appropriate stereo image for piano?

[jnorman]

i am doing some violin and piano duos in a studio setting. i
generally mic my baby grand with a close stereo pair (either just
outside or inside the lid). for duos, i have usually, panned the
piano pretty hard LR, and placed the solo instrument in the middle -
this process works fine and sounds pretty good, but it does provide a
false image, ie, it sounds like you are almost inside the piano (even
with plenty of reverb), whereas the solo instrument sounds more
distant and natural, such that you feel like you are listening from
two different places. i find this method to be quite common on lots
of studio albums even from professional classical artists, but my ears
are starting to feel uncomfortable with this approach. in a normal
live recording, i might use an ORTF pair, and get an image where the
piano is a bit off to the left and the solo instrumetn is just to the
right, which yeilds a much more natural souding stereo image, but
lacks the power, dpeth, and detail of a more close-miced studio setup.
my studio does not have good enough acoustics to use an ensemble
micing technique. so, what are my options to ahceive a good stereo
image for thia type of application? vielen dank, as usual, for your
assistance.

[Fill X]

well, get the mics away from the hammers a bit. That inside the piano thing is
something I think your instincs are right about. Who listens to a piano by
sticking their head inside it? I would pick a stereo configuration you're
comfortable with; walk around the piano to find the sweet spot in the room
then move the mics far away and listen. Continue moving them in closer until
you're getting enough sting definition for your taste. I know this is simple
minded, but it;s the only suggestion I can think of not hearing the room or
piano. It seems like what's bothering you is the lack of natual imaging, so
your ears will be your guide to figuiring it out It will "click" when you hear
it.


P h i l i p

______________________________

"I'm too ****ing busy and vice-versa"

- Dorothy Parker

[James Boyk]

Why not let the artists control both sound and image? Let them set up however they normally set up, then mike them w/ stereo pair at a distance so that--


(1) The piano sound has a chance to coalesce (say five feet minimum), and


(2) The "foreshortening" due to difference in distance from mike to the two instruments is minimized. That is, the closer instrument looms disproportionately larger, just like a knee or a nose in a close snapshot. You minimize this by moving the camera awa
y, or in this case the mike. You can also help by perhaps gently urging the instruments to be at more equal distances from the mike---*if* they're comfortable with this. For instance, having the solo instrument in the crook of the piano. (This also helps t
he solo instrument because the piano lid--which must always be UP for such work!--projects it as well as the piano sound.)

Then you won't need to "pan" anything.

At such a distance, you *will* hear the room; so you must have a good-sounding room. If it's "acoustically small" -- that is, small relative to audio wavelengths -- there will be a Big advantage in using figure-8's; and this is nice, because 90-coincident-
8's ("Blumlein pair") gives the best imaging as well as minimizing room-mode pickup.


James Boyk

[Bryson]

Fill X wrote:
> Who listens to a piano by
> sticking their head inside it?

It does sound pretty cool though.


Who listens to a Marshall cab with their ear 1/2" of the
grill? I would if I could.....doubled and hard panned.....one
4x12 cab on each ear!


Just pokin' fun.....not to dis your most excellent advice.


Timmy




> I would pick a stereo configuration you're
> comfortable with; walk around the piano to find the sweet spot in the room
> then move the mics far away and listen. Continue moving them in closer until
> you're getting enough sting definition for your taste. I know this is simple
> minded, but it;s the only suggestion I can think of not hearing the room or
> piano. It seems like what's bothering you is the lack of natual imaging, so
> your ears will be your guide to figuiring it out It will "click" when you hear
> it.
>
>
> P h i l i p
>
> ______________________________
>
> "I'm too ****ing busy and vice-versa"
>
> - Dorothy Parker
>
>
>
>

[Roger W. Norman]

I have to agree with James. No need to close mic a piano in this situation,
and, in fact, no real reason to present it in stereo. Either mic the room
letting the musicians do their thing in playing together, or mic both the
piano and the other instrument from a smaller distance (maybe 4 to 5 feet
each) and then blend in the mix. Or even a combination of both. Actually,
you can't have too many microphones up and tracking as long as you maintain
the 3:1 rule, but after a short while you end up with mics 27 feet back from
the source.

--


Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio
Purchase your copy of the Fifth of RAP CD set at www.recaudiopro.net.
See how far $20 really goes.




"James Boyk" <boyk@caltech.edu> wrote in message
news:biiuns$j0s$1@naig.caltech.edu...
> Why not let the artists control both sound and image? Let them set up
however they normally set up, then mike them w/ stereo pair at a distance so
that--
>
>
> (1) The piano sound has a chance to coalesce (say five feet minimum), and
>
>
> (2) The "foreshortening" due to difference in distance from mike to the
two instruments is minimized. That is, the closer instrument looms
disproportionately larger, just like a knee or a nose in a close snapshot.
You minimize this by moving the camera away, or in this case the mike. You
can also help by perhaps gently urging the instruments to be at more equal
distances from the mike---*if* they're comfortable with this. For instance,
having the solo instrument in the crook of the piano. (This also helps the
solo instrument because the piano lid--which must always be UP for such
work!--projects it as well as the piano sound.)
>
> Then you won't need to "pan" anything.
>
> At such a distance, you *will* hear the room; so you must have a
good-sounding room. If it's "acoustically small" -- that is, small relative
to audio wavelengths -- there will be a Big advantage in using figure-8's;
and this is nice, because 90-coincident-8's ("Blumlein pair") gives the best
imaging as well as minimizing room-mode pickup.
>
>
> James Boyk
>

[Bob Olhsson]

In article <biiuns$j0s$1@naig.caltech.edu>, James Boyk
<boyk@caltech.edu> wrote:

>The piano sound has a chance to coalesce (say five feet minimum),

In many cases this yields a striking low-end that at least I've never
been able to equal using close mike techniques.

--
Bob Olhsson Audio Mastery, Nashville TN 615.385.8051
Mastering, Audio for Picture, Mix Evaluation and Quality Control
http://www.hyperback.com/olhsson.html
Over 40 years making people sound better than they ever imagined!

[Rob Reedijk]

James Boyk <boyk@caltech.edu> wrote:

> (1) The piano sound has a chance to coalesce (say five feet minimum), and

I can rarely get that to happen at 5 feet. It gets much easier at 10 feet.
In my case that's always a problem since my best piano mics are KM131s.
These are free-field omnis and not really designed to work well at
distances of over 6 feet. So you can see where my problem is.

I have some home-made ball-things that slip over and extend the range
by a bit (get your heads out of the gutter (get your heads of the gutter))
but it still never quite works as well as I would like. I guess
there is always EQ.

Rob R.

[Rob Reedijk]

Fill X <mothra666@aol.com> wrote:
> well, get the mics away from the hammers a bit. That inside the piano thing is
> something I think your instincs are right about. Who listens to a piano by
> sticking their head inside it?

Actually, the pianist sort of does. And that's always a problem. That's
why they are always trying to go half-stick or no stick when the piano
usually sounds best full-stick.

Rob R.

[James Boyk]

Roger W. Norman wrote:
> I have to agree with James. No need to close mic a piano in this situation,
> and, in fact, no real reason to present it in stereo....


I'm sorry to disagree with you after you've agreed w/ me! But I would suggest that there's every reason to present the piano in stereo. (Actually, it will be presented in stereo so long as the recording's stereo; you mean no reason to *mike* it as stereo.
) The piano is far from being a point source. It extends left-right in a complex but coherent way connected to pitch and attack; extends front-back in a simple way connected directly to pitch (higher pitches are closer); and for that matter, it extends up-
down, too, to give Bill Sommerwerck's Ambisonics recordings something to chew on. A good single-point stereo miking will capture both left/right and front/back and this will make a big difference in the "convincing-ness" of the piano, even with the baby gr
and that's been mentioned here. (I do hope it's not really a *baby* grand, though.)


James Boyk

[James Boyk]

Bob Olhsson wrote:

>>The piano sound has a chance to coalesce (say five feet minimum),

> In many cases this yields a striking low-end that at least I've never
> been able to equal using close mike techniques.


So I've avoided a problem all unawares. Virtue rewarded!

James Boyk

[David Satz]

jnorman wrote:

> i am doing some violin and piano duos in a studio setting. [ ... ]

> in a normal live recording, i might use an ORTF pair, and get an
> image where the piano is a bit off to the left and the solo instrumetn
> is just to the right, which yeilds a much more natural souding stereo
> image, but lacks the power, dpeth, and detail of a more close-miced
> studio setup.

Right. If you can only compare two styles of recording _to each other_,
and not to the way a piano/violin duo sounds in a recital or concert hall,
then it seems like a matter of "taste" and of marketing, frankly, with no
connection to anything in the prior musical experience of performer,
engineer or listener. That's a high state of disorientation to be put in.

P.S. (or is it M.S.?): in a piano/violin duo, the relative importance of
the two instruments depends on the music being played; the violinist is
not automatically the soloist with piano accompaniment. Beethoven's ten
sonatas for this combination, for example, were published under the title
"Sonatas for piano with violin obbligato" and if I recall correctly such
was also the case with some of Mozart's sonatas.

A violinist might well approve a recording that spotlights him or her too
much, but that doesn't make it right; in my opinion the piano should be
clearer and in some cases just plain louder on many duo recordings that
I've heard. Of course "piano + anything" always creates the problem that
your mikes can't be in the ideal position for both musicians. The one
thing that I've found that helps is to extend the "stick" on the piano so
that the lid is open even farther than it would be for a solo piano concert.
The lid acts as a reflector for the violin sound, so it helps the players
set the balance using (of all things) their ears and their musical training,
rather than by someone else playing God with the knobs in the control room.


> my studio does not have good enough acoustics to use an ensemble
> micing technique. so, what are my options to ahceive a good stereo
> image for thia type of application?

I'm not sure that you have any really good options if the acoustics aren't
good enough. I'm serious: in order to get a realistic and well balanced
(if that's what you mean by "good") stereo image, you probably would need
to use an "ensemble micing technique" as you say--but this would include
too much room sound of a kind that you don't like.

I think the sad truth is that you need to choose a recording environment
in which the room sound is worthy of being included in the recording, and
then you'll have a range of choices as to miking technique and placement.

Otherwise you can spend a long, long time trying to fake it, and you may
succeed to a certain degree--but there isn't much in common between the
skill sets or the equipment needed for doing things that way vs. doing
them the more "natural" way that you're currently used to. Not nearly as
many people are really good at it as think they are; plus I don't think
that there's a general, reliable method for that type of fakery that can
be set forth systematically.

You wouldn't try to master a CD from a non-Dolby Walkman cassette (except
in a very special case) but the room acoustics are an even more important
"component" when used appropriately. To push this comparative example a
little further, a decent cassette recording made in a nice room with a
good mike setup is easier to listen to than a 24-bit, 192 kHz digital
master tape of a recording made with less than adequate miking in a less
than adequate hall.

[James Boyk]

David Satz wrote: > Right. If you can only compare two styles of recording _to each other_,
> and not to the way a piano/violin duo sounds in a recital or concert hall,
> then it seems like a matter of "taste" and of marketing, frankly, with no
> connection to anything in the prior musical experience of performer,
> engineer or listener. That's a high state of disorientation to be put in.


> ...The lid acts as a reflector for the violin sound, so it helps the players
> set the balance using (of all things) their ears and their musical training...


> I'm not sure that you have any really good options if the acoustics aren't good enough.


Yes! Yes! Yes!


(And re stick, see "Know Thy Piano - 2: Stick Shtick" at http://www.cco.caltech.edu/~boyk/piano.htm .


James Boyk

[Arny Krueger]

"jnorman" <jnorman34@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:e340b423.0308271025.2719dab6@posting.google.c om

> i am doing some violin and piano duos in a studio setting. i
> generally mic my baby grand with a close stereo pair (either just
> outside or inside the lid). for duos, i have usually, panned the
> piano pretty hard LR, and placed the solo instrument in the middle -
> this process works fine and sounds pretty good, but it does provide a
> false image, i.e., it sounds like you are almost inside the piano (even
> with plenty of reverb), whereas the solo instrument sounds more
> distant and natural, such that you feel like you are listening from
> two different places.

> I find this method to be quite common on lots
> of studio albums even from professional classical artists, but my ears
> are starting to feel uncomfortable with this approach. in a normal
> live recording, i might use an ORTF pair, and get an image where the
> piano is a bit off to the left and the solo instrument is just to the
> right, which yields a much more natural sounding stereo image, but
> lacks the power, depth, and detail of a more close-miced studio setup.
> my studio does not have good enough acoustics to use an ensemble
> micing technique. so, what are my options to achieve a good stereo
> image for this type of application? violin dank, as usual, for your
> assistance.

I think you've asked two different questions here:

(1) What's the best way to track a piano?

(2) What's the best way to mix piano tracks(s) into a recording?

On question (1) the right answer obviously very much depends on the room. I
work in room that has pretty horrific acoustics unless it's filled with a
record-breaking crowd. Our local musicians like it because it blurs their
performance, lessening their perceived need to practice. IMO, making a
listenable recording is normally based on minimizing the contributions of
the room. Ironically, when aggressively minimized, the contributions of the
room that remain give a pretty nice recording. In that room, in-piano micing
is an effective solution.

I'd love to have a better-sounding room and since I'm on the building
committee, the ball is in my end of the court. I've got an architect working
on it...

If I had a nice-sounding room, I think it would be a crime to mic solely
from within the piano, if I wanted a natural-sounding recording. The things
that people call studios seem to be all over the map from live to dead, so
YMMV.

OTOH, I've had so much good fortune with my in-piano mic, even if my primary
micing was from outside the box, I might like to have a track from the
inside in my pocket for mixdown time. If people use 12 or more mics on a
drum kit, what's wrong with using more than 2 on a piano? They are both
highly complex, spatially distributed percussion instruments, right? Not
that I'm advocating use of 12 or mics on a drum kit, BTW.

On question (2) I think that looking at accepted staging practice by the
artistic community has a lot of romance. Depending on the combinations of
instruments, there's quite a bit of diversity in how pianos are staged with
the other instruments. In a concerto, the piano is usually center-stage. In
small group setting, it strikes me that the piano is usually on the left.
IME you can do a lot of nifty things with multitracking, but completely
rearranging the room at mixdown time can be risky.

Obviously, how you position the piano is going to depend on how you miced
it.

The overall story you want to tell has a lot to do with it, too. Is the
piano the center of attention, the star player, or is it part of the
supporting team? A recording tells a story, so what is the story you want
to tell?

In a simple setting involving just a few sources and/or the piano as star of
the show, there's a lot of romance to trying to project a deep complex image
of the piano. In a large group setting, a mono image of the piano can work
as its primary mixdown element. IME it's hard to avoid bleed from the piano
into the other mics. They can provide much of ambient piano sound in
combination with a strong, clear, simple, image from the piano mic(s).

[Roger W. Norman]

Try lower their positioning. You might be surprised. Although I don't
necessarily like miking a piano from underneath or the backside of the
soundboard (on an upright). Personally I really like, as a piano player,
hearing what I heard when I played the part. But I don't do classical
recording, nor orchestral, other than some elements in big band.

Weren't the ball things mentioned in a thread about a Decca Tree. Don't
believe they'd work in this situation, but perhaps using what you have you
could try a Jecklin Disc at your normal mic height setting. I bet that
would work on making it bigger/better bottom.

--


Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio
Purchase your copy of the Fifth of RAP CD set at www.recaudiopro.net.
See how far $20 really goes.




"Rob Reedijk" <reedijk@hera.med.utoronto.ca> wrote in message
news:bil71t$ir9$1@news1.chem.utoronto.ca...
> James Boyk <boyk@caltech.edu> wrote:
>
> > (1) The piano sound has a chance to coalesce (say five feet minimum),
and
>
> I can rarely get that to happen at 5 feet. It gets much easier at 10
feet.
> In my case that's always a problem since my best piano mics are KM131s.
> These are free-field omnis and not really designed to work well at
> distances of over 6 feet. So you can see where my problem is.
>
> I have some home-made ball-things that slip over and extend the range
> by a bit (get your heads out of the gutter (get your heads of the gutter))
> but it still never quite works as well as I would like. I guess
> there is always EQ.
>
> Rob R.

[Rob Reedijk]

Roger W. Norman <rnorman@starpower.net> wrote:
> Try lower their positioning. You might be surprised. Although I don't
> necessarily like miking a piano from underneath or the backside of the
> soundboard (on an upright). Personally I really like, as a piano player,
> hearing what I heard when I played the part. But I don't do classical
> recording, nor orchestral, other than some elements in big band.

I do classical. I am always willing to experiment. Lowering below the
plane of the piano would be upsetting to the performers! And what
about floor reflections and even more annoying pedal noise?

> Weren't the ball things mentioned in a thread about a Decca Tree. Don't
> believe they'd work in this situation, but perhaps using what you have you
> could try a Jecklin Disc at your normal mic height setting. I bet that
> would work on making it bigger/better bottom.

The ball things are my DIY version of the ones you can buy from Neumann.
They slip over the end of the mic so that the diaphragm is positioned
as if it is on the surface of the ball. I use rubber balls, even though
I probably should be using a more solid thing like billiards balls.
I know of a fe people who want to experiment with golfballs due to the
dimples. Since the dimples exist for an aerodynamic advantage that
increase the range of the ball due to rotation, I am not sure what value
it will have for audio.

As for Jecklin discs, I done a lot of this. I like it for the imaging.
But overall, not my favourite.

Rob R.

[James Boyk]

Rob Reedijk wrote: > ...Lowering below the plane of the piano would be upsetting to the performers!


Put up a dummy mike to satisfy them-----IF, that is, you prefer the lower mike position.



> ...And what about floor reflections and even more annoying pedal noise?


Floor reflections are inherent in piano sound. Pianos are always on floors. It's just a matter of the amount and the timing of them.


There shouldn't be any pedal noise! If there is, either the pianist or the piano technician needs to do some work; or the pianist needs to pedal in socks.



> ...I know of a fe[w] people who want to experiment with golfballs
due to the dimples. ...I am not sure what value it will have for audio.


Gives that "aw shucks" tonal quality.


James Boyk

[James Boyk]

Roger W. Norman wrote: > Thought we were talking about miking a piano from five feet out, not in the
> room style of classical recording.


The 5-foot distance came from me; but I didn't mean that was optimal, but only that I couldn't imagine piano coalescing at any shorter distance. I agree that say 6-10 feet is better. It depends on other factors, too, such as the bass balance of the microph
one, the distance of the solo instrument if any, etc.

James Boyk

[Roger W. Norman]

Thought we were talking about miking a piano from five feet out, not in the
room style of classical recording.

--


Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio
Purchase your copy of the Fifth of RAP CD set at www.recaudiopro.net.
See how far $20 really goes.




"Rob Reedijk" <reedijk@hera.med.utoronto.ca> wrote in message
news:binv4u$rt3$1@news1.chem.utoronto.ca...
> Roger W. Norman <rnorman@starpower.net> wrote:
> > Try lower their positioning. You might be surprised. Although I don't
> > necessarily like miking a piano from underneath or the backside of the
> > soundboard (on an upright). Personally I really like, as a piano
player,
> > hearing what I heard when I played the part. But I don't do classical
> > recording, nor orchestral, other than some elements in big band.
>
> I do classical. I am always willing to experiment. Lowering below the
> plane of the piano would be upsetting to the performers! And what
> about floor reflections and even more annoying pedal noise?
>
> > Weren't the ball things mentioned in a thread about a Decca Tree. Don't
> > believe they'd work in this situation, but perhaps using what you have
you
> > could try a Jecklin Disc at your normal mic height setting. I bet that
> > would work on making it bigger/better bottom.
>
> The ball things are my DIY version of the ones you can buy from Neumann.
> They slip over the end of the mic so that the diaphragm is positioned
> as if it is on the surface of the ball. I use rubber balls, even though
> I probably should be using a more solid thing like billiards balls.
> I know of a fe people who want to experiment with golfballs due to the
> dimples. Since the dimples exist for an aerodynamic advantage that
> increase the range of the ball due to rotation, I am not sure what value
> it will have for audio.
>
> As for Jecklin discs, I done a lot of this. I like it for the imaging.
> But overall, not my favourite.
>
> Rob R.

[Scott Dorsey]

Roger W. Norman <rnorman@starpower.net> wrote:
>Thought we were talking about miking a piano from five feet out, not in the
>room style of classical recording.

The original poster wants to mike a piano from five feet out (because he has
a crappy room) and make it sound like a distantly miked classical recording.

I never had any luck doing that sort of thing, but I know folks have done
better than I have, even if not all that great.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."