Piano Society
Free Classical Keyboard Recordings
It is currently Thu Oct 30, 2014 7:56 pm

All times are UTC - 1 hour




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 99 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Oct 19, 2008 6:55 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2008 4:17 pm
Posts: 418
Location: Boston
Rachfan, in the days of analog recording, the "swimmy" or "wobbly" character to the sound was caused by Wow and Flutter - slight electromechanical variations in tape speed. Any figure above 0.1% wow and flutter was discernible. It was a bigger problem with cassettes than large format reel to reel machines because of the tape speed. As you noted, digital doesn't have this anomaly and it was a huge leap for me too when switching to digital.

Didier, I have loose acoustic foam similar to the pictured set up that might work. I have some left over from speaker building.

George


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Oct 19, 2008 8:26 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Aug 05, 2008 9:48 pm
Posts: 2001
Location: U.S.A.
Hi 88man,

The final impetus for me to shift from analog to digital was when Type IV Metal cassette tape was no longer manufactured and disappeared from the shelves, leaving only the inferior Type II Chrome, and the horrible quality Type I Normal. :lol: Thanks for that insight on tape speed. It's nice to be part of the digital recording world now.

I use the Korg MS-1000 DSD. The only problem is that I always use WAV format for recording rather than the direct stream digital (DSD) option. Problem is, the format conversion programs available on the Internet that enable one to convert to MP3 for posting purposes on sites like Piano Society, 1) don't seem to even know what DSD is, and 2) have no clue as to how to convert it to MP3! Maybe that will change in the future, but in the meantime it a shame not to be able to use DSD. The reason I went with DSD was to get ahead of the technology curve. It'll sure be nice when the conversion programs catch up!

_________________
"Interpreting music means exploring the promise of the potential of possibilities." David April


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Oct 31, 2008 12:28 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Oct 30, 2008 11:49 pm
Posts: 20
Location: Western Australia
Hello,

I have been keen to play some of my piano pieces on to CD and have been experimenting for several months and feel that I am making some progress. I thought maybe I can get some help in this forum. Tonight I have made a very short .wav file of my playing and wonder if I can include a link here for you to have a listen to the sound file. Are links allowed?

My room is 16 ft x 14 ft with 9ft high ceiling.
Kawai KS3F Piano , sounding very good.
Pianist, try to sound good, up to others to judge.
Microphone: SP B1 Studio Projects Cardiod Condenser Microphone
Pressure gradient transducer
Dual Selectable High Pass Filter
Dual Selectable Pad
34mm diameter capsule 3um diaphragm
TASCAM US-122L Interface Audio/MIDI USB 2.0 connected to my computer.
Microphone is on a stand about five ft high pointing vertically up to ceiling and about five ft from the front of the piano on the treble side almost in line with the C one octave from the top.
There is carpet on the floor and two large windows which have curtains hanging from near the top of the wall to the floor. My house is brick veneer. I prefer to play with the lid of the top of the piano, down.

I would like to strive for the best sound with the resources I have. Any help you can give would be greatly appreciated. Thank you in anticipation.


Last edited by bring18 on Fri Oct 31, 2008 11:09 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Oct 31, 2008 1:36 pm 
Offline
Site Admin

Joined: Wed Jun 14, 2006 12:38 pm
Posts: 8518
Hi bring18. Welcome to the forum.

Yes, you may put up a link to your recording. Or you can put it up as an attachment. But just to warn you - the 'sound' guys are not always around the forum everyday, so it may take time to get any response. Or not....you never know around here.


p.s. Boo!

(happy Halloween :lol:)

_________________
"Simplicity is the highest goal, achievable when you have overcome all difficulties." ~ Frederic Chopin

my videos: http://www.youtube.com/user/monicapiano
my personal website: http://www.monicaalianello.com


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Oct 31, 2008 10:57 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Oct 30, 2008 11:49 pm
Posts: 20
Location: Western Australia
Hello pianolady,

Thanks for your reply. I will include the sound file as an attachment for the sound people to have a listen to.

I forgot to mention that the software I am using is Cubase LE. Also my piano is an upright Kawai KS-3F.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Oct 31, 2008 11:39 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2008 4:17 pm
Posts: 418
Location: Boston
Hi Bring18, I recently joined this site too. :)

In getting started, you should continuously experiment with mic placement - vary mic distance, spacing, height. That alone will yield dramatic results than any gear substitution. Record the same 5 tracks, and take reference notes on any changes. Monitor with good headphones. Rules to remember (1) the distance between the mics should be 3 times the distance of the mics from the piano; (2) mic the Right Channel for bass, and the Left Channel for treble - counter-intuitive for a pianist, but makes for a more natural psychoacoustic recording.

The SP B1 is a cardiod only mic, try to get closer than 5ft from the piano for that size room, otherwise the bass will suffer due to proximity effect. Don't mic inside the piano or else you'll get off-axis coloration, especially with cardiods (that "out of tune" sound on certain notes). If you're intent on keeping the lid down, try leaving the lid open at least on the short peg and place the mics 1-2ft from the curve to start. The sound should breathe.

The dimensions of your room are squarish so you might get standing waves at multiples of 70Hz, 80Hz, and 125Hz. The main point of acoustic treatment is to minimize nearby reflections from the source - ceiling and nearest adjacent walls. The curtains and carpeting will help, but try to place absorption on the ceiling and closest walls to tame nodes if spouse doesn't mind... I don't have to worry about that one! Try placing bass traps, e.g. LENRD, at the corners to help with room nodes. A short ceiling is a big culprit in "boxy sound" recordings. But, if you can absorb much of the sound going to the ceiling, then it's like having an infinite ceiling that's not there. Try using diffusers too - it'll make your room sound larger. Who knows, once you treat your room, you might find yourself recording at full lid, unless the piano is too bright for your taste. You may ultimately have to do some EQ at some point, but focus your resources on room treatment.

Try the free sound analysis through Auralex.com to get you started. That's what I am doing. You can also contact Ethan Winer of RealTraps.com as I indicated in my thread - he has some informative videos too. As for me, I am still in the process of acoustically treating my room in my new home - oriental rug, acoustic absorption, and diffusion panels. Once it's done, I'll be able to use omni mics without having to worry about bad room acoustics holding me back.

You can hear the sound I am getting, although with minimal treatment, just to get an idea of the sound with a different mic and preamp. I have a demo thread on [Auditions] "Chopin Nocturne, No. 20." It was never meant to a flawless performance, but rather a 'spur of the moment' demo of my mic-preamp... I'll post a better technical and musical recording once the room is acoustically treated. My goal is to host 'Schubertiades' and record music among fellow musicians and friends. :D


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Nov 01, 2008 12:33 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2008 4:17 pm
Posts: 418
Location: Boston
Ah, I see you posted an attachment while I was righting my first response... Besides I had to pass out candy at the door - unwillingly as I am a dentist by profession, and music is a hobby. :)

OK, I just listened to the piece. I am hearing the room nodes on the same frequencies that I had calculated in my first response. Based on your room dimensions they should occur at 70Hz, 80Hz, and 125Hz. I've never played this piece, but sounds like it's in E Major and the pedal notes, low E and B are 82Hz and 123Hz respectively - very close to the calculated nodes for that room! To improve the sound and treat the room, the recommendations I outlined before may be a good start.

I also realize in your follow up post that it's an upright. So, you can't mike it the same way you would a grand. Try placing the mics 3-5ft on back of the piano OR Open the lid and place 1-3ft from the top OR Open the bottom lid and mic 3-5ft away to start.

Yes! With the SP B1 mics, you can definitely improve upon the sound even though they may be on the bright side, but they're still transparent and that's a requirement for piano recording. There is a good deal of noise, most likely from the audio interface. Make sure you check input settings, mic cable, phantom power, impedence settings, gain, and power supply for any anomalies on the interface.

If you can't improve the sound from the current audio interface, try a Presonus or MOTU interface if you're intent on a computer based recording system. The threshold for good quality starts at $300. Most interfaces skimp on the analog inputs, and that's where the money is in the "sound" or "color."

BTW - If you're planning on a holiday gift, get the M-Audio Microtrack II recorder - has very good A/D converters, built in full 48V phantom power, and extreme portability - all in a self contained handheld unit for $300. You can use your current mics to it's full potential. I use one, and it's the best value IMHO.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Nov 01, 2008 9:26 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jul 01, 2007 4:53 pm
Posts: 468
Location: France
Hi Bring18,

your recording has a .wav extension but it seems rather being a very compressed MP3. Such an extremely low rate, about 20 kbit/s, is irrelevant for evaluating your recording set up, which looks anyway rather good.

Quote:
try to get closer than 5ft from the piano for that size room, otherwise the bass will suffer due to proximity effect.

The proximity effect is the bass reinforcement occurring when a cardioid microphone gets very close to the source (on the order of 10"). Especially of concern (or of benefit) for vocal recording.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Nov 01, 2008 1:39 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Oct 30, 2008 11:49 pm
Posts: 20
Location: Western Australia
Hello 88man,

Thanks. Enjoyed the candy bit and the spouse. I don't have to worry either. I like some humour but will have to try to behave myself (control myself) in these forums. Can't quite work out a dentist/pianist but I have only seen a minute part of the world and this is the Internet now. I will have a good read of what you have told me and work out what to try first. I find it difficult to understand some things but will try some basics. I only have one microphone. On reading your message, I realise I might need to have better settings on my Tascam US-122L Interface, the reason being that as much as I tried to understand it I never did. Am hoping you will be able to help there as maybe some of the settings could be improved.

There's only four settings i.e. (1) input L (for the Microphone), (2)Phantom off/on and naturally I have this on, (3) Mon mix and (4) Phones/Line Out.

Re (1) (3) and (4) I am uncertain whether I have ideal settings because I never understood them.

Input R is not used as I am only using one Microphone.

Also I do not have head phones for monitoring. Why would you have to monitor? I always listen to the track when I have recorded it. Do head phones cost much?

I did not understand you when you mentioned 5 tracks. I just do one track at a time for one piece of music.

E major was correct; Triste Coeur Composer Paul De Senneville. This was only the first almost two pages. There's another three and a bit pages to this piece.


Last edited by bring18 on Sat Nov 01, 2008 11:51 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Nov 01, 2008 1:51 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Oct 30, 2008 11:49 pm
Posts: 20
Location: Western Australia
Hello Didier,

Thanks for your help. You are correct in your assessment of the format of the file because that is what I did. I will keep the sound file in uncompressed .wav format in future. Is that the better way to have the sound file assessed?

On the point about the Microphone being 5 ft from the piano, do you mean that it is better to have the microphone around ten inches from the bass strings?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Nov 01, 2008 2:17 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jul 01, 2007 4:53 pm
Posts: 468
Location: France
No you shall not upload here wav files, because they are too big. 192 kbit/s stereo MP3, or 96 kbit/s mono MP3 for mono recording like in your case, would be nice.

No I did not mean that you shall get so close to the strings. I was just correcting a bit of confusion about what is the proximity effect, which you should not care about.


Yes I think that 1.5 m may be a little far in your case. But only testing is worth in this matter.

The most effective way to improve your recording quality, if needed, would be likely to get a second SP B1 for stereo recording. :wink:


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Nov 12, 2008 11:32 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Oct 30, 2008 11:49 pm
Posts: 20
Location: Western Australia
Hello Didier,

Have been experimenting and learning, and would like you to comment on this sound file in the attachment thanks.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Nov 13, 2008 10:54 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jul 01, 2007 4:53 pm
Posts: 468
Location: France
Hello bring18,

that's much nicer. But the piano seems a little far like I would listen to it in a large room and it would be at the opposite side. I would like a little bit more presence on this kind of intimate music. I try to get that with minor processing, which I'm not skill in. Buth this is just a matter of personal taste.


Last edited by Didier on Wed Nov 19, 2008 11:20 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Nov 14, 2008 2:47 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Oct 30, 2008 11:49 pm
Posts: 20
Location: Western Australia
Hello Didier,

Thanks for your comments. I did notice that I should have had this sound file louder and I can do this on my audio/midi interface at the mic input volume control knob. Maybe you mean something else. I will try this piece again using a higher volume at the mic input control on the audio/midi interface. Am never sure how loud sound files should be.

Meanwhile:- 45 minutes later: - I have just done this sound file again, this time with the mic still approximately above middle C but not so high (around 2 ft above the top of the piano when before it was about 3 ft above the top of the piano). The top lid was open again and a rug folded a few times, was placed over the underside of the lid. I also had used the rug on the previous sound file. This time I turned the mic control knob up a little higher on the interface.

I played the first part of the piece, then I took the rug off and played the first part of the piece again. I think I preferred the sound with the rug on. I have included the new sound file in the attachment thanks.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Nov 14, 2008 12:56 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jul 01, 2007 4:53 pm
Posts: 468
Location: France
Hi bring18,

the presence is better here but there are parasitic noises which were not in the previous recording.
What I did in editing your previous recording: gain, noise gate, dynamic compression, attack sharpening. This is at best a possible improvement. But you should not care too much about that because your sound is already good enough for sharing here some music with us. Both microphone setting at 3' and 2' are possible options, among which you have to decide yourself what sounds better to you. But for comparing you have to ensure that the levels are the same. You can modify the level after recording in an audio editor like Audacity, which is a freeware.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Nov 14, 2008 11:50 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Oct 30, 2008 11:49 pm
Posts: 20
Location: Western Australia
Hello Didier,

Thanks again for your help. I do have Audacity and could try those adjustment. I have taken note of what you have said i.e. re keeping the same level when comparing, and will do some more experimenting and send another attachment soon. Hope you don't mind listening to another sound file and commenting.

I don't know whether a rug on the wall behind the piano and something on the ceiling above the piano will help. I could try it, and also something in the nearest two corners of the room. The piano is about six inches away from the wall. The piano tuner said that the piano is in about the best place acoustically in the room.

Does the angle that the microphone is on even make a slight difference? I read the instruction manual yesterday about the microphone, and it said to address microphone from the side (not the top of the grill) above the SP logo badge, so I have been doing this.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Nov 15, 2008 11:51 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Oct 30, 2008 11:49 pm
Posts: 20
Location: Western Australia
Hello Didier,

I have just recorded another piece today as it was a cool afternoon. I have included just the first part of the piece for you to have a listen to. Am sorry it cuts off rather suddenly.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Nov 15, 2008 6:40 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jul 01, 2007 4:53 pm
Posts: 468
Location: France
Quote:
Does the angle that the microphone is on even make a slight difference? I read the instruction manual yesterday about the microphone, and it said to address microphone from the side (not the top of the grill) above the SP logo badge, so I have been doing this.


Yes, it should make more than a slight difference! I understand now why your recording sounds so far.

As soon as I heard the first notes of your last recording, I thought 'great!'. :)
That is a pity that there are stlll these disturbing noises (produced by the action or your nails ?).

Anyway, using only one microphone seems being less a limitation than what I was anticipating. You could still improve your sound using some kind of advanced audio editing (not at all needed for sharing music with us). For example:


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Nov 15, 2008 9:07 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2008 4:17 pm
Posts: 418
Location: Boston
Didier wrote:
The proximity effect is the bass reinforcement occurring when a cardioid microphone gets very close to the source (on the order of 10"). Especially of concern (or of benefit) for vocal recording.


However for acoustic recording, especially with a "pressure gradient" mic like the SP1, the proximity effect continues noticeably because bass boost continues to decrease proportionately as the distance increases until about 6ft. Bring18, do a bassy test recording by placing your mic at 1.5ft and at 8ft. You will get different bass responses at each of those distances.

This proximity phenomena does not happen with "true pressure" omnidirectional mics and they are immune to proximity effects and that's why they are popular for classical piano recordings like the DPA 4006, Schoeps MK2, Sennheiser MKH8020, Earthworks QTC, Avenson STO-2, etc. You get a much more flatter frequency response. But, you can't use them to their potential in an untreated room.

bring18 wrote:
I don't know whether a rug on the wall behind the piano and something on the ceiling above the piano will help. I could try it, and also something in the nearest two corners of the room. The piano is about six inches away from the wall. The piano tuner said that the piano is in about the best place acoustically in the room.


To get a quality recording, you have to acoustically treat the room. A rug will help for midrange and high frequencies, but will do nothing for the bass frequencies. Eliminate any nearby reflections going to the mic by placing broadband absorption panels - DIY fiberglass panels made from 2ftx4ft 2inch OC-703 and OC-705 covered with burlap - color of your choice to match the walls. The walls, corners, and ceiling closest to the mic position is where you want to start first. That's where the first reflections occur and they're harsh. After doing a lot of research online, and discovering the staggering cost to treat my entire room, I am doing this on my own without costly commercial panels. The results so far have been amazing! Better Bass definition, midrange clarity, highs are not harsh. I am not forced to mic in cardiod mode, and for the first time I can place my new omni Sennheiser MKH 8020 mics at a distance of 3-5ft from the curve of the piano and get a full and rich sound. If you're interested let me know if you want to make your own acoustic panels for the fraction of the cost of commercial panels. They're simple to make too...


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Nov 15, 2008 10:24 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jul 01, 2007 4:53 pm
Posts: 468
Location: France
Hi George,

I was not expecting that the proximity effect would be significant at so large distance. For its 40 series Audio Technica gives the frequency response of the directive microphone at 12" or more on axis, which seems indicate that the proximity effect is significant only below 12" (see for instance AT4050 Specification Sheet). I guess that this is not true for all mikes.

Quote:
my new omni Sennheiser MKH 8020 mics

:shock: Congratulations! I would be much interested in some samples for comparing them with your 414s. Thanks in advance if you can do that! :)


Last edited by Didier on Sun Nov 16, 2008 7:49 am, edited 4 times in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Nov 16, 2008 12:16 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Oct 30, 2008 11:49 pm
Posts: 20
Location: Western Australia
Hello Didier,

Thanks for your comments once again. I would love to hear your playing. Where can I go to hear it? I heard the first part of 88man's playing; I think it was Chopin's Nocturne No. 20. It sounded very beautiful. I only had time to listen to it up to the first one or two trills and admired the clarity of the trilling let alone the sound of the whole playing. There's something in the saying that beautiful music makes time almost stand still.

I have found a very good handyman in town who could do those panels if I can't. He's done a marvellous job painting my garage, outside of house, pergola and fence. Plus he is quick. Can you give me any more information regarding the panels and approximate cost. An Australian dollar is worth about 80% of an American dollar.

I am not good at analysing extraneous sounds. For instance I thought my pedal was making a noise and it was, so I rang the tuner. However after I had spoken to him I went to the piano again and realised that the noise that I could hear the most was the noise of hammers returning when I played chords. I just clipped my finger nails a few days ago so it shouldn't be them.

Could you tell me what you did to edit the sound file? I think this forum is wonderful; here I have you helping me with your patience, and even to the extent of editing my sound file. I do have Cubase LE and Audacity 1.3.5. Can you tell me precisely what you did so that I may be able to go to the same file and practise it (the editing, what you did). Which software did you use to edit the file with?

How would you explain what you did when you edited the file, and the before and after result? I listened to mine again and your edited file and can't explain the difference, except that your edited file gives better clarity and has gotten rid of some sounds we don't want to hear.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Nov 16, 2008 1:25 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jul 01, 2007 4:53 pm
Posts: 468
Location: France
Hi bring18,

I used a noise gate and a tube preamp simulator to edit your recording. I used the noise gate in Wavelab and the Preamp Emulator plugin. There is also a noise gate in Audacity (Effects/Noise elimination, I am not sure about the name because I have got the French version). I do not know whether Audacity accepts plugins.
Quote:
Where can I go to hear it?

I am registered as a pianist here. There are links to my recordings on my page.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Nov 16, 2008 1:30 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jul 01, 2007 4:53 pm
Posts: 468
Location: France
Hi bring18,

I used a noise gate and a tube preamp simulator to edit your recording. I used the genuine noise gate of Wavelab and the Preamp Emulator plugin. There is also a noise gate in Audacity (Effects/Noise elimination, I am not sure about the name because I have got the French version). I do not know whether Audacity accepts plugins.
Quote:
Where can I go to hear it?

I am registered as a pianist here. There are links to my recordings on my page :
Quote:
http://pianosociety.com/cms/index.php?section=1321


Cheers,

Didier


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Nov 18, 2008 11:32 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Oct 30, 2008 11:49 pm
Posts: 20
Location: Western Australia
Hello Didier,

Just had a listen to the Prelude and Fugue no 16 Book 2 by Bach. I enjoyed your playing and it also gave me a chance to listen to the mp3 sound file. It was interesting reading about your life story with music. You didn't get started until a fairly late stage.

I am not sure by what you mean when you say that already my music is good enough to share with you.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Nov 19, 2008 11:16 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jul 01, 2007 4:53 pm
Posts: 468
Location: France
Hi bring,

you should have done a mistake because I never played the Bach piece that you said...:wink:


You can access my most recent recording, which may be the one having the best sound despite (or because ?) I did not perform any audio editing, here

http://server3.pianosociety.com/new/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=1476&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=15

The link is in my third post in this page.


Quote:
I am not sure by what you mean when you say that already my music is good enough to share with you.

I meant that music is more important than sound: it was an invitation to submit a complete recording in the Audition room. :wink:


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Update on First Thread
PostPosted: Fri Mar 13, 2009 3:26 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2008 4:17 pm
Posts: 418
Location: Boston
I have been updating my first thread on "Making Professional Home Recordings" from time to time. I just added more pertinent information.

I should also point out that I have since I have made my own bass traps or acoustic absorption panels for the music room. It has helped tremendously to tame acoustic anomalies which plague most smaller spaces, such as room modes, flutter echo, ringing, and comb filtering. There is more clarity and bass definition; and less muddinesss and harsh peaks in the high notes. I have consequently changed my microphone polar pattern from wide cardiod to omnidirectional. It has given a more natural tonality to the instrument. If people are interested, I can post information on how to make your own acoustic absorbtion panels at fraction of the retail cost.

Enjoy Your Recordings!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Mar 23, 2009 12:20 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jul 01, 2007 4:53 pm
Posts: 468
Location: France
Hi George,

I wonder whether I should go for some bass traps like you.
would you have some short recordings for comparison between before and after room treatment with the same microphones and same placement ?
Anyway, thank you for your advice,

Didier


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Bass Traps
PostPosted: Tue Mar 24, 2009 3:44 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2008 4:17 pm
Posts: 418
Location: Boston
Quote:
I wonder whether I should go for some bass traps like you. would you have some short recordings for comparison between before and after room treatment with the same microphones and same placement ?


BASS TRAPS - ACOUSTIC PANELS FOR THE HOME STUDIO

Hi, Didier. Any small to medium size room will benefit from bass traps/Acoustic Panels. The best thing to do is to walk around the room clap your hands and speak around the area of the piano, mics, and listening position. If you can hear flutter echo, ringing, room modes then it's worth treating with bass traps. If you have nasty resonances on certain notes, loss of definition or clarity in sound, then it's also worth treating with bass traps. It also depends on fixtures in the room, wall construction, geometry, dimensions, glass, piano/mic location, and nearby reflections.

For all practical purposes to record in the home environment, bass traps function to mainly absorb sound reflected by walls, room corners, and ceiling closest to the piano and mics. It also helps to reduce unwanted room modes, ringing, comb filtering, and flutter echo, which plague all small spaces in a typical home with 8-10ft ceilings. It also alters the frequency response of the room so that the peaks and nulls are flatter across the frequency spectrum.

The best way to treat any room is with bass traps that use fiberglass panels. I am not sure what you have in France, but I highly recommend Owings-Corning 703 (OC-703) or equivalent fiberglass panels that measure 2ftx4ft. You can also use Roxul Mineral Wool, Roxul Rockboard, or Knauf Acoustical Board which are all cheaper. However, their absorption coefficients are lower for bass frequencies, so you may have to double the thickness to get the same absorption of OC-703. They all measure 2in thick. Don't bother with foam panels that you see at music outlets - they much less effective than fiberglass because they have much lower absorption coefficients.

I made my panels 4in thick, by doubling two 2in thick 2ftx4ft OC-703 fiberglass panels. I glued and screwed together a 2ftx4ft frame out of 4.5in wide pine wood and placed the fiberglass panels inside (4in total thickness). To camouflage the panels in the room, I matched the color of the acoustic panels to the color of the walls by stapling an ivory colored burlap fabric over the entire front and sides of the panels. It looks great. To cover your construction, you must use very porous fabrics; I find that burlap is very cheap and effective. You can hang them on the walls like a picture frame with wire and hooks, or make an H-frame pedestal to place on the floors. The great thing about them is they're portable, I can take them down if guests are coming over. The entire project took me a weekend to make. Your local hardware store can easily cut the wood for you, so that all you have to do is glue,screw, and staple. If you can make a picture frame, you can make your own bass traps. Each bass trap cost me $60 including everything (glue, screws, staples, burlap, wood, OC-703, pedestal, shipping, and taxes). The retail cost for each bass trap would be $325 - $375 in the U.S. The entire room cost me around $300; Retail would have cost me at least $1750.

Amount of bass traps depend on room dimension, shape, and the location of piano in the room. Triangulate the nearby reflective surfaces from the piano source to the mics, and place the traps in the path of direct nearby reflections. Don't go crazy since you only need to treat the nearby reflections from the walls, corners, and ceiling that will interact with your mics. Don't worry about walls that are away from the mics. As you know, there are phase cancellations/summing, delays, etc. that can only hinder clarity and evenness of frequency response. By negating the majority of the nearby reflections going to the mics, you're picking almost an entirely direct sound from piano source to mic. You may even find yourself using true pressure omnis, like your Avenson STO-2, at a farther distance to 3-4ft and allowing the sound the "breath" and coelesce by the time it reaches the mics. Once you place the panels, you'll hear that the piano sounds more damped and not as loud as before, because you're limiting the reflections coming to your ear, and what you are hearing is the direct sound of the piano. Don't worry about the loss of "small" room ambiance, because you can always reverb on your DAW, without amplifying the anomalies that were there before treatment. You'll get a much clearer and more natural sounding reverb. Add only the panels that are necessary, you can add more if you need to, but address only the nearby reflections first - the walls and ceiling around you and the mics. If you find that the sound is too tight and damped, either move the panel(s) around or remove a panel and use the extra panel for your monitor speakers... Just like mic positions, you may find you have to move the bass traps around to for the best sound. For my room, I am using only 5 panels - 2 in the corners 4inx2ftx6ft, 2 rear wall 4inx2ftx4ft, 1 on ceiling above mics/piano 2inx2ftx4ft.

Below 50-60Hz it's very difficult to treat any room, but most of the music is above that anyway so it can only improve one's situation. You can build better bass traps for absorption in the 60Hz and 120Hz range by placing 1/4in and 1/8in plywood panels, respectively, behind the fiberglass panels, but I think it's over kill, unless you know for sure that there is a peak in the room mode for that frequency range. Before treatment in my room, I was getting a nasty peak @ 1.9kHz (very high B-flat and B-natural), loss of bass definition, and lack of clarity in the midrange. After treating with several bass traps, I get more bass definition, better clarity in the midrange, and don't hear that nasty peak @1.9kHz anymore. The sound going into the mics is more damped, tighter, and controlled across the range. Any loss in room ambiance, I can add reverb more predictably, without amplifying the nasty anomalies.

However, the best way to objectively judge is to use a simple room analysis software that's capable of generating a "waterfall" plot of frequency/time/decibels. Or, You can also use your Avensons as a measurement mic, and plot the frequency response from 100-15000Hz using a $30 SPL meter on your DAW software. That way you can see which frequencies are being affected and by how much for your room.

The next 3 weeks are very busy for me, so I unfortunately won't be practicing, playing, or recording much at all. I'll try to make some comparative recordings under controlled conditions, with and without traps soon after that.

If you want I can post pictures of the bass traps in the meantime?...

Let me know if you decide to make your own, I can give more details?...


George

_________________
"Nobility of spirit has more to do with simplicity than ostentation, wisdom rather than wealth, commitment rather than ambition." ~Riccardo Muti


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Mar 25, 2009 12:20 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jul 01, 2007 4:53 pm
Posts: 468
Location: France
Thank you George for your information. I was considering foam bass traps to put in the corners of my room. I am now envisaging fiberglass panels. :)

Currently I use the Mic Thing, a foam panel to be mounted on a mic stand, which I put behind the microphone and a cushion above the mics, put at its both ends on the the piano lid edge and on the head of the stand that bears the Mic Thing. The mics are on another mic stand very close to the piano rim, about 20 cm. The preamp gain setting is the same for both clips and there is no audio editing except for compression to mp3.
I get significant results with this setting, which you can judge yourself by listening to the two clips here included, recorded with and without Mic Thing + cushion.

But I have not yet found the clarity that I am looking for.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Mar 25, 2009 4:07 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2008 4:17 pm
Posts: 418
Location: Boston
Hi Didier, thanks for posting the audio clips. Here are some of my observations based just on the 2 clips:

With MicThing+Cushion
Clarity/Definition:--- More Detail
Focus:---------------- Characteristic of Cardiod
Soundstage:--------- Narrower, Boxy, Closed
Tonality:-------------- Nasal, Muffled
Attack/Decay:------- More Damped

Open Mic
Clarity/Definition:--- Smeared Detail in Midrange
Focus:---------------- Characteristic of Omnidirectional
Soundstage:-------- Wider, Open
Tonality:-------------- More Natural
Attack/Decay:------- Lingering Early Reflections


The differences are slight with the Mic Thing and cushion. With the MicThing+Cushion, you're gaining more detail and clarity, but at the expense of producing a narrow and closed soundstage, and with a nasal and less natural tone. The muffled tone could also result from having the cushion too close to the mics, where it becomes to restrictive for the sound. The MicThing and cushion is just a mask, no short cuts here, you really need to treat the room to minimize the undesirable effects.

What everyone should aspire toward is arriving at a "compromised balance." In other words, treat the room to gain just enough clarity, definition, and focus, WITHOUT sacrificing tonality, soundstage, and damping. It will take considerable experimentation to get right. More or less, you have what we all have - Small Room Sound! None of our rooms will ever have a natural lush, open, 3-D, spacious, or deep soundstage. From a practical standpoint, focus on improving clarity and detail by limiting the early type reflections. Once you have achieved a "compromised balance," you can add some reverb to regain additional ambiance. Most software based reverbs are not that great, including mine, because they don't sound natural and emphasize the early reflections, which makes the highs even more shrill and harsh. Convolution Reverbs are better, but still no match for the high end external units like the Bricasti M7... So, if you don't get rid of the early type reflections in your room, I find that the mids and highs become smeared and lose clarity; If you add reverb to this type of sound, it will result in a sound that is unnaturally harsh and edgy - very annoying to listen to after 30seconds!

In addition to the aforementioned sonic improvements I have mentioned before, adding Bass Traps in the corners will also minimize that "one-note" bass room response, which should add individual clarity in the lower bass. You may find that you won't need the MicThing and cushion, especially when you add the bass traps at the sound reflection points on the walls and ceiling. The only benefit of foam panels are that they are lighter. However, my recommendation is to NOT use foam traps, as they are more costly, less predictable, and less effective than fiberglass panels which you can make or buy.

_________________
"Nobility of spirit has more to do with simplicity than ostentation, wisdom rather than wealth, commitment rather than ambition." ~Riccardo Muti


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Mar 27, 2009 1:53 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jul 01, 2007 4:53 pm
Posts: 468
Location: France
Hi George,

thank you for your listening and your very detailed report. I think that the drawbacks of the with take can be more easily corrected (EQ and reverb) than the ones of the without take: I don't know any plugin that would remove the early reflections of a smalll room.
I just have submitted in the audition room a new recording of Chopin's nocturne in Cis performed with the MicThing and the cushion and with such audio editing.
I look forward for listening to your own clips without and with that shall be be much useful to me in my quest for a better sound. Thanks in anticipation,
Didier


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Mar 28, 2009 1:28 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2008 4:17 pm
Posts: 418
Location: Boston
Bonsoir Didier. Ah, there is no plug-in that can correct for the early reflections in a small room. I don't like to use EQ too much because it also alters the harmonic balance of the instrument, and that defeats having a fine German piano in the first place. Better than EQ, absorption is the only way to "fool" the mics into believing that the early reflections aren't there in the first place. Low ceilings are the big culprits in many homes. Don't forget the ceiling in your calculations because, if the early reflections from the ceiling is absorbed and delayed; it's as if you have a very high ceiling. For Practical and aesthetic reasons, I am only placing 2in thick panels instead of 4in thick ones on the ceiling, because the fiberglass panels can get heavy. I would hate having these things fall on a Steinway. ZOINKS!

If you don't have room calibration software, in the meantime, make yourself a CD of test tones and do a frequency sweep above 60Hz with good speakers in your music room, and plot which frequencies have dips or peaks. In an untreated room, it can vary as much as 20dB! After treatment, do the same frequency sweep and plot the changes in room response. If you get your room balanced within 5-10dB, you're doing very well.

BTW - I've come to realize that many people love to crank up the reverb, which changes the timbre to an edgy, shrill, and hollow sound as if one is playing in a subway tunnel - hardly appropriate for a classical piano. The problem with reverb software is that the algorithm introduces early type reflections, and this is compounded with the early reflections coming from the room. The resulting sound lacks the attack, decay, and clarity of the original source. I listened to your Nocturne, very nicely played and with good taste - you didn't drown the piece with reverb, just right!

If you ever want to have a reference for acoustic engineering that covers fundamentals, absorption, diffusion, reverberation, studio design, spaces, materials, etc., and one that's not very complicated, here is the bible: Master Handbook of Acoustics, by F. Alton Everest.

Give me some time to post samples of before and after treatment...

_________________
"Nobility of spirit has more to do with simplicity than ostentation, wisdom rather than wealth, commitment rather than ambition." ~Riccardo Muti


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Mar 28, 2009 12:53 pm 
Offline
Site Admin

Joined: Wed Jun 14, 2006 12:38 pm
Posts: 8518
88man wrote:

BTW - I've come to realize that many people love to crank up the reverb, which changes the timbre to an edgy, shrill, and hollow sound as if one is playing in a subway tunnel - hardly appropriate for a classical piano. The problem with reverb software is that the algorithm introduces early type reflections, and this is compounded with the early reflections coming from the room. The resulting sound lacks the attack, decay, and clarity of the original source. I listened to your Nocturne, very nicely played and with good taste - you didn't drown the piece with reverb, just right!


Uh oh - I may be one of those who 'crank' up the reverb. I'm glad you said something about this, George. I will do some tests with this in mind next time I record.

_________________
"Simplicity is the highest goal, achievable when you have overcome all difficulties." ~ Frederic Chopin

my videos: http://www.youtube.com/user/monicapiano
my personal website: http://www.monicaalianello.com


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Mar 28, 2009 9:58 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2008 4:17 pm
Posts: 418
Location: Boston
Quote:
I may be one of those who 'crank' up the reverb. I'm glad you said something about this, George. I will do some tests with this in mind next time I record..


Monica, it is very tempting to get carried away with reverb as we've all done it. Upon initial listening, reverb seems to conceal some undesirable effects, but always introduces other artifacts that was never present in the original recording, e.g. loss of clarity, immediacy, texture, changes in timbre, and tonality.

Music has been described as the space or "silence" between the notes. We can all appreciate that something must be happening between these notes, and my belief is that reverb is what predominantly occupies this space. It perpetuates and sustains the inherent energy in the sound over time, much like savoring a fine wine. Our psychoacoustic perception of reverb in music is alluring, hypnotic, evocative, and that is why I think most can easily get carried away in this intoxicating "elixir of sound." Recording a performance involves a 3-way union: The instrument is what makes the sound, the pianist evokes the music, and the acoustics is the communicative pathway. So reverb forms an important part in the communication of the music, and is a physical part of the acoustics that alters our perception of a recording. I feel that it's important to treat the amount and type of reverb very delicately.

How much reverb should one use? For a particular space, it will subjectively depend on the genre of music, dynamics, complexity of sound, rapidity of notes in succession, and individual taste. The characteristics of reverb includes the attack (timbre and tone of sound) and decay (tail, sustain over time). Reverb is like make up (I don't wear any, thanks) :P - it should be used sparingly to complement and highlight what's already there in the recording. In general, you should only add enough reverb so that you can barely notice it. Sometimes, none at all. You have to be careful so that the reverb tail doesn't drown the next note in succession in a faster piece, otherwise you'll get a mush of notes. When you experiment next time, you'll notice that each piece will need a slightly different amount. Depending on your software, I find the amount can lie between 5-8% of wet reverb. It should always sound realistic, and never encroach on the immediacy and clarity of the performance.

BTW - Whenever editing or adding effects to a recording, never alter the original recording - always archive the original recording onto a gold archival CD or a separate external hard drive. This way you'll you can always refer to the original whenever you change your mind over a particular edit or effect. I've learned the hard way, believe me!

As always, share your findings, as every recording is a learning experience for me too... :)

_________________
"Nobility of spirit has more to do with simplicity than ostentation, wisdom rather than wealth, commitment rather than ambition." ~Riccardo Muti


Last edited by 88man on Sun Mar 29, 2009 12:19 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Mar 29, 2009 12:12 am 
Offline
Site Admin

Joined: Wed Jun 14, 2006 12:38 pm
Posts: 8518
Thank you so much for this information, George. I know what you mean about reverb sometimes screwing things up. I've had problems with using reverb on pieces with a lot of staccatos - the short notes sounded weird. And yes - you can get a tinny sound with the reverb also. Honestly, I don't know why I've been using reverb all the time like I do. With some pieces I play that are slow and dreamy-sounding, there is lots of pedaling going on and I really don't need the added reverb.

88man wrote:
BTW - Whenever editing or adding effects to a recording, never alter the original recording - always archive the original recording onto a gold archival CD or a separate external hard drive. This way you'll you can always refer to the original whenever you change your mind over a particular edit or effect. I've learned the hard way, believe me!

I've learned the hard way too. That was a very bad day! Been meaning to get a separate external hard drive for awhile now, but just haven't done it yet. Better put it on my list because I have a sneaky feeling that my computer is getting ready to blow. Zoinks! :x :lol:

88man wrote:
As always, share your findings, as every recording is a learning experience for me too...

I will. Thanks again for all this nice information!

_________________
"Simplicity is the highest goal, achievable when you have overcome all difficulties." ~ Frederic Chopin

my videos: http://www.youtube.com/user/monicapiano
my personal website: http://www.monicaalianello.com


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: DIY Acoustic Treatment
PostPosted: Fri May 01, 2009 11:31 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2008 4:17 pm
Posts: 418
Location: Boston
Here are samples of how basic DIY braodband absorption panels can improve the quality of home recordings. I've included samples with and without broadband absorption panels (i.e. bass traps). I only used 3 DIY panels to prove a point that one doesn't have to go crazy with acoustic treatment. I placed two 2ftx6ft 4in thick panels in the corners nearest to the piano, and one 2ftx4ft 4in panel behind me on the wall, triangulated in path of the nearest reflection from the piano-to-wall-to-mic. To simplify the implementation even further, I didn't use a ceiling panel in this test, which would require ceiling bolts. If I used more panels, the sound would improve further yielding more clarity and detail. Here are some observations, you can draw your own conclusions:

Without Absorption Panels:
-Nearby reflections from the wall leads to loss overall clarity and detail across the frequency spectrum from the lows to the highs, regardless if omni or cardiod pattern.
-The bass is uncontrolled, boomy, undamped, and lacks clarity, regardless if omni or cardiod pattern.
-The true tonality of the sound is muffled and whooly.


With Absorption Panels:
-There is an increase in overall clarity and detail across the frequency spectrum.
-The bass is well controlled, not boomy, and well defined with clarity.
-The tonality is natural and you hear the instrument and not the boxy sound of a small room.


Now, if I were to take a recording made in an untreated room, which lacks clarity, detail, and sounds muddy and boomy, and added reverb or EQ, I would be getting more hash and more undesireable artifacts. This is because reverb and EQ add their own artifacts to the sound source and seem to amplify any weaknesses in the room. Whereas, if the recording made in a treated room has enough clarity, detail, and bass control, it will take well to additional reverb or EQ in the mastering stage, and not run the risk of getting a hash result.

TEST: C-sharp minor arpeggio. Steinway B in a 35x14x8.5ft room at vertex of an L-shaped room, with an adjacent room at the other leg. Fixed position throughout test - (2) AKG C414B-XLS spaced pair 15in apart, 1ft from the curve, 5ft high, pointed toward high and low strings. Used omnidirectional and wide-cardiod pattern. NO effects added. I used the AKGs because they are the most neutral and objective mics I own, they don't alter the tone of the instrument.

Listen in the following order:
1. Omni WITHOUT Panels
2. Omni WITH Panels
3. Wide Cardiod WITHOUT Panels
4. Wide Cardiod WITH Panels

_________________
"Nobility of spirit has more to do with simplicity than ostentation, wisdom rather than wealth, commitment rather than ambition." ~Riccardo Muti


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat May 02, 2009 12:27 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jul 01, 2007 4:53 pm
Posts: 468
Location: France
Hi George,

In my mind:
WITH better than WITHOUT,
Wide cardioid better than omni.

Thank you very much for the demonstration,

Didier


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat May 02, 2009 1:52 am 
Offline
Site Admin

Joined: Wed Jun 14, 2006 12:38 pm
Posts: 8518
Hi George,

Thanks for all of this. I listened to the samples and found that between the omni-no traps, and the wide cardiod-no traps, I liked the wide cardiod-no traps sound better. It had a fuller sound - I heard more bass. So then I compared the omni with traps and the wide cardiod with traps but really could not hear much difference between these two. Could that be right?

_________________
"Simplicity is the highest goal, achievable when you have overcome all difficulties." ~ Frederic Chopin

my videos: http://www.youtube.com/user/monicapiano
my personal website: http://www.monicaalianello.com


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat May 02, 2009 3:26 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2008 4:17 pm
Posts: 418
Location: Boston
Hi Monica, The samples "without traps" appear to have more bass because of the uncontrolled boominess and ringing in the 80-150Hz region. It's an acoustical phenomena that affects all small rooms. Generally, the bass accumulates in the corners of the room and imparts an unnatural peaked response in that region. You sometimes here it as a one-note bass with speakers. It's as if you cranked up the bass knob. However, this doesn't translate to an accurate recording. Sure you are getting an unnatural peak in the 80-150Hz range, but at the expense of overall clarity and detail throughout the frequency spectrum. If you listen to the middle registers, the "no traps" sounds muffled and lacks clarity, whereas in the "with traps," you can make out the detail in the middle registers more clearly.

A typical room will have peaks and dips in the frequency response due to nearby reflections that may cancel or add in phase with the direct source. Ever wonder why some notes are louder and some are softer... These peaks and dips can vary as much as 20dB across the frequency spectrum. For any accurate recording, it's not ideal to have a such a varied response curve. The bass traps also work to absorb peaks and dips due to reflections, and help to flatten the frequency response by removing the tubby bass, modal ringing, comb filtering, and flutter echo.

My advice is to have a room that is damped in terms of ringing and flutter echo, and try to get the frequency response as flat as you can. Bass traps provide a great solution to solve these common acoustic problems which plague all small rooms. Have a recording that's clear and detailed. You can always add EQ to get more bass or increase the highs to add more air at the top end, or reverb later without sacrificing clarity or detail. However, there is no way to add clarity or detail to a recording if the room is boomy and has nearby reflections that are competing with the direct piano source.

The panels that I have made are the same material found in all recording studios and concert halls. They are made from OC-703 fiberglass panels. The magic number of panels seems to be 5 for my room: 2 in the corners, 2 in the rear wall, and one on top of the ceiling. However, for simplicity, I chose 3 to illustrate the point of broadband absorption.

_________________
"Nobility of spirit has more to do with simplicity than ostentation, wisdom rather than wealth, commitment rather than ambition." ~Riccardo Muti


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat May 02, 2009 4:15 am 
Offline
Site Admin

Joined: Wed Jun 14, 2006 12:38 pm
Posts: 8518
What you're saying about getting the most clarity in a recording that you can, and then adding reverb makes sense. I'm glad you explained that. I am curious though - are you married? And if so, what does your wife say about these large panels you are placing around the living room? Unless you have convinced her that it's okay since it's all the name of art. :)

_________________
"Simplicity is the highest goal, achievable when you have overcome all difficulties." ~ Frederic Chopin

my videos: http://www.youtube.com/user/monicapiano
my personal website: http://www.monicaalianello.com


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun May 03, 2009 7:04 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2008 4:17 pm
Posts: 418
Location: Boston
Pianolady wrote:
Quote:
What does your wife say about these large panels


With the intention of settling down, and fulfill the dream of having a salon for music, I bought a house with large living spaces. Within the first year, I was lucky to find a gorgeous Steinway B, but still haven't found the wife. Shouldn't everything have happened in reverse order? :P In any case, the panels are "future wife-friendly" because they match the wall color and are mounted on pedestals for easy removal.

_________________
"Nobility of spirit has more to do with simplicity than ostentation, wisdom rather than wealth, commitment rather than ambition." ~Riccardo Muti


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon May 04, 2009 12:56 am 
Offline
Site Admin

Joined: Wed Jun 14, 2006 12:38 pm
Posts: 8518
Smart man! :lol:

_________________
"Simplicity is the highest goal, achievable when you have overcome all difficulties." ~ Frederic Chopin

my videos: http://www.youtube.com/user/monicapiano
my personal website: http://www.monicaalianello.com


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jan 01, 2010 9:26 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2008 4:17 pm
Posts: 418
Location: Boston
I've been revising my initial thread during the course of the year to reflect changes in technology. I've included additional links and added newer gear on my first thread. I've attached 2 graphs below from thelisteningsessions.com which may help in mic and preamp selection.... Wow, over 34,000 views, I guess this thread has at least been interesting for many.

... I've been away for a while, but haven't forgotten about Piano Society. In many ways, music seems to have been on hold, other than traveling, and spending summer weekends on the Cape. I've been so busy at the office that I wish I had the time to play and record more often.

Happy New Year to all esteemed musicians at Piano Society!


Attachments:
micpregraph.jpg
micpregraph.jpg [ 143.03 KiB | Viewed 3883 times ]
mic-graph1.jpg
mic-graph1.jpg [ 145.38 KiB | Viewed 3883 times ]

_________________
"Nobility of spirit has more to do with simplicity than ostentation, wisdom rather than wealth, commitment rather than ambition." ~Riccardo Muti
Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Jan 02, 2010 5:26 am 
Offline
Site Admin

Joined: Wed Jun 14, 2006 12:38 pm
Posts: 8518
Hi George! I'm so glad you are still around. I know, this time of the year is crazy. But now the new year has begun, so hopefully things can settle down and you can get back to your piano! Happy New Year to you too!!

btw - 34,000 views is a lot! You mean "zoinks!" not "wow," don't you! :lol:

_________________
"Simplicity is the highest goal, achievable when you have overcome all difficulties." ~ Frederic Chopin

my videos: http://www.youtube.com/user/monicapiano
my personal website: http://www.monicaalianello.com


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Jan 03, 2010 12:21 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jul 01, 2007 4:53 pm
Posts: 468
Location: France
Hi George,

happy new year to you too! I look forward to listening to you on Pianosociety!

About your opening post that you have edited, let me stress again that the pianist, the piano, the room and the mic placement are much more important that the selection of the audio gear. You say that this latter one can contribute for 5-10 % to the result: this statement implies that the recording quality could be measured and the relative measurement for two recordings would have the same value for everybody. But such a measurement, if any, is much subjective. I think that your 5-10% is much less for most people and irrelevant to them with respect to the cost of the audio gear that you are proposing: mics above 1000, up to more than 10000 €/$ a pair, preamp above 2000 €/$ (except for DAV), converter above 1000 €/$. I think even that many people might not notice the difference between a take made with 'low-end' microphones and electronics and 'high-end' ones if they could listen to both takes. I'm quite sure that most people (myself first) would not be sensitive to the quality loss encountered in a recording because of the use of low-end audio gear, provided that it is well selected and used, if they could not compare with a high-end reference.

I did a take on this evening with two pairs of mics on the same stand, Samson CO2 and Schoeps CMC6-MK21, which is in your selection and costs up to 30 times more than the Samson. The Schoeps were plugged on a DAV BG1, also in your selection, and the Samson were plugged directly on a PC audio interface to which the DAV was also connected so that both stereo tracks could be recorded on the same PC. Also I used professional cables for the Schoeps, about 10 times more expensive than the cheap ones used for the Samson.

Picture of the mics, Sanmson and Schoeps tracks here attached.

NB Neumann stopped the manufacturing of the M 50, appearing in your list, near 40 years ago. I guess that you intended to put the TLM 50 or the M 150 instead.


Attachments:
DSCF0737.JPG
DSCF0737.JPG [ 62.64 KiB | Viewed 3862 times ]
Schoeps.mp3 [6.01 MiB]
Downloaded 329 times
Samson.mp3 [6.01 MiB]
Downloaded 316 times
Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jan 07, 2010 6:09 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2008 4:17 pm
Posts: 418
Location: Boston
Hello Monica, and yes, "Zoinks" would be the operative word. :) I am looking to get back in the piano mode again, hopefully soon. I just downloaded the Chopin Waltz No. 16 in D-flat, just to get the fingers going again. I've always liked this piece, but never had the music. Good thing I found it on the PS site! BTW, is Paris on the horizon for this year?...


Hi Didier, absolutely, I have also stated that the pianist, piano, and space are the most important factors in any recording in my opening paragraph. This thread is intended mostly for the musician-audiophile who enjoys recording, gear, and recording technique. It's a specialty thread, and not a "most people" thread. I agree, 5% is subjective only to reinforce the fact that gear accounts for a small, but perceptible amount in a recording. For critical listening, that 5% is everything for some and could be the missing link to make a good recording into a great one. How accurately does one want to capture the sound and at what price? That is the first question. For some it's worth it, for most it's not because they may not hear the difference or care, and everybody can move on. I am not advocating that people should buy the items in the "Equipment List." It's not consumer or even a prosumer grade list. I've merely stated what professional studios use to record piano. It's up to the reader to decide if it's worth it or not based on personal preferences, finances, levels of expectations, experience, interest, etc.

One of the most important variables is mic placement. I covered that briefly as and that is an art onto itself and draws upon many aspects of which many years of experience is paramount. That's why there are recording engineers. I am still learning... As you know, EQ, reverb, or other processing is the icing on the cake as it pertains to tailoring the final sound.

If someone does record often enough and have access to a nice hall AND piano, e.g. conservatories, schools, colleges, church halls, community centers, concert halls, etc., then good gear might be an investment, as the recording chain become more relevant with a nice hall and piano. In most cases, all one has to do is to introduce yourself to management of these facilities and work out a reasonable arrangement. But, if recordings are solely delegated to the living room with 8ft ceilings and there is no attempt to treat the room acoustically, then its useless to spend more than a $300 digital recorder and $200 stereo mics. Along the way, I've suggested using a Microtrack II with a pair of small condenser mics, like Shure SM81 or KSM141. I personally use a Microtrack II and love it!

Yes, the M50 has been long discontinued as it was produced from 1951-1971 and the M150 is its current replacement - Thanks, I made a note of the M150 on the first thread. I included the M50 because it's the real deal - some studios still have and use these legendary mics because it's the tube AND transformer that makes these mics sound so legendary. The M150 lacks the transformer, and hence lacks the character of the original.

Thanks for posting the recordings - nice nocturne! To my ears, I found the Schoeps to have a slightly more open, airy sound in the highs. The mids are warmer, and the bass sounds fuller - collectively a more refined and more natural sound. The Samson CO2 sounds thinner, rough rendition, closed in - almost compressed and more clinical/digital sound. (Listened with Beyerdynamic DT-770 phones through Audigy sound card).

Have you tried the open cardiod MK22 capsule as well?...

_________________
"Nobility of spirit has more to do with simplicity than ostentation, wisdom rather than wealth, commitment rather than ambition." ~Riccardo Muti


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jan 07, 2010 2:14 pm 
Offline
Site Admin

Joined: Wed Jun 14, 2006 12:38 pm
Posts: 8518
88man wrote:
Hello Monica, and yes, "Zoinks" would be the operative word. :) I am looking to get back in the piano mode again, hopefully soon. I just downloaded the Chopin Waltz No. 16 in D-flat, just to get the fingers going again. I've always liked this piece, but never had the music. Good thing I found it on the PS site! BTW, is Paris on the horizon for this year?...
.


Hi George. Oh, that waltz will surely get your fingers moving again! I'm surprised you found it on our site - I thought we took down all the sheet music.

Paris - no, not this year. Target date is spring or summer or fall of 2012.


Also just another thanks to you and Didier for providing so much great information about making recordings!

_________________
"Simplicity is the highest goal, achievable when you have overcome all difficulties." ~ Frederic Chopin

my videos: http://www.youtube.com/user/monicapiano
my personal website: http://www.monicaalianello.com


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jan 08, 2010 1:44 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2008 4:17 pm
Posts: 418
Location: Boston
Quote:
...that waltz will surely get your fingers moving again! I'm surprised you found it on our site - I thought we took down all the sheet music.


Hi Monica, I realized that I had downloaded the piece a while back into a folder and forgot about it until I came across it while cleaning out my files on the computer. I just printed yesterday. It's too bad, why did PS remove all sheet music?... I found it to be a great resource at the time. I just wish I downloaded more pieces.

Ideally, I should be practicing my Isidor Phillipe or Hanon, but at this stage, practicing technique is like going to Dullsville! Or watching paint dry! I figured, if I am going to practice any form of technique, let it be in a new piece with the little time I do have. The tricky part, as always, is the fingering - I'll sort it out. As with almost all of Chopin's posthumous works, there are so many discrepancies in various editions. This piece is no exception. I realize that this edition is different than my recordings with Agustin Anievas and Claudio Arrau. On the sheet music, there is a break in the chromatic ascending passage to the lower octave in measure No. 31. On my recordings with Agustin Anievas and Claudio Arrau, the passage on measure Nos. 30-32 are continuously ascending which I like better. I just heard Ashkenazy on the classical radio in my office play the passage in the broken manner. I still like it continuously ascending, ending on the high A-flat. That's how I'll practice it. I wonder if there is a definitive publication which shows how the early editions were noted on measure No. 31?...

_________________
"Nobility of spirit has more to do with simplicity than ostentation, wisdom rather than wealth, commitment rather than ambition." ~Riccardo Muti


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jan 08, 2010 2:17 am 
Offline
Site Admin

Joined: Wed Jun 14, 2006 12:38 pm
Posts: 8518
88man wrote:

Hi Monica, I realized that I had downloaded the piece a while back into a folder and forgot about it until I came across it while cleaning out my files on the computer. I just printed yesterday. It's too bad, why did PS remove all sheet music?... I found it to be a great resource at the time. I just wish I downloaded more pieces.


Oh, that explains it. :) We took down the music mainly because we were trying to conserve bandwidth. But also it was added work for us, and Robert and Chris felt that since ISMPL has just about everything we had (plus thousands more), we'll direct our visitors there, instead.

88man wrote:
Ideally, I should be practicing my Isidor Phillipe or Hanon, but at this stage, practicing technique is like going to Dullsville! Or watching paint dry! I figured, if I am going to practice any form of technique, let it be in a new piece with the little time I do have.


I hear you! I have been advocating working on technique by way of learning new pieces versus the boring Hanon exercises in my own practicing. But I will say that I found my lessons with my most recent teacher to be invaluable in terms of learning some things that I probably wouldn't have figured out on my own.

88man wrote:
The tricky part, as always, is the fingering - I'll sort it out. As with almost all of Chopin's posthumous works, there are so many discrepancies in various editions. This piece is no exception. I realize that this edition is different than my recordings with Agustin Anievas and Claudio Arrau. On the sheet music, there is a break in the chromatic ascending passage to the lower octave in measure No. 31. On my recordings with Agustin Anievas and Claudio Arrau, the passage on measure Nos. 30-32 are continuously ascending which I like better. I just heard Ashkenazy on the classical radio in my office play the passage in the broken manner. I still like it continuously ascending, ending on the high A-flat. That's how I'll practice it. I wonder if there is a definitive publication which shows how the early editions were noted on measure No. 31?...

Yes, fingering is key!!! As far as looking up that measure 31 in early editions - do you know of this site?

http://www.cfeo.org.uk/dyn/index.html

It shows the publications of Chopin's music in the very first French, German, and English editions. I think it's neat and have looked at it several times while working on the mazurkas. When you open the site, look toward the top at the tabs and you'll see "view Chopin's first editions".

And speaking of traveling, didn't you go on a safari or something like that recently?

_________________
"Simplicity is the highest goal, achievable when you have overcome all difficulties." ~ Frederic Chopin

my videos: http://www.youtube.com/user/monicapiano
my personal website: http://www.monicaalianello.com


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Jan 09, 2010 1:01 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jul 01, 2007 4:53 pm
Posts: 468
Location: France
Quote:
Have you tried the open cardiod MK22 capsule as well?...


No, I did'nt get the opportunity for. It would sound like the 21 with a tighter directivity.

About the samples of my previous post, I don't think they can be perceived as being in a different league if you are not able to compare them. Even when comparing them, many people would not care about the difference. It even happens than some people expected being skilled in audio prefer the Samson to the Schoeps in this blind test.

Note that the TLM50 might be more used than the M150 for classical music, especially piano, recording. They were used for the recent live recording of the piano sonatas by Daniel Barenboim in DVD; one can see them on some images in the placement shown in the attached drawing, first experimented by Decca sound engineers.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 99 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

All times are UTC - 1 hour


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group