Recording and assessing

[asyncopated]

I've recently taken to recording myself and I've noticed a number of interesting things.  There seems to be a big gap between the mental image of my playing (whilst I am playing) and the sound I hear from the recording.  I have to say first that I am just using my PC mic to record and it a mono recording.  I was wondering if my anyone has similar experiences?

Somehow, the recording usually sounds better than how I think I did.  As I am playing, I seem to have a good image of the rhythm I want.  Sometimes I mess up slightly and miss a fraction of the beat.  My mind acts to compensate and for the next few bars things should slightly off as I try to move the rhythm back to the original.  When I listen to the recording I can hardly hear that I did miss a beat, and even if I can (slightly) it does not seem as bad as when I was playing.

The second thing is that when I learn a piece and play it, I usually have a good mental image of the left and right hands or each of the voices.  That is, to a degree there is good separation in my head, and this helps me play the piece.  When I listen to the recording, this separation disappears completely.  If I play well, I can still tell the melody or the voices I want to bring out, but listening to my own playing it seems the sound is a much more coherent body.  I don’t know if this is a good or a bad thing.

All the flaws in my playing, slight inconsistencies in tempo, dynamics that are not on the spot seem much bigger when I am playing then when recorded.  This might be because the equipment I use is not good.  But still I do think even if I were to do a proper recording there will be a difference between my mental image whilst I am playing and the sound I hear from a recording of the same piece.

This is worrying slightly – how do I accurately assess myself?  How and should I reconcile both my mental image and the sound recorded?  If I hear myself differently which is the “truth”?  How can I use this difference to improve?

[ted]

What you could do is get a friend, preferably one with musical acuity, to be present at a recording. That would settle the question of how much of the difference is due to recording apparatus, position of the microphone and so on. If he thinks it is a fairly accurate representation of what you were doing and you do not, then it is in your mind and has something to do with the act of playing.

In general I have found that what I hear while playing is what I get on the recording, but my apparatus is quite good. The peculiar thing for me with recording is with improvisation, which is 90% of what I record. I can think I've been playing rubbish and then listen to it the next day and think it was marvellous or, fortunately more rarely, the other way around. But of course, this effect really is in my mind and has nothing to do with recording.

[Torp]

Analyzing your playing will generally fall into two categories, technical and aesthetic.  Most of your discussion seems to revolve around what you hear in the recording from a technical standpoint, i.e. did you play the right notes at the right time.  This is easy to evaluate even from the worst of recordings.

However, when we move into the aesthetic realm of analysis the quality of recording will play an ever-increasing role in your ability to adequately assess what is happening.  When recording through less-than-optimal recording equipment you will have difficulty ascertaining whether your dynamic range is adequate, whether your pedaling techniques are appropriate, whether the timbre of the piano is evoking the appropriate emotion, etc.  The list goes on and on.

Recording is an interesting medium.  Almost everything in the signal path has an effect on the recording.  The playback signal path has similar effects.  Most of the time, because it's all we have available, we'll throw a cheap, tiny microphone in front of a relatively enormous piano, run the signal straight through into a cheap sound card and A/D converter, into really cheap software.  We then turn around a route the recording back out through an equally cheap D/A converter into a pair of ear bud headphones or, worse, a pair of computer speakers.  Since we can't all be recording engineers or spend 1000s of dollars on recording gear we're forced to deal with it.

[mound]

I agree with everything that's been said.

I record myself all the time as a learning tool. I record everytime I improvise and I record in a few different ways. At home, I only have a digital piano, so I'm pretty much stuck with recording directly to hard-disc. That's OK though, I use this for the "technical analysis" mostly. Once I feel a piece is adaquetly developed I start wanting to record to further understand the aesthetic quality of what I'm playing. To do this, I'm lucky to have access to a selection of baby-grands, one being in the sanctuary of a church (when it's not in use) - nice 80' ceilings, balcony, baby Steinway. For this situation,  I have done a few different things.

First there is close micing, where you take two mics and place one over each end of the soundboard, placement is subjective, it's about experimentation.  This approach will give you a very clean, up close and personal sense of the piano, and you'll get that "Stereo image" you're talking about.   Mono recording of a piano is absolutely out of the question. I have also taken my mics and set them up 10' or so back from the piano, 10' or so up in the air. This gives a good sense of the piano, but you get room reverberation and the overtones, which, to me, is more aesthetically pleasing than the close micing, which is more appropriate in a studio session I think. 

Finally, and this is especially great that I have access to this sanctuary - placing the mics up in the balcony, another 10' or so up in the air, and at the back of the room. You get such a full and beautiful sound from that perspective. (look for my mp3s of my recital last week coming soon, this is how I recorded that).

To be able to accomplish that however, you need appropriate mics. You could not take one (or two) of your computer mics and stick them that far out - the low quality mics and low quality preamp would introduce so much noise, due to the gain you'd have to add, to make it worthwhile.

Knowing I would be doing alot of piano recording, and wanting to experiment with mic placement, it was important that I invest in mics that were versatile. This costs money, but if you are really interested in recording yourself to learn how you sound aesthetically,  it's a worthwhile investment. There are a number of options for mics, from a couple hundred dollars to a couple thousand. I use a pair of AKG C414BXL-II large diaphragm condensor mics. They work very well in all of the above mic'ing situations. (I even record live jazz combos with them)

Ted Wrote:I can think I've been playing rubbish and then listen to it the next day and think it was marvellous or, fortunately more rarely, the other way around. But of course, this effect really is in my mind and has nothing to do with recording.

I hear ya. I experience the same thing all the time. Usually though what I think is really good while I'm playing it, I tend to think is nothing special when I later listen to it. This is very unstructured improvisation however.

[Torp]

Excellent post Mound.  Excellent choice in mics too, very versatile.  What's the rest of your signal chain?

Another thought...
Something you must always keep in mind as a piano player, what you hear sitting at the piano bench will never equal what the audience hears.  Thus, when you record from the audience's perspective you must learn to listen to the music from that perspective and divorce yourself from what you heard as the performer.  The only way you can get around this is to listen through isolation headphones as you record the piece.  This way you will actually hear what the microphone hears.

[galonia]

Somehow, the recording usually sounds better than how I think I did.

You are lucky!  This should give you confidence.  I have the opposite problem - I always sound worse on the recording than I thought I did when I was performing.  My teacher says it's because I have exacting standards for myself, but I think it's so true what Torp said about what the pianist hears and what the audience hears.

As for assessing yourself, apart from the blantant mistakes such as really obvious wrong notes - you have to remember music is subjective, and only you know what you were trying to achieve - so listen to yourself, and ask yourself if your playing achieved what you had set out to do.  e.g. at one stage my aim was to copy Arrau (I won't go into a discussion on whether or not this was a good idea at the time) - so I listened to recordings of myself playing and tried to see in what ways my playing differed from the recording I have of Arrau playing that piece.  Obviously, I often have other aims to my playing...

[mound]

Torp - the rest of my signal chain at this point is a MOTU 828mkII, hooked via. firewire to a Dell laptop. Pretty simple. The preamps in the MOTU are the weak link, even though they sound quite good to my ears, those mics do deserve a bit more. I used to have a pretty serious arsenal of outboard gear, especially when I was playing bass in bands, but I've since sold off everything I wasn't using regularilly.  I've been checking out various higher end preamps, some tube based, but I'm saving money for a house, so I have a place to put a grand piano

[Torp]

 Mound,

You might check out a couple of inexpensive preamps, one tube, the other solid state.  The tube pre is by Studio Projects.  It's called the VTB-1 and it's only $99.  I have two, so essentially I have a two-channel, tube mic pre for $198.  The sound quality for the price is phenomenal.  I usually use these on vocals, but occasionally I'll use them on the keys too.  Another, more expensive, option is from a company called FMR.  They make a preamp called the RNP.  It is a two-channel, solid-state pre that sounds fantastic at about $475.  Both of these pres are dirt cheap compared to the Great Rivers and Focusrites that I use.  They certainly don't have the same quality of sound as those two, but they don't cost $1000 a channel either.  btw, they don't sound 'bad' they just don't sound as good.

Anyway, just some food for thought.  The 414s have a tendency to be a little bright on the top end and a tube pre might tone some of that down.

I've looked at the Motu gear before and thought it looked pretty user friendly.  What are you using for recording software?  How do you like it?

[mound]

FMR makes nice stuff. I used to use their RNC "real nice compressor" on bass. a $100 tube pre-amp? c'mon, it sounds good? then again, price doesn't always dictate quality.  The 414's are a bit brite, which is why I mentioned a tube. The MOTU is very easy to use, very versatile and easy to setup. I'm using Sonar on a PC. Does everything I need it to do.

-Paul

[asyncopated]

Hi,

Thanks for the comments.  I guess that getting a better recording system is necessary.  I don't mind turning into an audio buff, so this might be a good chance.  At the moment, I only have access to my piano.  It's a small german made piano, but I'm only playing a room that is tiny so it does make a "big" sound.  There is some reverb from the walls and floor, but nothing like in a 80' ceiling in a church! Anyway, I think I'm still a long way from trying recordings like that -- god might become mad at me for making such a din in his house  .

You are lucky! This should give you confidence. I have the opposite problem - I always sound worse on the recording than I thought I did when I was performing. My teacher says it's because I have exacting standards for myself, but I think it's so true what Torp said about what the pianist hears and what the audience hears.

As for assessing yourself, apart from the blantant mistakes such as really obvious wrong notes - you have to remember music is subjective, and only you know what you were trying to achieve - so listen to yourself, and ask yourself if your playing achieved what you had set out to do. e.g. at one stage my aim was to copy Arrau (I won't go into a discussion on whether or not this was a good idea at the time) - so I listened to recordings of myself playing and tried to see in what ways my playing differed from the recording I have of Arrau playing that piece. Obviously, I often have other aims to my playing...

Actually, at the moment I don't trust anything, not my listening nor the recording.   I think I need to get this sorted out some how.  The recordings might only sound better because the little nuances and inaccuracies are masked, as mound, Torp and Ted suggested.  One other reason that it might sound so different is that I suppose my expectations are difference when I am in the driver's seat -- playing the piano.  I have and idea of the sound I want for each phrase/bar and if it is not reproduced exactly, I hear a flaw.  However, when listening to a recording my expectations are different -- they are not as rigid if you will.  A note played a milli-second out of place does not sound so obvious because as you said,  interpretation is relative and the rhythm is still acceptable.  I have not tried copying anyone explicitly.  I do listen to the pros play, but almost never with piece that I am working on.  Instead, listen to something similar.  This may be a bad thing, but I think it really gives me room to explore. 

Ok, back to this audiophile business...

Anyone willing, please give me a crash course on how to set up something reasonable.   An idiot's guide if you will.  I'm not an audiophile, but should be about to pick up what you have to say, and if I am pointed in the right direction, that should be fine.  I have an average audio system at home (bose) -- hey at least it's not a sony. And think that for the time being this is adequate.  I will want to get something more fancy later on. 

I don't have any recording equipment.  What is a good setup? A couple of condenser mics? At the moment, I'm willing to spend a couple of hundred on these.  I'll check the AKG C414BXL-II out. Any other recommendations?  Do i need to plug this into a pre-amp? Are solid-state ones or tube ones better?  Should I build my own?  (I.e. get a bread board -- could be fun) Do I need to compensate for the pickup?  Do I record straight onto CD/computer?  Is there a better A/D converter?  Do I need to do post processing?  What are important details that I need to take care of?  E.g. cabling etc.?  Do you have any references, i.e. books?

I don't mind experimenting with a more advanced setup if it gives more flexibility (since I am new to this) or better performance.  I should also be able to build my own preamp or a/d converter (if it's worth it, for $/quality ratio) if someone shows me specs.

Thanks again for all your posts.

al.

[mound]

First of all, if you're worried about making a racket in the house of god, just stay away from the catholic churches and you should be ok     

(tongue firmly in cheek, I am an atheist, but a room like that has got to be used!)

Anyway - if your budget is only a couple hundred, you probably shouldn't even look at the AKG C414.

As to your other questions, check out this site:
https://www.tweakheadz.com/guide.htm

it's got everything you need to know to setup a home studio. Read about mics and preamps, and soundcards, and recording formats.. There is even an attached forum like this one for asking questions.

good luck!
-Paul

[BoliverAllmon]

First of all, if you're worried about making a racket in the house of god, just stay away from the catholic churches and you should be ok     

(tongue firmly in cheek, I am an atheist, but a room like that has got to be used!)

Oh the stickomythia. Good one.

[Torp]

a $100 tube pre-amp? c'mon, it sounds good? then again, price doesn't always dictate quality. 

Yup, it sounds 'good,' not exceptional but good.  I am continually impressed with its sound quality.  No, it doesn't sound as good as running through a Great River or Avalon, but at 1/10th the price it's a steal.  Sweetwater has them for $99.  I used to run my digital keyboard through them just to warm up the sound a little.

You're right, price doesn't always equate to quality.  The RNC comes to mind.  That $175 compressor is used in major recording studios right alongside $4000 - $8000 units.  It doesn't come up lacking.  Which, if anything, should be an embarassment to the companies that make the more expensive stuff.