Need for more pianos...???

[Worra]

I found this Malmsjo Grand that I\'m thinking about sampling, but since there\'s a lot of pianos out there (including another Malmsjo...) I\'m thinking about doing something with this that makes it a bit different.
First it\'s the recording, what I\'m thinking about is to record it analog, straight down to a 2\" tape. Why? Well, most other pianos are sampled straight to HD, and as I said, I wanna do something different.
I\'m planning 8 velocity layers, (separate up/down pedal)
Soooo, questions:

1. Do we need more pianos...????
2. If yes, any suggestions on how to record/design this one?

Per Larsson
Bigga Giggas

[rkmusic]

Good initiative!
Take your time in planning this sampled piano.
Take the very best Grand available (GOS was made with very, very good instruments and first class players).
The physical environment of the piano and placement of mics have a lot of importance, considering the fact of dry/wet results. Maybe 2 basic sampled could be done. If only one, than I prefer the dry one for obvious reasons of a large variety of mix usage and styles...
I think the most important thing is the playability using whatever midi controller. Nowadays any keyboard controller has the possibility of sensivity control. But in the basic sampled piano the more the layers (up/down pedal) the more the results. You should make a study about how to compartiment the all range midi 0-127. My feeling is that the low-mid range is most important, because I think as a pianist that expression goes very subtil in these levels.
In other words I believe that we have more layers (nuances) between 0 and 64 than between 65 and 127.
Of course the realease triggers are fundamental for realism but what about harmonics/sympathetics sound when sustain pedal is on? We know about the beauty of soft musical passages with all theses harmonics floating is space, but how to produce this wonderfull sound of the piano in slow moods for example? To me fast hard music is not difficult to get with sampled pianos but the hard work will be in the slow motions and in low-mid range of dynamics.
Very important: 88 samples please! with no loops (has to be said?, sorry!).
So, since my english is not extended I invite you to guess all what I tried to say and to go on with this theme.
It´s curious but in the past days I thought that great efforts could be done for the production of a most real piano sound (for ears and hands!) but anyway some examples are on the stage like Steinway B, Malsmjö, the new Bardstown, Michiel Post´s and the well know and bundled GigaPiano...
Forward,

Richard Krull

[runamuck]

Hi,

I have the Malmsjo and use it occassionally when I need that sort of warm, highly resonant, victorian sound. I also own several other piano sample CDs and Ill tell you what, in my opinion is missing (at least from what Ive heard).

I find that there is generally too much resonance and too many overtones in all the samples I use. Its fine for solo piano or maybe a duet. But when I try mixing a highly resonant sample in with arrangements that are complex, the waters get overly muddied.

So what I would like to see is a piano (preferably a medium size Steinway) thats not miked so close that you hear mechanical action, but neither too far away where you get alot of the room. Intimate, simple and pure. Warm round lows but not ringing or growley. Sparkling highs but mellow, not metalic.

Its very difficult to find a real grand that sounds like what Im trying to describe let alone a sample. Ill spend alot for it as soon as I hear it

[J.P. Schwinghamer]

YES YES YES YES YES YES!!!...finally someone wants to sample on analog tape....BRILLIANT...i aplaude you on your wondrous proposition!!!! I can\'t urge you enough to continue with that idea...mmm...nice warm analog piano...BEAUTIFUL...

jps

[RobertKooijman]

Hi Worra!

Great to hear of your plans to do something \"a bit different\".

As you know, there are many opinions on how to record a piano. If you want indeed something different: in my pratical experience, using 2\" tape vs. DAT or direct to HD recording, use of tube vs. non-tube mike and pre-amp are all pretty unrelevant.

What counts much more is the instruments sound in the first place, and thus also the accoustics of the recording hall/room. Mike placement and configuration are next on the list.

Last Xmas I had the pleasure of playing a real Malmsjo accoustic grand at the Swedish Embassy in New Delhi at the annual Lucia festivities. The instrument was properly tuned, and the room accoustics were quite ok. I can confirm that the Malmsjo has a very warm and slightly reverbrant sound character. As noted by many other\'s, it\'s probably not the first choice for rock/pop oriented pieces as it\'s attack is not very pronounced. But for other types of music, it can provide lots of flavour.

To be honest, I think that the existing \"The Malmsjo Grand\" Giga CDROM can be improved upon, as it somehow has a slightly coloured tone compared to the real thing. In this perspective, I believe there\'s definitely some sense in another attempt to sample this wonderful instrument.

My humble recommendations:
- Take a large and at the same time dry recording location.
- Forger close miking, in particular the \'standard\' piano miking set-up leading to the middle keyboard range lacking \'life\'.
- Make sure you cover lots of different pedal down notes with inherent resonances. It\'s mainly these that give this piano it\'s character.
- Miking: try a combination of omni and figure of eight mounted as close as possible, positioned at least one meter from the piano with the lid of course wide open.

I got best results with a combination of Sennheiser RF condenser\'s MKH20 and MKH80, or BK 4006 series and Sennheiser MKH80.
The all-Sennheiser couple will give you an extremly low noise floor and almost total lack of unwanted colouring. The BK omni provides a touch more brightness at the expense of higher noise.

When these mike\'s outputs are provided as separate samples, it gives the user an excellent opportunity to adjust the stereo image and overall colour for optimally blending into the final mix.

By the way, I recently installed Steinberg\'s latest VST instrument \"The Grand\".
At the risk of being lynched in this forum, I dare to say that this one makes all other sampled piano\'s I\'ve heard obsolete!
Why?
- Rare combination of warmth and crispyness
- excellent playability due to re-pedalling, hammer and string release
- recorded partly in an anechoic chamber

IMO, it needs considerable skill and effort to improve on The Grand, and I applaud any attempt to do so!

Cheers, Robert.

[Jeff Hurchalla]

Hi Robert-
In regards to the Grand, could you explain what the \"string release\" and the \"hammer release\" are? I think I understand repedaling - I believe you mean that the sound switches between damped and undamped every time you press and release the sustain pedal (while still holding a note with your finger). The \"string release\" seems it must be the same as the gigasampler pianos\' release samples that captures some of the short lived sound resulting when a string is damped, but I\'d be interested to know more. The hammer release I totally don\'t understand though. I\'d think that every piano sample that\'s ever been created contains the hammer release, since for any note you sample, the hammer disengages shortly into the attack portion of the sample. Maybe I can try to address some of these things for gigasamples if I understand them. Thanks!

[RobertKooijman]

Hi Jeff!

Regarding some Steinberg The Grand\'s advanced options:

\"True String Release\":
At key release, instead of the sampler\'s envelope just going into it\'s release phase, the sound of the felt damper falling on the string that is still vibrating is added.

\"True Hammer elease\":
The low, woody sound of the hammer returning to its initial position after key release.

Both are very subtile, and hardly noticeable in a mix. When playing The Grand though, I clearly notice the difference when disabling these features. Together with \"True Sustain Resonance\" and \"Re-Pedalling\", it actually makes the playing experience much more like the real thing. This is the main difference with other standard commercial sample libraries.

It\'s like the spices in a fine dish: you might not notice them individually, but together they can make something great.

Apart from striking a successful balance between \"warmth\", \"wood\" and \"crispyness\", the Grand\'s playing experience is it\'s strong point.

When combining carefull, extensive sampling, use of a samplers more advanced features and of course the right programming, you should be able to come pretty close to the real thing. The petty is that usually shortcuts are taken, even in expensive libraries.

My tip is therefore simply to check out The Grand!

Cheers, Robert

[Jeff Hurchalla]

Ah.. now I understand. Thanks!

[Bruce A. Richardson]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size=\"1\" face=\"Verdana, Arial\">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by J.P. Schwinghamer:
YES YES YES YES YES YES!!!...finally someone wants to sample on analog tape....BRILLIANT...i aplaude you on your wondrous proposition!!!! I can\'t urge you enough to continue with that idea...mmm...nice warm analog piano...BEAUTIFUL
jps<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Really? I feel just the opposite. I made my living spinning analog tape for a lot of years, and I say good riddance. The piano, room, mics, and preamps and are so much more important than the storage medium.

Sampling to analog tape will simply introduce a lot more noise--not to mention a generation loss on sounds which will end up played back digitally, anyway. It just doesn\'t make sense. Consider that an eight-note chord will have eight times the amount of hiss. You could use noise reduction on the recordings, but by the time you do that, what\'s the point, really?

On top of that, piano is one of the most noise-sensitive things one could record, especially in a sampling session where even the loud strikes will decay past pianissimo and into the noise floor of the room. Noise is already a major stumbling block for piano recordings. Why add a whole layer?

As has already been suggested here, I would recommend recording this piano in the very quietest, largest, best diffused and absorbed studio available. That will ensure more warmth than analog tape could ever provide.

[thesoundsmith]

Robert,

I still don\'t have clarity on the amount of available resources in a Gig file, so excuse what may be a dumb question (if there were a real manual that properly described the relationships and anticipated uses for the various parts of a file...)

String release, hammer release, pedal-up, pedal down, sample release, velocity-
Haven\'t we run out of available options in the Giga metastructure a couple of concepts ago?

I totally agree that these are part of a \'total experience\' GIG file, but it seems to me that GigaStudio does not yet have enough places to hold all the necessary artifacts.

Additionally, it might be difficult to sample the instrument to obtain these artifacts individually-to get the hammer release without the string sounding, etc.

???

Dasher

[Worra]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size=\"1\" face=\"Verdana, Arial\">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bruce A. Richardson:
Really? I feel just the opposite. I made my living spinning analog tape for a lot of years, and I say good riddance<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Bruce, I see your point, but sometimes, not doing things the way it \"should\" results in something great, (mostly it probably don\'t...), but I\'d like to try this out anyway.
I\'ll use as noise-free equiptment as possible to keep the noiselevel down. Also, I can saturate the tape even when recording pp samples.
There\'s a lot of pianos out there, so what I would like to do is something that\'s different. I\'m not saying it\'s gonna be better, but it will be different!
We\'ll see..... http://www.northernsounds.com/ubb/NonCGI/images/icons/smile.gif
/Worra

[ChrisAxia]

Hi Robert & All,

Well, a friend has the Steinberg Grand, and I tried it yesterday. I have to say I was very disappointed from a solo piano or classical/orchestral perspective. It was very bright in its default setting (can this be adjusted?) and I can imagine it working OK in a pop production, but warmth? I couldn\'t hear much of that in it! It almost reminded me of an old Yamaha Electric Grand in some places. I\'d much rather use the Trachtman let alone the amazing new Post Steinway which together with the Imperial Bosendorfer sets new standards.

Have you actually compared the \'Grand\' to any of these other pianos? If you have and you still think it\'s the best you\'ve heard, then I have to say I\'m a little surprised.

Anyway, we can never have enough pianos. Go ahead and make some more!

Regards,

Chris

[J.P. Schwinghamer]

The thing is...samples with noise...(obviously desireable noise)...sond more authentic in my opinion...warm tape saturation sounds GREAT on piano...I think it is important for sample developers to realize that there are more than just CLASSICAL composers out there using these products...whereas...in other musical genres...idiosynractic noise is wanted...not looked upon with disgust...I appluad you Worra for thinking outside the box...think of the great albums in a pop circuit...names like dylan, beatles, velvet underground...BEACH BOYS...etc...all these albums capture a TIMELESS sound...they don\'t sound pretty in a sterile digital clean sense...but rather...a warm vibrant analog sense...just listen to contemporary versions of classic tracks...don\'t hold up because...A...they don\'t have the talent...and B...they don\'t instill those intimate qualities that only \'tape\' recording can provide...just listen to Pet Sounds...do you honestly think those warm sounds would be able to blend together in such miraculous fashion had the recordings been saturated?? I doubt it...

JPS

[Duncan Brinsmead]

The problem here is that unlike a normal recording, the sampled piano will exhibit more noise the more notes that are depressed. There are various tape bias and hiss simulators out there( I got one with Cakewalk Pro Audio 9, but I never use it). It would be easy to add to a track after it was played.

Duncan

[RobertKooijman]

Hi Chris!

You mention to be dissapointed at hearing The Grand at a friend, if I understant you right you perceive it as to bright.

Yes, I\'ve compared it with the Trachtman, however not yet with Bardstown Audio\'s new Imperial Bosendorfer. Looking forward to do that soon!

I find the Trachtman an excellent piano, one of the very best sampled unstruments around.

Subjectively, The Grand\'s basic character is indeed pretty bright. There is however a \"soft\" setting that might be suited better for certain applications.

The big advantage of having a relatively bright piano is that it\'s easier to integrate it in the mix. In my experience this applies even to orchestral setings.

Problems however arise when \"bright\" is bright in a way that e.g. many Roland, Korg or Yamaha sampled piano\'s are. You can EQ and fool around as much as you like, but there\'s no way to have these sounding natural as the basement, wood, and (sympatic)resonance just isn\'t there. These standard \"pop\" piano\'s are usually based on heavily processed, overboiled and very close miked instruments.

The difference with The Grand is that you have all the options, from distant ambience to completely dry. You simply trim the settings to suit a particular task. Have you played with any of these?

I agree with anyone that The Grand is NOT offering the ultimate in \"wood\" or \"warmth\".
True, the excellent Trachtman for example scores higher in some aspects. But besides The Grand\'s playing experience, it does however to me strike a fine compromise in the balancing act of \"natural\" vs. \"usability\".

As said here so many times before, a single piano can\'t fit every type of music and desired atmosphere. That\'s why its great to see continuously new libraries coming out!

To Worra:
why do you limmit yourself in the \"doing it a bit different\" thinking to old fashioned analog tape? Like Bruce, the last thing I would like to hear is tape noise or tape saturation pre-baked into the sample.
If one want\'s tape saturation, this is better done at a later stage using clean samples to start with. This way you\'re much more flexible as well.

I would definitely put much more attention to the recording process as such. Have you ever tried to record an instrument in a well damped, dry, large hall using a combination of an omnidirectional and figure of eight mike?
It might not be the most fashionable way to do things, but it can lead to impressive results, and your soundscape can be changed on the fly at any time by just balancing the output or phase of the microphones.

For example, the best way to kill a snare drum IMO is by stacking up an SM58 above and below it. Still it\'s done universaly.

Anyway, cheers to attempts to \"do things a bit different\"!

All the best, Robert

[PeterRoos]

Robert wrote:
\"For example, the best way to kill a snare drum IMO is by stacking up an SM58 above and below it. Still it\'s done universaly. \"

Producer Jay Graydon (in a SoundOnSound interview) suggests phase flipping one of the two mikes. I have absolutely no experience with this, but like to learn more. Is this silly or does it make sense?

And then quickly back to the pianos!

[Bruce A. Richardson]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size=\"1\" face=\"Verdana, Arial\">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by PeterRoos:
Robert wrote:
\"For example, the best way to kill a snare drum IMO is by stacking up an SM58 above and below it. Still it\'s done universaly. \"

Producer Jay Graydon (in a SoundOnSound interview) suggests phase flipping one of the two mikes. I have absolutely no experience with this, but like to learn more. Is this silly or does it make sense?

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, in fact, if you don\'t phase flip one of the mics you will get a VERY wimpy snare sound. Mic\'ing snare drums is alchemy at best. Ironic that drums should emerge in a piano sampling discussion, because they\'re actually similar engineering challenges. Like pianos, the best place to record a drumset is in the largest, quietest, best absorbed and damped studio you can afford. Put the drums in the center of the room, and gobo the living doodoo out of anything that could reflect sound back into the mics from the walls.

That way, you can get breath and life in the sound. The problem with drum booths is that it\'s too easy to saturate the air, even if there\'s a foot of foam on the walls. Once the air reaches saturation, you are not recording the drums any more. You\'re recording the air.

ROBERT---

Your excellent suggestion, about using an omni and a figure eight (I\'m guessing you are referring to mid/side) is a great idea.

For those that aren\'t familiar, mid/side (which is supported in a rather odd way in GigaStudio) is a method of recording a variable stereo field which can be altered by the user after the fact. The \"mid\" mic is the single omni or cardiod that\'s pointed directly at the instrument. The \"side\" mic is a figure-eight pattern mic that is aimed towards the instrument so that the elements face towards either side of the instrument.

Then, using a special phase-decoding trick, the width of the stereo field can be infinitely varied by adjusting the relative balance of the two \"stereo\" channels.

In GigaStudio it\'s a pain in the *** , because one must break each stereo field into two separate mono files. Stupid stupid stupid (anyone from TASCAM listening?), but that\'s the way it\'s set up.

I have campaigned Joe Bibbo to set up mid/side so that it can be used with a single stereo file. If they accomplish this, mid-side would be the absolute best way to produce most libraries. Users would get ultimate flexibility in choosing how wide or how concentrated a soundfield each instrument would occupy, thus enabling the combination of disparately recorded libraries into a homogenous whole.

[Bruce A. Richardson]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size=\"1\" face=\"Verdana, Arial\">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Duncan Brinsmead:
The problem here is that unlike a normal recording, the sampled piano will exhibit more noise the more notes that are depressed. There are various tape bias and hiss simulators out there( I got one with Cakewalk Pro Audio 9, but I never use it). It would be easy to add to a track after it was played.

Duncan<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thank you, Duncan. I tried to write back to clarify this last night, but just found myself getting frustrated.

This isn\'t a classical vs. pop sensibility issue, and it really threw me to see it framed as such. No matter what the genre, this is a production issue, not a stylistic choice.

It\'s just that the sample itself is not a place to introduce sonic anomalies, because it\'s not on the \"part\" level, it\'s on the \"note\" level.

This is the same reason distorted, overdriven guitars don\'t work as \"samples.\" Same issues just a more obvious degree. Because the distortion on a real guitar happens as a result of the total \"part\" not the individual note, combining individually distorted notes results in a sound which is very much not realistic. On the other hand, playing a clean guitar part through an amp simulator can result in a very authentic track if the player has the ear to voice the note combinations in a \"guitaresque\" fashion.

Really, I didn\'t want to get into an extended debate, but I feel the idea of recording an analog piano is too flawed to be of value. Again, it\'s one thing to record a part to analog--there you have many notes, higher sound pressure, fewer truly soft places. However, when recording a piano as a sample, you must record each note individually. Because EACH note, no matter how hard struck, will decay to full silence, it won\'t matter how hard the tape is saturated on soft passages. That won\'t change the fact that even the fortissimos will be recorded into silence and the noise will be there on the tail of every single sample.

Up to 160 times more noise than a piano track recorded to analog tape, depending on the polyphony!! My experience is that pedal down playing of any length accumulates 80-140 voices on average--that means an analog recorded piano track on a pedal down, full decay part WILL have an average of 100 times the amount of tape noise that the same part recorded to analog tape as a whole would have.

So what are the solutions? Noise reduction? Looping? Long digital fade to zero on each sample?

My very point. By the time you do all this, to make an analog recorded sampled piano playable, then what\'s the point of analog? Any one of the digital processes, not the very least of which would be the a/d transfer, represents a digital generation that would negate any of the positive attributes of the analog sampling.

It\'s not that I\'m against new ideas. It\'s just that this probably isn\'t the way to record a piano. Now, if someone were to propose an analog drumset, that would be something else. That is a potentially workable scenario.

I would continue to put forward a simple idea. Since the issue people have with the current Malmsjo library is that its dynamic range is very limited, it makes sense that a new-generation attempt at sampling a Malmsjo would want to address this.

What do we know about Malmsjo pianos? They don\'t have the same kind of forte/fortissimo range as modern grands. SO...where is the new frontier?

ON THE PIANISSIMO END. The secret won\'t be to record a more powerful Malmsjo. The secret will be to record pppp, ppp, pp, p, mf, and f samples, and to map those accordingly. If there is no more dynamic range to be had at the top, there is an unlimited amount waiting at the bottom!!

SO...it makes no sense whatsoever to analog record an instrument that requires more attention to the soft end of the playing spectrum. The way to a fully-realized Malmsjo sampling will be the same as any acoustic instrument. Record it in a large, absorbed, diffused, and isolated space that is so quiet you can hear a bug breathing, use the quietest recording tools and storage media available, and get your dynamic range on the soft side of the spectrum, not the loud side.

People love to ignore this issue, but it never goes away. There is always an upper physical limit as to how loudly a person or instrument can play. There is no limit to how softly one can play. To flirt with silence is one of music\'s highest expressions and challenges. Flirting with silence is probably sampling\'s #1 challenge.

[Worra]

Hmmmm Bruce.... your beginning to convince me....
Maybe analog isn\'t the way to go.
I like your thoughts about the different velocities.

/Worra

[Z6]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size=\"1\" face=\"Verdana, Arial\">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Worra:
Hmmmm Bruce.... your beginning to convince me....
Maybe analog isn\'t the way to go.
I like your thoughts about the different velocities.

/Worra<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The current Malmsjo is gorgeous. I\'m sure there would be a market for second go at it. Apart from the previous comments on more velocity layers, it would be great to hear it \'perfectly\' in tune. I don\'t think the slight tuning problems hurt the current Malmsjo too much (and a lot of people enjoy the \'realness\' of that) but I\'d certainly prefer to lose those slight \'irregularities\'.

Good luck with the project (whatever it may be).

[ChrisAxia]

Hi again Robert,

Thanks for providing more info about the \'Grand\'. Unfortunately, I had a very short play on it, on what I presume was the default setting. I\'ll reserve final judgement until I have a proper play!

Chris

[sjduck]

Hi Worra

I know very little about recording, but how about combining a close miced technique with a distant miced technique to get the best of both worlds? Does anyone know if it is feasable to record with 4+ mics?

Steve

[Bardstown Audio]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size=\"1\" face=\"Verdana, Arial\">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by sjduck:
Hi Worra

I know very little about recording, but how about combining a close miced technique with a distant miced technique to get the best of both worlds? Does anyone know if it is feasable to record with 4+ mics?

Steve<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hello Steve,

A combination of both close and distant micing can be very tricky. It is easy to get some very strange and undesirable effects when you combine these two methods, close cardioid micing along with distant cardioid or omni micing. This is one of those situations where less is probably better, meaning, do either one or the other, but not both. In some situations if the room will lend itself to this technique, it would be better to place just one close cardioid mic on the piano, along with just one distant cardioid or omni mic. The larger the room that you would attempt to do this in, the less desirable this effect would probably be, considering the delay of the sound coming from the piano and being reflected from distant walls. There would be a few milli-seconds difference of time before your sound would be captured by the distant mic, thus creating a natural delay effect. This natural delay effect has been used on occasions by engineers recording solo instruments if they want to capture this effect. This effect would be less desirable on a piano, rather than on a sax, flute, etc.

Kind regards,

Kip
Bardstown Audio
www.bardstownaudio.com (\"http://www.bardstownaudio.com\")

[Jake Johnson]

How about micing under the piano to record the sound board vibrating? Wouldn\'t this method avoid the problem of capturing string vibration instead of the sound of the instrument?

And a question. Does anyone know of a way--other than moving speakers--to pan a sound up or down (as opposed to left or right)? And to widen or narrow the spread of the sound up and down? Sounds odd, I know, but playing a grand yesterday, I was vary aware of the sound coming from below me and rising up.

[Bruce A. Richardson]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size=\"1\" face=\"Verdana, Arial\">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jake Johnson:
How about micing under the piano to record the sound board vibrating? Wouldn\'t this method avoid the problem of capturing string vibration instead of the sound of the instrument?

And a question. Does anyone know of a way--other than moving speakers--to pan a sound up or down (as opposed to left or right)? And to widen or narrow the spread of the sound up and down? Sounds odd, I know, but playing a grand yesterday, I was vary aware of the sound coming from below me and rising up.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Hi Jake,

Mic\'ing the soundboard generally comes out sounding very dull and resonant--in a bad way. The soundboard is just that, a resonator for the strings and harp. It is the balance of strings, reflected from the lid, and the soundboard, reflected from the floor, that combine to make the sound we identify as \"piano.\"

It\'s helpful to think of microphones as windows, through which you will \"view\" an instrument. Too far away, you can\'t see the details--but too close, and you\'re only seeing a part of the picture.

In the ideal recording environment, things generally sound best mic\'ed at the spot where your ears are most pleased. A gross oversimplification, but a pretty good starting point. Even visually, you can judge microphone distances pretty well. Chances are, if you cannot see the entire instrument from the mic position, you are too close. Again, gross oversimplification, but a good general rule.

In reality, microphone pickup patterns vary, and different patterns respond differently to distance. And the biggest factor, especially in sampling, is noise. This is where the compromises necessarily begin, since perfect quiet is a pretty hard thing to find in this world. As important as quietness is to the recording process, when you\'re sampling a piano it is literally 100 times more important--the end user will likely be sustaining that many notes on average. Compounding that difficulty is the fact that your ears are connected to a very sophisticated brain, which is constantly analyzing and identifying noise. This is the reason people are usually very shocked to hear how noisy their home recordings are, even though they have a \"quiet\" house. In reality, they\'re living with a lot of noise that their brains have just learned to file away and ignore. Unfortunately, microphones and recording gear don\'t know how to do that.

So, it becomes necessary to balance the desire for a natural-sounding distance with the realities of production. It\'s difficult to even begin approaching this subject in a user forum, since entire books can\'t cover the millions of variables that come into play. In the end, you do your best and try to emerge with a product that works well for the most people.

As for up-down stereo localization, there are some \"phase tricks\" which will cause this to occur. I forget where, but somewhere out in internet-land, there is a whole collection of impulses which localize sound in odd places. These can be used in a convolver, such as the Sony $$$ outboard unit, Sonic Foundry\'s Acoustic Mirror, AltiVerb, etc.

However, to an extent, things tend to vertically image somewhat in relationship to where the microphones are placed. This occurs because our brains are pretty sophisticated at picking out reflections, and using them to gauge location.

You mention playing a grand and noticing the sound from below and above. That is actually not the best perspective to reproduce a piano\'s sound--the player perspective, that is. It\'s too close. People who play might identify with this piano sound, but the actual listening position for piano sounds nothing like the playing position. Player position tends to translate to \"inside your head\" when recorded. Sometimes it works on a pop recording where realistic imaging is not a design requirement.

However, when realistic imaging is required, you want the piano (or any instrument) to sit in one spot on the soundstage, and to sound like a \"thing,\" not a collection of various \"things.\"

And in daily practice as a sample user, you simply must do whatever works. In many cases, one can collapse a stereo sample slightly if more precise localization is required--this also has the practical effect of pushing it back in the soundfield (or forcing it to punch forward if you raise its amplitude in relationship to realistic balance with the other elements of your mix).

[Bruce A. Richardson]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size=\"1\" face=\"Verdana, Arial\">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bardstown Audio:
Hello Steve,

A combination of both close and distant micing can be very tricky.
<snip>
This natural delay effect has been used on occasions by engineers recording solo instruments if they want to capture this effect. This effect would be less desirable on a piano, rather than on a sax, flute, etc.

Kind regards,

Kip
Bardstown Audio

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


The point Kip makes here is very good, and what I would add to it is that there is a HUGE difference in recording a player playing a part and recording an instrument for a sample library.

When you\'re working on a specific tune, there is infinite flexibility in production technique, because you are ensuring its success against an existing soundscape. However, such a technique might not yield success in any other mix. In general, one has to stick with the basics for sampling--a good clean and clear signal, and a mic\'ing technique which is realistic and mono-compatible. From there, people can use their own delay lines, effects, placement techniques, etc. Anything too weird, engineering-wise, in a sample library tends to doom the product to a niche. In a market that is already a niche market, this translates to financial loss.

[Bruce A. Richardson]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size=\"1\" face=\"Verdana, Arial\">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by sjduck:


I know very little about recording, but how about combining a close miced technique with a distant miced technique to get the best of both worlds? Does anyone know if it is feasable to record with 4+ mics?

Steve<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hi Steve,

It\'s feasible, but here again, the issue is noise. A set of distant mics is essentially picking up an equal amount of noise to signal. Even in full orchestral recordings in the world\'s best halls, it\'s a problem.

I produced recordings of a live concert series at the Meyerson Symphony Center in Dallas a little over a year ago. This is not only one of the world\'s finest halls, but one of the world\'s best isolated, quiet halls. We used the best available microphones and preamps, literally tens of thousands of dollars worth, recorded direct to 32-bit multitrack.

Still, we ultimately used noise reduction in the final product, because even in a full orchestra recording, the quiet sections were fairly noise drenched when using the distance mics as additional, natural reverb.

That was with a huge orchestral brass, percussion, and pipe organ program. Now imagine a single instrument being sampled at pianissimo in the same setting. The noise would be absolutely overwhelming, and that\'s just for a single note\'s polyphony. Now, consider multiplying that by 50-100 notes of polyphony in the case of a piano, harp, or other sustaining polyphonic instrument. You can very easily see that it layers on a vast new set of noise challenges.

But that\'s not even all. You also get phase cancellation due to the sound\'s arrival at different times on different microphone elements. The same frequencies, juxtaposed at different phase relationships to one another, cancel out, and the non-cancelled tones come through un-altered. This leads to bizarre spectral shifts from note to note, and a \"synthesized\" quality. Some stereo techniques actually use this difference advantageously to establish the soundfield (spaced pair), but these techniques also utilize a common plane to eliminate other variables. And the moment you add another microphone to the equation, all bets are off.

In my Meyerson production, we phase aligned microphone locations after the fact in editing, but again, this is dealing with a tutti ensemble, where sounds are constantly swirling around and a certain amounnt of phasing is inherent in the situation. With a sample library (solo, that is), microphone phasing is immediately and destructively apparent. This is much the same reason one cannot utilize crossfaded velocity layering very effectively in solo instruments--it starts sounding like a section.

Taking the Garritan Orchestral Strings as an example, you can also see how one \"gets away\" with this kind of technique in an ensemble recording. Gary\'s library very effectively crossfades between velocity layers, because the ensemble has build in phasing by nature. A little more doesn\'t strike the listener as unnatural. In a solo instrument, no one would (or does, as evidenced by many posts on this group) consider the phenomenon very acceptable.

[thesoundsmith]

Three (hopefully) quick thoughts, if I may, not in order of importance:

Up and down-Hollywood Edge has done this-they have a miking technique (or perhaps after-the-fact process) that can effectively create a total 3-D experience, but through headphones-get their demo CD, the have a matchbox being shaken all around your body. I think it\'s the same technique of phase manipulation that lets CalRec create those \"electronically-repositionable\" microphones.

2: Close vs distant-I would think it might be possible to precisely calibrate the distance between the mikes and apply an appropriate-length delay to cancel the phase differential. The distance is the same so frequency shouldn\'t be a problem. Then a mix of the two sounds would avoid the phase/doubling effects.

3: Has anyone tried a Helpinstill or Barcus Berry pickup or two on the piano, coupled with a room-sound mike? Might be interesting to try...

Dasher

[Pete Leoni]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Bruce A. Richardson:
[B] Really? I feel just the opposite. I made my living spinning analog tape for a lot of years, and I say good riddance. The piano, room, mics, and preamps and are so much more important than the storage medium.

I\'m with you Bruce. Although I think the room is less of an equation. I thinK Steinberg is on the right track with an anechoic chamber.



------------------
Pete Leoni

[Pete Leoni]

Hi Kip

Just wanted to say the Imperial is really kickin but for me with the new filtering.

[Bardstown Audio]

Hi Pete,

Glad you like the version 2.0 update. Actually, we are going to have a version 2.1 update right away, because there are a few bugs in the 2.0 version with the release samples not functioning properly. Ouch! One of my cats is on the keyboard while I am typing this and just bit my finger really hard because I wouldn\'t pet him.

Kip
Bardstown Audio
www.bardstownaudio.com (\"http://www.bardstownaudio.com\")