Skip to main content
forums, blogs, song critique, support & more...

Recording solo classical piano

Hi all,
I'm really curious to hear everyone's favourite way to record the piano. To me, this is one of the most interesting challenges in recording classical music. I know it's a huge area, and there are so many ways to do it that there could be an entire classical piano forum.

I've recently heard a particularly wonderful recording with two MKH-20s into a Focusrite ISA-428. I heard another great one with two Neumann M149s, but I don't know what the rest of the recording chain was.

Anyway, I look forward to hearing lots of ideas!

John Stafford

Comments

Profile picture for user JoeH
Member for
17 years

JoeH Mon, 01/03/2005 - 10:54

For solo classical piano, my techniques are similar to Ben's, at least for the B&K 4006's in a spaced omni pair config. It's really hard NOT to mess it up with that pair of mics.

I also (sometimes) put a large diaphragm mic (AT 4050, etc.) at the tail end of the piano (near the base of the low strings, actually, looking at the performer, but situated at the far end of the piano) if we're having issues with the low end. This all began once when a client complained of not enough "oomph" and/or detail on the low end. Until this request, I would have never considered it, but since I was recording on multitrack, I figured it was worth a shot. In the end, it did help, but just a little. (Plus it's nice for an added low end/bass management if you're ever going to mix in surround, etc.)

I also like to put up a second set of omni's in the room (assuming it's a large enough space to make it worth your while....) These mics are much higher up, about 10-15 feet out from the instrument, with the goal being to capture the sound of the piano IN the room. (Yes, we can dial in all kinds of great reverb (and Samplitude/Sequoia has some KILLER room sims that I use all the time) but I like to capture as much real sound as possible, and mix it to taste later, in my studio, after we're done recording and our ears have gotten a rest.

Between the main stereo omni pair, the low end mic, and the ambient pair, that's five mics: overkill or necessity, depending on the situation and the project at hand.

And it's always worth pointing out that the piano itself has to be up to snuff. Steinways are arguably everyone's favorite, esp the model D's, etc. There are of course many other good instrument makers out there, and at that point it comes down to taste & personal preferences: Yamaha, Mason & Hamlin, Estonia, Bosendorfer, etc.

I have also gotten somewhat snobby over the years with the size of the instrument; I usually check out the low end of a piano right away. If it's less than a 7' instrument, it's usually not worth it as a solo instrument. I dunno about anyone else, but my ears IMMEDIATELY hear that "fake" low end that occurs with thicker strings, instead of LONGER strings. The overtones don't sound the same, and to my ears, it all begins to sound like a spinet. That may be ok for an ensemble instrument or for accompaniment, but it sucks for solo piano work. Don't get yourself caught in a situation where they're trying to get you to make a cheap piano sound like a Richter recording....it's not going to happen no matter WHAT mics or preamp you use....

Last but not least is the room itself. A live room that's not overly reverberant is ideal. Wood is usually your friend; steel, glass and concrete usually isn't. Hopefully you'll be able to record in a space that gives you all of the magical ingredients: A good instrument, good acoustics, (NO audience if poss.) and above all a good performance by a talented artist.

If you've got all that, your job at that point will mainly be to NOT screw it up, no matter what mics you choose. :lol:

Profile picture for user JoeH
Member for
17 years

JoeH Thu, 01/27/2005 - 07:32

That's a beautiful sound you've achieved there, David!

If you didn't add any reverb yourself, I am all the more impressed with the acoustic of that theater. Amazing; what a space to have! (I can never get tired of hearing "Pictures," either.)

That certainly sounds like an ideal "Recital" sound, and what you described for the piano mic'ing makes perfect sense. On the other hand, I'd expect a completely different sound for what Ben's describing when he says "Film score." (Maybe he can elaborate...)

Member for
20 years 4 months

FifthCircle Thu, 01/27/2005 - 09:00

Sure... I wouldn't do that mic technique for a solo date as it would be too close to the instrument (I prefer a stereo mic out a bit or a pair of spaced omnis), but for Film Score, I mean recording of music for film.

When I have a film orchestra to record, often the piano will play a central role in the sound. There will likely be a number of solos along with the ensemble work. For the big orchestral dates, the sound of the piano is big and lush, but has to be very controlled for the mixdown.

--Ben

Member for
17 years 7 months

bap Fri, 01/21/2005 - 19:39

Old Mason & Hamlins are something. I once had a 1930's 7' with mahogany veneer that I got at an estate sale for $6000. A technician friend repaired soundboard cracks and re-strung and re-did hammers, shanks, and dampers with Renner parts. It was lovely and had the fattest legs I've ever seen on a piano.

I had to sell it [not for $60,000!] but got some profit out of the deal. It was truly a magnificent instrument.

Some of the older Chickerings are well respected as well.

Member for
16 years 5 months

DavidSpearritt Thu, 01/27/2005 - 12:14

If you didn't add any reverb yourself, I am all the more impressed with the acoustic of that theater. Amazing; what a space to have! (I can never get tired of hearing "Pictures," either.)

This theatre is really stunning. We are so lucky to have recorded many many concerts in here over the last 5 years. Chamber music and string quartets in particular sound unbelievable.

A year ago we recorded the great Quatuor Mosaiques in there, with an SF12. This recording can never be produced of course, but its one of my favourite recordings of all time. The other is the recording we did of Stephens Hough and Isserlis doing the Rachmaninov cello sonata, this was a world class performance. Same magnificent piano.

Nagata Acoustics and Bligh Voller Architects were responsible.
http://www.nagata.co.jp/gyoseki/brisbane-e.htm
I think Nagata got the current job of revamping the Sydney Opera House concert hall (over Arup Acoustics) due largely to his achievements in the Con Theatre in Brisbane.

What it allows us to do, is to test mic techniques and get fantastic feedback on each technique and how it works. This is why I love Blumlein and ribbons, but I recognise that a good hall is required.

Member for
16 years 8 months

John Stafford Wed, 01/12/2005 - 11:33

I'm afraid DPAs are a little beyond my budget! I do intend to get a really good pair of SDCs, but where I come from they make Schoeps look cheap! I am considering Schoeps though.

Yeah, a piano that hasn't been well tuned sounds disgusting!

John

Member for
20 years 4 months

FifthCircle Thu, 01/27/2005 - 12:38

These are the same folks that did Disney Hall here in LA. A pretty amazing room... Also, I've played in some of the halls they've done in Japan and they are equally good...

--Ben

Member for
16 years 5 months

DavidSpearritt Thu, 01/27/2005 - 13:25

Yeah, my brother in law is a violinist in the Berlin Phil and he has played in the Disney Hall and says its amazing.

My inside sources now say that Nagata and Russell Johnson (Artec) are probably the world's top acousticians for music halls. Check out the technology used in Russell Johnson's designs. He loves MASS, big concrete walls, floors for retaining bass in a hall, ie don't let it get out. This is difficult to do, apparently.

The project pictures on this site are worth a look.

http://www.artec-usa.com/index_projects.html

Member for
51 years 5 months

Sonarerec Wed, 01/12/2005 - 16:04

John Stafford wrote: I'm afraid DPAs are a little beyond my budget!

Then try the 4061s-- the noise is not quite as low as 4006, but thety can be found for about $400ea, and if yu remove the grill entirely the response is flat, rather than with the presence boost.

Rich

Member for
16 years 8 months

John Stafford Mon, 01/03/2005 - 20:55

Thanks everyone for the input.

I too think that anything less than 7' for a piano isn't really good enough. I love the overtones you get with a decent piano.

I usually use one of two Steinways (a 7' and a 9')or a Schimmel. The big Steinway is in a huge room but the sound in there isn't great, but it is very dead, so I can work with it. I've been surprised by how many classical pianists initially like cardioids inside the piano and close to the hammers -in a sort of 'pop' configuration. Maybe it's the novelty value, given that this mic technique captures the sound that is the furthest from the pianists own experience, but even with lesser mics (and I do mean LESSER!), I've always found that the room simply has to be allowed to play its part before the magic can happen.

I'll be recording a friend of mine who has a rather nice piano in his house. It's in a huge room that sounds pretty good. I'm going to try my AT4060 (if it ever arrives!), but as I will only have one of them I'll have to do a lot of experimenting with combinations. I might be able to borrow a pair of C414s to fall back on.

Something tells me that Audix TR-40s could come in handy as well, and they're on my future acquisitions list.

Thanks again everyone,
John

Profile picture for user JoeH
Member for
17 years

JoeH Thu, 01/27/2005 - 20:31

Ah yes; Russell Johnson.... He's one of the acousticians/designers of the Kimmel Center for the Performing Arts here in Philadelphia - he was onsite for quite a while during the first year of operation in both Verizon Hall and the Perelman theater. They did a lot of listening and tweaking for at least a year, as things settled in. Both halls are 'tunable' for various types of music.

They're fairly easy to configure, and as time goes by, they're gathering more and more data on what music sounds best in which config. You can see more at: http://www.kimmelcenter.org.

Member for
51 years 5 months

Sonarerec Thu, 01/27/2005 - 20:37

I am curious if you record in there and what you think. George Blood told me he thought it wasn't much more reverberant than the Academy thanks to the elimination of the ceiling resonance chambers due to cost.

Rich

Member for
17 years 6 months

TanTan Sun, 01/02/2005 - 09:01

Hi ,

I've never tried the m149s on piano , but i've also heard they are great for the job ,

A few weeks ago i recorded a piano with a pair of u67's with a very sweet sounding results , i've brought over my pair of neve 1064 preeq's and that was great for this application,
I've tried to add another m48 for getting more "center bass" , i used a focusrite (220 i think , isn't it the same pre from the blue series as the 428 ?) they had in the studio and the focusrite blue sounded thin synthetic the eq is unmusical and colorless , i wouldn't use it for piano !

Member for
16 years 8 months

John Stafford Thu, 01/20/2005 - 23:47

Sonarerec wrote: [quote=John Stafford]I'm afraid DPAs are a little beyond my budget!

Then try the 4061s-- the noise is not quite as low as 4006, but thety can be found for about $400ea, and if yu remove the grill entirely the response is flat, rather than with the presence boost.

Rich

Rich
This is probably me being a snob, but I never really considered these because of the price. Are they that good?

Thanks
John

Member for
16 years 8 months

John Stafford Thu, 01/20/2005 - 23:58

Simmosonic wrote: The 4015 has an on-axis high frequency boost that, combined with its wide cardioid response, actually works very well - believe it or not! It allows you to get back a good distance and capture a very full-bodied sound, while the on-axis boost effectively 'reaches in' to the instrument and pulls all the transient detail out so it's not dull at all.

Greg
This is what got me interested in the Neumann KM-183, but by all accounts the on axis boost leads to harshness instead. Having said that I haven't tried this mic myself, but I'd like to compare the two some time. I'd be interested in micing a choir using these from a bigger distance than one might normally use.

John

Member for
51 years 5 months

Sonarerec Fri, 01/21/2005 - 00:40

Personally I do not think you would like what you'd hear. Sibilants and crunchiness do not really smooth out with distance with brighter mics.

As for 4003s, yes, they are that good, but now you can get the 4006 transformerless and you are VERY close to a 4003.

I would use the DPA 4061 without the grid before I'd use the 130s or ATs. The 4061 are flat without the grid.

Rich

Profile picture for user JoeH
Member for
17 years

JoeH Fri, 01/28/2005 - 07:13

I'm in there all the time, at least 1x per week, sometimes more depending on dress rehearsals and multiple nights. We just did a concert opera in Perelman Theater (it airs this Sunday) and one of my main clients is the Chamber Orchestra of Philadelphia, also performing there this weekend - dress on Sat., concerts Sunday and Monday; Joseph Silverman is guest violinist & conductor.

George does the Phila O in Verizon Hall and I see him a lot; a great, terrific guy. (His humor cracks me up whenever I run into him.) We've both rolled with the punches with Verizon (him moreso than I - I'm in Perelman much more often, while he's got a booth/room in Verizon for the Orch.).

Verizon is much nicer than the early nervous critics were bitching about; it's got a lovely texture to record in, but in the final analysis, not a whole lot better (or worse) than the Academy of Music, just different, and it varies wildly depending on where you sit. I've done St. Olaf's Choir in there (for a broadcast), as well as various other Choral and Orchestral Groups, and again the Chamber Orch of PHila. when they play in there. It's a great place, and the inside joke is that the CHEAP seats up on the 2nd & 3rd tiers sound the best! :twisted: . (Pics are on my website under current events if you want to see more...) They can alter the resonance of the hall with a series of panels that swing in and out, closing up or opening resonant chambers up and around the shoulders of the staging area. (The hall itself is like the insides of a giant cello - the stage area near the top, or "Shoulders" of the cello.) It's all under computer control, and they've been working with it since the day it opened, generating presets and getting more adept with it as time goes by, during rehearsals and sound checks. (email me privately about Russell Johnson and co.)

Again, the critics have not nec. been real kind to it (because it wasn't "Perfect" right out of the box), but it works nicely in general (I've have nothing but excellent results so far), and people are still flocking to the place, even after it's novelty has worn off a bit. (Two separate concert halls, under a huge dome of arched glass, with a covered plaza connecting it all.) The overall boon to the arts smack dab in the middle of Center city (on what they are now calling "The Avenue of the Arts") is incaclulable. The Academy of Music - 2 blocks up the street - is in great shape, too (totally renovated over the years, and used constantly for Ballet, Opera and Broadway shows), and the Phila Orch is performing their 148 Anniversary Concert there this Saturday, if for no other reason than nostalgia.

Actually, there are many who never liked the sound of the Philadelphia Orchestra in there, claiming it was not a good place for a symphony orchestra, but it's arguably the very reason why/how the "Philadelphia Sound" developed. It is fundamentally an opera house, modelled/built after "La Scala" in Italy - which was no small reason why Muti had such a good time during his tenure here.

For me it's apples and oranges, they both have their place and usefulness. I'll admit that anything we ever did at the Academy of Music tended to 'Record itself" while the Kimmel, like any other modern, multifunction space tends to require a few extras (ambient mics highly recommended out in the house, for example), and the smaller hall like the Perelman theater can be VERY dry when set for the recital (small) side with a full house. (Nowhere to hide for the artist, either! ;-) )

I've revisited some of my older (analog & early digital) recordings from the Academy of Music, and said: "Wow, did we do THAT!?!?!" -they're that good. To be fair, the stuff from Kimmel is still too new, and I'm too close to it all. But happily, it means a lot of work for a lot people (musicians, union, ushers, etc.) and I for one am NOT complaining about the sound of either hall. I can easily work around any subjective limitations. (Never had a "bad" performance in there yet, due to acoustics, for example.)

I've done a solo piano recording with Christopher O'Reily ("From the Top") doing his "Radiohead" tribute show in Perelman, and the results were some of the best solo piano recordings we've done yet. (It's more close-mic'd and pop-flavored than a trad classical concert, but the Steinway they have - usually reserved for Perelman - is to DIE for....the thing practially records itself; it's gorgeous.)

Haven't done a solo recital in Verizon Hall yet, but I'm looking forward to that whenever it comes up.

Member for
20 years 4 months

FifthCircle Sun, 01/02/2005 - 10:21

Piano is strangely difficult to record... To get the perfect sound can be the search for the elusive goal. :D

A few techniques I have used-

Mid side pair- usually an AKG 426 or C-34. Varry the center pattern to bring hall ambiece in and out. Depending on the hall, I usually have the mic about 4-5 feet out and only about 4-5 feet high. Reflections, though, can cause a sound that is a bit mid-range heavy.

Blumlein- Same mics as above are the ones I usually use. I've also had good luck with the Royer SF-24

ORTF- I generally do a slightly wider spaced ORTF pair using Schoeps MK-21 capsules...

Spaced Omnis- One of my favorite techniques. I usually use my B&K 4006's for this. Space the mics about 3-4 feet apart and place about 7-8 feet high and about 5 feet out from the instrument.

--Ben

Member for
16 years 5 months

Simmosonic Fri, 01/21/2005 - 05:13

John Stafford wrote: This is what got me interested in the Neumann KM-183, but by all accounts the on axis boost leads to harshness instead. Having said that I haven't tried this mic myself, but I'd like to compare the two some time. I'd be interested in micing a choir using these from a bigger distance than one might normally use.

I wouldn't call the on-axis boost of the DPA 4015 'harsh', it is bright but in a sweet sounding way. It is not shelving. However, I don't think you'd like them for choir. The HF boost is actually quite directional, in my experience, and I think you'd end up facing the axis away from the musicians in general. Although you're talking about a bigger distance, so perhaps they'd work. Remember they are wide cardioids, so they pick up a bit more room sound than a cardioid, but not quite as much as an omni.

It is due to the directionality of the HF boost that I've been using them in a modified version of ORTF, with the angle much smaller. The first time I used them was in standard ORTF, on an organ/choir recording. When I sat down to master it, I noticed that there was a HF hole in the centre. Everything was there, but the sounds in the centre were sublty duller than those at the sides. It was one of those things that probably only an audio engineer would notice, not blatantly obvious. Fixed it by separating the audio into M and S components, mimicking the 4015's HF boost on the M signal, then decoding back to LR. No problem.

But then I started experimenting with less angle to keep a consistent HF balance across the stereo soundstage. They are extraordinary microphones, but you'd probably get a better result on a choir with a different technique.

- Greg Simmons

x