• WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!

The Truth about many "Audiophile" Piano Recordings

goat76

Major Contributor
Joined
Jul 21, 2021
Messages
1,340
Likes
1,485
That's another sign of being close miked and panned into position. The album was recorded at the Village Vanguard, NYC. 1962 would still be relatively early for stereo recording of a live date.
I also think it was recorded the way you describe it with mono microphones on all the individual instruments hard-panned left or right.

But there's one thing I'm not sure about, did they duplicate and blended in the piano track to the left side as well? If so, the person who did that was really smart and a bit ahead of his time, because as we all know, in the early days of stereo recordings they only had L-C-R panning, nothing could be panned "almost all the way to the right".
 

Robin L

Master Contributor
Joined
Sep 2, 2019
Messages
5,291
Likes
7,722
Location
1 mile east of Sleater Kinney Rd
I also think it was recorded the way you describe it with mono microphones on all the individual instruments hard-panned left or right.

But there's one thing I'm not sure about, did they duplicate and blended in the piano track to the left side as well? If so, the person who did that was really smart and a bit ahead of his time, because as we all know, in the early days of stereo recordings they only had L-C-R panning, nothing could be panned "almost all the way to the right".
There are these little knobs on the mixer I use now for Zoom musical performances of an Elementary School band, marked "Pan", so that one can move a single microphone or direct input to a position in the soundfield, from hard left continuously through the center all the way to hard right. That's a standard feature on a mixing board. I had an Ampex MX-10, this was pre-phantom power and had switches, left, right or center, for a crude mix of the output. That antique was probably made before 1962 and was used on a lot of recordings as it was designed to be used with Ampex decks, which were the industry standard at the time. I moved very quickly to one of the compact Mackie boards with pan and tone controls. Had the big old 1970's desk from Music from the Hearts of Space, that had controls for panning. So, yeah, panning a mono signal in a stereo soundfield is standard operating procedure and started, as far as I can tell, with Tom Dowd at Atlantic records.
 

Xulonn

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jun 27, 2018
Messages
1,828
Likes
6,312
Location
Boquete, Chiriqui, Panama
You seem to be suggesting that the recording (Buena Vista Social Club at Carnegie Hall) is largely the sound of the PA system
No - not really. I was suggesting that PA systems in many venues - especially those that host classical music performances, tend to be very good. That track reminds me of the sound I remember from performance by the Reuben Gonzalez and his band at the Paramount theater in Oakland, California.

I am not familiar with the microphone setup, placement and feeds for such venues. Do the feeds split to different consoles? Or they all fed first to the PA mixing console, and then from there, routed in un-tampered form to a multi-track recording device for future mixing and mastering?

In the same way, don't discount the sound quality that might be achieved from a recording in a corner bar or nightclub.

I don't. Yoshi's, a jazz club that I went to in Berkeley a number of times had an excellent sound system and many fine recordings were made there. OTOH, going all the way back to the early 1960s, I have patronized many night clubs - especially rock and folk venues - that had horrible acoustics and PA systems. This Nirvana video is a good example of bad indoor sound.

 

Robin L

Master Contributor
Joined
Sep 2, 2019
Messages
5,291
Likes
7,722
Location
1 mile east of Sleater Kinney Rd
No - not really. I was suggesting that PA systems in many venues - especially those that host classical music performances, tend to be very good. That track reminds me of the sound I remember from performance by the Reuben Gonzalez and his band at the Paramount theater in Oakland, California.

I am not familiar with the microphone setup, placement and feeds for such venues. Do the feeds split to different consoles? Or they all fed first to the PA mixing console, and then from there, routed in un-tampered form to a multi-track recording device for future mixing and mastering?



I don't. Yoshi's, a jazz club that I went to in Berkeley a number of times had an excellent sound system and many fine recordings were made there. OTOH, going all the way back to the early 1960s, I have patronized many night clubs - especially rock and folk venues - that had horrible acoustics and PA systems. This Nirvana video is a good example of bad indoor sound.

I don't know when you went to Yoshi's. I managed to make a few recordings at the old Yoshi's for the San Francisco Early Music Society in the 1990s and heard Abbey Lincoln at the new Yoshi's near Jack London Square. The old Yoshi's was good enough for recording, I recall some noise from lighting, and that room was acoustically dry, so a little reverb in postproduction could help. Much better to add a little reverb to a dry recording than to have a recording without focus or too much reverb to begin with. I would suspect that the new venue would be better for recording as it's a well-designed smaller venue where acoustics were a major concern, ideal for everything up to a big band. Having a bigger room makes things more difficult for recording a live concert that is also going over a PA at the same time. Those types of recordings tend to be coming more from the direct microphone feeds, which are also used for the PA. The PA itself, the room sound, is mostly avoided as it can cause the kind of sonic confusion heard on the live Buena Vista recording previously cited. This sort of PA/recording was a major concern of Owsley Stanley, and his work on many Grateful Dead concert recordings was a breakthrough in live recording of Rock.
 

MattHooper

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 27, 2019
Messages
7,334
Likes
12,296
I think it is funny, however, when an audiophile reviewer completely goes into the presentation of a piano recording.... which, when *I* listen to it, suffers from what I call "the 30ft piano" recording problem which is very prevalent: you hear one side of the piano coming more from the right speaker, the other side of the keys from the other.

So you have your speakers spaced 30 feet apart? I think there's a hint at your problem ;-)

Mine are spaced between 7 - 1 1/2 feet apart. I find plenty of piano recordings have a believable sense of scale. Some are close up recordings and so it sounds like I'm close to the piano. Some sound more distant and so the "size" seems like I simply have a slightly more distant perspective.

Reproducing the sound of a piano indistinguishable from the real thing is a hard ask, so I wouldn't be expecting it. And certainly there are oddly mic'd piano recordings that emphasize the artificial nature of the recording. On the other hand I've heard plenty of recordings that, while not perfectly realistic, do a fine job of representing the apparent scale of a piano (for a given distance).
 

teched58

Active Member
Joined
Apr 14, 2020
Messages
206
Likes
545
That's another sign of being close miked and panned into position. The album was recorded at the Village Vanguard, NYC. 1962 would still be relatively early for stereo recording of a live date.

Since you're an experienced recordist (I refer to taping, not playing the flutophone), I wanted to ask what you think about a still relatively early (1965, though admittedly that's when the hockey stick of stereo turned upward) live stereo recording that seemed to nail everything perfectly -- sound, vibe, performance -- and also spawned a hit. That would be The In Crowd by The Ramsey Lewis Trio. It was recorded at the Bohemian Cavern in Washington, D.C.

I remember hearing it contemporaneously as a young kid -- my mom had that LP. And I now have the 1990 CD reissue. Seems like it's a balanced job in many ways and is notably better than live rock recordings that were made at the time and for many years thereafter. I'm assuming that's because it benefited from the warmth of a small venue. In contrast, one of the worst live records of that era is The Rolling Stones, Get Yer Ya-Ya's Out! That one has no bass at all (though still and all it's still got more bass than the egregiously bad Physical Graffiti. Which btw was recorded by The Rolling Stones Mobile Studio, so QED, I guess. (I apologize for the slight drift; I know the Stones has nothing to do w piano. But Lewis was/is a pianist and a great one, even though jazz, rather than classical.)
 

MattHooper

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 27, 2019
Messages
7,334
Likes
12,296
Speaking as a pianist, I doubt the musician point of view is the best. First you have lots of mechanical sounds that you probably don't want to hear, like creaking pedal mechanisms, fingernails on keys and such. Then you also have the aforementioned stereo effect of being orthogonal to the strings.

On the other hand I quite like the involvement of close mic sound... That might be the player in me though.
It will always be a subjective call, but speaking as someone who grew up playing the piano (we had 4 pianos in our house at one point - dad was a music teacher), I've always most loved the sound of a piano while playing it. I loved the vividness of timbre, the nuances I could hear.

It's also why I've always enjoyed closer seats at the symphony, and thus why I don't rail against closely mic'd symponies or symphonic instruments, like some do. I like that close up tone.
 

Robin L

Master Contributor
Joined
Sep 2, 2019
Messages
5,291
Likes
7,722
Location
1 mile east of Sleater Kinney Rd
Since you're an experienced recordist (I refer to taping, not playing the flutophone), I wanted to ask what you think about a still relatively early (1965, though admittedly that's when the hockey stick of stereo turned upward) live stereo recording that seemed to nail everything perfectly -- sound, vibe, performance -- and also spawned a hit. That would be The In Crowd by The Ramsey Lewis Trio. It was recorded at the Bohemian Cavern in Washington, D.C.

I remember hearing it contemporaneously as a young kid -- my mom had that LP. And I now have the 1990 CD reissue. Seems like it's a balanced job in many ways and is notably better than live rock recordings that were made at the time and for many years thereafter. I'm assuming that's because it benefited from the warmth of a small venue. In contrast, one of the worst live records of that era is The Rolling Stones, Get Yer Ya-Ya's Out! That one has no bass at all (though still and all it's still got more bass than the egregiously bad Physical Graffiti. Which btw was recorded by The Rolling Stones Mobile Studio, so QED, I guess. (I apologize for the slight drift; I know the Stones has nothing to do w piano. But Lewis was/is a pianist and a great one, even though jazz, rather than classical.)
There's another YouTube of this, sounds like that one suffers from major data compression. This, the "offical" YouTube, is more in focus. I remember hearing "The in Crowd" when it first managed to sneak over to the top 40 and R & B outlets. The drums sound close and wide [overheads?], the bass is more vague but properly balanced. The piano sits so firmly in the center I'd guess it's got a spot microphone, but capturing the audience involvement requires a stereo pair, so this is a bit of hybrid. And I think the trick with this track was the audience engagement, which is contagious. I think this is a case where vibe and performance make up for slightly less than stellar engineering. Determining how this was miked is conjecture, I'll confess that I don't particularly the piano sound on this, but that really doesn't matter as much as how well the audience is captured, paradoxicaly.

 

goat76

Major Contributor
Joined
Jul 21, 2021
Messages
1,340
Likes
1,485
There are these little knobs on the mixer I use now for Zoom musical performances of an Elementary School band, marked "Pan", so that one can move a single microphone or direct input to a position in the soundfield, from hard left continuously through the center all the way to hard right. That's a standard feature on a mixing board. I had an Ampex MX-10, this was pre-phantom power and had switches, left, right or center, for a crude mix of the output. That antique was probably made before 1962 and was used on a lot of recordings as it was designed to be used with Ampex decks, which were the industry standard at the time. I moved very quickly to one of the compact Mackie boards with pan and tone controls. Had the big old 1970's desk from Music from the Hearts of Space, that had controls for panning. So, yeah, panning a mono signal in a stereo soundfield is standard operating procedure and started, as far as I can tell, with Tom Dowd at Atlantic records.

Yes, I know how standard panning works on a modern mixing board, but do you mean they used continuously panning as early as 1961, for the release of "Waltz For Debby"?

According to Wikipedia big studios still used the old three-way switch throughout the middle and late 1960s. Maybe they were just late adopters?

"Before pan pots were available, "a three-way switch was used to assign the track to the left output, right output, or both (the center)".[4] Ubiquitous in the Billboard charts throughout the middle and late 1960s, clear examples include the Beatles's "Strawberry Fields Forever" and Jimi Hendrix's "Purple Haze", Stevie Wonder's "Living for the City".[5] In the Beatles's "A Day In The Life" Lennon's vocals are switched to the extreme right on the first two strophes, on the third strophe they are switched center then extreme left, and switched left on the final strophe while during the bridge McCartney's vocals are switched extreme right.[6][7]"
 

Robin L

Master Contributor
Joined
Sep 2, 2019
Messages
5,291
Likes
7,722
Location
1 mile east of Sleater Kinney Rd
Yes, I know how standard panning works on a modern mixing board, but do you mean they used continuously panning as early as 1961, for the release of "Waltz For Debby"?

According to Wikipedia big studios still used the old three-way switch throughout the middle and late 1960s. Maybe they were just late adopters?

"Before pan pots were available, "a three-way switch was used to assign the track to the left output, right output, or both (the center)".[4] Ubiquitous in the Billboard charts throughout the middle and late 1960s, clear examples include the Beatles's "Strawberry Fields Forever" and Jimi Hendrix's "Purple Haze", Stevie Wonder's "Living for the City".[5] In the Beatles's "A Day In The Life" Lennon's vocals are switched to the extreme right on the first two strophes, on the third strophe they are switched center then extreme left, and switched left on the final strophe while during the bridge McCartney's vocals are switched extreme right.[6][7]"
The folks at EMI were late adopters, that was one of the complaints that the Beatles had. And if you got an inventory of device X from 1959 you might not want to replace it with the latest and greatest on account of $. In any case, "Tomorrow Never Knows", recorded earlier, has stuff panned in something other than a left/right/center arrangement. And I can't tell you how they did it, but the rhythm guitar for "I'll Follow the Sun" [1964] is on the left between hard left and center with the same sort of placement in reverse on the right for the lead. "Purple Haze" is left/right/center. The "Are You Expeienced" album sounds pretty crude compared to what was to follow. "Living for the City" is loaded with panning effects but focuses on left/center/right. But listen to those drums, and Stevie, mid-right and mid-left at the same time:


As far as I can tell, Dion's "Runaround Sue" [1961] is panned. There's nothing far right or left, full stereo, elements are clearly close miked:

 
Last edited:
OP
pablolie

pablolie

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jul 8, 2021
Messages
2,104
Likes
3,575
Location
bay area, ca
The folks at EMI were late adopters, that was one of the complaints that the Beatles had. And if you got an inventory of device X from 1959 you might not want to replace it with the latest and greatest. In any case, "Tomorrow Never Knows", recorded earlier has stuff panned is something other than a left/right/center arrangement. And I can't tell you how they did it, but the rhythm guitar for "I'll Follow the Sun" [1964] is on the left between hard left and center.
The Beatles regularly did weird stereo stuff. I think it's "The Sun King" where the guitar keeps moving from left to right and back etc. Quite annoying. I guess stereo was a newish toy back then... :)
 

Robin L

Master Contributor
Joined
Sep 2, 2019
Messages
5,291
Likes
7,722
Location
1 mile east of Sleater Kinney Rd
The Beatles regularly did weird stereo stuff. I think it's "The Sun King" where the guitar keeps moving from left to right and back etc. Quite annoying. I guess stereo was a newish toy back then... :)
1969: a lot of bands went nuts with panning:

 

Blumlein 88

Grand Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Feb 23, 2016
Messages
20,784
Likes
37,679
As a relatively inexperienced recordist, I found trying to do complex mixes they mostly ended up sounding like mush. Someone good at this can do such a thing without it sounding like mush. I did find I'm often much better off doing a left, right and center mix. Somehow doing such a thing with 8-12 tracks sounds better than my poor attempts at spreading things around. A pure LRC mix can be weird over headphones. A compromise was to never pan more than 85% left or right. Over speakers you are hard pressed to hear the difference, and over headphones that slight cross feed makes such a mix sound more similar to the sound of it over speakers.

Of course I much prefer a good stereo pair with limited spot miking and maybe some outriggers for room sound. That is actually a pretty easy way to get a good sound. On pianos, which I've only done a couple times, up close stereo miking under or near the lid seems to work pretty well. With only the slightest addition of room sound mikes if the piano is in a large space.
 

Robin L

Master Contributor
Joined
Sep 2, 2019
Messages
5,291
Likes
7,722
Location
1 mile east of Sleater Kinney Rd
As a relatively inexperienced recordist, I found trying to do complex mixes they mostly ended up sounding like mush. Someone good at this can do such a thing without it sounding like mush. I did find I'm often much better off doing a left, right and center mix. Somehow doing such a thing with 8-12 tracks sounds better than my poor attempts at spreading things around. A pure LRC mix can be weird over headphones. A compromise was to never pan more than 85% left or right. Over speakers you are hard pressed to hear the difference, and over headphones that slight cross feed makes such a mix sound more similar to the sound of it over speakers.

Of course I much prefer a good stereo pair with limited spot miking and maybe some outriggers for room sound. That is actually a pretty easy way to get a good sound. On pianos, which I've only done a couple times, up close stereo miking under or near the lid seems to work pretty well. With only the slightest addition of room sound mikes if the piano is in a large space.
I'm kinda surprised at how many times I've recorded piano. A lot were ORTF. I had a tall stand, a stereo bar, two small diaphragm condenser microphones, cardioid, 7" inches apart, aimed out about 105 degrees, aimed at the event. That was my default for many concerts because there would be only one microphone stand and I was used to recording this way. It usually interfered with the musicians warming up the least of all options. And it was the least messy arrangement. I was told about the "tail shot" technique later on, was told that was Decca's default and found that I liked it much better. A lot of the 30' wide piano can come from ORTF miking of the instrument from the audience's perspective, that will produce a treble left/bass right separation of the keyboard. A tail shot will get more of the sense of physical body of a piano, in large part because there's more bass, but also because it's closer to mono.
 
Last edited:
OP
pablolie

pablolie

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jul 8, 2021
Messages
2,104
Likes
3,575
Location
bay area, ca
So you have your speakers spaced 30 feet apart? I think there's a hint at your problem ;-)
Nope, they are about 7ft apart. But they are set up the right way for my listening position, so they do project a stage very nicely - when the recording allows for it. My point is that it is bizarre when there is a stage for all other instruments *except* the piano, which spans the entirety of it. Many others in this thread seem to agree.
I know many piano players wish they were 20ft tall and owned 30ft pianos, but us mere mortals are totally satisfied with a more balanced presentation. ;-D
 

Robin L

Master Contributor
Joined
Sep 2, 2019
Messages
5,291
Likes
7,722
Location
1 mile east of Sleater Kinney Rd
Nope, they are about 7ft apart. But they are set up the right way for my listening position, so they do project a stage very nicely - when the recording allows for it. My point is that it is bizarre when there is a stage for all other instruments *except* the piano, which spans the entirety of it. Many others in this thread seem to agree.
I know many piano players wish they were 20ft tall and owned 30ft pianos, but us mere mortals are totally satisfied with a more balanced presentation. ;-D
By some fluke, had a somewhat damaged Steinway B from the 1930s in my living room for about two years. It was tossed around studios then collected to pay a debt, rolled off the back end of a truck and had spilled coffee damage on the hammers for the penultimate bottom octave. One might say that an aleatory process rendered this instrument into a [somewhat] "prepared piano". Eventually, a pianist bought and refurbished it.

A good instrument will nearly overwhelm a typical domestic environment, with a sound field larger than the instrument itself. This quality is very hard to capture in a recording.
 
Top Bottom