So, to clarify, "let Pianoteq mix for you" = assign any/all mics to either/both of the stereo output channels, and just don't bother increasing beyond the two channels unless I plan on doing some processing to a specific microphone/channel independently before the final downmix.

Also, to clarify -- are you saying you tend to use one of the mic presets without fussing much with them before rendering the audio file?

So here's my workflow modified with the information you've provided:
1. Find/create a preset ideal for performance
2. Record the midi performance
3. Find/create a preset ideal for playback/listening.  Keep the output to stereo (2 channels), no matter how many mics are used.
4. Export the midi performance directly to WAV using the highest quality settings

Thanks, this is really helpful!

Yes, you would specify the mix by assigning each mic to each channel in various combinations. Pianoteq can even compensate for varying delays and mic levels.

And yes, I spend far more effort in my practice setup than my recording setup. Since I don't have a recording background, I stick to the safe defaults.

That workflow is pretty much the same as mine, with the obvious step 5 being encoding.

4. When you set up mics, you assign each mic to the mix independently, and I'm pretty sure all of the presets start off with just two stereo output channels, no matter how many mics there are. You can enable multiple output channels, but you have to assign each mic to each channel(s) in order to use the extra channels. Unless you plan on doing fancy processing to each channel before downmixing, there's no reason not to let Pianoteq mix for you.

In my live-playing setup, I use channels 3 and 4 for tactile transducers mounted under the piano cabinet, but for recording, I re-render the recorded MIDI file with one of the standard mic/channel arrangements.

So, to clarify, "let Pianoteq mix for you" = assign any/all mics to either/both of the stereo output channels, and just don't bother increasing beyond the two channels unless I plan on doing some processing to a specific microphone/channel independently before the final downmix.

Also, to clarify -- are you saying you tend to use one of the mic presets without fussing much with them before rendering the audio file?

So here's my workflow modified with the information you've provided:
1. Find/create a preset ideal for performance
2. Record the midi performance
3. Find/create a preset ideal for playback/listening.  Keep the output to stereo (2 channels), no matter how many mics are used.
4. Export the midi performance directly to WAV using the highest quality settings

Thanks, this is really helpful!

Good question! 

1.  I didn't know that I could just export an uncompressed WAV directly from a midi (i.e., process the midi data into audio using the Pianoteq engine without actually having to go through realtime playback and capture first?). 

2. I wonder whether routing the data through the firewire interface vs the internal soundcard has any impact on sound quality in this case (I know it does for mic/instrument signal capture, but if Pianoteq is creating the audio internally based on a series of mathematical calculations of midi data, then it seems we would end up with the same or similar recording quality regardless of the other hardware in use?)

3. Maybe internally generating a WAV file can allow sound production at higher quality rates than real-time given hardware limitations? IE, make time rather than CPU the dependent variable (e.g., to allow higher polyphony, more mics, etc --it would just take longer to process vs creating a process error from CPU overload)

4. I'm interested in exploring multi-mic setups, and wonder whether there's a significant difference in capturing, say, 4 mic sources as independent channels and then downmixing to stereo vs capturing 4 mic signals into 2 stereo channels.

Thanks!

1. It's not a prominent feature unless you go menu surfing.

2. The WAV export doesn't touch any sound card at all. It simply renders the audio exactly as it would realtime, but directly to a WAV file, and since it doesn't go through a sound interface, it renders as fast as the CPU allows, usually significantly faster than realtime in my experience.

3. You're describing the WAV export feature exactly. If you look at the export options, you'll see a "high quality" setting - I believe that bumps the polyphony up to max, as well as a couple other things I forget. You can also use a preset with a more elaborate recording mic setup if you want.

4. When you set up mics, you assign each mic to the mix independently, and I'm pretty sure all of the presets start off with just two stereo output channels, no matter how many mics there are. You can enable multiple output channels, but you have to assign each mic to each channel(s) in order to use the extra channels. Unless you plan on doing fancy processing to each channel before downmixing, there's no reason not to let Pianoteq mix for you.

In my live-playing setup, I use channels 3 and 4 for tactile transducers mounted under the piano cabinet, but for recording, I re-render the recorded MIDI file with one of the standard mic/channel arrangements.

Apologies if I'm missing something, but what benefit would #3 have over simply exporting uncompressed WAV files from Pianoteq? Downmixing shouldn't be necessary if your recording preset is stereo to begin with.

Good question! 

1.  I didn't know that I could just export an uncompressed WAV directly from a midi (i.e., process the midi data into audio using the Pianoteq engine without actually having to go through realtime playback and capture first?). 

2. I wonder whether routing the data through the firewire interface vs the internal soundcard has any impact on sound quality in this case (I know it does for mic/instrument signal capture, but if Pianoteq is creating the audio internally based on a series of mathematical calculations of midi data, then it seems we would end up with the same or similar recording quality regardless of the other hardware in use?)

3. Maybe internally generating a WAV file can allow sound production at higher quality rates than real-time given hardware limitations? IE, make time rather than CPU the dependent variable (e.g., to allow higher polyphony, more mics, etc --it would just take longer to process vs creating a process error from CPU overload)

4. I'm interested in exploring multi-mic setups, and wonder whether there's a significant difference in capturing, say, 4 mic sources as independent channels and then downmixing to stereo vs capturing 4 mic signals into 2 stereo channels.

Thanks!

hey all,

I'm in a similar boat, getting ready to record some solo piano works of original compositions and arrangements.

I'd like to keep things as simple as possible.  I have  a controller feeding into Pianoteq 5 Std on my Linux laptop via Jack, routed through to an external firewire soundcard (Echo AudioFire2).  I have a small 8 channel mixer I can hook up somewhere in that process, mostly after the soundcard to feed the studio monitors and headphones (so I keep everything neutral EQ'd) so I have some physical volume knobs.

In terms of workflow, I'm thinking of just
1. recording some solid midi performance files directly in Pianoteq using whatever sounds best during performance / recording
2. play back the midi performance in Pianoteq and change the models, mic placement, etc so I get something that sounds good for listening
3. using whatever settings I have settled on for #2, generate the audio in Pianoteq and route it through Jack into Audacity or even something simple like Jack Time Machine for the final capture, with minimal postprocessing (mostly, downmixing into two stereo channels if I end up with more than two signals coming out of Pianoteq).

Thoughts?

Apologies if I'm missing something, but what benefit would #3 have over simply exporting uncompressed WAV files from Pianoteq? Downmixing shouldn't be necessary if your recording preset is stereo to begin with.

I'm in a similar boat, getting ready to record some solo piano works of original compositions and arrangements.

I'd like to keep things as simple as possible.  I have  a controller feeding into Pianoteq 5 Std on my Linux laptop via Jack, routed through to an external firewire soundcard (Echo AudioFire2).  I have a small 8 channel mixer I can hook up somewhere in that process, mostly after the soundcard to feed the studio monitors and headphones (so I keep everything neutral EQ'd) so I have some physical volume knobs.

In terms of workflow, I'm thinking of just
1. recording some solid midi performance files directly in Pianoteq using whatever sounds best during performance / recording
2. play back the midi performance in Pianoteq and change the models, mic placement, etc so I get something that sounds good for listening
3. using whatever settings I have settled on for #2, generate the audio in Pianoteq and route it through Jack into Audacity or even something simple like Jack Time Machine for the final capture, with minimal postprocessing (mostly, downmixing into two stereo channels if I end up with more than two signals coming out of Pianoteq).

Thoughts?

Roberto,

many thanks for sharing. Really appreciated!
So far I had the chance to listen to your example only - which is very promising. Will spend some time over the weekend so see how it feels playing your preset.

Bernd

you're welcome Bernd...

many thanks for sharing. Really appreciated!
So far I had the chance to listen to your example only - which is very promising. Will spend some time over the weekend so see how it feels playing your preset.

Bernd

http://www.forum-pianoteq.com/uploads.php?id=2237

and a little mp3:

http://www.forum-pianoteq.com/uploads.p...inauD4.mp3

Yes, it worked on the day when Daniel posted it. One or two days later it was blocked.

But luckily someone provided his backup copy under a different link to enable it for educational purposes

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LR_HeD0piRI

Regarding the sound attributes it's exactly like Daniel said in his initial post. To me it appears very warm.
Please bare with me if this is not articulated correctly (also no long time piano player).. but, dynamic range seems not too big to me. Maybe that's what Daniel referred to as 'compression'.

And this is actually something which wonders me a lot when I read other posts where very often a suggestion is to lower the Dynamic setting in PT (I think you recommended this as well for the Jarrett sound). These samples come from real recorded pianos is this just post-processing? I mean, there are no concert grands out there which have this dynamic-adjustment-knob - which we luckily have in PT. So all adjusted in the sound studio later?

Bernd

Roberto, I'm impressed how accuratly one can match a given sound with all those settings! Really unfortunate you picked the third and not the first video as reference ....

Bernd

Haha I wanted to listen to the first video but it was taken down due to copyright issues... Do you have a reference audio file?

I'm willing to learn more and would be very happy if there are some professionals here reading my topic and have some immediate suggestions for the workflow for solo piano recordings with Pianoteq. Also recommendations for further readings are highly appreciated.

Thanks in advance!

Kind regards,
Daniel

Hello Daniel,

I watched Keith Jarrett's 'Old Man River' video as he imitated Glenn Gould's bodily movements, complete with a separate microphone placed at his left side to capture his "spontaneous" singing.

Glenn Gould imitation aside, I observed the video's in-the-strings microphone placement, noticed the separate ambience microphone placed at the edge of the stage, and listened to the amount of reverb and compressed sound.   My following recommendations are stated as ways to recreate this sound:

1) Select whichever D4 setting you like the most.  (Jarrett played a German Steinway D in this video, with two microphones placed along the midline of the piano -- the "right channel" midway along the piano's centerline, and the "left" channel placed even closer to the strings, and positioned towards the back third of the piano's case (presumably over the piano's bass bridge).

2) DECREASE the dynamic range slider to approximately 8 to 10dB instead of the stock 30dB setting.  Adjust the overall volume level such that the piano is loud enough, but does not regularly engage the limiter.

3) If you have access to microphone placement, depending on which version of Pianoteq 5 you own, place the virtual microphones as shown in the video:  the "right-channel" microphone should be a cardioid type, placed about halfway along the piano's case and raised such that it is slightly below the raised piano lid; the "left channel" microphone should be of the same cardioid (not omnidirectional) type, about 2/3rds to 3/4ths of the piano's length away from the keyboard.  Note: the "third" microphone does not need to be implemented in Pianoteq, because the adjustment for reverb will take care of this.

4)  If you have access to Pianoteq's reverb control, click on the "Effects" button to open the reverb control:  Increase the Mix slider from its stock -15dB value, and move it to a range of +3 to +5dB.  (This will not overload the volume; rather, it will allow more of the reverb to be heard.)   Increase the Duration slider from its stock 1.5 seconds to about 2.5 seconds.

That's it!  No need to mess with hammer hardness settings or impedance.

Hopefully this helps you achieve the sound you desire.

the initial posting of this thread could have done by me - that's what I thought when I read it first.
I would even had choosen the Einaudi video as reference for the sound I'm looking for. As I just started to play with the various available options in PT, it'll be more a long term challenge to get close to that .. at least on a basic level.

Roberto, I'm impressed how accuratly one can match a given sound with all those settings! Really unfortunate you picked the third and not the first video as reference

Beside the 'bunch of flowers' I wanted to leave an quite interesting link here. It's about the mic settings and used equipment for one of Einaudi's concerts (In a Time Laps - Burmingham). The sound is very similar to the concert in the Royal Albert Hall. There are very bad quality clips of it on youtube (not worth to be shared) but one gets an impression of the general sound.

Here the sound engineer reveals at least a part of the secret two Schoeps MK41 are used to mic the piano (in the 'completely inside the music' section).
http://www.tpimagazine.com/production-p...lapse.html

So, the article refers to two Schoeps MK41 super-cardioid mics. I wonder if those are equal to the CMC6MK4 modeled in Pianoteq?
Of course this is just one single element.

Bernd