#reocrding

The aim in this session was to understand which combination of microphone techniques and placement best captured the piano in relation to the classical genre. Prior to recording, the first approach was moving the piano into a position within the studio that portrayed the a balanced, full-sounding tone that complimented the piano and the performers intentions. The result was placing the piano slightly away from one the studio walls in front of the studio absorption panels. This produced a open yet rich tone. Finally, the external components of the piano were taken off to create a louder, open sound (Savage, 2011).

Method one: 6 inches from hammers with 30 inch distance apart 

AKG C414

Track: https://soundcloud.com/r-koszalinski/414-piano

This technique has captured a small tone with a significant reduction in frequencies compared to the acoustic potential heard in the live room prior to recording. The first consideration of with regards to the quiet signal is phase cancellation. However, upon application of phase inversion, it was clear that this was not initially causing the quiet signal. Another consideration is that it may have been be due to the distance between the microphones. Tim Crich (2012) explains how placing a third microphone can make up for a loss in the body of the piano. This concept may have improved the overall track. However, the priority was to determine the most effective technique from the selection and so, the decision was to finish the recording experiment with the intent to come back to  this method in case the other techniques fall short.

Neumann KM184

Track: https://soundcloud.com/r-koszalinski/184-piano

This recording shows a softer result in comparison to the 414 position. Due to the distance between microphones, there is still a significant lack in mid range frequencies. However, the initial harshness in high end as heard in the 414 recording is reduced and the overall quality portrays a tighter and warmer result. The stereo width appears to be smaller than the 414's. This may be a result of the differing microphone characteristics. Due to the nature of the instrument, using a LCD microphone may be more appropriate in terms of capturing the full body of the upright piano as well as the reflections from the acoustic the environment. 

AKG 451

Track: https://soundcloud.com/r-koszalinski/451-piano

This recording has quite possibly captured the least pleasing tone than the previous microphones. Compared to the tightness of the 184's, this microphone choice has the least depth resulting in a rather unpleasant, thin yet mildly muddy tone. The 414 appears to have retained most of the high end and clarity which would be beneficial when placing within the mix as the reduction in low end and emphasis in high frequencies potentially reduces the risk of clashing with the lower frequencies produced by the acoustic guitar and violins.

Method Two: 12 inch from Hammers

AKG C414

Track: https://soundcloud.com/r-koszalinski/414-piano-pos-2

The result of this technique is very similar to the previous one. However, the decision was made to reduce the distance between the microphones by a few inches to better capture the mids that were being lost from the 30inch distance in the previous technique. The result shows an increase in the body of the piano while the increase in the distance from the hammers has produced a marginally softer tone where the initial bite of the attack from the piano is reduced.

Neumann KM184

Track: https://soundcloud.com/r-koszalinski/184-piano-pos-2

This technique shows a similar result to the c414 in that the initial harshness of the hammers hitting the strings is reduced. The result shows a softer tone with an increase in depth. The increase of frequencies within the mid range may be due to the decrease in distance between microphones which is the same effect as the AKG 414′s.

AKG 451

Track: https://soundcloud.com/r-koszalinski/451-piano-pos-2

This recording shows a large contrast in comparison to the KM184 in that it has resulted in a much smaller tone. It is clear that the body of the instrument is not well audible or complimentary to the nature of the upright piano. A significantly quieter signal has been picked up than the 6inch version of this technique which is ultimately a result of the increase in distance from the hammers. Once again, this did not appear to be as a result of phase cancellation but rather, a result of the ability the microphone has towards capturing the tone of the piano in this placement.

Method Three: Behind Performer’s Ears

AKG 414

Track: https://soundcloud.com/r-koszalinski/414-piano-pos-3

This technique has resulted in a muddy recording which is a result of  an emphasis on the low mid frequencies and large reduction in the high end. The effect is so substantial that this would not be an appropriate recording for a classical recording as it does not contain complimentary full-sounding, natural tonal qualities. Tim Crich (2012) further states that this may be down to the type of piano. Unlike a grand piano, the upright is far more limited in string length and therefore, the low end does not produce a deep, rich tone.

Neumann KM184

Track: https://soundcloud.com/r-koszalinski/184-piano-pos-3

The result of this technique is a quiet, small tone with emphasis on the low mids. However, unlike the 414, this configuration appears to have captured more of the higher frequencies and therefore, retained some clarity within the recording. However, similarly with the 414, the technique overall shows a significant increase in bass frequencies which are colouring the recording in a way that almost acts as a natural high pass filter. 

AKG 451

Track: https://soundcloud.com/r-koszalinski/451-piano-pos-3

This recording is much softer and warmer than the 184. However, the frequencies appear more balanced than with 414 which has a much stronger emphasis on low mids. The lack of high end may result in the piano getting lost against the violin and guitar although, it may provide room for higher frequencies to breathe. Comparatively to the other recordings in this technique, it is clear that there is a recognised pattern with the increase of low mids. This may be a result of the distance between the hammers. High frequencies are much smaller and so, the chance of the microphones picking them up is significantly decreased whereas, lower frequencies are much larger and so there is effectively more room for the lower frequencies to travel between the sound source and microphone. Essentially, this colouration of lower frequencies may be a result of the proximity effect (Eargle, 2013). This effect can be used to enhance the richness of a recording. However, as seen in this experiment, the effect has consequently coloured the natural tones of the upright piano.

Reflection

This experiment produced some very interesting results. For example, the difference between the 414 method one and 414 method two almost seems like these recordings were captured by different microphones. Similarly to the acoustic guitar, the choice here relies on artistic intent. Creatively, the most preferable choice is the 451 position where the microphones are placed 6inches from the sound source. This technique appeared to manage the lower end of the piano which techniques such as the 414 method 3 was unable to achieve. The 184 and 414 method one also proved to be more balanced recordings in comparison to the others, with the 414 being slightly brighter. Initially, the 6inch and 30inch apart spaced pair appeared to lose a lot of the midrange across the piano.