rob aylestone
Moderator
For me, mix two is better because there is more up top in the right channel. However they’re both in my humble view a bit weird. It’s very much like the centre of the piano around middle C was moved an octave lower. The lower notes played by the right hand are buried in the bass. The style includes lots of sustain pedal holding while things happen in the lower range, so it’s dark and a bit murky. You cannot hear the dampers at all, or the room. It’s like you are listening inside the piano with the lid shut. I doubt that’s the mix, just the mic positioning. It’s almost like a good sample, but with the noises and percussive element turned off. It’s nice and detailed but for my taste, way too dark and lacks top end sparkle, emphasising those clashing left hand dischords.
Slouching Raymond
Well-known member
I get 'Your browser is unable to play this audio file'.
Eric V
Member at-large
R
R D Smith
It's as good as it is, for as long as it lasts.
Same as Ray.
A
amc252
New member
The reason why you guys get the 'unable to play this file' warning is that Google Drive seems to have implemented restrictions on the size of downloadable files (the .wav files are like 60mb). Sorry, but I didn't have any other way to make them available. They can be downloaded, though.
I loaded .flac files that avoid the problem. Sorry about that.
Mix1.flac
Mix2.flac
That said, Rob, thanks for taking the time to listen and for your detailed and articulated feedback.
I loaded .flac files that avoid the problem. Sorry about that.
Mix1.flac
Mix2.flac
That said, Rob, thanks for taking the time to listen and for your detailed and articulated feedback.
TalismanRich
Well-known member
I'm listening on headphones, and for me, Mix 2 is more natural in it's "space". There's a fair amount of difference between loud and soft. It is the quieter of the two.
Mix 1 seems as if the dynamics have been compressed to make levels more constant. It sounds louder through most of the piece even though my meter says both have the same peak level. The sustain is WAY stronger on Mix 1. It's very apparent in the ending!
Mix 1 also seems to be EQ'd brighter.
The stereo image in headphones is pretty distinct, but Mix 1 seems to have more of a "hole in the middle" for me. It might sound better on speakers, but more like a "you're the piano player" perspective than an audience member. I would probably have panned more to the center, maybe not completely but narrower than this.
Mix 1 seems as if the dynamics have been compressed to make levels more constant. It sounds louder through most of the piece even though my meter says both have the same peak level. The sustain is WAY stronger on Mix 1. It's very apparent in the ending!
Mix 1 also seems to be EQ'd brighter.
The stereo image in headphones is pretty distinct, but Mix 1 seems to have more of a "hole in the middle" for me. It might sound better on speakers, but more like a "you're the piano player" perspective than an audience member. I would probably have panned more to the center, maybe not completely but narrower than this.
A
amc252
New member
Thanks for listening and for the very detailed analysis.
Mix 1 is basically the live microphones mixed in real time. It also has a tiny amount of compression.
Mix 2, I isolated and treated the close and room mics separately. I added a smidgen of reverb to the room mics and delayed their track 23ms trying to add a sense of space. I haven't experimented with panning or anything else since I wanted to go step by step.
TalismanRich
Well-known member
So the micing is different.... room mics added on Mix 2 or just the room mics processed differently? The addition of reverb and delay would account for the difference in apparent space. There's a huge difference in tone and volume.
I did a "slice and dice" of the ending Mix 1, 2, 1, 2, 1. No processing, volume change or anything. You can really hear the difference in perspective.
While I personally lean towards Mix 2, I think that commercially, Mix 1 would be more attractive. It's more up front, louder, brighter, everything that modern music producers seem to strive for. Not knowing what the ultimate target is, and what the artist actually likes, it's hard for me to give a proper recommendation.
I did a "slice and dice" of the ending Mix 1, 2, 1, 2, 1. No processing, volume change or anything. You can really hear the difference in perspective.
While I personally lean towards Mix 2, I think that commercially, Mix 1 would be more attractive. It's more up front, louder, brighter, everything that modern music producers seem to strive for. Not knowing what the ultimate target is, and what the artist actually likes, it's hard for me to give a proper recommendation.
A
amc252
New member
The mics are the same -- 2 omnis close to the bridge and 2 omnis 6 ft high near the lip of the piano. Mix 1 is as I mixed them while recording the piece. Mix 2 is a remix of the tracks. I like Mix 2 better too. The target... well, it's me trying to get a poor man's version of a clean and spacious ECM-like sound LOL.
rob aylestone
Moderator
I think this is the first time we have all been in agreement. Next time you record. try 2 cardioids in X/Y, in the cutout on the rightabout a metre back from the piano at about lid height on full stick looking down at 45 degrees.
R
R D Smith
It's as good as it is, for as long as it lasts.
I liked Mix 2 better. If I didn’t know anything about how you recorded or processed it, I would say it “sounded” like it was recorded in a better space to me. Like a nice hall or maybe a church. I listened with Apple earbuds.
A
amc252
New member
Could you elaborate on what advantages the cardioids in that position would provide over the omnis on the bridge of the piano - at least toward my sonic goal?
Anyway, I did a little test and recorded a short piano piece with 1) omnis above the bridge, as in my previous recording, and 2) the cardioids in the setup you suggested.
Here are the files if you wish to listen.
1) EMILY - OMNIS
2) EMILY - CARDIOIDS
TalismanRich
Well-known member
There's a more continuous soundfield with the cardioid setup, there's no hole in the middle. The omnis have a more distinct L and R although the difference isn't as drastic as the original test.
I did a similar slice and dice. Here's that file. I've also included a photo of the chops, so you can get an idea of when they occur. One last note, I had to reverse the stereo file of the cardioid to match the sides of the omnis. The bass was left on the omni, but more right on the cardioid. I flipped it to match.
The piano isn't a stereo instrument, except maybe for the player. Anyone listening from the side, or from any distance will hear it as a mono source. The omni recording is more akin to recording a guitar with the body on one side and the neck mic on the other without blending them. It's can be unnatural, especially with headphones. Speakers tend to blend things anyway.
I did a similar slice and dice. Here's that file. I've also included a photo of the chops, so you can get an idea of when they occur. One last note, I had to reverse the stereo file of the cardioid to match the sides of the omnis. The bass was left on the omni, but more right on the cardioid. I flipped it to match.
The piano isn't a stereo instrument, except maybe for the player. Anyone listening from the side, or from any distance will hear it as a mono source. The omni recording is more akin to recording a guitar with the body on one side and the neck mic on the other without blending them. It's can be unnatural, especially with headphones. Speakers tend to blend things anyway.
A
amc252
New member
Thanks for the file.
I totally agree about the piano sound coming from the soundboard - and other factors. It is complex to find the right balance to place the instrument in space and capture the room at the same time. That's why I'm taking it one step at a time, trying to isolate each element to understand them better.
Recording a piano is fascinating, complex, and akin to an art.
I'm still figuring a lot of things, and I appreciate all the pointers you guys provide.
I totally agree about the piano sound coming from the soundboard - and other factors. It is complex to find the right balance to place the instrument in space and capture the room at the same time. That's why I'm taking it one step at a time, trying to isolate each element to understand them better.
Recording a piano is fascinating, complex, and akin to an art.
I'm still figuring a lot of things, and I appreciate all the pointers you guys provide.
rob aylestone
Moderator
Rich summed that all up rather well! It's really interesting to set up mics in a space and then walk around the room with something like a tambourine. Spaced omnis perform very differently when they are less than a metre apart to when they are 2 metres or more distant from each other. As you move around, your location is very different from what your eyes tell you. With X/Y, the position seems much closer to reality - sound version vision. On headphones and speakers. Another thing is to hold one of the omnis in your hand and move it all around. The change in sound is so small, even with big movements. The soundboard effectively blurs the apparently location of the sound. A cardioid in close, with little rear pickup near the bass strings had plenty of the high notes present, and vice versa. If you swap the cardioid for omni - the difference is even smaller.
A scary test is to take the left omni and the right omni - pan them both central and press the invert/phas button. What you then hear is the difference between the two. You will be surprised whathappens! That is the stereo information - in M/S, the 'side to side channel'.
In the new tracks I noticed something - the cardioid version triggered something in my head that said Yamaha. Whatever it is, is not in the omni version. I don't know if I've subconsciously heard something that made me think that. There is just a 'tone' that suggested a make? How odd? Probably totally off the plot.
Personally, I like the cardioid version. I cannot though, come up with a solid reason?
A scary test is to take the left omni and the right omni - pan them both central and press the invert/phas button. What you then hear is the difference between the two. You will be surprised whathappens! That is the stereo information - in M/S, the 'side to side channel'.
In the new tracks I noticed something - the cardioid version triggered something in my head that said Yamaha. Whatever it is, is not in the omni version. I don't know if I've subconsciously heard something that made me think that. There is just a 'tone' that suggested a make? How odd? Probably totally off the plot.
Personally, I like the cardioid version. I cannot though, come up with a solid reason?
R
R D Smith
It's as good as it is, for as long as it lasts.
I liked the cardioid recording better. A smoother, fuller sound to me.
A
amc252
New member
Lots of interesting information.
It gives me a wider perspective on the factors involved in choosing a mic and a setup in relation to a given intent.
The piano is an NY Steinway. The 'Yamaha' impression might be because the cardioids slightly lighten the treble and create a cleaner separation. The omnis more closely reflect the tendency of the instrument to blend the sound.
