[pianotech] mp3 recordings - How

[Overs Pianos]

Hello all,

Mark Schecter's post is full of good advice for preparing a quality 
sound file. The big problem with using servers such as Youtube for 
your recordings is that the quality of the sound file will not be 
preserved (it will be screwed to sound like a 128K mp3 file). If you 
have enough room on your webspace, you can save a file as an mp3 with 
a higher sample rate (as Mark suggests 192K or higher) and upload it 
to your own web space. Or if you have friends who don't use their 
personal webspace, with their permission you can upload a file to 
their space.

I have a couple of files of my grand piano sampled at 192K, online on 
friend's web space.

Below is a link to an 18:40 minute 192K file of Scott Davie playing 
Rachminoff's Variations on a Theme of Corelli on my 225 cm grand 
piano no. 3.

http://users.tpg.com.au/onyxer/Corelli.mp3

This is a classical recording, and the microphones were placed to get 
more of the room, relative to the closer mic placement typical of a 
jazz recording. We also were particular about achieving a recorded 
sound which didn't have an overly boosted bass. There are so many 
piano recordings out there which sound nothing like the source 
instrument.

And here is a link to a 7:04 minute 192K file of Mike Nock's Trio 
recording his own composition, Acceptance, recorded on my 225 cm 
grand piano no. 3

http://users.tpg.com.au/dotmewes/Acceptance.mp3

This jazz trio recording was made with closer microphone placement 
than for the Corelli.

Please note:
Most web browsers will not play the full length of an mp3 file when 
it is opened through a web browser. To play the full length of an 
mp3, use a standalone player such as QuickTime or Windows Media 
Player.

To open in QuickTime on a Mac, with QuickTime launched, select "Open 
URL" through the File Menu, copy the link into the field, then click 
"Open".

Ron Overs


At 12:39 PM -0700 2/6/12, Mark Schecter wrote:
>I'd like to suggest a few ideas regarding audio files, MP3s, and 
>recording techniques, in hopes of helping people get good recorded 
>results with a minimum of trial and error.
>
>* Audio files: Most recording software, regardless of hardware 
>platform, allows some choice as to output file format, i.e. 
>uncompressed such as .wav, or AIFF (Apple); and compressed such as 
>MP3, AAC (Apple), and a few other less universal formats. I would 
>suggest that the original file format that you record into be as 
>high-fidelity as possible, and then in a separate step, convert it 
>to a compression format. This is preferable to recording the 
>original in MP3, from which there is no way to recover any lost 
>fidelity. Higher sample rate/bit rate is better, i.e. 48kHz beats 
>44.1kHz, and more bits (per sample word) is better, i.e. 24 bits 
>beats 16 bits. So to be specific, I would suggest originals be in 
>.wav or .aiff or better format, as this is 16 bit 44.1kHz, or the 
>same as CDs. From that you can down-sample/convert it to any 
>compressed format as many different times as you want until you find 
>the right balance between fidelity and size. iTunes does this 
>conversion easily on either Mac or PC.
>
>* MP3s: This is a compression protocol that gives the user a range 
>of bit rates to choose from, depending on how small or large the 
>resulting file can be. If you choose a low bit rate/small file, you 
>do sacrifice substantial fidelity in exchange for smallness. But if 
>you use higher bit rates, like 192K-256K or more bits/second, the 
>fidelity is quite decent. I would suggest people start there, try a 
>few rates, see how it sounds, and then perhaps we could agree on a 
>format/bit rate to all use for the sake of uniformity. (Or not ...)
>
>* Recording techniques: (These are just suggestions, based on what 
>I've seen excellent recording engineers doing. There are many other 
>possibilities which I don't mean to discount. I just want to help 
>people get good results quickly.)
>
>While there are no hard and fast rules, there is such a thing as too 
>close-miking. Almost nobody (besides David Andersen - hi DA!) 
>listens to a piano with their ears inside the rim of the piano. 
>Getting too close has two primary effects that I prefer to avoid: 1. 
>Excess dynamic range, and 2. Excess local details/anomalies. 
>Skipping any long discussion of these two things for now, I would 
>suggest the following as ballparking guidelines:
>
>Position the microphone(s) (or the recorder if the mics are 
>built-in) somewhere within the limits of the two zones described as 
>follows. 1. For the closer end of the range, position the mic 
>directly above the rim, at about half the distance between the top 
>of the rim and the edge of the lid, somewhere in the curve, pointing 
>somewhere between at the soundboard and at the lid. You will get a 
>more balanced sound if the lid is all the way up, but try the short 
>stick too. An alternative position for the closer range is higher, a 
>few inches below the plane of the open lid, and one to three feet 
>outside the outline of the rim. If you're using two mics on separate 
>stands, separate them by three to eight feet, but at the same 
>distance from the lid.
>
>2. The more distant position would be somewhere up to about twenty 
>feet distant from the curve of the rim, depending on what the size 
>of the room will allow, and how much room sound vs direct sound you 
>want to hear. Height about eye/ear level. Location within the 
>following triangle: 1. Project a line from the middle of the length 
>of the lid at right angle to the straight side of the piano. 2. 
>Project a line from the bass end of the pinblock through the treble 
>end of the bass bridge. These two lines form a triangle within which 
>you can emphasize bass by moving toward the tail of the piano, or a 
>more natural balance by moving toward the right-angle line.
>
>By the way, I second Dale's choice of the H4n as a viable and 
>affordable device that allows all of the possiblities above, and 
>others as well, such as recording four tracks simultaneously, and 
>using two external mics along with or instead of the two built-in 
>mics.
>
>There are volumes more to say about all this, already written by 
>others much more knowledgable than myself, but I hope this helps 
>people get started.
>
>~Mark Schecter
>
>On 6/2/12 5:14 AM, Mark Dierauf wrote:
>>That's quite a nice sound for a inexpensive handheld unit, isn't it? I'm
>>not hearing much from the high treble, so I'd recommend getting a couple
>>of stand-alone mics and stands so you can play around with placement and
>>balance to get a more representative sound. The piano sounds great -
>>I'll bet your customer is one happy camper!


-- 
OVERS PIANOS - SYDNEY
    Grand Piano Manufacturers
_______________________

Web http://overspianos.com.au
mailto:ron at overspianos.com.au
_______________________

A web page with images of recent work and almost-audio-CD quality mp3 
sound files of the Overs piano can be found at;
http://overspianos.com.au/more_info.htm

So put on your headphones, plug them into your freshly restarted 
computer and sit back to over 20 minutes of pure piano.
  _______________________
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://www.moypiano.com/ptg/pianotech.php/attachments/20120604/059ee06f/attachment.htm>