David, I really enjoyed this one. (Haven't commented on any of the others because I've always come along too late to make any useful comments! ;-)

I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that you used the closer pair, spaced in together for this clip. One reason is that the sound seems a tad bunched-together in the middle of the soundfield. Not bad of course, just different. The piano sounds very full and solid (but not overloaded), yet the Room/hall ambience sounds a bit far off and to the rear....almost a bit whispy, it seems.

I am listening with fairly bad heaphones on the mp3 streamed on my laptop, so all bets are off, but this doesn't seem to sound like the two mics pictured. (Yes, it is indeed a hall to DIE FOR, though...visually as well as sonically!)

It could be an MP3 anomaloy, but there's one little bit of sound going on that I tend to really like with some pianos (because it's quirky and imperfect and "different" with certain pianos)

Somewhere around :45, :46 and again at :48, there's this little idiosyncratic "jingly" sound that many Steinway's make when some notes (and clusters) are struck hard enough. It's rarely something you can reproduce on your own with single key strikes, (and the piano tech can rarely track 'em down!) it's more of a cumulative build up of sounds, resulting in some kind of sympathetic vibration, almost like a little "jingle" sound along with the notes that are struck really loud at those times in the clip. (I think I hear it again during one or two of the very last chords in the clip, as well.) It might be strings that need to be replaced, or it might be something else in the piano case or mechanism vibrating along, but I like it when you can hear it just around the edges of the struck notes.

Call me odd, but I like tracking down and locating these sorts of things, sometimes, just to "keep it real". A pianist can selectively tune these out day to day when playing, but doing a good recording such as this tends to put a magnifying glass on ALL parts of the sound, good and bad. Very often, we've had to live with these things and move along anyway.

I have to compliment you on these clips. You're doing some wonderful stuff, and exposing your neck to the rest of us here. That's really gutsy, indeed! 8-)

Hi Joe, or is it, "Hey Joe"? ;)

Where you goin' with that mic in your hand?

:)

Anyway...

I already elucidated the exact setut used, anbd believe it or not, I did use a spaced pair 4' apart as per the picture. The recording you hear wasn't necessarily done with the mics pictured.

To me, it sounds very spacious, which is indicative of the far spacing.

The jungly bits aren't mp3 artifacts. The mp3 is of very high quality, hard to tell from the original. The only thing that gives it away to my ears is a slight collapse of spaciousness and a disappearance of some of the ambience. BTW, I love them too!

I have to compliment you on these clips. You're doing some wonderful stuff, and exposing your neck to the rest of us here. That's really gutsy, indeed!

NOOOOOO! I suck! Seriously, thanks for the compliment, you're too kind, but I am only hear to learn. There simply must be something wrong! I come here seeking the advice of you older, wiser engineers whose work I so admire ( you know who you are ). If any of you would have recorded the same thing, yours would have come out better, andi'm trying to learn why. You guys are on a whole other level, many levels above me. I would like to get there. You guys are such an incredible help to me because you can show me problems that I didn't even know existed.

Hi David,

First, I enjoyed this music. Don't have it in my library and will have to get one.

On the recording, I like the sound of the lower/mid registers on this, but can't help wishing for a more open (extended) sounding top. Also, it feels a little close for me. A lot of piano and very little room. But that's artistic decison, and this mic'ing might suit the music better than something that, while it might give a more 'acoustic event' feel, might interfere with the jaunty rythmic character of the music (at least this brief selection).

So, just a little more extension on top...

Michael

PS. I'm doing a test recording Monday night for a Barbershop Chorus. I'll post some samples for feedback. Anyone like barbershop? :wink:

Thanks for the input Michael. I had similar thoughts about the top. I tried brighter mics than the one I ended up using, but I loved the buttery low end that I got with these, so I kept it that way. I thought about EQ in post, but decided against it. Should I reconsider guys?

The ratio of direct to reverberant sound is precisely how I intended. ;)

I thought I'd create some more food for thought and discussion re stereo piano recording technique. This is one of my favourite music types to record and to listen to.

As I now have permission from the artist, I would like to post an example of a recording in a similar acoustic to David's Debusy example above, but with Blumlein main pair instead of spaced omnis.

http://www.lodestarrecordings.com.au/downloads/carmen.mp3

In this example, I hope you can see why I think spaced omnis are inferior for piano over Blumlein. I find David's example has a slight hole in the middle effect typical of spaced omnis whereas this one doesn't. It has a very solid, coherant centre image, and a very stable linear stereo spread which to my ears sounds much better and much less confusing in the thicker textures. I find spaced omnis gets quite confused in loud sections due to the well known shortcomings.

This recording was made with a AKG C426 main pair with a very small amount of spaced DPA 4003. Interested in your thoughts and discussion.

I don't know Dave S. ... I think it's definitely a matter of preference.

In listening to both (bear in mind, I'm not on my reference system, but good enough mini-monitors on this one...) I find them both to be excellent. The differences to me are:

DF - Open and wide - not too wide, just wide. As though I were in a recital hall with the pianist.

DS - Tight and intimate. Like I were in a piano bar two tables away from the pianist.

In both cases, I can hear the ambience and the direct sound and both are quite pleasing. My preference still leans towards the sound that DF got - it, to me, is more evocative of a performance situation rather than a recording session.

I don't hear the hole in the middle to which you're referring, but I will do the courtesy of listening to both on my reference system.

J. :D

Beautiful tone on both recordings.
The only negative I'll bring up is on the DF recording. I close my eyes and try as I might I can't "see" a piano out there.

I probably would have gone for a little more room as well - but thats not a biggie.

Care to elaborate on the setup? Mics, preamp, etc?

Interesting. I find the Debusy is actually closer than the Blumlein recording, but the width of the image is too wide, it does not sound quite correct to me, ie not how I would hear it with the naked ear standing near the piano. Listen to both on headphones as well and compare.

The omnis recording is superb though, if you like that technique. To me, a rock solid stereo image with no dips is almost more important than tonal accuracy, but you need both.

AKG C426 direct into Nagra V, pure Blumlein (no matrixing), DPA4003, 48V converters, into AMEK 9098, then line in to Nagra V, mixed and recorded direct to stereo.

DavidSpearritt wrote: Interesting. I find the Debusy is actually closer than the Blumlein recording, but the width of the image is too wide, it does not sound quite correct to me, ie not how I would hear it with the naked ear standing near the piano.

Same for me. Frenchy's sounds great, but the image is whacked.

I definitely concede to Spearritt's recording... nice! You guys are right, it is a tad too wide, bordering on unrealistic. The porblem with thsi damn piano is that it sounds terrible from the center which almost forces your hand into spaced omnis... at least that's the way I see it.

Thanks for the critique, guys!

p.s. - I still have those mic comparisons mentioned in the first post, second paragraph if anyone is interested.

David French wrote: p.s. - I still have those mic comparisons mentioned in the first post, second paragraph if anyone is interested.

Yes, please!

If you read the post I referred to, you will find that it says that I do not have the necessary server space to post them. Would you like to host them for me?

I'll host them for ya.

Give me a bit and I'll set you up with some more space.

J.

Jeremy, I just accepted an offer by Karl to host the files. Thank you though.

David French wrote: ...it is a tad too wide, bordering on unrealistic. The...piano...sounds terrible from the center which almost forces your hand into spaced omnis

I don't think that the lesson here is that spaced omnis produce unrealistic images. Rather, that your omni technique needs improving. For example, from what I can make of the picture you posted I would be inclined to say your mics are spaced to wide. This easily explains the hole-in-the-middle issue.

DavidSpearritt wrote: To me, a rock solid stereo image with no dips is almost more important than tonal accuracy

I disagree. I find that very few music listeners and recording musicians are even aware of stereo imaging. But they will react very quickly to unnatural or unpleasant timbre. A piano needs to sound like a piano, in mono or stereo. Of course, having both is ideal.

I disagree. I find that very few music listeners and recording musicians are even aware of stereo imaging. But they will react very quickly to unnatural or unpleasant timbre. A piano needs to sound like a piano, in mono or stereo. Of course, having both is ideal.

I agree 100% with your statement Scott. I meant purely from my own personal perspective when recording. Some pro musicians I have experienced cannot tell the difference between stereo and mono.

OK, thanks to Karl, we've got ourselves a mic comparison on!

Here's the 16 bit WAV files:

[="http://www.cheap-tracks.com/~french/A.wav"]Mic 'A'[/]="http://www.cheap-tr…"]Mic 'A'[/]

[[url=http://="http://www.cheap-tr…"]Mic 'B'[/]="http://www.cheap-tr…"]Mic 'B'[/]

[[url=http://[/URL]="http://www.cheap-tr…"]Mic 'C'[/]="http://www.cheap-tr…"]Mic 'C'[/]

These were all recorded at the same time with three different omni mic pairs positioned as close together as possible. All three files are the exact same length and are cut from the exact same moment in time. You can even phase invert and cancel and make new pairs out of them if you want.

So, let's hear what you're favorites are. I'll reveal the models after we get some opinions.

Did you mean to make the C URL link to the B file again?

Dunno if its the MP3 encoding or what, but here is my initial choice.

I like B best, but not by much over A, C is too brassy and uncouth, A is more subdued, I like is as well. B has a slight noise floor though, but I think I like it best. The image on C is skewed as well, were the gains matched like the others? C is louder than the others, maybe this is affecting the results.

Anyway that's my initial vote. I am prepared for the worst? Have I chosen a Rode over a Schoeps? :)

DavidSpearritt wrote: Dunno if its the MP3 encoding or what, but here is my initial choice.

They're not MP3s. :o

DavidSpearritt wrote: Did you mean to make the C URL link to the B file again?

DOH!
http://www.cheap-tracks.com/~french/C.wav - the obvious fix works.

Did you mean to make the C URL link to the B file again?

Yes!

ok no :(

Fixed it.

David S, the gains, I thought, were matched. I guess my eaqr was off that day. Of course there was a little less gain on the left due to the positioning. I only have discrete gain steps on the board. Maybe that's part of it.

zemlin wrote: [quote=DavidSpearritt]Dunno if its the MP3 encoding or what, but here is my initial choice.

They're not MP3s. :o

Comedy of errors here. Ha! I was listening to all four with MediaPlayer and "assumed" MP3's. Still hearing some brassy, shrill artifacts stuff, didn't even look at the extensions. Oh well.

So what are they.

What are the brassy shrill artifacts? I guess it's the piano!

David, as nobody else seems to be interested, are you going to spill the beans, now?

I'm interested - just this little thing called TIME that's in short supply these days. I listened this AM, but had to use cans so I don't wake the family.

My preference in order:

B
C
A

B&C are very close (by my ears, anyway), but B seems slightly more open.

A sounded a bit "clangy" or perhaps "brassy" to use David S's term - although he applied to to C, not A. :shock:

Some different cans reveal more of a difference between B&C. It might be a few days before I can sit down and listen in earnest through the monitors - but I'm interested in knowing what's what.

Nope, not going to spill it yet. I'm sure at least Jeremy will chime in.

I guess I should list my own preference...

Favorite: A - Not as much higs and not as open as i'd usually like, but the buttery low end won me over.

Second: B - definitely a very nice sound and would be totally useable, but not as special as A.

Third: C - a bit brittle. Might be mice if the piano was mixed with other instruments, but probably too edgy for solo.

I agree with you.--Uncle Russ

So you agree that mixing the piano with other instruments would lead to MICE?!? :shock:

I wrote: Might be mice if...

:lol:

Thanks for agreeing with me... makes me feel special!

:D

I downloaded the three files and burned a pmcd with iTunes. I took the disc into one of our mastering suites and gave a brief listen.

I did not feel any strong preference for one over the other based on sonic quality. 'A' seemed a little wider, 'C' was a little more clangy bright.

I did not get a sense of hole-in-the-middle.

I like the balance of direct and reverb (though I feel the mics are a tad to close to the piano).

The most offending quality in this recording is the performer. His/her touch is very pokey which makes the piano's tone metallic/brassy in all the mic versions.

I would choose 'A' or 'B' based on sonic quality. But I might have to choose 'C' based on its having a more proper left/right hand balance.

Continuing the critique...

Since there is not, IMO, night-n-day differences between these mic arrays, the real question is not really one of sonic quality. What I would ask myself is, "am I recording Debusy?"; "Is my recording technique recreating the illusion of an impressionistic composition?"

Given the style of the music and the limitations of this performance, I would be inclined to back away from the instrument. This would (hopefully) mitigate the pokey quality of the performance and garnish a little diffusion. This being an attempt to introduce more mystery to the recording's presentation.

Overall I think the technical quality is good given the factors I believe I am perceiving.

The most offending quality in this recording is the performer. His/her touch is very pokey which makes the piano's tone metallic/brassy in all the mic versions.

Trust me, from a person that was there, the problems are my fault and the fault of the piano. This guy had a great touch... a very sensitive player.

"Is my recording technique recreating the illusion of an impressionistic composition?"

But this is the big question. What does convey an impression, the music or the sound. I have heard many recordings of French piano music where someone thought a diffuse, overly reverberant, soft, mushy sonic flavour would move me, the listener, into an impressionistic state of mind. This is very silly. I want to hear the instrument as clear and as close as normal, as for any other music in fact, think live experience, and let the composition, notes and the playing deliver the impressionism.

My head and shoulders oustanding favourite recording of Gaspard is Pogorelich, because of his articulation, clarity of playing and DG's almost cold clinical piano sound. IMO, only on this recording does one "see" the water and Ravel's genius. Others are messing around in a wash of sonic soup and articulation hell and sloppiness, no impressions there except of one mediocre experience.

Also, this was a live concert, and there was Bach right before it. :shock:

You had four stereo pairs setup for a live concert? :shock: You are very lucky to have had such accomodating conditions. We sometimes get told to move our single main pair, "cause the mics are throwing shadows on the stage."

They were very discrete and on the same stand. It was no more mess than just the two.

DavidSpearritt wrote: What does convey an impression, the music or the sound?

Both. One should compliment the other. Or, at least, on should not defeat the other.

DavidSpearritt wrote: ...someone thought a diffuse, overly reverberant, soft, mushy sonic flavor would move me, the listener, into an impressionistic state of mind. This is very silly.

Agreed, this ott approach is silly. But I am not advocating soaking something in verb and calling it French. I personally like a little pepper on my baked potato, but not horse radish.

DavidSpearritt wrote: I want to hear the instrument as clear...let the composition, notes and the playing deliver the impressionism.

But when the performer/instrument/recording technique is not relaying the impressionism, we as engineers can and should help things along by changing mic perspectives.

David French wrote: this was a live concert, and there was Bach right before it.

Okay, practicality understood. I would still reposition the mics for better lefthand/righthand balance, and less clang from the instrument. Again, I think the sonic quality of your recording is good. It certainly compares to many commercial recordings out there.

Zilla wrote: It certainly compares to many commercial recordings out there.

And that's it in a sentence. It DOES compare and in fact "beat" some commercial recordings on the market. All opinions and advice aside, this is ultimately the goal. Congrats and keep it up.

Thanks Jeremy. Are you gonna cast you're vote?

David, how long are you going to keep us in suspenders for?