Wagner-Liszt Fantasy on Rienzi; Thalberg's arpeggios

[ronde_des_sylphes]

From a recent recording session (a multitude of operatic paraphrases were recorded over two days).

The Rienzi (attached) is a one-take performance. The Thalberg extract (the finale of the Moses fantasy) has been edited, albeit only by myself in Audacity - proper studio editing will come later.

All comments welcome, especially on the sound quality. It's effectively untreated and no consideration has yet been given to the balance of the mics, noise reduction, EQ, etc.

[ted]

Well played as usual, Andrew, but as you asked about recording characteristics, I shall stick to that.

I downloaded it and played it through my hi-fi, an old but high-end Pioneer, while I sat in my usual listening chair. I am certainly not a knowledgeable connoisseur of recording techniques, so treat my comments accordingly. My first reaction was that it sounds as if it had been recorded through a blanket. Just to make sure it wasn't me, I played several professional piano CDs and a few things I recorded myself. It wasn't my imagination. There is a lack of brilliance and clarity, as if a lot of the higher frequencies had been cut off, particularly noticeable in the treble. Most professional classical recordings seem to go for a highly centred, reverberating sound, as if a piano were playing in a hollow hall about ten metres outside the wall between my speakers. Most of the non-classical professional recordings are more widely spread and closer in effect, producing a more intimate sound, but still crystal clear, including my own H2 efforts in an average sized, carpeted lounge. I don't think it is the 192 mp3, because I tried that, and similar mp3s I have do not suffer from lack of clarity when played in my setup.

The centred sound and the reverberation is personal preference, but I really think the sort of stuff you play demands more brilliance and clarity, whether the desired ambiance is intimate or concert hall.

[toughbo]

I agree with ted

[ronde_des_sylphes]

Ah, very interesting and helpful, thanks. I said "effectively untreated".. there was no mic level balancing between the close and room mics, but it wasn't completely untreated; the mp3 files I was sent have had the bass reduced in a pre-emptive attack on pedal noise, and I felt the result left it bright to the point of headache-inducing, so I applied my own EQ in an attempt to reverse it. (I don't know the exact EQ applied.. though editing will start from unaltered wavs.) The piano was a Steinway D, but I felt very treble-y and not mellow enough for my taste, so I did reduce it a touch, possibly wrongly. So what do you think of these alternative samples, where I have reversed my EQ and applied a slight bass boost?

[ted]

I find these altogether better. There are a considerable number, for want of my knowing the correct term, of sympathetic, metallic sounding vibrations, not, that I could discern, attached to any specific pitch. As before, I checked by playing a professional CD of as similar music to yours as I could find, and it too produced plenty of them, although not quite as metallic as yours, so maybe that is just par for the course with big, concert pianos and loud music, I don't have the experience to know. I know I find it quite annoying when certain pitches on my piano commence resonating with objects in the room, or in the piano, such as the lid hinge, but come to think of it, perhaps these effects might be irrelevant in big halls, and a concern only in intimate settings and recordings. I haven't the faintest idea how you would get rid of them, or even if you would want to.

It would be good if members more experienced in these matters than I am (surely there must be quite a few) joined this thread.

  

[ronde_des_sylphes]

Hmm.. I didn't especially like the sound in those later samples. I found it a bit redolent of a burly Russian hammering his way through some of the more abrasive Prokofiev, and didn't feel it sounded particularly 'like me'. The fact remains, however, it was a bright Steinway (the tuner called the treble 'brash'). It is possible that the sound has been reduced in quality by me playing around with EQ on an mp3, and not the original wav - I've not yet got them, as file transfer of 7 1/2 hours of wavs is a serious business on a moderate connection. I should be starting work 'in studio' shortly on the various tracks, and maybe experimentation on the raw files will yield fruit. 

[ted]

Beyond a certain obvious commonality the whole thing becomes subjective, and as with music itself, my preferences are unlikely to be normal. Even the sanction of audio experts cannot override your discomfort if you are persuaded to go with something you yourself do not like. In the end you have to be happy with your own sounds, that is essential.

[ronde_des_sylphes]

I've been playing around with other files from the same session: I think, in the absence of further evidence to the contrary, that the piano is simply a little treble-brighter than I would ideally like, and, in all fairness, Rienzi is a very in-your-face piece. Some of the quieter pieces I played remind me that nonetheless I was still playing on a rather good piano.

I doubt that your tastes in piano sound are odd or unusual in this case: I sent the first post samples to someone whose ears I trust implicitly and got a very similar reaction. Thanks again for the feedback, it is appreciated.

[emill]

Hi ronde,

Thank you for expanding my music horizon with these 2 pieces ... really enjoyed, especially the way you played the softer portions, so expressive.  

However, like Ted the lower frequencies had this boominess which sullies ones enjoyment as if it was placed on loundness control.  Although I must say that personally the higher frequencies were okay though masked by the boominess of the lowers.  I took the liberty of reshaping the lower frequencies starting from 400 cps slowing gently for a 15 db cut by 20 cps.  With the "cut" the mids and the highs come out well and cleanly.  AGAIN, THANK YOU.

 

[pianist1976]

Hi, Andrew! I wish I may give some help, or at least one more opinion. I watched some pics of the recording sessions of your album "A night at the opera". The mics were placed inside the piano. Are there placed this way also in this new session? To my ear (I may be wrong) it seems they are. I think that, at least for classical music, you get a more appropriate sound (this is so subjective...) by placing the mics not inside the piano but outside at a certain distance of the strings, not very long, just 1/2 meter, 1 meter, 1,5 meters and so on.

Its just a matter of trying by the engineers. Of course these days you'll also need the far ambient mics but for the main sound source I think that placing the mics inside may give several problems in classical music. The sound is too much "in your face" so to say and you give no time for the tone to fully create and to blur in the air, not having found a better way to express it myself. Also even balancing the mix putting more volume to the ambient sound will not completely fix the close mics issue.

Just an example of a mics setup I like:

At 0:31 and 0:49 you can see clearly the setup. You may like more or less the artist shown, I just wanted to point the setup.

I wish I could help. I wish you the best success!

[ronde_des_sylphes]

Hi emill, I quite like what you've done, though I think it suits the Thalberg better than the Liszt.

[ronde_des_sylphes]

Hi pianist1976, I've got photos of both this recording session and the 'A Night at the Opera' one; I'll attach them. (Ignore the metal object visible behind the bass of the piano - that's a conductor's podium on the stage ) The 2012 did indeed have close mics but also stereo mics a little further away, as well as room mics; I can't remember the proportions of each in the final mix. You can see that in the current session the close mics haven't been used. There is a pair of room mics not visible. Probably what bugs me is that it sounded fine during playback from the recording system during setup, and I tried passages with a significant variety of sonorities, and now it doesn't seem as good..

[pianist1976]

Thank you so much for sharing the pics! In my experience and other people I know, there's something about recording sessions that puzzles most people: it almost always sounds great at the recording studio trough the big mixing table and those ultra expensive colorless monitors but then you go home and listen through home speakers and it sounds different, somewhat disappointing. Please, don't take me wrong, I'm not telling it's your case but it was definitely mine. My first recording session was a quite frustrating experience.

About your recording, my perception of mic placement was, indeed, wrong (sorry about that). But the mics, although not inside the piano, are closer to the string than in the DG recording I posted. In the DG one the mics are placed more or less aligned to the outer side of the piano. At a guess it may be 30-40 cm difference with yours. It's just a few inches/cm difference from what your engineers used but in recording experience, a few inches can indeed make a huge difference. Just some toughs and ideas.

[ronde_des_sylphes]

In my experience and other people I know, there's something about recording sessions that puzzles most people: it almost always sounds great at the recording studio trough the big mixing table and those ultra expensive colorless monitors but then you go home and listen through home speakers and it sounds different, somewhat disappointing.

Yes, having now done the studio recording business twice, I feel fairly strongly that there's a level of psychological illusion. Because you hear it through nice expensive equipment, because you're playing on a far better piano than you're used to, and because, let's face it, there's a fair bit of adrenalin kicking around in your system, you perceive it as better than it actually is.

Out of curiosity, what do you (or anyone else reading) think of the sound here:
https://soundcloud.com/andrew-wright-35/jaell-reminiscences-de-norma-studio-one-take