes, or hidden masses of groaning monsters. Romy you need to help this man, put his recordings on your broadband site, so we can send other parties in to learn about this...please? Bud, I disagree. I do not like those recordings. The “events” are very disconnected and are popping up out of space with the organization of mushrooms in forest after a rain. To me the recording sound as an images that where up-sharpened many times and lost own continuity of grade’s fractions.  It is also ironic that different recording that where presumably recorded at different concert halls but they sound the same acoustically – not the same but with the same style – I call it coloration - or a constant common denominator devastating discrimination.  Whaen I listen this Sound I would like to take a large breathe in of cigar’s smoke or inhale the morning fog and to inject it to the sound. I certainly would not necessary balm the Andy’s microphones. My expertise in microphones equal to nothing and I am not trained to recognize reasoning and conciseness of recording techniques. I know that something is not right. Jim the Smith, are you reading it? You have a lot if recoding experience; can you pass your observations? I will soot an email to Jim, inviting him in…. Andy, I have no problems to upload your files to my server, though my server is not as fast as it should be. However, I would NOT suggest you not link the files from you site to my server. Since you are looking for the “industry recognition” then be advised that you will come across to some industry idiots, whose attention you will be seeking, who will not be happy with the fact that your files are linked to the Romy the Cat’s server. Rgs, Romy the caT

Romy the Cat wrote:

(1) Interesting that you omitted in your response the “insultingly-extended HF”. I feel it one of the biggest problems as luck of “transients from distance” people foolishly substrates with a presents of bogusly-supplemented and artificially-presented HF. (2) I would not buy it “as is”. Implementation is everything but… there are many different aspects of dynamic. As I have written before I recognize not one phrase “dynamic” but at least 4 different aspects of dynamics. I would not say that horn-loading is by it’s nature excel in all aspects of dynamics. It is not to mention that there is expressed dynamic and perceived dynamic… (3) The point was not to fight with non-linearities of the ear but to mimic the way how brain proposes the heard. For instance sound, relatively slow traveling in space will reach first microphone sooner than the second and it will be a constant delay. If the microphone #2 has an electro-magnetizing filed, electro-damping and active load then it would be possible to pre-stricture the microphone #2’s characteristics to be optimum for registering the signal of the very given amplitude. Sure, they all are juts fantasies… Rgs, the Cat

Andy Simpson wrote:

Usually, this is a _time-domain_ artefact of microphone diaphragm resonance, made worse by excessive proximity.

Very interesting!

Andy Simpson wrote:

Then, finally and most horribly, we have the brain, which can chaotically ignore, reinterpret and mistake the input from such amazing sensory organs (please! don't get me started on suspension of disbelief).

Actually I do not feel that it is most “horribly” but rather that set everything in the “real interesting mode”…

Andy Simpson wrote:

Regarding the physical ear, the most interesting aspect for me (at present) is the fluid 'damping' of the cochlea. Possibly one reason for the incredible time-domain resolution of the ear.

Actually the most interesting subject in physicality of ear to me is not the cochlea damping but the fact that brain and ear are liquid decoupled and whatever brain hears is transmitted through a liquid pressure wave. Of course it is the case if a person is not a Bush-republican… BTW, is it possible to do liquid damping/decoupling with diaphragm in order to kill the “artefact of microphone diaphragm resonance, made worse by excessive proximity”?

Andy Simpson wrote:

Finally, let us dismiss the term 'dynamics' - as you mentioned, it is clearly an undefined marketing term and of no use here.

I would agree. There is a lot of confusion about dynamic and the term is grossly misused. Unfortunately I do not know how to use it properly as well…

Andy Simpson wrote:

…first discussion to this discrete area, we can make progress …

Andy, let be a let bit more practical as it is what I uselessly try to do in audio. Would you comment on my feedback above about your recordings?

Also, all of your recording has very idiosyncratic, very shallow and very noisy midbass, there is no lower bass weight in any of the recordings (I was listening only classical recording - I do not care about others). I initially thought that “no bass” was the properly of the recording environment but then I decided that it is something in your recording chain – microphones, preamps, A/D or whatever. Can you comment on it? Your bass basically does not exist below I would say 45Hz and whatever is near 45Hz is very purely defined and very badly articulated. Andy, are you using ported monitor to conduct your listening experiments?

Romy the Cat wrote:

Actually the most interesting subject in physicality of ear to me is not the cochlea damping but the fact that brain and ear are liquid decoupled and whatever brain hears is transmitted through a liquid pressure wave. Of course it is the case if a person is not a Bush-republican… BTW, is it possible to do liquid damping/decoupling with diaphragm in order to kill the “artefact of microphone diaphragm resonance, made worse by excessive proximity”?

Andy, let be a let bit more practical as it is what I uselessly try to do in audio. Would you comment on my feedback above about your recordings? Also, all of your recording has very idiosyncratic, very shallow and very noisy midbass, there is no lower bass weight in any of the recordings (I was listening only classical recording - I do not care about others). I initially thought that “no bass” was the properly of the recording environment but then I decided that it is something in your recording chain – microphones, preamps, A/D or whatever. Can you comment on it? Your bass basically does not exist below I would say 45Hz and whatever is near 45Hz is very purely defined and very badly articulated. Andy, are you using ported monitor to conduct your listening experiments? Rgs, Romy the caT

Andy Simpson wrote:

I thought that eventually you would take my hint.... liquid damping in microphones is something I have given some thought to - especially given that air comes under 'fluid dynamics' - but I will get to my own solution shortly.....

The liquid dumpling in tonearms do works very nicely – eats transients though… BTW, let me to make it very generally… the certain thing are already done and successfully used in this direction buy the peoples I know but unfortunately I’m not at liberty comment on it further.
 

Andy Simpson wrote:

But seriously, there is not much to be gained by directly answering your comments about smoke or air or mushrooms. Sounds 'popping up like mushrooms' implies many things but you will have to be clear about your criticism in order to be answered with any value. I will say that you could not (in your wildest dreams) imagine worse pre-amps, converters & cables which my poor microphones were connected to (Jim has some details). Also, with these microphones (as I will elaborate upon later) there is the issue of 'callibration'. More later....

Well, Andy, if you present your files as demonstration of “anything” then you need to make them presentable, otherwise - what are you doing?  Your files have absolutely removed all harmonics – juts the spikes of isolated notes. I can get the same sound if I load the output tube of my Milq not to 1000R but to 10.000R - when the plate is almost idle it does the same “quality”. The irony is that the many idiots in the industry do consider that time of sound as “quality” and the industry do move toward to this punchy direction. I do not if it was your objective or it was just a result of bad amplification and AD processing.  I think you need to demonstrate a result that would send a message what you consider “Simpson’s level of recording”. The files that you send do not do it, and in a way laughable. Perhaps if I were a person who is accustomed to recognize the contribution of microphones then I might be able to recognize in your files something that you intended to say but I am blind to the microphone’s discrimination.

Andy Simpson wrote:

Also, if you are hosting a few of my files, you might also put one of the string quartet recordings there too - firstly, as this is the only recording which represents a 'wet' acoustic and secondly, as this is a very clear example of strings recorded without resonance on sustained notes (constant excitation resonance) - something no other microphone can do to this extent. More on this critical subject later too.

One more thing. My personal interest in the entire subject is the “Ribbon Saga”. The last year I dived into the Ribbon Story with Aleksandar Radisavljevic from Serbia built for me the “Water Drop” tweeter. (You might get in touch with Alex BTW as he is a very well educated scientist who spent a lot of years learning and experimenting with ribbons and you might find an interesting collaborator). My experiments with my ribbon driver indicated that a ribbon transducer is losing its attractiveness with each hertz.  At HF ribbon has a lot of advantages but as we move down to frequency range a ribbon is losing dynamic, transients and got desensitized tonally. Frankly it was exactly what you demonstrated in your recordings.

Alex, disagree with me and he feel it is possible to with Ribbon down, and I wish him luck to try it. I feel that an any lower frequency ribbon get removed from it perfect ultimate position of flux’s dead spot and all games are off. There are many other reasons in wish I would like do not go now. Still. You your recording you perfectly illustrate the concept. We can disregard the pure pre-amps, converters & cables. Pay attention that “rightness” of sound in your recording is gradually decries with frequency range doing down. At sub ~700Hz sound do practically annoying and got completely evaporated from the bottom. Call it as my prejudice but it is what I would expect from a ribbon transducer that filtered to work full range. Here is the 3D oscillograph of your orchestral piece.  There is not typical LF "warps" in there…

Romy the Cat wrote:

Andy Simpson wrote: I thought that eventually you would take my hint.... liquid damping in microphones is something I have given some thought to - especially given that air comes under 'fluid dynamics' - but I will get to my own solution shortly..... The liquid dumpling in tonearms do works very nicely – eats transients though… BTW, let me to make it very generally… the certain thing are already done and successfully used in this direction buy the peoples I know but unfortunately I’m not at liberty comment on it further.    Andy Simpson wrote: But seriously, there is not much to be gained by directly answering your comments about smoke or air or mushrooms. Sounds 'popping up like mushrooms' implies many things but you will have to be clear about your criticism in order to be answered with any value. I will say that you could not (in your wildest dreams) imagine worse pre-amps, converters & cables which my poor microphones were connected to (Jim has some details). Also, with these microphones (as I will elaborate upon later) there is the issue of 'callibration'. More later.... Well, Andy, if you present your files as demonstration of “anything” then you need to make them presentable, otherwise - what are you doing?  Your files have absolutely removed all harmonics – juts the spikes of isolated notes. I can get the same sound if I load the output tube of my Milq not to 1000R but to 10.000R - when the plate is almost idle it does the same “quality”. The irony is that the many idiots in the industry do consider that time of sound as “quality” and the industry do move toward to this punchy direction. I do not if it was your objective or it was just a result of bad amplification and AD processing.  I think you need to demonstrate a result that would send a message what you consider “Simpson’s level of recording”. The files that you send do not do it, and in a way laughable. Perhaps if I were a person who is accustomed to recognize the contribution of microphones then I might be able to recognize in your files something that you intended to say but I am blind to the microphone’s discrimination.  Andy Simpson wrote: Also, if you are hosting a few of my files, you might also put one of the string quartet recordings there too - firstly, as this is the only recording which represents a 'wet' acoustic and secondly, as this is a very clear example of strings recorded without resonance on sustained notes (constant excitation resonance) - something no other microphone can do to this extent. More on this critical subject later too. I did not download anything else after the first two files. One more thing. My personal interest in the entire subject is the “Ribbon Saga”. The last year I dived into the Ribbon Story with Aleksandar Radisavljevic from Serbia built for me the “Water Drop” tweeter. (You might get in touch with Alex BTW as he is a very well educated scientist who spent a lot of years learning and experimenting with ribbons and you might find an interesting collaborator). My experiments with my ribbon driver indicated that a ribbon transducer is losing its attractiveness with each hertz.  At HF ribbon has a lot of advantages but as we move down to frequency range a ribbon is losing dynamic, transients and got desensitized tonally. Frankly it was exactly what you demonstrated in your recordings. Alex, disagree with me and he feel it is possible to with Ribbon down, and I wish him luck to try it. I feel that an any lower frequency ribbon get removed from it perfect ultimate position of flux’s dead spot and all games are off. There are many other reasons in wish I would like do not go now. Still. You your recording you perfectly illustrate the concept. We can disregard the pure pre-amps, converters & cables. Pay attention that “rightness” of sound in your recording is gradually decries with frequency range doing down. At sub ~700Hz sound do practically annoying and got completely evaporated from the bottom. Call it as my prejudice but it is what I would expect from a ribbon transducer that filtered to work full range. Here is the 3D oscillograph of your orchestral piece.  There is not typical LF "warps" in there… Rgs, Romy the Cat

Andy Simpson wrote:

Also, it is a great shame if you didn't try the quartet recordings - you are missing the only interesting acoustic..... these are very illustrative regarding other issues I mentioned (constant excitation resonance for example).

Before I answer some of the points raised....

I have recently updated my website with details of the microphone - pictures will tell much of the story.

This will answer some questions and raise some more.

The short version of the concept is this: by acoustic impedance matching a greater level of damping is achieved without impeding freedom of movement.

Or it can be viewed as a greater level of freedom of movement without reduction of damping (among other perspectives).

Quite clearly this concept applies to the horn-loading of speakers but in this case the motivation is simple 'damping', within the frequency band of greatest human hearing acuity.

However, the issue of 'damping' is not simply a question of resonance control but rather of basic time-domain (impulse response) - so dynamics, resolution, etc AND resonance are all positively affected.

Regarding the specific implementation in my microphone, this is slightly more complicated as a 'full range' horn would be impossible for many reasons.
So, the microphone is designed to be effective within the previously mentioned critical band of human hearing and, owing to the basic acoustical properties of the design, the microphone is designed to be post-equalised, hence some issues with incorrect post-eq callibration.

In (simplified) theoretical terms, the less time-domain distortion present, the more transparent post-equalisation should be. My clips illustrate this quite well, I think.

Best regards,

Andy

Regarding the string quartet recording & accompanying graph - an example of 'full range recording' - as I said in the email, this recording shows the hallmarks of a compressed/saturated, close/multi-mic recording.

I would also say that I would be surprised if those sub-frequency LF 'spikes' were anything other than physically transmitted 'rumbling' from the players sitting on the floor (or even passing traffic), transmitted via the microphone stands.

As I said in the email, my microphones are mechanically isolated so that this effect will not be in my recordings.

Also, as I said in my email, the SPL used for playback governs the perceived spectrum - courtesy of the 'equal loudness contours', first published by Fletcher & Munson a long time ago.

My recordings are made for playback at performance SPL, not optimized for small scale speakers at quiet volumes.

In any case, I have recently made some further recordings which might be of interest:

Orchestra A - Orchestra       96/24 44/16 mp3

Orchestra B - Solo piano      96/24 44/16 mp3

Gregorian choir                   96/24 44/16 mp3

Classical Indian ensemble     96/24 44/16 mp3

Tabla                                96/24 44/16 mp3

Sitar                                 96/24 44/16 mp3

Drum kit                            96/24 44/16 mp3


Andy

Romy - as it turned out, the 'crapped off bass' that you refered to was in part due to the consumer pre-amp I was using.

I attach an mp3 from a recent session where I recorded using a DAV BG1 into Mytek stereo96 converters. In making the recording with the upgraded mic-amp & converter I noticed immediately that the bass went much lower.

The mic-amp/converter upgrade was a direct result of my customers telling me that their own recordings made with my microphones were far better than my samples (they had similar complaints to yours).

This recording was monitored live in the hall with the orchestra at performance SPL via a pair of Mackie SRM450 speakers and was quite close to the actual sound.

mp3

Andy

Andy Simpson wrote:

Romy - as it turned out, the 'crapped off bass' that you refered to was in part due to the consumer pre-amp I was using. I attach an mp3 from a recent session where I recorded using a DAV BG1 into Mytek stereo96 converters. In making the recording with the upgraded mic-amp & converter I noticed immediately that the bass went much lower. The mic-amp/converter upgrade was a direct result of my customers telling me that their own recordings made with my microphones were far better than my samples (they had similar complaints to yours). This recording was monitored live in the hall with the orchestra at performance SPL via a pair of Mackie SRM450 speakers and was quite close to the actual sound.

was it a joke or you are serious? Are you trying to present this Sound as something that has any more or less proper bass? I do not know at witch level of your recording/mastering chain it came to you but this Sound has absolutely revolting bass – juts a pieces of syntactic rubber garbage, sorry to say it. Also, it was incredibly boring play of Tchaikovsky IV. You shell not record music like this.