Mic'ed piano vs vst for recording

[JeffLearman]

The Studio Projects VTB1 mike pre is a nice little box for some things, but not piano (imho).

Thanks -- I'll take your word for it. It's great for pulling a lot more love out of a dynamic mic than a mixer preamp, but I'm not sure it makes much difference for a condenser.

 

I'm looking forward to miking my "rescue" Steinway M, but it still needs some remediation before it'd be worthwhile (belly problems, ugh). And then I'd need to find someone to play it! I'll need mics for the job but will probably stick with the VTB1's because I'm cheap, and it's unlikely they'd be the weak link in the chain.

 

The TwinQ looks very interesting and I now remember hearing good things about it elsewhere. It's not in the hobby budget, though! If I find a loose G-note I'm more likely to drop it on a SpaceStation, and bank the change.

[Redknife]

Thanks Dave; will do. I enjoyed the playing- good stuff.

[emenelton]

For Dave's two posts of the Forssell vs the Fearn, I thought the Forssell was by far the best. The Fearn at $4500 is a colored pre that would typically be used to print a hot signal like a singer or trumpet that as the musicians lays into their part the pre 'does it's thing'.

 

If you were able to rent the Schoeps MK22 and the DPA4011 you would immediately hear the difference between musical(Schoeps) and pristine(DPA). Those aren't my words, just accepted ways to describe the two and I am not implying that one is better than the other, only that you should get to try them and compare.

 

They are both 'end of the road' microphones. There are not better ones.

[Theo Verelst]

Preamps and mikes generally (theoretically) speaking do not solve the problem posed by digitally recording a piano, which is the Digital to Analog Converter at the very least will not exactly reproduce the analog signal that went into the ADC, no matter how specs are telling that the DAC is perfect enough.

 

So the amount of distortion you get from a tube pre-amp (in principle it could also be the lack of distortion and noise, but I presume the "difference" people hear is mainly various forms of the well known tube distortion) isn't a good solution to the main "sterile" digital sound you always get. It would be interesting to take the same mikes and pre-amp and record to tape, or to use monitors in another space an listen to the piano being picked up by them "live" in another room, with analog equipment only.

 

Of course the mike placement Mogami cables and properly set up preamp can make a sound difference not connected with sampling that is desirable, even the playing style and certainly the reverberation of the recording room are quite a factor.

 

It isn't a full blown technical solution to use those DPA mics (I've heard on demo recordings) and presume they'll solve the digital side of the problem. DAC have "signal reconstruction" limitations (errors) that should be solved on a fundamental level. Until the reconstruction interval being offered by the DAC filter that turns the digital samples into a smooth (and correct) analog signal is a lot bigger than it is, most piano playback is going to suck a bit, depending on how much feel for high fidelity you and your monitors have. For future's sake, recording as straight and neutral as possible, preferably at something 96kHz (so you have some less problems with ultra sonic frequencies giving aliasing errors) and of course 24 bits, is best. Playing on future systems the files recorded straight are going to sound better. I know from experience that a moderate improvement in DAC reconstruction power already makes very noticeable (good) difference.

 

Pianos make very complicated harmonic signal, which I suppose is part of the attraction (at least it is for me), which "rings" in certain ways through the digital chain, and especially the DACs digital filter. Apart from that, also recorded or monitored in analog fashion of course all the mikes with their placement and mixing equalization, delays, compression and gating that you want can create a better sound. That I do not argue against. But a lot of mike and tube stuff is an attempt to create better digital materials, and it's a little hopeless to explain, but that is not going to be very perfect.

 

This week I tries some complicated tricks involving different and different conversion rate DACs, analog equalization and compression, and high filtering with 192kHz FFT tools, and I could bring back a rather remarkable amount of life from various classic high quality recordings (which have been prepared for a number of aspects in the studio, as far as I can make out).

 

Usually, it is preferable to work with a neutral signal path, so good Neumann mikes, good cables, very well spec-ed (not hyped or "well known") preamps with proper adapting of impedances in the circuits, and the best (in terms of neutral specs) AD converter you can get may well be preferable of some of the expensive scenarios discussed here. Not to take away the fun of trying, or suggestion it's easy to studio produce a piano sound, of course.

 

T.V.

[Redknife]

Good points Theo.

I find it distressing to read about the details of DAC technology. It's like a hidden dirty story going on all around us. Downstream from the gear discussed, I'm starting with the Allen Heath qu-16 DAC's which are 24 bit delta-sigma technology. That may be a part of the equation that is limiting- I'll start there and see.

[RudyS]

My never ending, seldom starting project to do the complete works of Joplin is all VSTs. It is easier and sound surprisingly good.

 

Horowitz did at least one two albums in his living room on his D. One is a soundtrack from really cool movie. There is this one.

 

http://www.amazon.com/Vladimir-Horowitz-at-home/dp/B000V8FURY/ref=pd_sim_340_1?ie=UTF8&refRID=1F62QND6Z5GJCCBNC4XP

 

 

[video:youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2hwLYZd6iyA

 

Thanks for the share CEB. Cool documentary!

[JeffLearman]

the Digital to Analog Converter at the very least will not exactly reproduce the analog signal that went into the ADC, no matter how specs are telling that the DAC is perfect enough.

This is equally true of any analog circuit. Just as digital has no magic sauce, neither does analog. They're both approximations, with different types of artifacts.

 

DAC have "signal reconstruction" limitations (errors) that should be solved on a fundamental level.

They have.

 

Old-school analog reconstruction filters had definite issues, but that predates delta-sigma encoding techniques that use sample rates in the megahertz, where we can use digital (FIR) reconstruction filters that don't have the flaws of the analog ones of yesteryear. This "new technology" appeared in the 90's. Can you point me to any articles or studies that show inadequacy of modern D-S reconstruction filters?

 

This also applies to Nyquist input filters. Before D-S, if we were recording at 44.1 KHz and wanted to capture everything up to 20 KHz, even at 16 bits we needed a filter that didn't attenuate 20K much but attenuated 22.05K by 96dB! (I doubt they actually did; no doubt they attenuated the 20k considerably, much to the chagrin of babies everywhere.) It's really frickin hard to make a good filter that steep, and using IIR filters, you get phase shifts and other fun things. With D-S and megahertz sample rates in the converters, we can use an FIR filter that trades phase shift for delay (and a very short delay, for a 20kHz cutoff filter).

 

This is my understanding from reading articles from the folks who can do the math. I confess I'm still trying to get through my copy of "Differential Equations for Dummies" so I can't do the math myself! But I can code an FIR filter using a convolution (remarkably simple code) and show that it works.

 

However, anyone who wants to spend the time making an analog recording and comparing it with a digital one has my unqualified support! I won't fund the project, though. It takes a lot of money to get analog recording equipment that is comparable to todays affordable digital gear.

[Steve Nathan]

To the OP.

Bob Clearmountain was once asked by a tech mag interviewer what the most important piece of gear in his studio was.

He quickly replied "the coffee machine", and went on to explain that if the musicians didn't like the coffee, it wouldn't matter how good his compressors were.

Try not to drown in the deep end of DACs and Nyquist filters. Put reasonable effort into using decent gear, but put most of your energy into your performance. It's really what matters most.

 

[Redknife]

To the OP.

Bob Clearmountain was once asked by a tech mag interviewer what the most important piece of gear in his studio was.

He quickly replied "the coffee machine", and went on to explain that if the musicians didn't like the coffee, it wouldn't matter how good his compressors were.

Try not to drown in the deep end of DACs and Nyquist filters. Put reasonable effort into using decent gear, but put most of your energy into your performance. It's really what matters most.

 

Got it thanks.

[burningbusch]

Here's a SOS mic-pre shootout. Done using a Yamaha Disklavier setup. Three different mics and eight preamps. The pres range from dirt cheap (Mackie & ART) to 10x the cost of those.

 

http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/oct12/articles/preamps.htm

 

You can download WAV files below. If you line them up in a DAW you can quickly jump between them.

 

http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/oct12/articles/preampsmedia.htm

 

If the more expensive pres sound better to you, then that could be a good place to throw your money. If not, then maybe you saved a bunch. Don't be afraid to say you don't hear much difference. That might be the right answer.

 

Busch.

[burningbusch]

I also think this thread is worth a review by the OP. Mr. Johnson feels contrary to many here.

 

https://forums.musicplayer.com/ubbthreads.php/topics/2669721/The_Real_Enough_Project#Post2669721

 

Busch.

[Redknife]

Here's a SOS mic-pre shootout. Done using a Yamaha Disklavier setup. Three different mics and eight preamps. The pres range from dirt cheap (Mackie & ART) to 10x the cost of those.

 

http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/oct12/articles/preamps.htm

 

You can download WAV files below. If you line them up in a DAW you can quickly jump between them.

 

http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/oct12/articles/preampsmedia.htm

 

If the more expensive pres sound better to you, then that could be a good place to throw your money. If not, then maybe you saved a bunch. Don't be afraid to say you don't hear much difference. That might be the right answer.

 

Busch.

 

Busch- thanks for that. I've read through that SOS article that a bunch of times. Picking preamps makes me nervous because on the one hand pros seem to pull different magic out of one preamp versus the other. There are lots of anectdotes and when scientifically controlled it is hard to tell an A/B difference.

 

After all this discussion and perusing, I ordered a Miktek MPA-201 (about $1500) for the preamp- talked to another recording engineer and he also thought that was a good value for the intended use. Thought a lot about higher or lower $ units and this decision seemed to sit well.

[Redknife]

I also think this thread is worth a review by the OP. Mr. Johnson feels contrary to many here.

 

https://forums.musicplayer.com/ubbthreads.php/topics/2669721/The_Real_Enough_Project#Post2669721

 

Busch.

 

This added a nice balance to the thread, Busch. Kudos to Mr. Johnson for the beautiful playing. Clearly it would be difficult to tell the recordings aren't acoustic piano if blinded. I really wish that I could connect with these instruments in the same way.

 

I'll add this opinion which is just that.. an opinion not truth and meaning no disrespect: I found the upper and lower registers thin for Rachmaninoff. The upper two and one-half octaves generally create a lot of resonance and sing and I didn't hear that. The lower octaves are usually bold and resonant and I didn't hear that. The voicing complexity was there per the score but I didn't hear the voicing complexity combined with the normal tangled resonance. I also noted the lack of single note tone variability and dynamic range. The performance was dynamic but not dynamic in terms of an acoustic piano played similarly and well recorded. The rub is that any number of factors could diminish an acoustic recording far below what we hear on the excellent examples from Mr. Johnson. Again, outstanding- yes; rival optimized acoustic piano- no. Just my opinion which probably is skewed.

 

We'll see how this tach goes. Spending more time with my piano of 25 years is a good thing anyway. The bonus is that I don't need to hand out my business card and say I'll record your piano on the spot in any environment. I just need to figure out recording mine - always the same piano, player, and room. I realize that is not a small task but I think achievable. I won't be selling my computer or boards (unless as part of a GAS attack). I still love to play out with an electronic piano keyboard.

 

Thanks again for all of the input- remarkable how many important points were brought up so far.

[Dave Ferris]

As good as the performance and recording of the Avant Grand / Garritan CFX , and they are quite stellar ; for me I would definitely play differently then I would on acoustic..

 

I'd probably exhibit less control , nuance and overall creative flow (again we're talking improvised solo jazz piano, not classical music) on any electronic keyboard - AG included.

 

I don't even like wearing headphones while recording my acoustic at home or in a regular Pro studio. It takes more of the *acoustic* feel out of the piano for me.

 

Again Craig Calistro , even if you don't buy anything from him, is a good source to bounce a lot of this stuff off of. He knows his stuff when it comes to recording.

[JeffLearman]

Try not to drown in the deep end of DACs and Nyquist filters. Put reasonable effort into using decent gear, but put most of your energy into your performance. It's really what matters most.

That's for sure!