The problem I've noticed since version 8 is the pianos sound brighter especially in the treble compared to the older versions of Pianoteq. The NY Steinway D for example lost its "Steinway sound" and became flatter and boring without that twinkle and overtone the real Steinway has and the earlier models captured somewhat. Comparing the NY Steinway D to the Steingraeber or other pianos and the same change is there as well. I wonder if the changes made in 8.x.x to fix some of the anomalies we had before flattened the sound overall for all the pianos.
This change has taken the individuality out of the pianos and made them all the same as this has flattened the overtones and timbre that each of the different piano builders offer.
]]>dazric wrote:@davealtos: are you willing to prepare some mic placements to upload to fxp corner? I'm always keen to try settings from people with real-world recording experience.
I don’t have any to offer. Everything I’ve tried is unsatisfying. My hope was/is that there is someone here who has something interesting.
Oh, that is so disappointing, but somehow it doesn't surprise me. I've given up trying to do my own mic settings because I got so frustrated over the fine adjustments. I came to the conclusion that my time was better spent making music rather than messing around with virtual mics.
]]>dazric wrote:@davealtos: are you willing to prepare some mic placements to upload to fxp corner? I'm always keen to try settings from people with real-world recording experience.
I don’t have any to offer. Everything I’ve tried is unsatisfying. My hope was/is that there is someone here who has something interesting.
Sigh. I hope that Modartt looks hard at your "tiny microphones" comment, after your nudge from contacting them and perhaps uses that clue to improve the sound leaps and bounds beyond what they have done so far (as I wrote earlier, not that the current sound is bad, but the improvements have been marginal and the main problems -- for those who can hear them -- have remained unchanged for years)
]]>@davealtos: are you willing to prepare some mic placements to upload to fxp corner? I'm always keen to try settings from people with real-world recording experience.
I don’t have any to offer. Everything I’ve tried is unsatisfying. My hope was/is that there is someone here who has something interesting.
]]>Anyway whether you EQ the input to the reverb or the reverb’s output (which is what I think the video tries to prove) isn’t the point.
The point is one shouldn’t apply reverb to the whole frequency spectrum all the time - that’s the essence of the “trick”.
Not necessarily something I'd recommend for a fidelity situation but I also find that reverbs will sit better with a dry track if I put the reverb on a separate channel and do weird transformations on the way in that skew toward adventurous. You get two benefits: quite weird effects but kind of hiding which is sort of like a best of two extremes, and the transformations pre-reverb seem to get the reverb and the dry signal out of each others' way. If I do weird stuff on the way into a reverb, the reverb channel end up 100% wet or rather close to 100% wet. This was like the one use I had for Waves Enigma for example. The normal issue with reverb is it's a copy of a timing-blender version of the same frequencies and then you just add them back together. EQing helps but modulation effects, things that tweak the frequencies, can also help them be complimentary textures.
]]>When you look at default Pianoteq mic placements any general advice on adjustments compared to what you're seeing in presets?
I think I pretty much covered my understanding in my post that you replied to.
]]>Actually, I think it comes down to the sound of the piano and the room. Mic placement is relatively easy:
- avoid being close, especially
- close to the action (clattering)
- under the soundboard (just horrible)
- over the soundboard (thudding and/or clattering)
- avoid messing with the mic frequency response with cardioid etc.
- avoid mics with artifacts, like dynamic and ribbon mics
I notice a lot of the preset mic positions include ones placed right in the piano, often cardioids. Pulling them out seems to declog the thickness a bit. Shortened up the reverb as well, a mixed little drier and I liked it better. When you look at default Pianoteq mic placements any general advice on adjustments compared to what you're seeing in presets?
]]>I find some high-reverb, non-DGG, live recordings can be very pleasing. Examples:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AdJjcsOmzRo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bn-rhRmPI0k [too bad about the treble notes that stick out for some reason]
When I got my first real gig, at Marlboro Music Festival, Bud Graham, old hand classical recording engineer who had done lots of classical recording for Marlboro and decades prior, told me that in the old days when they recorded Rachmaninoff and others, they used to place the mic off the end of the piano, level with the top of the rim. This gave a good overall and warm sound, free of clatter and not lacking in treble. Surprising, eh?
]]>dikrek wrote:Joseph Merrill wrote:This TY video recently "debunked" the Abbey Road trick "myth" concluding putting EQ pre or post reverb makes no difference. I pushed back in a comment (Joseph Merrill) with some gentle skepticism based on it seeming to matter to my ears and the limited number of test cases used in the video. I did a search on if reverberation creates any frequency content that is not there, even if you measure impulse responses inside a piano. According to what I found reverberation, even in a piano, adds no new frequency content, which I found surprising but not shocking. Still not completely convinced either way.
The way I experience it, if I don’t do some high pass filtering and also the trick, audio can become tiring.
It’s not just about how it sounds but also about long-term pressure.
So even with the Abbey Road trick I do a gentle 50Hz HPF at the final output.
FYI my normal reverb is the Relab LX480 which has a built-in system for what frequencies to process. I prefer that to having a separate EQ.
Yeah my experience is EQ before the reverb sounds cleaner than EQ after. That video is straight up saying the two null though. To the extent someone exhaustively null tests in a scientific way, I think you have to accept the null test over ears but the fallacy that I worry about in the video is that a few null tests don't prove a generality and my ears definitely heard a difference in the past.
It’s an incredibly common piece of advice for reverbs. And I don’t use the same EQ. My settings are 200Hz-5KHz or so in LX480, then at the main out (not the reverb out, but the actual master buss) I do the gentle highpass at 50Hz.
Anyway whether you EQ the input to the reverb or the reverb’s output (which is what I think the video tries to prove) isn’t the point.
The point is one shouldn’t apply reverb to the whole frequency spectrum all the time - that’s the essence of the “trick”.
]]>Joseph Merrill wrote:dikrek wrote:For reverbs I’d also use the Abbey Road trick and control what the reverb processes. Typically nothing under 200Hz or above 5KHz is what I do.
This TY video recently "debunked" the Abbey Road trick "myth" concluding putting EQ pre or post reverb makes no difference. I pushed back in a comment (Joseph Merrill) with some gentle skepticism based on it seeming to matter to my ears and the limited number of test cases used in the video. I did a search on if reverberation creates any frequency content that is not there, even if you measure impulse responses inside a piano. According to what I found reverberation, even in a piano, adds no new frequency content, which I found surprising but not shocking. Still not completely convinced either way.
The way I experience it, if I don’t do some high pass filtering and also the trick, audio can become tiring.
It’s not just about how it sounds but also about long-term pressure.
So even with the Abbey Road trick I do a gentle 50Hz HPF at the final output.
FYI my normal reverb is the Relab LX480 which has a built-in system for what frequencies to process. I prefer that to having a separate EQ.
Yeah my experience is EQ before the reverb sounds cleaner than EQ after. That video is straight up saying the two null though. To the extent someone exhaustively null tests in a scientific way, I think you have to accept the null test over ears but the fallacy that I worry about in the video is that a few null tests don't prove a generality and my ears definitely heard a difference in the past.
]]>In a real world recording you can get a lot out of position and angle, manipulating the phase in a good way to enhance results. Anyone get the sense that angle and position of mics is resulting in the phase relationships your ear expects? I never really recorded live acoustic instruments so I can't really say.
]]>dikrek wrote:For reverbs I’d also use the Abbey Road trick and control what the reverb processes. Typically nothing under 200Hz or above 5KHz is what I do.
This TY video recently "debunked" the Abbey Road trick "myth" concluding putting EQ pre or post reverb makes no difference. I pushed back in a comment (Joseph Merrill) with some gentle skepticism based on it seeming to matter to my ears and the limited number of test cases used in the video. I did a search on if reverberation creates any frequency content that is not there, even if you measure impulse responses inside a piano. According to what I found reverberation, even in a piano, adds no new frequency content, which I found surprising but not shocking. Still not completely convinced either way.
The way I experience it, if I don’t do some high pass filtering and also the trick, audio can become tiring.
It’s not just about how it sounds but also about long-term pressure.
So even with the Abbey Road trick I do a gentle 50Hz HPF at the final output.
FYI my normal reverb is the Relab LX480 which has a built-in system for what frequencies to process. I prefer that to having a separate EQ.
]]>