Scratch the Behringer junk, the rate of failure is ridiculous (hence the cost).

I'll hazard a guess that the SDC's will do you better in your home, as they typically have less room sound meaning that you'll get better sound but in a nice space (such as a concert hall) you'd probably like the LDCs more.

Also, asking for recordings, well... there's a lot of variables. The instrument, performance, room, preamps and other gear involved all change the recording so just the mics themselves would be hard to compare.

Neumann U87 or KM184

jetsailsound wrote: Neumann U87 or KM184

Hi. Have you got any samples from recordings made with these mics you could share with us?
Cheers

The U87 is an industry standard option. I'm not wholly partial to the KM184 but it is a good mic as well (it's predecessor KM84 I like better).

In your SDC price range judging by your list your best bet is likely the Rode NT5 or better yet the AT4051.

For LDC, I think the AKG C414.

Now if budget isn't as much of an issue as your list would indicate, and if we:
1-had an idea of the concert halls
2-whether it was a solo recital or chamber concert or full orchestra
3-Steinway D, Bechstein 7', Mason Hamlin AA, Harpsichord? (brand really doesn't matter but the type of sound palatte and size would be helpful)

and
4-what preamps are you using
5-computer recording interface or field recorder or other?

Capturing accurately the sound of a piano is very difficult to do accurately. Once you have decided to attempt the task then you start experimenting and trying find the best positions for microphones. Studio position and live venue positions are not necessarily the same though they could be. Read as many articles as possible.
- http://www.dpamicrophones.com/en/Microphone-University/Miking-a-Grand-Piano/Microphone-Placement.aspx
- http://www.doghousenyc.com/articles/piano1.php
- http://www.saecollege.de/reference_material/pages/Piano.htm

These are just a few articles with ideas. Some are more for the popular end of music than the classical but experimentation is the key.

If you can have someone play your piano for you then you should walk around the piano and room-including sticking your head in the piano-and find the spots where it just plain sounds good. Once you have identified some of those points then you can begin trying out microphones in those positions. Every venue will be different but experience will begin to inform starting positions from which to tweak.

Not to toss a wrench into the broth, but, while looking for a good price on a U87 ( I want one) I found this article.

excerpt from Audio Masterclass

In a recent test, Audio Masterclass visitors judged the $100 Shure SM58 microphone to be more expensive-sounding than the $3500 Neumann U87. Are they deaf?

http://www.audiomasterclass.com/arc.cfm?a=shure-sm58-better-than-a-Neumann-u87-for-a-thirtieth-of-the-price

Hey Chris -

Just a thought - Whoever wrote that article is retarded...genuinely. Of course altering the distance of the mic by 20cm is going to make a mic sound radically different. It alone is the reason why the dynamic sounded "better." (Of course, the Shure is a studio staple for a reason - it's a damn fine mic!)

The appropriate thing to do would have been to insert a 20dB pad between the Neumann and the pre to assist in matching gain without overloading the pre.

The other statement - "Dynamic mics will never work well with metallic percussion - they simply don't have the detailed high frequency response that is necessary." is a wholly unfounded and unintelligent statement. A well-designed dynamic does just fine with high-frequenccy information and often handles it as well if not better than a condenser mic.

Also - Codemonkey -
Just a quick note - A small diaphragm and large diaphragm mic pick up equal amounts of room sound with all things being equal. The off-axis response of a small diaphragm mic is generally better as due to the lack of physical interference fromt the housing as well as the shape and size of the diaphragm itself. Neumann tried to compensate for this a little with the spherical housing of the M50. They were largely successful - however, the mic is still a small diaphragm capsule.

To the OP -
the stuff already mentioned is right on - let us know some more details.

I personally prefer small diaphragm condensers for piano and if you have a great sounding room, nothing beats a great pair of omnis (Schoeps MK2 for example). Of course, these are way outside the price of what you mentioned. The closest a cheap mic has ever come to mimicking the higher quality mics is in the Rode series. The NT5 is a great mic and worth every penny. The NT55 is an even better use of the money due to its versatility.

Josephsons are another great choice - they're a tad top heavy though, so make sure there's a little difference between the mics and the piano.

Cheers-
Jeremy

PS - I can't post any samples - sorry. I need clearance from the artists to do so - it's tough to get that for the purposes of a forum.

"So, there is at least one worthwhile conclusion to this test - if you position a Neumann U87 at other than the optimum distance, it will sound worse than a cheap $100 mic."

In what universe does a poorly positioned mic not sound like crap? Including the cheap $100 mic?

"But to learn how to position mics well - now that is an art that is only learned over a period of years and not something you can just go out and buy."

This statement I do agree with.

Ah, thanks Cucco.
So the diaphragm itself isn't the core of the matter but more the shape of the housing.
One more item for the corrections list.
It all comes down to pickup pattern anyway.

amazing all the miss leading information out there. From a site called Audio Masterclass. Couldn't help post that and get indexed as a cross reference to help others in search of "help".

Hey Cucco, the MK2 / S or H , (priced around $850 - 70 each) would these work well for acoustic guitar too? I'm looking for something I could use both for recording a grand and acoustic guitars ( nylon and steel).

They don't make any reference to guitars for the MK2 on Schoeps web site. I'm guessing they would be great for all acoustic music in close proximity yes? I'm also thinking the most natural (MK2) of the three would be best for close to the source. I have good eq's if needed yes?

The MK2 (either S or H) works quite well for guitar - of course, you'd need the CMC 6 body as well. They're about $2K a piece when you buy the bodies and the capsules together.

Of course, omni mics have limited use for guitar - the room has to be great and you have to be pretty close to the source. Of course, the good news is, there is no proximity effect so you won't have the excessive LF build up even if they are close to the sound hole.

The flat "MK2" is fine for this application but the voiced caps work too. I do prefer the MK2S for most applications though.

If you're looking for killer mics that work well on a variety of sources -
Mojave MA-100
Sennheiser MKH8040

It's hard to imagine better values for the money than these two.

Cheers-
J

Cucco wrote:
To the OP -
the stuff already mentioned is right on - let us know some more details.

I personally prefer small diaphragm condensers for piano and if you have a great sounding room, nothing beats a great pair of omnis (Schoeps MK2 for example). Of course, these are way outside the price of what you mentioned. The closest a cheap mic has ever come to mimicking the higher quality mics is in the Rode series. The NT5 is a great mic and worth every penny. The NT55 is an even better use of the money due to its versatility.

Josephsons are another great choice - they're a tad top heavy though, so make sure there's a little difference between the mics and the piano.

Cheers-
Jeremy

PS - I can't post any samples - sorry. I need clearance from the artists to do so - it's tough to get that for the purposes of a forum.

Hi. Thanks for the input, and no problem you can't post samples, I fully understand. Though I was wondering if maybe you have some short samples of tests you were performing, maybe yourself playing? Something simple, just some scales would be fine, and if you could share them with us.

The grand piano is a Kawai RX3 1.80m. It has a nice sound and I want to preserve it in the recording. The room is a 6m x 6m living room, with decent/balanced accoustics. Also, when playing in concerts I may for example play in a small concert hall (for 50 people) in a Bosendorfer 290. The music is classical, Chopin, Rachmaninov, Beethoven, Debusy. Don't know what else to say. They recordings have to be of good enough quality to be able to submit them for demos for competition applications, i.e. to get accepted to participate. They don't have to be of commercial quality.
Thanks

Those two pianos of course have a much different sound from each other. The Kawai, though a nice sounding instrument, is going to be a much brighter piano and really won't have the bottom end of a Bosendorfer. I think you'll definitely want the most neutral sounding mic you can afford if you'll only have one pair.

For that matter, no one asked how many mic's you were intending to use. I'm going to flat out tell you that a single mic won't get it done period. A pair of microphones is probably your best bet whether as a front stereo pair or positioned up close at the treble and bass breaks in the plate or whatever other positioning.

If you go with the NT5/NT55's then you might consider also getting omni capsules with them for more versatility.

The NT55 comes with both the cardioid and omni capsules (and the pad and bass rolloff). The NT5 comes with only the cardioid capsule. You can add the omni later.

I don't have as wide a range of experience as many of the posters here, but these are my favorite condenser mics in this price range. Starting out with a pair of NT55s would be a very good way to go for someone recording classical music in that price range.

I don't have any solo piano clips, and all of the clips I have done with piano and other instruments have used other mics as part of the mix.

I'll second the Rode recommendation. Sound great, incredible value, and they are built well.
It sounds like you are not working with an engineer. I know it seems like, if you want a really good recording, you get a good mic, plug it in, & hit record. So I see why you keep asking for samples of recordings using the various mics. But (as all these other engineers have said) there are many factors other than the mic that may be as important, or more so, to the final recording.
Imagine this: I give you 3 recordings, one with a $100 Shure, one with a $500 Rode, and one with a $3000 Neumann. UNLESS they are recording the same person playing the same piano in the same room, with the mic set up in the same spot, with the same outboard equipment, ...how could you know what part of the tone is being caused by the mic?
As you can see from Cucco's note, simply putting a Neumann in the wrong place will make it sound worse than a Shure. I recommend finding an pro engineer; any one worth his salt should have ideas about techniques, and a few mics for you to check out. And, depending on where you are in relation to a major city, you can rent things like Neumanns & Schoepps mics for reasonable prices ($20/day.)

ahavill wrote: I'll second the Rode recommendation. Sound great, incredible value, and they are built well.
It sounds like you are not working with an engineer. I know it seems like, if you want a really good recording, you get a good mic, plug it in, & hit record. So I see why you keep asking for samples of recordings using the various mics. But (as all these other engineers have said) there are many factors other than the mic that may be as important, or more so, to the final recording.
Imagine this: I give you 3 recordings, one with a $100 Shure, one with a $500 Rode, and one with a $3000 Neumann. UNLESS they are recording the same person playing the same piano in the same room, with the mic set up in the same spot, with the same outboard equipment, ...how could you know what part of the tone is being caused by the mic?
As you can see from Cucco's note, simply putting a Neumann in the wrong place will make it sound worse than a Shure. I recommend finding an pro engineer; any one worth his salt should have ideas about techniques, and a few mics for you to check out. And, depending on where you are in relation to a major city, you can rent things like Neumanns & Schoepps mics for reasonable prices ($20/day.)

Thank you! Your points are very well taken and very true indeed. And I understand the issue with samples as well.
However, maybe I didn't make it clear that I'm looking for an informal recording. It doesn't have to be of proffesional quality. It has to be good enough so that then I can listen to myself, and also with my teacher, and analyse how I performed in a live concert. Hence it doesn't have to "blow my mind" with the recording, but it has to be transparent enough to show what I did well, and what I did wrong. Also I'll use it to send demos to competition applications, but actually I've found in the past that they don't really have high expectations for the quality of recordings. I have submitted in the past recordings made with a cassette walkman with built in mic for example. But also it could be that in more advance competitions that will not suffice anymore. Hope this helps!

Also, regarding the use of samples to choose mics, I believe that although they may not show the full potential of a mic, at least they show of what they are capable of in a particular context. That's why I'm asking for samples of inexpensive mics, because if I get a sample which sounds good enough for me I'll go for those mics. I understand that maybe this idea of samples would not really work for choosing expensive mics because as you said it could be that they are not being properly used. Using the example you mentioned, if that recording of the Shure is good enough for me I'll go all the way for that Shure. And coming back to the list of the mics I've mentioned, if someone posts me a sample of one of the cheapest mics, like the C2 and I'm happy with it, I'll go all the way with them,

Hope this helps

Actually - the new crop of digital recorders with built in mics work quite well for exactly your purposes. Most of my colleagues have one of these that they throw on a stand in the concert hall or give to their significant others to hold during a concert to record their performances.

Granted, it won't sound as good to them as our full-blown recording rig, but it certainly sounds pretty darn nice.

If you grab something like the Korg MR-1 or the new Zoom H4 or similar and position it well, you'll be really surprised at the quality.

Cheers-
J

More good calls from Cucco. I am a huge fan of the Zoom H4, and I know many pro engineers who agree with me that the internal mics sound really, really good. They just came out with a new model, the H4n, which means that the original is now even cheaper. Sweetwater has the H4 for $270 brand new.
As the posts reflect, there are many complicating factors in getting a good recording, & we engineers make a point to address them all. The portable recorders help by minimizing these factors. With something like the H4, you can find a "sweet spot" in whatever room you're in just by using your ears. Then, set up the H4 where your head was, and hit record. You get a CD-quality recording that can be drag-and-dropped into your computer. Easy. Since they are digital & use much better mics than the old-school cassette recorders, the sound quality will be drastically better.
Here's a link that compares audio clips from several different portable recorders, on piano & other orchestral instruments. They use the Zoom H2, which is a lower-priced version, but it should give you an idea.

No link? :cry:

I do strong arm all my horn students into getting digital recorders for learning purposes. For that matter, I encourage my orchestra peers to do the same.

CD quality is a stretch unless you hit everything just right, but I'm liking the H4n for your purposes. You can get a mic stand adapter for it as well so you can place it right at the front of the stage-higher is better though. Too low and you'll be muddy.

Be careful though. Once you start down the dark path of recording you'll find it difficult to stop 8)

Hi. I made a post earlier but it seems it didn´t work.
To ahavill, I agree with what you say, but at least i'll just get an idea of the capabilities (or bottom end capabilities) of a mic with the sample.
Before I was recording with a cassette walkman with built in mic, so you can image there's not much to beat, but I don't wanna be disapointed either. If the cheapest condenser mic is good enough I'll be happy, that's why I ask for the samples. I'm beginning to realise that it'll actually be good enough.

I have heard that Zoom recorder. It was actually pretty decent. I have also heard the Panasonic, the Marantz and some other brand I never did catch. These were all at blues jams with a single mic stand and the little stereo mic pointed at the band. One had a cable and could be used a bit more remotely. They all sounded really good considering the lack of apparent gear involved. In one case , one fella simply brought his laptop and an interface, used a stereo mic and voila....done recording. Nice.

When you think about doing these recordings, even with cheap mics, realize all that will be involved. Theres cables.....one per mic and well as the cables to the recorder/interface. Mic stands.. Either with booms or without but there'll be one per mic unless you use an x/y bar....

Seems to me that if you've decided that cheap is alright you owe it to yourself to consider the mini recording set-up that has been mentioned.

I find these mics that are part of these devices to be much more neutral in their effect on the tone and the sound than a cheap condenser mic...especially some of those B**&^#@#$ger ones.

Listen to Mr. Dog. I refer to Behringer as the "brand that shall not be named" for good reason. I have bought three behringer products which have all failed unexpectedly. Spend your money on cheap behringer stuff, but remember that it was probably wired by a 3 yr old chinese kid and will most likely fail in the near future. Save up and make one purchase that will last. It will pay for itself in the long run.

Let me put in another vote for a flash recorder like the Zoom h4. I have an Edirol R09 that I got a couple of years ago before many of the new models came out. It gets used all the time for recording practice sessions and small gigs. I used it frequently to record my daughter's HS symphonic band concerts, and I often got a better recording than the "professionals" recording the concert. You can do better with, say a pair of Rode NT55s and all of the things that go with them. But the flash recorders set the bar very high and they are inexpensive and dead easy to use. And, like I say, I find mine very useful even though I have a studio full of equipment. This is probably a very good way to start.

In addition to the flash recorder you will want a stand and adapter if needed, a card reader for transferring the recorded files to your computer (not absolutely necessary, but easier that attaching cables to the recorder), and a program for editing the recorded tracks. You don't really need a full featured DAW program, but if you want to get into this you can start learning one.

Zoom may be the way to go. It comes bundled with Cubase LE which is a complete DAW software package. It does have USB connectivity or you can read the card directly. These units mount on a camera tripod which is a little unusual. There are two models of H4 and H4n. The latter is the new release and allows simultaneous 4 track recording if you add two external mics, the original records 4 tracks but only two at time. Built in mics sound remarkably good. Fits in an overcoat pocket, so take it on the road!

You have to spend a lot extra to get a more versatile pair of mics than the Rode NT55MP. For the money, I have not found anything as good on classical piano as the NT55s fitted with their omni capsules in A-B configuration. The cardioid capsules simply do not capture the deep bass of a full concert grand, but to do this as well as retain the sweetness in the treble needs some (a lot of) experimentation with microphone positioning.

And of course the NT55's could be used with the H4n too since he'll still need a field recorder. Getting a good piano sound recorded is just plain tough. From what I've read, the gain control is better on the H4n than the older H4.

Hi Guys, any new recommendations?
As a starting point, would I do with the Behringer C2, or you think I'll really be very dissapointed and would be useless?

Let's revisit page one, and see my reply.

Codemonkey wrote: "Scratch the Behringer junk, the rate of failure is ridiculous (hence the cost)."

Samson stuff is reliable but still cheap while Behringer is made of fail and plastic.

You will be very disappointed with the Behringer. There really is a bottom point past which you shouldn't go.

The built in mic's on pretty much any of the standard flash recorders will do a better job than the Behringer C2.

Get the H4n and a stand and be done with it. That is the simplest easiest route to usable good recordings and allows for you to expand into the NT55's when you can afford them.

Hi guys, thanks for your suggestions but the Edirol R-09HR for example costs £280 in the UK. For that money I can get a stereo matched pair of Rode NT5 and a two channel mixer with phantom power (£320 total) and connect to my computer.
Are you saying the Edirol will sound better? I can't believe it!

I guess it depends on the mixer. You dont really NEED a matched pair of mics. So that may drop the price a little.

Those flash recorders have become pretty sophisticated these days and sound surprisingly good.

You can't get a mixer worth buying for cheaper. And yes, the newest generation of flash recorders make good and decent basic recordings. Also, if you know nothing about mic positioning then it will definitely sound better on the portable flash recorder provided it's pointed at the piano and the general levels are good. Hint: don't use the automatic leveling feature. You'll end up with zero dynamics. Well quite wacky ones at any rate.

Can I make a better recording with my gear? Yup. Did my gear cost considerbly more than 320 Quid? Yup. Have I spent many years trying to figure out where to put a mic to get the results I do? Yup. Do I still have more to learn about mic positioning? Most definitely.

But recording sciences are quite addictive!!!

ahavill wrote: More good calls from Cucco. I am a huge fan of the Zoom H4, and I know many pro engineers who agree with me that the internal mics sound really, really good. They just came out with a new model, the H4n, which means that the original is now even cheaper. Sweetwater has the H4 for $270 brand new.
As the posts reflect, there are many complicating factors in getting a good recording, & we engineers make a point to address them all. The portable recorders help by minimizing these factors. With something like the H4, you can find a "sweet spot" in whatever room you're in just by using your ears. Then, set up the H4 where your head was, and hit record. You get a CD-quality recording that can be drag-and-dropped into your computer. Easy. Since they are digital & use much better mics than the old-school cassette recorders, the sound quality will be drastically better.
Here's a link that compares audio clips from several different portable recorders, on piano & other orchestral instruments. They use the Zoom H2, which is a lower-priced version, but it should give you an idea.

Hi. Would be great if you posted that link. I found this video on youtube which apparently uses the Zoom H2 to record a grand piano, and I'm certainly very dissappointed with it. This is NOT the kind of sound quality I'm expecting. The bass sounds completely distorted and the overall sound is very cheap similar to those you obtain from the built in mics in video cameras.

[youtube:7109b0e3f7]http://www.youtube…]

Somewhere on RO you'll find some ranting on youtube compressing audio. I wouldn't base my equipment purchases on it anyway.

As a piano tech the tenor bichord unisons are out and sound pretty typical quality wise for a baby grand. It didn't sound like a Kawai RX3 or a Bosie. Of those two instruments, I'd be recording contest demos on the Bosie in a nice hall. And honestly I'd probably be hiring someone to record it that had gear and know how and a pro result. A demo recorded in a home even with the best equipment will sound like a demo recorded in a home. For taking to your teacher-now that's another story. The only thing required for that is a well prepped piano and a well prepped student.

If you notice at the end of the video, the boy had the H2 inside the piano laying on the plate. Not where I'd have placed it for optimum sound quality. There are three things you need to know about good classical recordings. Mic placement, mic placement, quality of the room itself, and mic placement. Wait that's four! Of course a fifth is quality of the instrument in question, or what you have when the instrument isn't quality.

Surely someone you know has one of these little beasties that you can try out. Because if you want simple demo type recordings it isn't going to get easier than this.

(back to the holy hand grenade of antioch)

You may listen to several different mics (0ktava, Rode, Avenson, Audio-Technica, Beyerdynamic, DPA, Schoeps, FLEA, Manley, Nevaton, Coles, Josephson, AKG) on a grand piano at [[url=http://[/URL]="http://www.esnips.c…"]Microphones shootout eSnips Folder[/]="http://www.esnips.c…"]Microphones shootout eSnips Folder[/].

I assume that replies to old threads still get pushed up and that there is no need to create a new thread.

I have a matched pair of of both cardioid and omnis for the Rode NT5 on a Tascam DR44-WL and am playing around with recording myself on a grand piano in my apartment. It's a super old (1887) Steinway B in really good condition.

Have played around with recording myself and am not happy the results. Actually, the Soundman OKMs on a Tascam DR05 give really better results.

My gripe is with the dynamics: The piano is a massive beast and produces an incredible sound with a really stunning dynamic range. I record it - and it sounds nice, but with the dynamic range of a toy piano. What I hear when I play is completely different from what I hear on a recording. I played around with all kinds of microphone positioning and even build a device that lets me use both Rodes as boundary microphone:

Here are recordings of the microphone set ups without the boundary plate:

Alexander Scriabin, Prélude Op.11 No. 1 C major (~55 sec)

1. Røde NT5 omnidirectional: https://drive.google.com/open?id=1QLYVv9os8rdntPfDWBcWgNjGXVPh8v49

2. Røde NT5 cardioids: https://drive.google.com/open?id=1Khv6-c72vtC4Q2tFIDkGwKS9YwZtAfST

3. OKM II Classic: https://drive.google.com/open?id=1xaJ6FemlZu83s53fCBSQKgdHIcmvZUQa

Please let me know what you think about the different set ups and their sound and what your suggestions might be to make the sound a lot more dynamic in the forte and fortissimo passages.

The problem here is NOT the microphone choice. Personally, in that space I preferred the Rode with the omni getting my vote of choice with the cardioid second, and the OKM I hated. The boundary plate to my mind is not a good choice in a room with so many unpleasant wide open hard surfaces. it brings the room size down, as it's acting as one of the walls, so makes the sound closer. Some like them, I don't unless it's in a big space where the acoustics are too lively.

However, something has squashed the dynamics totally, the range in all of them is about the same - very limited. the quieter sections peaking around -12dB with the VERY loud passages only a few dB above. Something is compressing the dynamic range - what is the recording chain? Could something in there be compressing? Certainly sounds like it. I'd have expected the quiet passages to be much less than -12dB on the meters, to give plenty of space above. Have you tried recording at a much lower level to see if the dynamics are retained better? If you set the fortissimo passages to go no higher than ¾ scale, do the quieter ones show visible extension to the dynamics? You've got at best ff to fff as the whole range. What happens if you just play some fff against ppp? Can this actually be recorded or is the ppp in the noise? Something weird is happening? Some 'secret' parameter in software left on, or a real compressor in the loop somewhere? It has to be something really silly.

Thank you for looking into this!

The recording chain is as simple as it gets: The two Rødes are directly connected to the Tascam DR44-WL and the OKM goes directly into a Tascam DR-05. I am confident that there are no limiters or compressors active in any of the two recording devices.

In ppp the set up records fine, every tiny bit of ambient noise can easily be heard, such as passing cars in the street or the cat scratching its claws. So, I wouldn't even know where to start looking if extremely quiet playing is reproduced faithfully, but the crashing fortissimi sound like a small breeze and not like a mighty Steinway. Also, the dynamic range pretty much sounds the same even if recorded at considerably lower level, i.e. like 12 or more dB headroom in the loudest passages.

Any suggestions where I could start and document steps to find the culprit of it?

I think the first step to work this one out is to not worry about the piano, but produce a series of full bandwidth test recordings - I'm thinking about Pink Noise recording at different levels - so say each one increasing by 10dB. Then replay this in reverse, starting at the loudest, at what you consider to be equivalent-is to the fff level of the piano, and set the mic and interface gain to record at a specific level - I think I'd choose 0dB. Then as you play the next one 10dB down, you should see this level reduction, then the next etc etc. This should produce a series of defined steps of equal height - 10dB per step. If compression is taking place the steps will not be even sized. This should produce some evidence that may help.

Please don't take offence at the next question, but I've found pianists, especially the better ones to be quite unaware of 'real' volume. Listening to the omni Reccording, the quieter section does have a percussive element that makes me wonder if to get that tone, you are still playing more loudly than you think? So I'm thinking is there any possibility you think you are playing f, but are really playing ff, and then for the fff section you are actually playing louder than that and the piano mechanics are soaking up the extra finger effort - making the instrument incapable of having the range you feel it has. My thoughts go to my colleague who can play French material at the very bottom end of the dynamics range on his Yamaha C3, but cannot do the same on a Steinway he has access to? His 'gentleness' (sorry for the lack of a proper pianist term) simply produces no sound at all on the Steinway, so he has to play that one louder. Clearly the maximum this piano can produce is limited by the design, so that Steinway might have a limited dynamic range, compared to the more recent vintage Yamaha. Is there any chance this could just be a piano issue.I guess you'll say no - of course not, because you'd notice it when playing, but as our hearing always has a built in compressor, is it possible this is not a recording issue, but a hearing one? The stepped recording test should show how the mics respond, but I have never found a mic that had a dynamics reduction by design? Interesting this one.

As to the first part, can you be a little more specific as to how you would actually go about recording pink noise? From what source etc., please?

I feel that the OKM, due to its tiny membrane already comes into saturation. While I usually use the OKMs for concert recordings and have them as boundary mics worn over the lapels of a jacket, in the recording presented here I wore them in-ear, as intended, so very close to the piano itself. So let's try to focus on the Rødes because I don't expect to use the OKMs for anything but recital bootlegs.

As to the piano: No offense taken, quite on the contrary. As you can hear, I am not a 'real' pianist, but I have worked with quite a number of professional and renowned pianists as artist manager and had the privilege of speaking often and intensely about piano playing. Also, in the past couple of months I took a really deep dive into understanding piano technology, inspired by the movie "Pianomania", whose protagonist is considered the guru of all piano technician gurus. He was the one to appraise the piano and together with him I made a plan how to get the best out of the piano. In short: I have had the action completely reworked with new repetition levers, back checks. Also the piano has new hammers, original Steinway ones and they have been minimally adapted to fit the older parts of the action. Also, the strike line for the upper registers has completely been reworked, i.e. the hammer heads were removed and their position adapted to the best sound possible on the hammer shanks. The sound board has seen significant repairs over the years, but by now it is in a good equilibrium and I can honestly say that this piano has more power and sustain than any modern B I have played. The wood of the soundboard is still the original Appalachian fir, which is by many considered vastly superior to today's Alaskan Sitka wood.

Altogether the piano has been regulated and tuned by real experts and I am confident that the dynamic range is really huge, both in ultra-pianissimo and fortissimi. And while it is a really loud beast, I can't get it into saturation, the limit being my own playing. I believe that a real Russian pianist or a marvel like Frederic Rzewski could squeeze another 3 dB out of it before actually hitting saturation.

By now you may understand why I am so frustrated at the limited dynamic range of the recordings.

For more details on the piano I have documented its arrival, appraisal and repair in a German piano forum:
https://www.clavio.de/threads/steinway-b-seriennummer-60103-1887.23873/