I guess the powers that be would, on seeing a very large number of posts in the audio section all on different topics, set up some new sections - which is after all pretty easy to do. Maybe they just feel the amount of audio topics doesn't warrant the expansion ......... yet?

We have some sections where sub-sub-divisions really don't make finding things easy, so surely, content drives the spitting of a section. What makes anyone think splitting into sections, before the section questions are posed will make any sense. If somebody uses an ipod to record stereo audio, as I discovered they can do when plugged into a proper dock - would this be sufficient to warrant a section,or would we wait until we suddenly realise we had lots of people recording audio on ipods before the split takes place.

Let's just encourage more audio topics in general and see where it leads us?

There's an interesting video about recording grand pianos here
How to mic up and record a concert grand piano - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=27AQZJ0zHs4&feature=plcp)
Not the kind of mic most of us have, but he does explain how difficult recording pianos can be.

Interesting video...
As often seems to be the case with Nigel Cooper, there doesn't seem to be any worry about the cost? ---
--so that's £125,000 worth of piano ( model D Steinway) -- £2,700 worth of microphone (Earthworks PM40), plus another few hundred for the recorder (Roland R44)

It ought to sound b****y good!

This part of the thread brought back a rather poignant memory for me...

There are essentially 6 distinct aspects involved in recording a piano well. If any of the parts are 'below par', then the recording is basically stuffed.
These are, in order of importance:
1- the pianist. 2 - the piano. 3 - the piano tuner! 4 - the recording engineer 5 - the microphones 6 - the recorder.
I made a recording in the mid 1970's of a friend of mine - a fine pianist, playing a model A Steinway.
So the first two parts were fine. Unfortunately, the piano needed tuning, I didn't really know what I was doing, and it was recorded onto cassette tape. So not good.
We always said we would redo it -- but----- well, you know how these things drift on -- and now of course my friend can no longer play (severe arthritis).

These days, only the first part is difficult. Modern decent electronic pianos, those with 'proper' piano weighted actions, and decent multi level sampling, record way better than 90% of 'real' upright -- and most grand --pianos.
So it's really only the pianist that's the difficult bit to get right these days.
No point in trying to record a real piano , unless it's a really top quality model - andproperly in tune!
A decent electronic equivalent will usually give you a better result.

And you won't have £130K in equipment cost!.....

.. voiced properly too. O/T but we were involved in the Sydney Piano Competition. The Australian distributor for Steinway a sponsor, was just up the street and I got quite involved with them over the years. Hand crafting Steinway pianos in New York - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tb3kkgm3INk&feature=youtu.be)

They sold us our ex demo studio Yamaha C7 grand and to get time with it we offered free rehearsal time to the SPC entrants in studio down time. It was amazing how various pianists got a 'different sound' from our baby. Even piano benches are chosen, we were loaned 3 for their use.

The Russians were incredible I saw a few really get carried way with the light in the southern hemisphere and Sydney, and it inspired them big time.
A few paid us to record them as each entrant hopes to reach a peak with 30 mins of note perfect music in the heads, in case they win their stage to move up. No time to learn a new piece.

Every 4 years, the Sydney Piano Competition is rated as one of the best in world. For the final in the Sydney Opera House, the competitors have a choice of a Bosendorfer, a Yamaha and a Steinway D, a New York model. The Russians choose the Yamaha because they supplied all the Russian music conservatories with grands, free of charge.

The SPC is broadcast by ABC national stereo radio and they use a spaced pair of DPA 4011 cardioids. For students of the piano it's a master class,
you could probably listen in.

There is an Australian made grand piano using Aussie timbers from Tasmania and I believe that's going to be made available.
Imo the Steinway sound is hard to beat, but like Rode mics, we have a go.

Cheers.

See John, there is your answer...after three really good responses look how many mentions of camera/lights/meters creep in for this question about audio. picture picture picture....thats all some people can think about.

So back to your original thought...WHY is audio giving you fits? I know a lot of us don't really share the "secret sauce" too often but most audio issues are pretty easy to overcome if given a little effort.

Greg, great perspectives. But I think audio is a concept that not everyone can learn. I've tried to explain simple concepts to some pretty smart video people and they just don't get it (or don't want to get it.) Others get, appreciate my effort and add those "tools" to their arsenal.

I gave a few "audio for video people seminars" about sound and got a very good reaction from video people. One participant asked if I had any of the info written down. I said I didn't and that it was just part of general knowledge between my ears. They STRONGLY suggested I write it down. Nine months later I published my first edition of the Audio Bootcamp Field Guide.

I made a real effort not to use physics or math and to try to use visual analogies to communicate the information because I wanted video people to "get it." I took a little flack from people because it wasn't a textbook and wasn't technical enough, but honestly, I didn't think that was the best way to convey the information.

The most important tool in audio are your ears and brain. It's all about how you mentally process what you hear. You need to be able to make critical decisions about EQ, echo, reverb, distortion, volume and clarity on the fly. My brain is wired that way. So much so that if my wife turns on the TV while I'm in the same room reading a book, I can no longer read. My "hearing brain" is captured by the TV audio.

Due to the great and generous video people here in Baltimore and DC with whom I work, I have learned a lot. I now shoot, light and edit. A number of these folks, or folks who come in from out of town and pick me up for audio, mention that they started with audio and moved laterally to shooting, producing or editing. I can't know how good their audio chops were or if they are just trying to say they understand and support me in my efforts to give them the best sound I can.

Interestingly, I don't hear, "waiting for sound" if I find a problem and need to correct it. I think I did when I started out in this, but not in a long time. I'm obviously communicating something that says I'm trying to give them the best I can and they apparently respect that. I'm never "a sound Nazi with attitude." If something about the setup doesn't result in audio I like, I hand the producer my headphones and tell him/her hear what I'm hearing and ask if that's OK with them.

--------------------------------------

"Saying you're going to be a one-man band no matter what and a boom operator is a luxury is like saying a light-balancing filter for your old 35mm camera is a luxury when the truth is if you're going to shoot tungsten film under daylight illumination you just can't do the job properly without it."

Yes, I'll agree with this. I also like, "You can adequately play a round of golf with just one club."

Sure there are jobs one person can do, but people who have hit the "One Man Band" barrier need to be helped past it. There is no pride in being a one man band if your product suffers. Hollywood is tighter on the dime than anywhere. If they could do it with one less person, they would. This is a mental block and suggests is that the person doesn't communicate well, is too controlling or is otherwise insecure in his/her work.

Maybe you tried it in the past and it didn't work out, so you never want THAT to happen again. Why didn't it work out? Figure that out and move on. Grow your brand!

Oh, yeah, the why only one forum thing. How would you like to see audio forums split up? Production and Postproduction? As a mostly audio guy, I don't really care as long as people get the right information. Maybe try it and see. There's a lot to post audio that I never see here. Are people really getting the best mixes? The sound guys I talk with (a lot) do say sometimes they can't believe what post does to their sound. (and not in a good way).

I mixed 99% of the audio for a two camera, half-hour TV pilot in FCP 7.3 last year. I also edited the video. Some video editors were surprised that I did the audio in FCP. Granted the tools are limited and slightly weird, but it was because the field audio was good. (I hired one other guy and he and I did the audio - two audio guys, one lashed to each camera.) And there were several occasions where I had to talk the director (whom I also hired) into another take so we could get the sound right. Several times he questioned why we needed to do it again, but we've known each other for over 20 years and he knew I wouldn't be wasting time if I really needed a better take. Since I knew I was going to edit it, I knew what I wanted to hear and what would be a problem.

Have a great weekend!

Regards,

Ty Ford

Interesting video...
As often seems to be the case with Nigel Cooper, there doesn't seem to be any worry about the cost? ---
--so that's £125,000 worth of piano ( model D Steinway) -- £2,700 worth of microphone (Earthworks PM40), plus another few hundred for the recorder (Roland R44)

It ought to sound b****y good!

Why?

He used a cheap recorder and miked the piano too close.

Excellent though the Earthworks Piano Mic. is, no doubt, for a solo recital on a concert grand you really need the room, rather than miking the strings like the earthworks does.

I would have used a pair of good omnis further back into the room and a very much better recorder than the Roland.

My kit would still be the HD 25 headphones, but I would use decent mic. preamps - like those on a Nagra VI or AETA 4MinX and a good pair of omni mics like Gefell M221, Sennheiser MKH 20 or 8020 or Neumann KM 131-A(D).



This part of the thread brought back a rather poignant memory for me...

There are essentially 6 distinct aspects involved in recording a piano well. If any of the parts are 'below par', then the recording is basically stuffed.
These are, in order of importance:
1- the pianist. 2 - the piano. 3 - the piano tuner! 4 - the recording engineer 5 - the microphones 6 - the recorder.

Agreed, though you would normally use a piano technician, rather than a tuner, at a recording session - and he/she would be around all the time to make any adjustments necessary.

When I record solo piano, the technician is normally there all the time - a morning check and the piano is rechecked every time we take a break.



No point in trying to record a real piano , unless it's a really top quality model - andproperly in tune!
A decent electronic equivalent will usually give you a better result.

I disagree - you need a real piano in a real room.



And you won't have £130K in equipment cost!.....

But the piano is hired, so not part of the equipment cost.

I can't imagine not using a real piano for any project if it's critical. I've got some quite expensive piano samplers, one so big I can't even load it up into memory, but as a solo instrument they're never as good as even a modest piano - but they're passable in a mix.

I think John's point about the room is important, and often missed. The sound is not just the instrument, it's what the instrument sounds like in the space. Close mic techniques may well capture a more accurate rendition of what the instrument produces, but it also picks up things we're not supposed to hear - like the mechanics up close. It also doesn't take into account the fact the sound comes from a number of places that merge and blend together. Microphones at a small distance can hear all these sources and sound more real.

The various internal mics on pianos have always had a place in live, amplified music where distant mic techniques just don't work, but I suspect Nigel just like the sound of these - maybe because as a pianist, he always hears the close perspective as the performer, and maybe feels the more audience based sound is not what he likes?

I always love it when in the studio the trumpet player tells you his trumpet sounds wrong. He's never, ever heard what he really sounds like in his life! So when he does, he may hate it!

I can't imagine not using a real piano for any project if it's critical. I've got some quite expensive piano samplers, one so big I can't even load it up into memory, but as a solo instrument they're never as good as even a modest piano - but they're passable in a mix.

I think John's point about the room is important, and often missed. The sound is not just the instrument, it's what the instrument sounds like in the space. Close mic techniques may well capture a more accurate rendition of what the instrument produces, but it also picks up things we're not supposed to hear - like the mechanics up close. It also doesn't take into account the fact the sound comes from a number of places that merge and blend together. Microphones at a small distance can hear all these sources and sound more real.

The various internal mics on pianos have always had a place in live, amplified music where distant mic techniques just don't work, but I suspect Nigel just like the sound of these - maybe because as a pianist, he always hears the close perspective as the performer, and maybe feels the more audience based sound is not what he likes?

I always love it when in the studio the trumpet player tells you his trumpet sounds wrong. He's never, ever heard what he really sounds like in his life! So when he does, he may hate it!

Very true.

I will say that I do specialise in recording piano, mainly for CD release.

For a solo piano recital, the room is just as important as the piano and the mics need to be placed to get the best balance between the piano and the room.

I can't imagine not using a real piano for any project if it's critical. I've got some quite expensive piano samplers, one so big I can't even load it up into memory, but as a solo instrument they're never as good as even a modest piano - but they're passable in a mix.

I am pretty impressed by the Synthogy Ivory piano synth. Even as a solo. It has controls for the room as well as for the instrument (and samples from three different brands: Bosendorfer, Steinway, and Yamaha).

http://www.synthogy.com/demos/grandpiano.html

While I am of course reluctant to criticise expert opinions, such as those we have from John and Paul, I have to disagree on one level.....

Of course, the 'real thing', in a decent 'space,' with a fine instrument, a good pianist, and technicians (piano and recording!) who know what they're doing, is an unbeatable combination.

But in the real world, it's only those of you at the top of the profession who often have the opportunity to work at that level.
For those of us a bit down the 'food chain' so to speak, the majority of 'real' pianos we encounter simply don't record as well as the best of the modern sampled instruments. Many uprights are not in ideal 'spaces,' and unless they are of the best quality, simply don't sound that good, when recorded.
And baby grands are often overrated, in my opinion.....there are exceptions of course....

The very best of the modern sampled instruments - like the new Yamaha Avantgrand range for example -- are extraordinary instruments. Their sampling techniques include many of the mechanical effects that previously detracted from the 'real' piano feel. Sound board reflections --key 'off' characteristics -- resonances in the upper registers from having no dampers --- etc, etc, --- Their keyboards feel and respond like real piano keybeds.. with extraordinary nuances of touch response available. There are serious reports of people playing these instruments, for some considerable time on occasions, without realising that they are not 'real' pianos!

Companies, like Yamaha especially, have a fine heritage themselves with real pianos. Their CFX grand, for example, is a real contender at the level of the finest instruments in the world.

They have put a lot of effort into giving those of us further down the ladder a chance to make at least 'reasonable' piano recordings with their digital pianos.

Sorry to disagree with such expert comment, but I do feel that there are really not that many'real' pianos that can compare, recording wise, with the finest of the modern 'sampled' pianos, with decent piano keyboard actions. Only the very best models, in really good spaces, in my opinion.

Playing live however may of course be a different thing.... there, the piano, the space... etc... all contribute to the 'feedback' the pianist receives from his or her surroundings....and so to the performance.
Still doesn't mean it will necessarily record that well....

Just my own views of course.....

While I am of course reluctant to criticise expert opinions, such as those we have from John and Paul, I have to disagree on one level.....

Of course, the 'real thing', in a decent 'space,' with a fine instrument, a good pianist, and technicians (piano and recording!) who know what they're doing, is an unbeatable combination.

But in the real world, it's only those of you at the top of the profession who often have the opportunity to work at that level.
For those of us a bit down the 'food chain' so to speak, the majority of 'real' pianos we encounter simply don't record as well as the best of the modern sampled instruments. Many uprights are not in ideal 'spaces,' and unless they are of the best quality, simply don't sound that good, when recorded.
And baby grands are often overrated, in my opinion.....there are exceptions of course....

The very best of the modern sampled instruments - like the new Yamaha Avantgrand range for example -- are extraordinary instruments. Their sampling techniques include many of the mechanical effects that previously detracted from the 'real' piano feel. Sound board reflections --key 'off' characteristics -- resonances in the upper registers from having no dampers --- etc, etc, --- Their keyboards feel and respond like real piano keybeds.. with extraordinary nuances of touch response available. There are serious reports of people playing these instruments, for some considerable time on occasions, without realising that they are not 'real' pianos!

Companies, like Yamaha especially, have a fine heritage themselves with real pianos. Their CFX grand, for example, is a real contender at the level of the finest instruments in the world.

They have put a lot of effort into giving those of us further down the ladder a chance to make at least 'reasonable' piano recordings with their digital pianos.

Sorry to disagree with such expert comment, but I do feel that there are really not that many'real' pianos that can compare, recording wise, with the finest of the modern 'sampled' pianos, with decent piano keyboard actions. Only the very best models, in really good spaces, in my opinion.

Playing live however may of course be a different thing.... there, the piano, the space... etc... all contribute to the 'feedback' the pianist receives from his or her surroundings....and so to the performance.
Still doesn't mean it will necessarily record that well....

Just my own views of course.....

It all depends on what you are recording and what it's for.

If it's a solo piano recital then you really need a proper grand piano in a proper room.

Yes, you can keep the price down by just having it tuned before the event, rather than a full-time piano technician.

But doing it with samples is really a waste of time, IMHO.

If the piano is being mixed in with other instruments and is not the main part of the recording, then a sampled piano can be fine - but not for a solo piano recital.

You can often hire a reasonable hall complete with piano for a reasonable amount - and if you are recording a solo piano recital it's well worth doing.

+1 on real piano for piano solo and in good room

+0,75 on using synthesized piano for anything (just not 100% sure about this but probably OK - I'm a traditionalist at heart)

+1 on hiring hall with piano w the caveat that the acoustics of the hall be appropriate, the piano be of appropriate quality and state of repair and that your own tuner/tech sets it up.

FWIW, pianos aren't synthesized these days. They're sampled. A typical piano lib will sample every key at about 16 different levels of dynamics with the pedal up and another 16 with the sustain pedal down. They also sample the release of the key so when you lift your finger, the note ends properly. So these recordings are of real pianos in real rooms.

The main difference between a real piano and a sampled piano is in the resonance between strings. Say that you play and hold a C-chord with the left hand while playing a melody with the right. The open strings of the C-chord will resonate a bit due to the melody notes. That doesn't happen with a typical sampled piano (though I'm sure that in a few years this cross resonance will be modeled and added by lots of fast CPU cycles.) But this cross resonance is subtle. It takes a trained ear to listen for it.

There is a big difference between a real piano and a sampled piano when playing live - the first's sounds come from the breadth of the instrument, while the second's sounds comes from speakers. But on a recording, it's pretty difficult to tell the two apart.

Sampled percussion is also really effective. It's sustain instruments like the violin and trumpet that show their flaws. And then there's the human signing voice...

Have a listen to these clips
http://www.limelight.org.uk/ShortBallettest02.mp3
http://www.limelight.org.uk/01-Reflections.wav

First two are the same piece, input with a Master keyboard, with sounds generated by two synths,
First one a Steinberg Halion synth/sampler - a multi instrument cheapish VSI on Cubase, this short section then repeats on a another VSI - A quite expensive Sampler called Colossus. This piano is a 1Gb sample set.

The second clip is the same pianist (and sorry I couldn't find the exact same track) played on a Yamaha, recorded in his home and costing more than my transit van!


So you can compare.

The pianist is actually happy with the one I hate the most - the first one in the list above. The second sample was played in a reverberant space, and is a quiet speaking, very mellow piano. I've got a Steinway sample - but my computer is too close to it's memory limit to load it!

The pianist took quite a few attempts to produce a fault free piece on the real piano. The plastic pianos meant we could record just a couple of takes and then edit out any wrong notes or slightly tinker with the phrasing and articulation - and time wise, it is at least twice as quick. I still prefer the real sound of a real piano.

Hi Jon

Yes - I mis-spoke re synthesize vs sample.However I still believe a good real piano always sounds better for all the reasons you noted among others. My classical pianist wife hates any kind of digital trickery,and honestly doesn't really much like the sound of CD's but since I have no in house (ie in my house) means of pressing vinyl she has to yield on that point. And she's almost paranoid about anyone even looking like they might even be thinking about maybe possibly conceivably touching her Bechstein. Won't even let a tuner get near it until she's satisfied with how they do on the Yamaha grand that her students use. Can 't imagine any kind of "plastic piano" generating that kind of emotional connection.

Maybe in the end it's about recording the pianist more than about recording the piano, and the "chemistry" between performer and instrument has to be a big part of what one hears.

One reason a real recording might sound better is the lack of noise reduction. On a real recording, you set the dynamic range, and if the pp notes are down near the noise, it doesn't matter. They're recorded and played back very quietly compared to the overall piece of music. If NR is applied to a live piece, it's done globally and hopefully tastefully.

Sample libs are pretty much forced to use noise reduction, since the pp notes can be played back individually and out of context. Even with tens of thousands in recording gear and a great soundstage, those super-quiet notes are hard to capture cleanly.

A guy I know sampled a piano for Garritan. After that experience, he was convinced that the pianist's touch on the keyboard would make notes sound unique, even if the hammer hit the string at the same exact velocity as when a mechanical finger would press the key. (I can't remember which technique they used. The mechanical approach gives the best note-to-note consistency without having to tweak the gains.)

After the recording and programming sessions, I'd swear that the guy had a touch of post traumatic sampling disorder. The search for absolute perfection in the performance, recording, and programming, coupled with handling an immense flood of data, had clearly been stressful. I guess that's the basic nature of perfection quests!

In any case, it's amazing what value one can get from a $100 sampled piano. It won't have the feel of a real beast, but for recorded material it's amazing how close they can get. I'd love to have a large room and a Bosendorfer, but for now, the sampled version will have to do. :) (Not to mention that my limited skills are more limiting than the technology!)

she's almost paranoid about anyone even looking like they might even be thinking about maybe possibly conceivably touching her Bechstein. Won't even let a tuner get near it until she's satisfied with how they do on the Yamaha grand that her students use. Can't imagine any kind of "plastic piano" generating that kind of emotional connection.

That's not emotional, that's rational. Protective, yes, but altogether rational. You wouldn't want some new, unknown "repairman" messing with your Nagra IV unless you were sure he knew his stuff... He might mis-align the heads or screw up linearity of the bias oscillator or...

Well the paranoia so to speak actually extends to anyone even touching a key to see what the piano sounds like. A good friend and fellow low brass player who is also an accomplished piano re-builder was at the house and ran a finger over the keys and within a couple of seconds "Mama Bear" was making sure he wouldn't mess with her "cub" again any time soon.

The funny thing is that I really understand how she feels and it makes me wonder how much the tight coupling of the pianist and the piano influences the result - I think quite a lot. I know that when I sit with the tuba in my lap I get all kinds of feedback from being in such close proximity to the horn and I know it affects how I play. I had a cousin who was a cellist in the Philadelphia Orchestra for decades and he always said the same thing and told me repeatedly how the feel of different bows in his hand influenced the sound and how he would use different bows depending on what he was playing and in what context.

Oh well I seem to have gone off the deep end into philosophical meandering here, but I do think the real vs sampled question is really quite complex

Hi Jon

Yes - I mis-spoke re synthesize vs sample.However I still believe a good real piano always sounds better for all the reasons you noted among others. My classical pianist wife hates any kind of digital trickery,and honestly doesn't really much like the sound of CD's but since I have no in house (ie in my house) means of pressing vinyl she has to yield on that point. And she's almost paranoid about anyone even looking like they might even be thinking about maybe possibly conceivably touching her Bechstein. Won't even let a tuner get near it until she's satisfied with how they do on the Yamaha grand that her students use. Can 't imagine any kind of "plastic piano" generating that kind of emotional connection.

Maybe in the end it's about recording the pianist more than about recording the piano, and the "chemistry" between performer and instrument has to be a big part of what one hears.

I agree with all of this.

Though I am surprised she does not like CDs, as the limitations of analogue recording really show up with analogue and a digitally recorded CD of a piano is very much better than any analogue.

BUT - you have to choose the right microphones and get them in the right position as digital recording really shows up microphone limitations and the wrong mic. in the wrong place.

But, yes, recording solo piano is really a synergy of the pianist, the piano and the room - and the recordist has to capture this magic.

Luckily for me, people seem to like how I do this and I have tended to specialise in solo piano recordings.

Have a listen to these clips
http://www.limelight.org.uk/ShortBallettest02.mp3
http://www.limelight.org.uk/01-Reflections.wav

First two are the same piece, input with a Master keyboard, with sounds generated by two synths,
First one a Steinberg Halion synth/sampler - a multi instrument cheapish VSI on Cubase, this short section then repeats on a another VSI - A quite expensive Sampler called Colossus. This piano is a 1Gb sample set.

The second clip is the same pianist (and sorry I couldn't find the exact same track) played on a Yamaha, recorded in his home and costing more than my transit van!


So you can compare.

The pianist is actually happy with the one I hate the most - the first one in the list above. The second sample was played in a reverberant space, and is a quiet speaking, very mellow piano. I've got a Steinway sample - but my computer is too close to it's memory limit to load it!

The pianist took quite a few attempts to produce a fault free piece on the real piano. The plastic pianos meant we could record just a couple of takes and then edit out any wrong notes or slightly tinker with the phrasing and articulation - and time wise, it is at least twice as quick. I still prefer the real sound of a real piano.

There can be no doubt - as we have all agreed I think? -- that under ideal conditions, there is no substitute for the real thing.

Where I think we do differ perhaps is at what point one decides that the 'plastic piano,' as Jim describes it, is best employed.
In your samples Paul, clearly a fine pianist -- and I suspect a pretty good 'real ' instrument --but it need tuning badly. No --I don't mean that do I?-- I mean it badly needed tuning!

And that to me detracts from the impression of the final result, to some extent.

I mentioned in post #52 about the unfortunate experience I had trying to record a friend. I've attached a (very!) short sample of that recording here:

http://www.jp137.com/las/mjb.mp3

As you can hear, nothing wrong with the pianist -- nothing really wrong with the piano, - (a Steinway model A).... apart of course from the fact that it needed tuning.

The least said about the rest? -- the mics - their placements - the cassette deck recorder -- all my fault I'm afraid. It was only my first experiment!
And I'm afraid only this 2nd generation recording survives -- so lots of 'extra' hiss as well!

In that instance, I would have probably been better off with a 'plastic piano' version.

I downloaded a very small MIDI file of the US jazz pianist, Ben Lewis, playing Hoagy Carmichael's 'Skylark', and played it back, via my Yamaha synthesiser. Extract here:

http://www.jp137.com/las/skyx2.mp3 (only about a minute long)

For an amateur like me, that would have given me a better result for my previous project -- except of course that there were no 'plastic pianos' when I made the first recording in the 70s!

Sadly, as I mentioned in my previous post, the pianist from the first recording is now in his 80s, and no longer plays --so I can't redo it !

And the cost factor does come into it. The Yamaha synthesiser that I played my second (MIDI) sample through, plus the cost of the Olympus LS5 recorder I used I recorded the output, together came to quite a lot less than just ONE of the microphones that John Willett had recommended, in his earlier post.

The best quality equipment is essential, when you work at John's end of the spectrum. Not really an option for me though.

It's a shame that Michael Gerzon died young.....

Perhaps if he had been able to realise the full potential of Ambisonics -- and we were now working with 3 dimensional, 24 bit, recordings, then the subtleties of 3 dimensional 'space' might have been realised, and the finest recordings would probably indeed sound pretty much 'real' these days.

But we're stuck with simple stereo CD quality. Admirable as it is -- and I'm sure that recording experts like John will coax every last drop out of the format -- it's still way below the 'real thing', quality wise.

So at less than concert recital level recordings, there's probably an increasing role for 'plastic pianos' in the professional recording world ....For better or worse?......

Certainly the latest examples - like the ones Jon Fairhurst describes - are now being 'sampled' at very high quality, and with lots of sample levels for each note, to provide increasingly 'real' sounds.... with impressive dynamics...... It's all come along way since the early 'GM' MIDI samples!

I'm afraid that in the end there may be no more "real" instruments, or "real" cameras or "real" anything

Everything turned into a digital commodity - attach a keyboard to your telephone and away you go.

Already the low end cameras are under attack by the smartphones.

And the concept of "quality" AV in the minds of so many young(er) folks is probably what comes from YouTube. Funny isn't it that operating in the digital domain brings the capability to produce high quality work to the average person and simultaneously degrades the very concept of quality to the lowest common denominator.

The tools let us do magical things but nobody values the magic - digital giveth and digital taketh away to paraphrase some "old book" I once read.

I'm afraid that in the end there may be no more "real" instruments, or "real" cameras or "real" anything...

I recently acquired a Bronica S2A medium format film setup. I've been taking a darkroom class. Processing film is time consuming and making a great, large, analog print can be expensive, but there's something really sweet about a pure, analog process. It feels so much more valuable than a cell phone picture tweeted and forgotten.

FWIW, I shot this at a recent Seahawks game. Gettin' Loud in the Hawk's Nest (http://fairhurst.com/jon/photos/2012-09_Seahawks/Seahawks_016.html) I plan to enlarge it as "man cave" fine art. ;)

Whether its images or sound, there's something wonderful and valuable about "the real" vs. "the Matrix".

Hi Jon

Yeah! Film rules (while we can till get it that is)

Bronica is a great camera - I had a friend who had one and really liked it

I have as we speak a couple of Mamiya 6 x 7cm SLR's, 3 8 x 10's a 5 x 7, and 2 4 x 5's. Studied with Ansel Adams 40 years ago in one of his Yosemite workshops. Did I mention that I'm into photography?

But I've partly gone over to the dark side because I donated my 5 x 7 enlarger and now I scan the negs for Photoshopping and printing. Just no place for a darkroom in this house. Would prefer to do it the old way but...

I recently acquired a Bronica S2A medium format film setup. I've been taking a darkroom class. Processing film is time consuming and making a great, large, analog print can be expensive, but there's something really sweet about a pure, analog process. It feels so much more valuable than a cell phone picture tweeted and forgotten.

FWIW, I shot this at a recent Seahawks game. Gettin' Loud in the Hawk's Nest (http://fairhurst.com/jon/photos/2012-09_Seahawks/Seahawks_016.html) I plan to enlarge it as "man cave" fine art. ;)

Whether its images or sound, there's something wonderful and valuable about "the real" vs. "the Matrix". Nice shot! I once owned a Bronica S2A, sold it in the mid-80's to upgrade a PC, a move I dearly regret now. Film is indeed as PITA but there's nothing like the tones you get with a well printed, properly exposed and developed B&W film image.

+1 on the "Nice shot" by the way. Film is great stuff indeed.

How many mega pixels in your image? (Ha!)

>> "How many mega pixels in your image? (Ha!)"

Why, all the mega pixels, of course! :)

Last night I printed that shot - burn this, dodge that, etc. Fun stuff! I can only imagine what Ansel Adams did to achieve his prints!

For me, the S2A is perfect. I've got Nikkor 75/2.8 and 200/4 glass, but I use the 75mm lens exclusively. I was able to calibrate the focus by replacing the foam and re-shimming the ground glass. 120 film is readily available and not terribly expensive. It resolves more than 35mm, yet the camera is manageable enough to take on the street for authentic people shots. (I guess I could use an old 4x5 1950s press camera if I wanted to push it. Anything larger is really for landscapes, still life, and studio portraits.) I think the sweet spot for 120 film is11x11" prints on 11x17 paper. Goes well offset in a 20x16" frame.

One thing I enjoy is that I feel comfortable just handing the thing to strangers who are interested. (The exact opposite of the piano above.) I was given the camera for free and it's built like a tank, so I don't feel so protective about it. It's a real ice breaker. Heck, I shared it (and a few bucks) with a very decent homeless guy the other day. Got a good snap too.

But looking back at the title of the thread, while 2/3rds of video is audio, zero audio is needed for photography. But photography is a great skill to develop for creating good video. And good video leads us back to the need for great audio. :)

Oh go ahead and get an old press camera - they're really fun and can indeed be used hand held (although if truth be told the Bronica probably delivers a better result hand held than the 4 x 5 Graphics do.)

But you haven't lived until you've taken a flash equipped Graphic 4 x 5 and handed it to a waitress and asked her to take your picture.

Even better if you can capture a video of the reaction on your smartphone.(which I haven't done so far!)

Going price for an old Graphic in good usable condition ready to go is around $300 +/- and there are 120 backs for them. There are also Grafmatic magazine backs that hold 6 sheets of 4 x 5 and switch films with a pull - push motion.

In no time at all they'll think you're the reincarnation of Weegee who used to have a mini darkroom in the trunk of his car so he could develop the 4 x 5 negs and beat the other news photogs to press.

This topic is too much fun for the audio section. :)

Let's continue the medium and large format discussion here...
http://www.dvinfo.net/forum/open-dv-discussion/510958-medium-large-format-film-cameras.html#post1755187

This topic is too much fun for the audio section. :)


As this thread has developed, and diversified (or gone off topic, depending on your viewpoint) you at least have somewhere else to go.

Discussions on piano recordings -- or microphones -- or mixers - or audio processing - or -- well, you get the idea -- all end up in the one section "ALL things audio"

Which sort of brings us right back to the thread title!

Still, as it is the Digital VIDEO Information Network, I'm guessing photography discussions probably come higher up the list than audio ones ?... :-)

There have been so many comments that have been made that I would have liked to reply to but haven't but I couldn't let this one by Jon Fairhurst go by:

Quote:
"But looking back at the title of the thread, while 2/3rds of video is audio, zero audio is needed for photography. But photography is a great skill to develop for creating good video. And good video leads us back to the need for great audio. :)"

Generally speaking, and I'd underscore "generally", with a still camera one has time to capture an image while with a video camera it's capturing images on the fly, again "generally speaking". Sure, an action shot with a still camera one would have to be on the spot (or have a motor drive), and with a video camera, capturing a performance where one knows in advance what will be happening, it is planned. But for composition and exposure the first stop really should be with a still camera. Lens focal lengths, sharpness, color balance, grain, etc. can more easily be learned with a still camera.

Personally, I don't mind someone diverging from the original topic to talk about how it was or how it used to be because a part of being here is to have a good time, at least I hope it is. And throwing in a bit of humor now and then is a plus too.

My first composition training started in the 5th grade as I finally went to a large school. Until then it was one-room and two-room school for grades 1 through 8. In the 5th grade the school had at least 3 room, maybe more, of 5th graders. Due to the number of students in the school we had an art teacher and a music teacher that taught those specific subjects in all the classrooms. We learned about perspective, areas of interest ("thirds" although I don't remember this term being used), colors (blues in shadows, yellows on the sunny side, etc.). This was all new to me and it sunk in.

When I went to the sixth grade it was to another small school, this one having four rooms with two grades in each room. The principal had an art "contest" with grades 5 through 8 and thanks to my 5th grade art training I won first place. The top places were to go to "county" but my picture never left the school because the principal wanted it for his office. He said he was afraid it would get lost if he sent it.

So, going back earlier than what Jon said, I'd proffer that the art of video could go back to drawings and paintings, then to a still camera, and then to video. And oh my god, now we have 3-D! I can wait on this for a bit as I've got enough expense with single lenses.

With video there is another element - audio. Yes, A-U-D-I-O !!!

My opinion, and I'm not alone on this, is that audio is a CRITICAL part of the video. Not an afterthought.

The title of the original thread was basically lifted from the book "Final Cut Pro X," a "Visual Quickstart Guide". And this isn't some little short paperback, this thing is over 500 pages long! There are THREE chapters devoted to audio. In the preface to Chapter 11 the authors wrote:

"Editing your picture is only half the story. Your sound is just as important. In fact, a famous movie editor once quipped that sound is two-thirds of the picture."

They go on to say:
"You'll likely spend much more time finessing and working on your audio edits than you will on your video."

For me, that is really true and I've been around audio and hi-fi for many, many years. Audio should not be an afterthought. One person way back said that with a video camera you have telephoto lenses but with audio you don't, or words to that effect. Well, in fact, there are parabolic reflectors for mics. Spys use them. Sports photographers use them. Even astronomers use them. So, yes, there are "tele-what?-mics"?

Just like one needs to deal with lights and darks, color shifts (daylight, tungsten, fluorsents, overcast skys, late evening daylight, etc.), one must deal with how the audio is captured. It isn't "just a mic."

Looking at the holistic effort of making a video the audio is a very important part, hence, I can sure see the need for development of more subject matter options in the audio section. The question is, what categories should there be? I'm no expert on this so I'd defer this to others.

Questions:
Who makes the decision on this board?
Can this happen?
Do the people in charge here feel that audio is not really a significant part of video and those interested in better audio should go elsewhere?
Should there be a whole new board "Audio for video"?

Let's raise the bar and promote better audio with our videos.

When I think about a lot of the audio threads I've read here, my impression is that they can't be categorized.

For example, someone might post a question, "How do I get rid of such-and-such a noise?"

Answers might include EQ, various NR tips and tricks, specific software packages, and then branch out to mic placement, suggestions to turn off refrigerators before recording the track, and a lot more.

One recent (dreaded) thread covered in-camera mixing, the difference between "phantom" and "plug-in" powering, connectors and connectivity, mic patterns, ambience, mixers, and a lot of other detritus.

I could give a lot more examples, but I'm sure you get the idea: audio isn't "black and white," it's a whole spectrum of issues.

A fair number of questions are posed by relative neophytes and they don't even know exactly what to ask. For example, someone may ask about "static" when they really mean noise, or distortion. Sometimes this isn't even clear until the OP uploads an audio sample, several posts later. If that question were posted in the "static" forum, what would you do... move it later to the "noise" forum, or the "distortion" forum? Too confusing IMHO.

Then the other readers chime in with a broad range of suggestions and comments... some of which may seem, at first glance, to be unrelated to the original question but which, in fact, do adddress the original poster's problem.

So how would you categorize most of the threads you see here? Personally, I wouldn't. I'd leave them under "All Things Audio" and let it go at that. It's a good educational resource!

One thing that's really missing on the audio-side is music. The typical music post is "where can I get 'royalty-free' music". And by "royalty-free", they usually just mean "free".

Then again, this is a deep area that is best left for composers and musicians. Interested people should check out http://www.vi-control.net/forum/index.php? and spend at least as much time there as here. Expect to spend at least $1k on software and a year or more of learning before being able to do one decent, short cue - even if you already have a music background.

So I don't know that a film music area would be all that helpful. VI-Control is all about making music for moving pictures, but they have no areas for lights, camera, and action. I don't even recall them discussing dialog recording.

Anyway, if there was a film music area here, it would barely scratch the surface. And most people would probably just be looking there for free music anyway...

Good point - I really think that the audio and video have to be simultaneous parts of the conceptual phase - so many times I see things where the video and audio actually counteract each other. Sort of like hard rock sound track with video of quiet streams and floating clouds.

Of course it could work in the right context so there can't be a hard rule saying don't mix hard rock with floating clouds.

But waiting until the video is in the can and then scrounging for music can lead to a disastrous pairing.

Since music is added at the end of the process, composers often get a bad deal.
- "We had a month of pick-up days shooting but we need to release our horror flick before October. The edit is still in flux but here's what we have so far. Can you deliver 90-minutes of wall to wall music by Saturday night?"
- "We went way over budget shooting. Can you live with just your name in the credits?"
- "I was going to hire you but I found a student who will do it for free."
- "Can you make it sound just like Stairway to Heaven? Sign here that you're responsible for any copyright issues."
- "Do you know of any sources of royalty free music? You know, totally free music?"
- "There were too many notes."

Composing for a living is a tough gig. I'm sticking with my day job!

With you all the way there Jon. I'm a composer but the day job pays the bills.

Re the original post I don't see why a few simple divisions aren't possible: recording (microphones, recorders etc), post production (editing, audio processing etc) and maybe music, sound design. The last one is interesting as the aesthetics of video is rarely discussed much on the forum generally even in those areas where it might be - the conversation always gravitates to practical concerns. I think it's a shame and I'm not sure why as at the end of the day, content is king!

I'd like a discussion of music but don't know the questions to ask...and anyway, most of it seems to be subjective and thus very difficult to communicate. I got a book on 'sound design' to help me but couldn't understand it at all...I don't think I got one thing from it...total waste of money and unlikely to be able to sell it... :-( ...supposedly it was by an expert...

I have Cinescore with heaps of theme packs and find that by flipping through them and listening for a few seconds to each, I can tell whether it 'fits' or not...but couldn't tell anyone why...(worked out ages ago - by myself - that for some stuff, cuts have to be on the beat etc...)

And yet...music is so much an essential part of any video/film experience, but is often almost transparent - you may not even be aware you're hearing it!!! Probably if the music is 'right' you wouldn't 'hear' it - unless specifically listening for it. Very interesting...but hard to quantify or explain...

Good point - I really think that the audio and video have to be simultaneous parts of the conceptual phase - so many times I see things where the video and audio actually counteract each other. Sort of like hard rock sound track with video of quiet streams and floating clouds.

Of course it could work in the right context so there can't be a hard rule saying don't mix hard rock with floating clouds.

But waiting until the video is in the can and then scrounging for music can lead to a disastrous pairing.

I agree with you there Jim.

Musing on that subject, it occurred to me that one of the most shocking aspects of the Kubrick film "A Clockwork Orange" for me was the deliberate use of inappropriate music for some of the most violent scenes. (Verdi and Beethoven have never been quite the same since!) The experience of seeing that in the cinema just after it came out sensitised me to the use of music which conflicts with the images on screen and I've since appreciated earlier and later examples where this technique was employed to telling effect.

Unfortunately there are quite a few examples of it being employed by mistake (or ignorance, or perhaps even sheer cynicism) in B movies and I've been both amused and appalled by examples of wedding videos where the Bride and Groom have been encouraged to chose their "favourite tracks" and then that unquestioned choice has been the driving force behind behind the edit of the film of their special day - sometimes to quite arresting, though hopefully unintentional, effect. However well cut to the beat, many of these can end up being quite bizarre records of a what seems to have been a fairly normal event. If the customer is happy though...

I was a moderator on the Panasonic3CCDuser site for 5 years.

My experience says, with multiple audio forums, there'll be be mixed questions and answers spread across all these forums. The mods will spend their time merging threads to their correct forums and they'll have to leave a link so members and visitors will be able to find the thread again. Some visitors won't even bother.

It happens here now with cameras, the thread starts off with 'I didn't know where to post this so I'll post it here ..'

And visitors just want to scan one audio forum in case something grabs their eye. They might come across a new subject they find interesting and enough of these, they might join up. (And they see members here are polite to each other, that's a major factor believe me, Chris runs a tight ship :)

That's how any site gets new members and they're the lifeblood of the forums, otherwise we're all just talking to each other. If anyone Googles an audio question today, there's a hundred links to follow up. On utube they'll probably *see* an answer to their question, and there are some good demos there.

Facebook and Twitter now swallow up many folks time, especially young ones and they're the people the consumer/prosumer video manufacturers are after, us too.

Cheers.

Hi Colin

Not quite the same thing but I think the juxtaposition of the baptismal scene and the machine gunning scenes in "Godfather" was one of my favorites. The baptismal dialogue intercut with mayhem was brilliant IMHO

Back on the Panasonic site there were 5 moderators, I was the only one in the southern hemisphere, covering the night time
in the northern part of the globe.

For a while it was great, we had the same software as DVinfo although it was an earlier version, and there was a mods private forum.

There was some great threads, and we kept reminding the members to stick to the same topic, so folks searching the web could come across us,
quickly get a satisfactory answer to their question or problem, check through the other threads, be impressed and maybe join up. And it worked.

But in an effort to analyse what 'type' of folks do this and how we should make the site more appealing, we came up with a list,
let's see if I can remember it. (no offence to anyone here)

1. The clever young Steven Allan Spielberg type who's just bought his first videocamera and IS destined for greatness.
Mods private forum comment (MC) 'few and far between unfortunately.'

2. The guy who will reply post to anything you post, even totally off topic.
MC: 'a mild nuisance but hey we need him too'

3. The guy who wants to impress his new girlfriend, bought a vidcam and can't run it.
MC: 'She's got trouble'

4. The prizewinner who won a videocam, scared stiff of being ridiculed but taking a chance.
MC: 'He should have taken the holiday'

5. The pro, just wanting to pass some knowledge on, but an argumentative type.
MC: 'Oh boy!, we need him but watch him'

6. The guy with a young family wanting to video document them growing up.
MC: ' sob let's give him as much help as we can'

7. The guy who thinks everything he posts is hilarious.
MC: 'Let's ask him if he wants to be a mod'

Cheers.