TexRoadkill said:
It's a good 'dark' sound. That's probably because of the small, dead room. The new room may liven it up a bit. I would like a little more detail in the low end.
Yeah, detail in the low end has always been difficult to accomplish on this piano. I think I got there with the SM81's and Harvey's help. They sound real good on this piano. This piano has ALWAYS had that warm, dark tone to it. I think that's indicitive of Boston's; just as brightness is indicitive of Yamaha's.
flat-9 said:
Do you have an internal humidifier in it? Although the piano I use to record on is digital, all af my acoustic pianos at the teaching studio have had them for 5 years now and I find them extremely cost effective at maintaining A440 with ONE tuning a year as long as you watch the water level blinking light!
No, I don't. All the tuners and dealers I have spoken with don't recommend them. What we really need here are DE-humidifiers.
I look forward to your comments though.
mixmkr said:
I could be real blunt and say there is a fair amount of noise floor poking its head up and like someones got a lead foot on the sustain pedal....
I personally like a wider stereo spread if the pno is going to be the dominant item. But,...that's MY opinion...useless as it usually is.!
Its OK to be blunt.
And yeah, I got a little heavy on the sustain. It was a quick and dirty test, and I should have put more emphasis on the playing. I wanted to hear a lot of sustain to help judge the mics though. I thought about giving a wider spread too, but I didn't want it to sound.... un-natural?
mixmkr said:
so...why is your pno tuned flat? You never answered that one. The whole pno couldn't have "slipped" down that much and maintained a tuning within itself, eh?
Its not tuned flat. Its not uncommon for large grands to "slip" a few cycles between tunings, especially when the weather changes. When the tuning does slip, it usually does so across the entire range. Owning a concert grand is like owning a Jag. You just expect a higher maintanance schedule.
mixmkr said:
Admittedly I was kinda shocked at the poor quality clip you presented. I feel kinda like an asshole telling you that, but for some reason, I was expecting quite a bit more. Maybe because of past readings of your mic selections/knowledge, and such a nice piano you own. SM7?? that's a strange choice now...isn't it? kinda like slapping on some RE20's eh?? ..and you were supprised with a low end boost on those (sm7) mics?? How about some AKG 451's instead? ..and ditch the foam separation stuff. I really wouldn't think that is nec. and actually probably detrimental. I'd use the ole 3:1 rule instead. You don't like your TM103's?
Ha! Yeah, you're right, the recording really isn't up to snuff. But this was more of an experiment. I keep hearing people say that mic placement is more important than mic selection. And I have a pretty good aresenal of mics to pick from, but I thought if I could take a pair of mics that are completely out of character for this instrument, and get a good sound from those by using placement alone.... Well, you get the picture, I'm just honing.
I'm not sure what you mean by noise artifacts? I didn't use any noise reduction s/w. It may just be the mp3.
That's one thing that really bothers me. I can record at 24/96, listen to it in the studio, over my monitors, and have this really nice, lush sound, then export to mp3 and have all sorts of stuff drop out.
Thanks everyone, for all the comments.
I'm sure once I get into the new studio, I'll have to re-learn how to record this beast, but it'll be fun!
