Yes, recording with different strategies has been my world essentially.
Things like this can be simple - or complex or somewhere between.. I really don't know how to help without stepping through a great many ideas, possibly about a pretty limited number of things... but I'm having a Pianoteq day today (ending that in about 4hrs maybe).. so while I'm at it.. here's a wall of text like the old days for you, in hopes some of this gets you to a 'next place' along the line you're on...
First thing - (among other first things) might be to include my preference to work with 1 piano.. it does tend to create poor results, by mixing piano presets (and way differing mic types).. IF the goal if 'some kind of stable sound' which is not too radical.
But...
(There are no rules, only infinite rules, btw!).
All below is unedited, for time constraints.. many repeats probably here than there of some concepts, to kind of apply those to other ideas etc.. but here goes.. hoping some of it useful to anyone considering jumping to some new ways to fuss with reverbs and beyond within a DAW..
Pre-warning: Getting very subtle with your velocities and a fine compression type might beat out all the complexity below.. It's worth first checking out some nice 'mix bus' compressors.. or a 'mastering' tool-chain (or some good singular mastering plugins exist... and indeed, some have a much asked for 'tilt EQ' on the front.. it's not a dumb thing to put on the front of an EQ tool as well as all the extra tools... after everything you have done to nicely define your recording, indeed, a tiny 1 or 2db 'tilt' to more/less of either bass/treble could be like the final delicious strawberry on the cream cake!). Just worth keeping in mind - if all the below, or trying to come up with variations of it all, sounds too much - it can be.. and choosing a default Pianoteq "Recording" preset might be the most powerful thing you do... instead of trying to work with a "Close Mic" or "Intimate" one... working with a 'Recording' preset is likely to fit more things immediately (unless you really know you want to work with close mics... defaults are useful - but basic Recording ones can be used 'as they are' with a lot of success and not too much need for heaps of studio flare on top.)
When I found Pianoteq, I ran a bunch of experiments (like you mention, extra piano tracks, various extravagant reverb FX tricks etc.). I posted some of that or some of my 'findings' - but that was at a time when Pianoteq wasn't so vividly realistic (as a piano track, to me at least). It's been a while but for a lot of purposes, Pianoteq is just fine, to me, as a recorded piano on a track.. but although in the past, utilizing various 'studio tricks' was more about creating a personal 'flavor rich' modern piano sound (for contemporary music, not so much for clean solo classical, or even a purist's jazz perfectionist's kind of sound). Today, it's different to old versions - better in so many ways - cannot complain and honetsly, maybe will repeat this kind of motif, but it's possible to get 'better' results these days with less tools - but, for sure the below is somewhere within that range between simple stuff and getting more complex.. it can be way more complex.. and time only permits me to get to the point for a sub-set of things.. for years I've kept it about some basics like this..
But.. all considerations about all of that will vastly differ from one to another, for multiple reasons..
Esp. since this version's recent update, I'm not sad to say that I've re-imagined a lot of 'old tricks' (or DAW templates/scenes/plugin chains etc.) over again.. to accommodate the differences of recent updates etc.. ALTHOUGH plenty of things will probably remain in my typical workflows.. yet on reflection, the better sound now of Pianoteq really over time has slowly seen me dropping things from the usual lineups of tools I used to reach for.
I felt esp. recently that, a lot of old tricks were becoming, not so much 'not needed' as 'just too extra!'.. so when my goal is a nice clear vivid piano in a realistic space, I might only apply perhaps less than half of the kinds of tools/FX in that process, to gain the better version possible. I think times have moved on - and this piano product now gives a sound which requires 'less studio tooling' to get into a very usable place, for a wider number of recordists out there.
That's a general tendency though.. I still do use many tools and old tricks to do all kinds of 'beyond' things with Pianoteq. For anyone, usually somewhere between very basic and somewhat complex will foreshadow the below..
That having been said..
Anything you'd do (with extra layers/tracks/FX sends etc.) would largely depend on YOUR goals (whether genre related, or 'going for something completely original' and so on). Aiming for something 'really sugary crazy', or something 'austere and dry', or something 'softly encompassing' with the piano?
Deciding with absolute certainty about that sort of thing primarily at first, would very likely quite radically alter some forward planning for processing..
In the distant past here I've posted some various tricks for using different reverb tricks with multi-tracks etc.. and for some certain music types (contemporary, not purist 'clean piano' types of music), you can go into very creative territory with all kinds of extra tracks and multiple reverb types, mixed together for a unique or personal sound. But - it will likely just take a lot of time experimenting, ruling certain 'tricks' out, keeping refining other things you hear as suitable for your style/pieces. Anyone, of any experience level can pigeon-hole themselves into a rut.. that's not about Pianoteq per se... just how it goes over time.. you get past hurdles, find things you like to always try before you settle on a mix style and etc..
In short - a typical thing I've done in this vein is:
#
put Pianoteq on one track, leave its reverb 'on' (possibly lower its 'mix' control within Pianoteq's FX panel).
##
Next, in your DAW create a 'send' to a new FX channel with a reverb of your choice.
###
If your DAW allows, make 2 of the same send to a separate instantiation of the same reverb plugin.
####
On the 1st send, pan the send IN to the left (a little or a lot - up to the creative process) - and on the 2nd reverb send, do the same but opposite pan, to the right in this example.. so now, you have sent some/or most of two stereo sides into 2 same/but different reverb instances.. for further manipulation. What you hear (esp. by increasing the reverb levels so you hear clearly... push too far... work it.. later, you back it down to the goal.)
An aside here.... on the FX channels, consider adding EQ (to clear out some bass on the reverb, maybe add or remove some top end there too - everything will depend on your ears.. stick to some rules, maybe research 'Abbey Road reverb trick' - and get ready to understand that.. apart from just having 2 uniquely panned reverb spatial adjustments to think about... you might also want to compress the reverbs separately too... not just thinking monolithically about a final mix sound... adjust things and A/B test "Is that better for my purposes?" and keep some things, drop others as they either work or not as you go... but for sure, some EQ on reverbs, some compressions and saturations etc. ARE normal in many studio setups... it's NOT normal in my exp. to believe you should just be able to drop in any FX and leave it on defaults and it just should work.. that's kind of a nice dream... but much more often than not, you end up fussing with every component part of any 'extras' you add in... if the goal is not to go 'too crazy' with noticeably wonky FX. If anything.. subtly mixing in a 'tiny fraction' of something can sometimes be the difference between something sounding real, or hyper-real... your ears will drive those choices and you'll get better by practice - and eventually any of this will be like 2nd nature stuff.)
#####
Why 2 reverbs though... stuck on that?
OK - just that you now can also pan those reverb instances also (notice, you panned the send IN and now you'll pan each reverb too... try opposite panning! Or 'flipping' the poles!).. You do any of this to taste and for the effect you desire... you might know exactly what you want to do.... or like even an experienced producer, you'll more than likely try out a few dozen mix-and-match variants of all this stuff and in a way, you may over time end up with a bunch of shortcuts you save (like templates, or saved FX presets - some DAWs alllow you to save whole FX chains, scenes etc.. not just projects... worthwhile noting that often I'm not going to address all that's possible because.. how much text can anyone stand? hehe).. but for basics, you might pan each reverb wide, or to the opposite sides.. because.. they are not the 'only reverb', you can mix them "low or high", NEVER forget, you do NOT have to mix anything way up.. it does not need to be the 'focus'.. but just some practically inaudible 'brush stroke'. A 'hint' of a deep luscious background can be like... IDK, think Simon and Garfunkle in the early days... soft but immersing reverberant FX.. but that is 'in service to the music'.. not the other way around, if that makes sense...
######
Summing up - you have Pianoteq's own reverb, mixed to taste (so that there's a 'bubble of some kind of spatial realism' at work), and two artificial spatial 'extra reverbs', which let's say you just mixed down to a tasty sounding, panned position.. like, imagine that reverb 'zone' or 'bubble' to be out and away from the piano (or importantly, enveloping the listener perhaps - whatever works for you.. in fact, it may help to close your eyes and 'think of a fav album piano sound - and every time you adjust any sliders, or reverb mix levels or panning etc, STOP when it begins to sound LESS like you hear all the time as you play Pianoteq.. and where it begins to float away from our possibly set ways.. like a radio junkie pop listener.. when something begins to sound 'novel' - maybe that's what you might aim for??.. but of course that goes into many degrees over time - and time is what you will want to spend on that 'feeling' as you go.)..
#######
Ok - so we've revelled in this kind of weird new spatial play-field - but where's the finish line, or touch-down line? Again depends on personal goals.. but maybe you'd like to just keep experimenting on "how subtly can I do this, so that even I'd have a hard time noticing this artifice in A/B tests?".. getting a bearing on "Where does fake begin in such a staging?" is useful in making sounds you eventually love.. but, lets say, you've nailed down the kind of spatial feel for this piece but it still sort of sounds like the piano is 'realistically' distant now (like on a stage, not up in your face).. but you'de like to make that sound more like you know 'albums' can sound (which is often about kind of magically making a distant piano seem both realistically distant, yet 'more interesting' than just a nice distant piano.. and for a lot of contemporary music, that can be more important for listeners, than how excellent the performer plays, sadly or otherwise - it is what it is.)
########
In a way we've put perspective on why we tried the above.. we've honed it until it kind of worked as well as it might and we've decided 'we want to make it sound more finished' - so.. although I think of the above as basic (and not kidding that there are unlimited versions of 'how to' to get somewhere like the above.. this is just one kind of thing to try).. the real next step IMHO is to stop thinking of a DAW as a modern invention.. and begin to consider that it 'emulates' that which was in the past the domain of physical studios. Lucky us! We all can have old-school million dollar studios and unlimited freeeeee time to record anything we want, at home! Brilliant..
So - think of the DAW as a studio.. not a place to just hit record and stick on a reverb or two.. it CAN be 1:1 as good as plenty of the studios I've experienced in my lifetime. I think digital tools have been lovable but quite awful generally, up until some time back - but now.. absolutely, I feel like people miss a point about this.. and obviously without some backgrounding, plenty just have not yet understood the power of just learning even a handful of studio-like tricks they can enjoy at their own pace (not just talking about Pianoteq users - generally this is true in my exp.).
Studio as instrument.
What on earth does that mean? Well, if you got this far, you're probably feeling up for some challenging ideas about that... but generally, anyone who thinks a great album sound is ONLY about a perfectly clean and clear nice piano sounding like it's really sitting right there in front of us, over speakers/headphones is stuck in a place where I wish I could help.. in reality (beyond like I feel I keep needing to point out, in case it confuses some reading - not talking about traditional solo classical sounds - but contemporary 'album' sounds.. and for some, lovely classical piano recordings of the past were "golden".. but modern ears can hear 'vintage' as 'ugly' rather than endearing/charming etc.. and to be sure, making vintage sounds by emulating vintage equipment is only going half the distance to get that down as an album sound, IF you go through more layers from start to finish, incl. some final mixing, final mastering and choosing exacting output types. It can be as easy as trusting your DAW and some tools you get to know.. but also just nice to remember maybe.. at least my exp. within audio for a long time, whenever you feel things are just right, is when to start wondering if that's true? Don't just settle on one routing, one set of tricks, keep expanding your ideas, and your routines with this stuff... because although this may all be a lot to read and take in, it's really initial first steps... there are things you do not because "someone said stuck this plugin after a compressor".. those kinds of 'rules' are things you assess and get a bearing on.. but you'll get into your own workflows and use the tools eventually which resonate with your ideals - and it is eventual really.. I fear a lot of people think "I'll just learn to do this, and so I'll never have to spend time on it again".. and for many that's fine, not putting anyone into a box... but instead saying: If you so desire, you can eventually equip yourself not only to record your own piano music well, but who knows.. maybe for younger people today, those skills learned in your spare time could become valuable to you in various other ways.. there is a enormous gulf between amateur starters and professional practitioners in any field - your goal should probably be to avoid taking basic advice from beginners, or those who are stuck and struggling themselves, and kind of elevate this stuff from "fluffy stupid who cares just use a plugin" mode, into "Ok.. there may be some actual artistic reason behind a lot of this stuff".. anyone just making that simple jump, in mind, and you're already good to get to some next level imo. Nobody truly gets great results at anything, unless they 'care to do that'.)..
########
So the studio is now some kind of extra instrument? Not exactly.. it's more like the 'frame' for a great painting.. you could put a well known painting into a huge angular pink plastic frame - and then the image might 'seem like junk' too? Maybe not to someone who knows "Oh, that's the Mona Lisa.. who put it in such a terrible frame?"... but a school bus full of children filing through to view a gallery (for art class or whatever - assuming none even know of the Mona Lisa), may look at that thing and think "That woman from the past seems to think it's funny being stuck inside a modern crazy looking frame - ironic! HAHAH!".
That's pointing to a simple thing regarding 'pop' or whatever ended up, for one example, getting high rotation radio plays in large music markets (again, not wanting to confuse anyone about that.. in a way, 'the studio' I'm explaining as something for making use of what OP asked about.. extra layers, is it worth anything//?? etc. Yes, indeed 'novelty' can be the most important element, for a song to go from "Oh, that's nice" or "Yeah, not for me".. to "I need to hear that again - not sure why - but it was a reasonable song but, something about it was.. interesting!". That 'something' is and has always been since the start of the recorded arts.. the equipment.. the process.. the way various 'parts' combine, collide, collude, foil, strengthen, destroy, deconstruct, reconstruct etc..).
#########
So, something like studio as instrument and something like a frame for a painting.. and beyond. In a way, it's probably more accurate to metaphorically think of 'radio' or 'loved vinyl LP' as 'the frame'.. or perhaps "my record player" or "my iPhone" these days.. earbuds.. something 'frames' the piece for listeners.. or many layers of things.
There is no such thing as a piano coming out of your 2 speakers. There is only the illusion of a piano. (in terms of recordings, or playing your dpiano in real time). You 'feel' it's real beyond a certain point, in the travels along the long digital uncanny valley.. and Pianoteq today is orders of magnitude closer to the real thing.. so in a way, if your goals are less about novelty, and more about 'creating something very clean/realistic', then of course, like 'mixing down some reverbs', you can indeed 'mix down' some of these ideas, as they suit your imaginings as an artist.
##########
Find out something (Wikipedia can help) about the studio where a fav album was recorded.. not just "how did they mic the piano" unless that is something you reeeeeealy want to bother with (for most users IMHO just stick with defaults - there's often an extra time-sink for that, which you may not enjoy.. and default mic presets, esp. in "Recording" type presets will be OK to work from, no irony.. that's what I'm doing mostly now.. I used to micro-manage mics in real life, and in Pianoteq - but to be absolutely clear, it's useful/enjoyable etc.. but just not necessary - Pianoteq is beyond that point imho.)
For one example.. some studios may have a complete selection of outboard gear (the racks of 'boring hardware').. and for some, each piece may be know, loved, disliked, used or avoided - on a per-piece level, or uniformly for all material.
It does not matter which 'universe' of tools you get into.. but without wishing to bother anybody, in my world there's not time for tools which are not well worn by those within the studios/recording processes at a certain level. I'm not saying I dislike FOSS or shareware or independent plugin devs (I do try things all the time - and have supported dozens of cool projects, including financially). What I mean is, that in the end, if you're thinking of 'studio as instrument' (like envisioning "recreating at least in part, how things might have been done in studios in the past - and making that my thing for this project"), then dropping irrelevant plugins (like completely impossible sound bending stuff) might help - at least to get started (because, of course, when using many subtle layers.. tada.. using very weird echos and stereo panned atmos generated by strange plugins can be part of the 'novelty' if done in a way suitable to your piece).
For now though - let's focus on what happens when you walk into a studio's control room.
What do you see? A big mixing desk (they don't bite - but can seem too much to learn).. OK - look for 'Console emulation' plugins.. these are so various, like IRL - and it's possible to love Nieve desks as much as SSL or API or any others. Grabbing a trial of some of these (again.. avoid small-time plugin makers for this, for now - until you maybe get a feel for "OH WOW - those devs actually made something really as good as these well known brands!".. definitely, you may save countless hours, by not going straight down the first 'cheap' rabbit hole you see... there IS good reason for the ubiquitous nature of various tools... and good reason that acclaimed talents tend to flock to certain tools, certain brands etc.. if you are thinking about being a "consumer first".. then maybe it's worth considering changing that perspective some... I too hate wasting money - but money spent on great tools for music creation, is never wasted IMHO.. I've spent too much to tally on all kinds of tools, and if I had spent that instead on motor vehicles or whatever else, I'd feel POOR as hell.. I'm better off paying proper prices for proper tools, than scurrying around trying to save $20 on a thing which used to cost thousands in real dollars, decades ago.. there's definitely a sense of "get real!" there hehe - in a way, people can paint themselves into a continual cycle of disappointments, just because they won't get off their own "I'm a consumer, and I demand to save maximum amounts - I won't pay full price for that! I'm no fool!".. but IMHO - thinking like that is like parking your potential behind a fake dollar sign in your mind.. If you are a plumber, you buy a van full of tools.. good ones.. or you're NOT a plumber. Or, rarely, maybe you ARE and you're so damn good, that you only need a couple of tools - and for most in that kind of world, that has come from a lifetime of working with things, until they end up with 'their own personal routines which work best for them'.. for anyone starting out... I would say don't listen to people saying "You don't need to pay for that.. just get this freeware version.. it's just as good!".... 4 dots..... 5...... gotta count to ten sometimes. Just get what genuinely works for you - aim for free trials of things.. get used to some clutter in your plugins you own... keep notes.. or maybe lash out, IF budget is viable, on a premium platform offering a full suite of tools - YES you can do without that but it can help - at least once you know "I'm going to want a lot of those"... but, of course, thinking as a consumer first can stop people 'buying in' to that sort of thing - but there is GOOD reason for it, beyond owning a couple or a couple dozen plugins... it gets unwieldy - and complete ecosystems can give one-simple management console to keep all their plugins up to date... how many hours, how much less baldness this means, to me, makes it so that I would recommend to anyone 'serious' about making music, to pull the pin and jump in.. it doesn't matter if you 'own it'... leasing a car? Yeah, mostly only professionals do that.. because, it suits. If you are only wanting a handful of any plugins.. sure.. not talking about you. In the case that someone becomes seriously engaged in the process of creating music, at some point, it can become a no-brainer to just begin on a per-annum plugin plan with one or more 'ecosystems'... some will have great emulations of 'actual studio hardware'.. and from one to another, you may not feel it's important to have 3 versions of a well known compressor.. but sometimes, it is good to have choices at hand like that.. I differentiate 'some of these kinds of things' and do choose to use one 'brand' version over another, at times, because one does something better for particular use-cases, and vice versa. It's not a consumer battle, to me.. it's about using the tools which are being used on recent/current actually historically significant recordings.. many now are made/mixed/mastered 'in the box'. SO it can really actually help to use those tools, instead of before knowing about them... getting stuck trying hundreds of unknown plugins which have some Youtube host yammering on about 'this is freeeee'.. so what? On any company/plugin maker's website, have a look for artists who made comments about 'the plugin'... if it's full of actually interesting creatives, in your estimation, that's a good thing.. if lightly praised by just a few unkown Youtube 'influencer' types... then look, that's up to you. I like supporting things which are well made, interesting, kind of beyond clever of certain order - but I'm not interested in wasting thousands of hours on choosing amongst possibly incredibly disappointing tools - aplenty.. but sticking to a good ecosystem, as recommended by 'someone you think should know their stuff'.. go that way first, anyway - seems too much extra - but it can be so important.. there's a difference between working in a busy studio with great gear - and the terrible disadvantages that users 'give themselves' by thinking "Yeah, I got a fast PC, so I don't need them thar fancy expensive tools - there's plenty of free versions that doo the saaame thingzzzzz." - and yes.. possible, but in my exp. actually rarer than hens' dentists! G'luck out there!!)
So - maybe a signal path description might be a good thing to finish this branch of thought with..
a
Pianoteq - with reverb still on (reduced perhaps to taste)
b
sends to 2 reverbs (pre-panned, and post-panned - subtle or as 'sugary novelty' - there is NO 'correct' for any of this)
c
Insert a studio "console", choose among many 'really great old mixing desk' emulations... no genius required. You may not need even need to tweak too much.. it may already be 'subtly' giving your whole stereo image a firming quality or some kind.. but these consoles can do some lovely things - from EQing in musical ways, to imparting "Mid Side" solidity - and some stereo image widening (if these things are gently implemented as you tweak your sound, they can add up to a LOT of influence over the final 'feel' of your recordings. It's worth taking considerable time, and comparing A/B testing your changes/alterations as you go.. save your 'projects' with version numbers or names you remember easily... like "Piano test 2024 - API with Manly Mu - Ae" and so on. You can work in a series.. and return to earlier saves to see for sure if you've made the choices which add up to a better sound, which you prefer, or whether you veered off the tracks you set for yourself. Some DAWs may allow you to save 'scenes' rather than needing to clutter up your file lists with complete project saves.. jsut a BTW thing.. whenever I recommend doing 'something'... there are going to likely be dozens of similar or other ways to work, or achieve a goal.. I kind of have to stick to some 'visions' here.. but in truth, there are so many ways to work, so many DAWs, so many great plugins for all kinds of useful reasons... this all amounts to just one in a trillion of possibilities.. of course.)
d
So now, you have your piano going through a proper mixing desk, as well as some interesting spatial reverb chicanery going on ... gotta be done by now, right? Could be - that would be up to you. But.. sticking with 'studio as instrument' metaphor here.. what else happens in a studio? There's the desk/console (done).. but look at that wall of hardware behind or on the side or kind fo hidden... what the heck does it do? What do you use, and for what reason?
Dig in - there are compressors - EQs - saturators.. yeah, not talking about solo classical reeememberrr? There are echo FX of various kinds, there may be rare/vintage whatever tools, all kinds of ridiculous sounding things, and some very boring looking metal blocks with a bunch of dials and meters all over them.. some weigh as much as you think, others are light or heavier.. but they all do 'something'. Some compressors tame "fast attack" moments.. and let go fast too... others only slowly compress like a tidal wave rising.. you hardly notice it.. but at some point.. esp. for 'close mic' piano... that kind of compression is THE thing to get to know.. mixing a fast and slow compressor alignment can take a standard sounding normal piano into something sounding much more like something 'listeners' will 'lean into' when they hear it, like on a radio or stream "Whew, nice piano there!"... just because it's not mousy and distant and sad and lonely sounding in a dungeon or something.. it might be made to 'sparkle' and get a 'vibe' where it can 'seem' intense without actually being harsh or even loud (say hello to a master bus 'Limiter' as well)..
e
There are expanders, gates (for setting 'bounds' for when certain FX pass through.. think things like "Only allow this reverb to kick in when the performance goes beyond this threshold".. or reverse that.. only allow something to kick in when the audio drops below a certain threshold... you might find this one of the most fascinating aspects of 'recording'.. I know it's one of my favorite things.. balancing when a compressor hits, or tying up some multi-band EQ to a certain threshold... not just to tame peaks, or make a nicer sound... but to actuall sculpt in something 'impactful' beyond perhaps what's normally thought of as 'humanly possible' in a space with a real piano.. and everyone's OWN imaginations come up with those 'feelings' about those songs when they hear it.. why anyone bought "Linesman for the County" kinds of songs.. because good song, for that listener base.. but OMG - go listen to any 'well loved' old records.. and get a beam on "What the hell were they doing with his voice?"... if you get analytical about it... so many sounds people grew up equating with "excellence" were just a product of the times.. for sure... before LP on 1970s record players - good ones - there was 'AM radio' sound.. and indeed, you may find still, that some older people remember a lot of their all-time-fav soundtracks to their lives, were filtered through those mono radio sounds, with incredibly limited range in terms of EQ etc.. in some ways.. terrible by todays' standards.. or even by 70s standards.... BUT the 'something in the way' it moved people... carries over to the next tranch of media delivery... cassette tapes.. and keep jumping the final version platform wars over the decades until now.. and it's actually EASY for anyone at home, with a good DAW to output a 'finished file' ready for whatever platform.. even in the past few years, some really excellent and easy tools are now instantly availabe, some within the native tools within a DAW, to deliver final files for any platform.... but reeling back to the AM radio days or before/after.... "What was the kind of ubiquitous vibe" which was attached to that final format??? These days... who knows... but for sure, esp. in contemporary music, young people have learned "OMG - those proper old studio tools are actually worth using"... and right down to things like "Vocoders"... any time I see a popular plugin maker releasing some 'cool' updated old tool... I get ready to begin hearing that 'effect' in upcoming music.. think 'voice harmony' tools these days, like auto-tune on drugs - and it's everywhere... but listeners drive it, as much as artists 'attempt' to work with those sounds.. whatever genres want, genres get... and if you're outside of a genre, bless your pretty pink heart - it's tough to really find listeners - but that's like any art - unless it's on a major platform, or some weird event mixed with years of hard work pay off.. most people are all doing all of this, for love, not money - and I'm a lover of life, and an enjoyer of anyone's trajectory - and I'm not beholden to a genre myself - but good luck to anyone wishing to marry into an old family - it can be 'for real' or 'for marketing'.. and everyone's own truth will make their own works 'seem like' either one - or both.. and long term perhaps, that is quite a thing (not a trick - but an artist becoming 'themselves' amidst the demands of their listeners). We love the notion of 'this artist is just being themselves, so creative'... but yeah... sweet sweeet summer child... there is I think only a small percentage of 'enduring' artists who can truly cross their heart and swear "I really did use that arrangement because it was perfect"... where's.. for many, there's what the genre demands of them and their arrangemetnts (hey, no middle eight? Where's the pre-chorus!! No drop? Wha?).. people, fans to be specific, of certain genres will NOT CARE a lick about how brilliant your music might be, or how great it might sound to others... if it does not conform to the exact formula they expect for their genre.. then you're did NOT make a recording for them. That's fine... but it can be frustrating for many, to overlook that.. like.. don't make a gently lilting distant washy reverb drenched piano for punk rock... for an absurd example - well, unless you want to get creative with 'embedding' such a novel thing.. but you know hopefully what I mean there.. a serious and touching gentle solo piece is probably going to annoy punkers ... but if that piano begins a song and then the sound of a car crashing into it happens.. rock on I suppose! Just saying - for any tastes, there are realities of expectation from listeners... and for many artists, it's "got that" which means the difference between "doing this for fun" and "will be on track for doing this full time". Thinking like an artist about all this kind of stuff, IS often the only difference between one and another.. one who is enjoying the process, enjoying learning and getting finished recordings done (no matter the age-group, seriously.. it's not a young-person only kind of thing.. in fact, I think 'producers' from the 70s/80s/90s are kind of still driving a LOT of what happens out there in the music public's ear.).
f
What about the final stereo image?
Well.. glad I asked - I'm seeing people talking about that more here lately - which is great to see. For any piano back in the old days, or now.. they are not the world's easiest instrument to mix into a stable stereo image. They are big, they radiate sound in all directions with of course focus to the side (audience perspective).. or in case of an upright piano, mic placement might not have so many 'conventions' you can rely on... but by comparison to a guitar (either mic/pickup combo will have a fairl focussed 'image' compared to any real piano). Pianoteq is quite realistic in this regard - with good reason.. so if the goal though, is to remove 'any phasing' and other complaints with stereo like some recent posts have been about...
Try engaging "Mid Side" processing. You can make any 'mix' nearly to completion, then iron out some image stability issues by doing that. It's 'similar but not the same' as just using "MS" microphone arrays... yes, theoretically, an MS mic array has one mono mic picking up everything, then 2 'Side' signals (usually a 2nd mic with stereo - there's 'correct' and there's a million variations of it, including 3 mics instead of two.. there's the possibility of utilizing a mixture of other mic techniques - but why.... that's so complex....)
IMHO - using ANY mics, to get the sound you like is OK.. and if you want the added benefit of at least a slightly more stable stereo image, use Mid Side for processing. That usually can be found in various good studio plugin tools (like a lot of 'mix console' emulations may have it... a button... press that! No hands!)
The old 'Mid Side' technique pioneered by a few people, including being made kind of famous by Abbey Road Studios, is technically just colliding two 'summed' signal paths... like + sum and -sum of the whole stereo image... it amounts to being that 'most mono material remains in the middle - to the listener'.. what is not mono gets floated out wide... so instead of mixing "left and right" (stereo of course)... you can mix up/down "only that which is strongly in the center" and balance that against "only that which is way out wide" (comparitively - there are also a bunch of incredibly good plugins which use some proprietary versions of this kind of things... getting your signal into "Mid" and "Sides" can form the 'signal path' upon which you might further manage your processing... such as ONLY boosting bass in the Middle... and only boosting trebles on the Sides... or the inverse, if your ears tell you "That is better!".)
That's just one tool - the primitive first version of Mid Side is not 'a final thing'... it's the beginning for all kinds of useful tasteful or mangling FX.
I just think you can take a piano with a Decca tree array of mics... and if you LOVE that sound... but want to fix some phase issues... convert THAT to a Mid Side signal (either in the DAW directly with some routing or inbuilt tool or a plugin).
I hope I get across the 'importance' of separating the "MS mic array" as compared to the way "Mid Side" signal processing can be way more useful... it's not itself 'chained' to a singular mic array type... ANY audio, with mics, or quasi-mono, or strangely widened audio... no matter what... that can be "POST-produced" in Mid Side... with all kinds of simple yet effective things applied.... you are not relying on "enjoying an MS" mic array (and to be frank.... many dislike that array.... so why use it? Use ANY other mics you like... THEN convert your signal to Mid Side for a heap of nice processing options, each of which can help you avoid causing weird phasing, or not at least exacerbating existing ['normal'] piano phasing).
There are other tools, from the old studio days, to current offerings from the digital domain... to straighten out phase issues.. but to be honest.. some hate phasing, plenty love it.. and a 'real living piano sound' can in part be ascribed to some amount of the way a big piano (esp. grand pianos like in Pianoteq) really DO work, pushing those sound waves all around the rooms/halls/stages etc... we can overthink phasing... and I'm an old musician who enjoys it.. and to me, it's part and parcel of piano.. and esp. from the "tape" days.. the kinds of saturations, the way tape used to fish around at the sides.. it was a thing. Before the 1960s, there was MUCH more acceptance of MONO everything... after the 50s.. woo hooo... we can haz stereoez??
But The 1980s came along - and higher fidelity (beyond 'nice valve/tube' amp stereos at home) and into 'clean dream digital' on the horizon.. the dream for consumers went beyond expecting to have to buy an expensive stereo system, to "Hey, this boom box sounds JUST AS GOOD (TM)"... and now, peopl listen on their... telephone ahah.
Best of all worlds now though, really. It IS now possible to create 'great like kind' recordings, like old records, or old tapes, or old AM or FM radio transmissions.. etc.. all fun and good.
If you decide "My sound will be so clean, people will not believe it's not piano!!" - or "I'm going for a gritty jazz dive in the 50s"... you can get close, without too much effort (compared to walking into a pricy studio to get someone to do it for you).
So - how do I know what tools to use?
Well, at first, NOBODY can know that. Lucky for us... the history of recording is well documented, and the tools used are often well implemented in plugin form.. and you may only really need a handful of good ones... or you may grow to enjoy whole ecosystems.. more on that later I guess..
You can find that some will say "I've been using an "insert some brand of studio hardware" for so long, it's the only one for me"... but why? They know that hardware does certain things.. and they may use it on certain kinds of sounds... but other than following advice from old dogs, there's hunting down data (like I mentioned Wikipedia - search 'music studios' like well known ones, which oft times practically invented ways to work which are not just normal things built into our DAWs... Abbey Road, Capital records studios, Sun Studios, Universal Audio plugins might be a good fit for picking up pretty good (but I find pretty CPU intensive) plugins emulating a lot of that kind of hardware.. find a list of them.. check out variously about what hardware they may have had onboard.. what big old mixing desks/consoles & compressors they may have had in any particular decade etc... consider what hardware had 'valve/tube' driven grit, top end sparkle, fluffy bottom end.. whether something was some new tool which took the recording world by storm... some optical compressor vs. a nice pillowy one.. try to work out, among the different mixing desks, which were known for being really 'acoustic' friendly... or techno-tight tight tight on every range... like maybe the old Nieve vs. SSL groove - the 1980s was when a lot of lovely old desks got replaced by ones with some computerized operations (floppy disks yaya!) and along with that, the notion of being more 'perfect' and so on.. precurser to current times, where digital expectations really are finally truly delivering... follow a few 'stories' like that, and I can tell you, some are hit and miss and not ever studio in every market experienced the same pressures to upgrade - and some studios benefitted by keeping their old gear, and making B studio down the hall with that stuff.. and also, we used to run signal out to old tape machines, back in to the main desk and 2in tape... pressing the 'flange' on the second tape machine - at that time, Eventide and some others were making 'hardware' to do that... kind of like the 'gag' in recent times about "there's an app for that".. but.. for sure - SO many things people take for granted in plugins, were just hardware 'do it with your own hands' sorts of 'work' ... and to get some of that 'right' was a lot harder than today, where you can actually draw in 'automations' for lowering/raising 'flanging' or whatever FX you want.)
On that last bracketed point... DO NOT FORGET - for ANY aspect mentioned, whether reverb types, sends, mix amounts for any channel or FX returned... you can AUTOMATE that.
Why dude?
In those dark old days, when we struggled with physical equipment... it was 'common as all get out'... for a mix to have a competent head engineer or producer PLUS sometimes more than a few engineers or assistant engineers - so what do those people do all day? They don't just stand around looking like they're deep in thought (although that is a thing).. you could often see yourself teaming up to 'fluff the faders' and EQ's, pressing all kinds of buttons during a 'mixdown'...
By comparison, a HUGE amount of today's music seems BORING as hell to some 'old ears' - possibly just because of that... today, people (including myself) can tend to just spit out quicker versions of things they might complete later.. but, actually you end up with 'that version' being the last time you work on it... and the big thing missing, is the human hand on all the controls, all during the mixdown... nobody is fluffing a fader, let alone 6 fussy technicians.. its so easy to drop in a drum loop, loop it... leave it.. produce it, sure... but not often will a lot of modern musicians bother to get old-school on that thing and crank some 'dials' in real time when mixing it down... for example, in the leadup to a chorus, OK slowly diminish some FX (like taking away the sugar candy you put on the front end of the verse, right?).. listeners 'lean in' (must be my term of the week.. I've said "lean in" in a lot of contexts lately, with apologies)... then blammo! the Chorus hits - very expected in a lot of popular genres where the big money still sits... the dumbest tricks, on the face of it, still work. Just saying - although the current digital domain allows for far more creative 'expressions' for far more people per capita then ever before... people still (again, including myself, not damning anyone btw) tend to shortcut things, to get more things done.. Computers help make things faster.. so using that, we often get more done - but without so much "human hands" in evidence perhaps..
Just worth considering.. add some 'drama' like real old timey recordings, by well, maybe automating a bit of "fake fader fluffing" in your songs Many decades on, I can still remember the first time sitting in as an assistant on a fairly complex jazz mix - and one of my tasks was to lower and raise some horns - and flip poles on one of them after a bridtge and into a fast section.. like, cutting gently, and quickly boosting someting to give extra vibe.. listening, your ears cannot "see the musicians on the stage" but for a mix where the 'excitement of that' is the goal.. how else do you make it 'seem more realistic'?? It's simple as all get out - but indeed, when the sax solo hits during a high point, you imagine that musician steps forward in a vibing jazz joint, right?... You mix it up by hand (or you can just automate things so they lower and raise for drama).
"Yeah, but I'm just wanting to record solo piano - how does that matter to me?"
Good question - but think of this. If you're trying for a refined solo classical recording.. set everything, and forget it perhaps. But if you're hinting at 'things you love' about some other recordings (from jazz to other contemporary music) things like subtle fader (and other parameter) management is never dead. It may be rare.. but IDK, maybe at least give some thought to how you might gently alter reverb 'richness' during crescendo or fortissimo... fluff those virtual faders!
Maybe this is near the last part of the basics I'm pointing to...
Now we have perhaps a bunch of different things all working well.. We've skipped ahead and learned about limiters (and LUFS and we know what we want to output.. like maybe to -16 LUFS and -14 to cover most streaming platforms, in case, even if we don't yet stream anything.. done).
Sounds OK.. but maybe even if you've really balanced out all the tools, from extra reverbs, compressors, any hardware emulations for saturation etc... you are happy that the limiter you put on the master bus is OK.. but you feel "It still doesn't quite sound like a finished record.. what gives?".
OK - throw a few more hardware pieces at this.. you probably can't go too far wrong with something like an SSL stereo tool (esp. for piano - not for absolutely everything - but for many things, I like this kind of tool).. a good one by SSL themselves, emulation of an existing and recent-ish hardware unit.. It WILL gently iron out stereo problems, and make fussing with various tools for phase issues not so necessary. Done.. there are other tools for that - but IDK, this is easy, fast, kind of well grounded, esp. if also using an SSL master bus compressor - pretty solid fit.
Maybe one more tiny thing.. it's waaaaafferrrr thin!
A terrible secret, revealed with the likelihood that the secret cabal of mix engineers will hunt me for eternity.. I am sorry - but I must do this.. for the people!
Try placing a different reverb (yes, another one) on your master bus. Try it "after" all the other stuff - just before your limiter.
Automate it.. so it only appears (is mixed up a little) during areas of the music where it might make sense.. like on lound chords/notes... perhaps drift the fader up so it 'seems' like those loudest notes are hitting a very distant back wall.
**new separator needed**
Extra extra - read all about it.. you could also consider that a lot of wonderful recordings used 'plate reverbs'.. and 'spring reverb'.. mix in a little of each - maybe 'visualize' that extra reverb type, as 'filling in gaps' where other reverbs fall away, or seem empty by comparison to when they are pushed up by velocity in the performance.
Fluff a little in - of various things, like gently painting "nearly transparent" colors onto a canvass.
Listeners do not need to hear "Oh that's spring reverb!".. you could have a bunch of practically impossible-to-hear stuff on your track or completed mix - nobody could seriously even guess all the FX... but the goal in all this, is just to impart "sense of place" of a kind.. and emotional place.
Other common tools for that basic kind of 'throw' (*just trying to insert extra terms for similar things, like throw is just.. the same as an FX send - but.. often it's like an FX channel with 'settings' in place.. you could have different 'throws' which are on-all-the-time.. or just for moments - or automated up/down in levels.. they may consist of their own 'little universes' of reverb or reverbs plural, echoic sounding hardware or digital tools for 'vibe'.. some kind of compression which may be at odds, or stengthening other compressions being heard.. you can just throw some reverb to another throw - like a conga lineup of those dolls within dolls.. until you are smaller than the atoms and you wake up in a feverish panic!)
Instead of reverbs (plate, spring or room, IR etc.) - maybe consider 'throwing' to a chamber. That's been 'a thing' for many decades. Essentially, its just passing the 'track' through an amplifier in another room, with a mic, and feeding that back into your mix. (Yes, kind of like reverb - but hey... it's a convention of its own.. I guess 'amp' and 're-mic' were kind of a different concept to 'reverb' more generally speaking, when it emerged.)
Why is that any good? Doesn't it just make a cloudy cluttering muddied up mess?
Yes and no. Just finessing it, like with EQ and compressions - subtle mix for it.. not heavy or overdone etc.. or plenty of great chamber plugins might come with various tools for tweaking the width, saturations, heat on the signal (valves/tubes running hot or cold)... some have two chambers, each different, panned without user concern left/right - ready to go. Some can seem to have tools you wish to use.. or 'hear in the mix'.. but mostly, the game will be about stopping yourself from ruining your nice piano with too much... (waves hands at the chamber and bank of machines).
Still on stereo field manipulation trickery.. there are other spatial tools, for completely 're-micing' any signal - meaning: Get the Pianoteq sound you like, put in into place in a spatial tool - sit back and start fussing with the controls in that tool's interface. Several of these are more scientific (but usable) - others are more aimed at 'emulating' famous old studios.. A good example of one which might be interesting to piano recordists is available at Universal Audio's plugin ecosystem. Just check out their 'studio emulation' tools.. there are many others - many great - but Universal does some things which do 'recreate vibe well' without too much user knowledge required.. you can get pretty wonderful spaces out of placing the piano in the designated piano spot in one of the famous studios... re-mic with existing mics of the time.. use the hardware like compressor and built-in chamber 'throw'...
You find tools which do 'some' or 'much' of what you may prefer to do manually - anyway - this is really just to add that sense of possibility for anyone seeking 'plugins which do more than one thing well at once'. The downside might be that for some of those tools, many of the results you can gain, could be a little 'steam-rolled' into a certain flavor - and not everyone loves.. a kind of mood these are great for.
Again, artistic choice, no 'exact' plugin any better than another for some things - some together are better than alone - really artistic choice at the spearhead of that kind of shopping... and I think it helps to 'do it yourself' in a DAW before 'relying' on one-size-fits-all tools (or multi-tools).. sure, doesn't matter for many - but generally - I do think many newcomers to even the notion of 'what is a studio really?' and those underexposed to audio can lead themselves down the garden path of less-than-optimal thinking about all these tools and methods - and I do think reality has it, that only a small percentage of people will really carry along and improve, whilst others will just block together plugins and think "Yowzer - I like that!"... and both are OK.. as long as someone is happy and feeling a sense of accomplishment - no competition about this stuff - it's a sorrow that it's difficult to discuss without some feeling like one persons' workflow is in insult to theirs, leading to sometimes having to point out obvious things when it's already there - but generally if someone wants to fight about this stuff - depending on some things, I'm up for discussing, or biting back like any red blooded mammal - just do what you do, that's all that is truly important. Don't worry if someone pretends to think down on your for trying (is that something new universally? Lately, I'm seeing younger people kind of pulling each other down, more than ever used to happen in my time.. not saying my gen was somehow perfect, far from it.)
~~~
What normally I would do, if NOT venturing too far into stranger things, (this is recent because in recent times Pianoteq has really jumped some old hurdles) would be to think of using 1 piano track (to avoid 'doubling' and other un-natural or studio tricks sticking out too much)... that avoids that mention there of "I thought I heard phase changes or the typical "double note" phaser/chorus".
Usually, if pushing for something severe-ish (like not a natural clean/clear room - but into more of a pop or conceptual sound design type of mode) I'd consider using various types of reverb setups, not just the internal reverb or an extra one (using an FX send or some other routing).
I'm going to try compressing the most obvious things I've posted here in the past.. (but for sure, this is just one example of the kinds of things you might consider trying - it's pretty unlimited once you begin honing your fav plugins, some to emulate studio hardware, others to add something unique to your music).
Also - just find it helps to add, all of this kind of thing is reaching for a personal kind of flavor.. you could use this and enjoy playing the piano with these tricks engaged - but the general goal, at least for my workflow, is that I would take a finished performance, then fuss with various reverbs and studio hardware emulation plugins etc. until I attained 'something in the way of...' a goal (like an album sound, not always just a vivid or sparkly clean hall.. think Mommas and the Pappas or Sgt. Pepper vs. a classical concert. That may seem dumb to say - but 90% of pianists, through no fault of their own, and actually refreshingly, often do not come to this kind of discussion carrying a burden of kind of being focussed on 'the recording side of things'. There's also the opposite of that, which is thinking that 'just putting on a lush FX plugin automatically makes your piano music wonderful'.. but the truth is.. Pianoteq or any other piano VSTi will sound like 'not original', or 'not your own unique sound' until you maybe get into a situation where a producer or studio techs help you, or you learn some tricks for at home recording. Everyone starts somewhere - and I'd just add, it can be an excellent journey to get rolling on.. because, now with a DAW you absolutely can get to a level of 'recorded piano' which would have cost houses in big studios of the past.. of course, that overlooks a lot of great music which indeed was recorded on the cheap side.. but speaking generally.. someone would tip out of piano lessons at a certain point in the decades back to the dark ages, then look for some studio in town where they can finally record a repertoire they put together/composed etc.. and the cost might have seemed OK, esp. if they believed in themselves and imagined some record label might knock on their door if they sent these recordings to them for consideration.. but for the thousands who did that, of course mathematically it's only possible for a limited number of artists to be developed by a label.. it's less that way now.. and for the cost of a PC and some plugins, you really can save houses-worth of income, to end up with many of your own recordings to enjoy into your twilight years.. sad that in the past people really could not generally have that. But anyway to tidy that text tsunami up.. just for some readers, I think it might help that they consider some of this.. just that quite often, there's a mistaken cross-talk in this kind of discussion, where someone just is happy with a player position sound - which is fine, not saying otherwise - but when someone says "I'm going into some kind of complex routings with reverb and extra piano tracks".. then, of course my radar pings and I honestly would love to see those who "do that kind of thing seriously" get the floor to show some ideas to others here.. not just me.. I have been giving a lot of space around here for a year or so - and just because I post some big lot of text doesn't mean "waah I want the spotlight".. the opposite - love to read about others' ideas, and take questions from anyone really genuinely interested.)
{Hoping to point out really.. you don't need 'way heaps' of crazy thick, drenching reverb 'all the time' to convince listeners that there's a big space in front of them, with a piano on a distant stage - that is just a handful of simplest tricks which anyone with a DAW can try out - and find their own fav ways to make variations of that stuff - to their own liking.. who knows.. you might find your fav 'sound' and make very moving piano music, if only you though "OK, this year, I'm going to think there might be something to that notion, that using studio equipment, studio tricks etc. might be a good expenditure of my precious time and resources.". IMHO sure beats wasting time/money on plenty of other things. Best of luck! @all!}
Oh, I forgot to mention, there are some lovely 'tape' emulations too - Augh... for anything which was done in studios, and part of any process back then, to now.. there are digital plugins for your DAW to kind of try out.. maybe a subtle bit of tape (or a crazy amount for certain tracks, or JUST on some reverbs) might be that 'extra' that many seek.
And - like maybe I mentioned.. Pianoteq, even just defaults, are getting to a point where honestly, I'm finding myself dropping plugins for certain things.. because actually the pianos are doing so nicely, I don't always desire to 'sweeten' or 'push' things.. but, I do have a soft spot for re-creating some terrible old studio sounds too.. and that's fun. An early role I had was to jsut background process tape to tape (rescuing old tape/tracks from the 1950s to the late 70s - from smaller tape format onto 2inch tape which was on a nice new machine in the late 70s.)
Lastly - maybe worth saying "a track" can mean very different things to different people, in different situations. I often refer to "track" as being like "OK, got the piano recorded" - not always meaning "Final, wonderful finished thing".. and in context ANYTHING can be mixed into other instruments - even terrible old tapes can be re-purposed in ref to the above.. they will inherit some aspects of their origin (ruined tape) - and so often people mis-read what is intended to be imparted... just an observation - it's not easy to pass much of this stuff on, when sometimes it becomes a set of arguments, rather than hey, just saying what was relevant to something particular, not describing a perfect universal 'release grade thing'.. that will be up to you.. tracks might go through a heap of different directions before you decide "That one!", and what still remains relevant, esp. in context with the OP's questions, is that.. even if you have your piano down pat... you still may want to involve a dozen or more plugins (like we'd engage a dozen or more hardware tools in the whole signal path). Rocket science, it is not. But it is full of folly and ways for certain people to get stuck, and lose focus on 'what aspect of all of this are you attaching that meaning to?'... that might be important more often than observers can know without time at the coalface really. But certainly... it's difficult to speak generally, and be specific about certain things.. because I think humans reading forums skip 'modes' when taking in info.. if you shift from global X to some specific Y... many will carry the 'motive' for X over to Y.. but you guessed it.. irrelevant at times to do that.. I encourage anyone to disengage that kind of, perhaps binary thinking.. "good vs. bad" etc.. in a way, it's an eventual confluence of many X + Y things, amounting to a final thing, MUCH bigger than just sticking a piano on a track and turning up reverb. GO!
Hope everything above is read, with that in mind. Just want more, better music in the world - and if you read to this line - well, maybe you will be one of those and I might leave this world one day, happier for this I'm just someone who stood on some monumental shoulders, and although my shoulders are modest (I last attained personal fame etc. in the 90s - hated it - so there's that to watch out for too btw.).. but I hope you might stand on my little shoulders if you want
Pianoteq Studio Bundle (Pro plus all instruments) - Kawai MP11 digital piano - Yamaha HS8 monitors
