Re: If 2/3rds of good video is audio, how come there is only one Audio section?
 

I started out doing audio for audio several decades before ever getting into video. I still record as much audio for audio as audio for video. I got into video through audio and now have a mobile digital HD multi-camera live-switch production unit and assembling a second. As a video producer it is a challenge to find good, competent audio people who understand the video world.

I must say that I don't know anyone who really has significant experience with both audio and video who would agree with the notion that "video is easier".

Re: If 2/3rds of good video is audio, how come there is only one Audio section?
 

Nah - it's lighting that's easy. You just blast the subject with enough watts to keep the camera happy, and as long as the luminaires don't hum too much, you're sorted.

(Puts on hard hat and retires to hurricane refuge).

Re: If 2/3rds of good video is audio, how come there is only one Audio section?
 

Richard - I don't know if this is typical or not, but I checked a couple other forum locations for traffic just prior to writing this. "Tapeless Video Recording Solutions" had 11 viewing and "Support Your Local Camera" had 16 viewing, for a total of 27 for these two forums that have sub forums. Just prior to me logging into All Things Audio" there were 26 viewing then add me and that makes 27 viewing. Doing some math then, this forum with no sub forums has as many viewing it as the other two combined.

It would be interesting to see how the numbers compare over time and it would also be interesting to know if there would be an uptick in participants if the Audio forum had a few sub forums.

Since it was mentioned that there are some "Audio for Video" forums elsewhere on the Internet, yesterday I spent some time surfing to see what I could find. While I found a huge number of Audio forums it turned out that they supported communities other than what I'm looking for, namely musicians, audiofiles, and the like. I did find some interesting sites but ran out of time.

I'm not giving up looking, though, but I am getting enough support here with suggestions to keep me busy so that's a real plus. Just did some takes yesterday with the upright piano and boom mic and after viewing them decided to do a few more this morning (whether it needed it or not).

Re: If 2/3rds of good video is audio, how come there is only one Audio section?
 

Bingo! Thanks John, this is the kind of thing that is really helpful. After reading your post yesterday I went and got my gear set up on the upright then called for the talent to play me some numbers. I did over a dozen takes using various setting combinations then went to examine them using Final Cut Pro X.

After reviewing the takes I deleted five of them right off then started examining the rest. There were two main variables and they were both the two gain controls on the JuicedLink pre. It has a Low, Medium, and High gain setting slider switch and a gain control knob. I adjusted both of these but, unfortunately, didn't write down when I used the switch settings.

Reviewing the takes showed areas where there was distortion that was both audible and visible on the FCPX VU meter. This morning I went back and did a new setup and some more takes. This time, though, I tilted the top of the piano up so the mic could hear the treble strings better. In the picture it looks like the mic is pointed toward the bass side but it isn't, it's pointed toward the treble side.

Once I get it edited I'd like to post a video clip here but I don't think the audio would play that well.

Even though I didn't comment on the middle part of the post I am taking it in. Our upright is open in the back but due to time and space limitations I just did the take where it was at. The next time my talented talent comes to visit I'll pull it away from the wall and do a proper lighting and mic-ing setup.

Thanks very much for all your input. Oh, and that's the ME-64 on the boom.

P.S. That's Mozart's picture as a young lad at the piano hanging on the wall.
P.S. #2: That's an appropriate name for the Tortoise mics!

Re: If 2/3rds of good video is audio, how come there is only one Audio section?
 

Sounds like it it would be an interesting class because I noted you didn't mention EXAMS! (Yea!)

I've got two of his books and one even has a bookmark in it when I took the picture.

One nice thing about physics is it doesn't tend to change much. Technique and technology is not so static.

Re: If 2/3rds of good video is audio, how come there is only one Audio section?
 

Demonstrating mastery, which I *did* mention as a class requirement, can take many forms. Showing skills in projects, contributing to classroom discussion, individual and group assignments; there are many assessment methods... including exams!

Re: If 2/3rds of good video is audio, how come there is only one Audio section?
 

I was interested in John's comments about omnis for piano - For the past six months I've been recording a grand piano for a specialist CD release - that needs a very specific 'sound'. Most piano miking techniques are to make the piano sound realistic on a conventional stereo in a home, or on headphones. My project was to make a CD replayed in a dance studio, sound like a real one. Dance studios, in the UK have a very tight ballet examination system that for the popular exam boards needs a pianist for the exams - however, a musician for a day is a very expensive component that they cannot afford for rehearsing. The CDs are sold to studios to use for the rehearsal phase. Recorded piano, often recorded in a nice live room sounds a real mess because dance studios have 6 large reflective surfaces - floor, ceiling and 4 walls. The CD needs to be recorded with a minimum of reverberation, so when replayed it sounds 'right'. John prefers a pair of omnis spaced about 20cm - which produces a soundfield similar to human hearing, and left to right separation introduces subtle time shifts which our brains easily interpret as location. I bought a while back a one piece stereo mic, consisting of a fixed omni/fig-8/cardioid element, with an identical one immediately above that can be rotated which works for me at about the same distance from the piano. However this doesn't work for this particular recording - it's too live and realistic, so I experimented with close mics, as you'd do for a pop style recording. This too didn't sound quite right until session 3, when by mistake, I used the same large format mics in their elastic cradles, but upside down, pointing up towards the lid, on full stick. Perfect, and the reflected sound blended really well. Close miking often sounds very odd when you run up and down the keys, as the string distance to the mics goes down, then up then down then up and finally down - the soundboard helps smooth it out, but my new 'mistake' technique works well. Piano mic technique also needs to be subtly or radically changed between makes. I was working on a show where there was a German pianist who specialised in playing very loud energetic pieces. He had a deal with Yamaha, and they delivered a concert grand, brand new, a week before the event with the request to allow as many amateur pianists to play on it as possible, to break it in. This wasn't a problem as during that week we had a number of events - one of which was Roy Chubby Brown - who specifies a grand piano in his contract rider!

My task on the day was not to record it, but simply to make it louder for the PA. The pianist stated bluntly that the lid would stay shut - and the idea of wrapping a mic with foam and finding the right place wasn't something I was looking for, but the pianist seeing my expression said "do you have a hyper-cardioid - zese vill be most suitable". I was confused to say the least, but I dug out an old and trusty Beyer 201. The pianist then put it over the main timber front to back strut, just behind the pedal board frame underneath, he dropped it about 18", then bent it back up so it was around 12" from the sound board and all the two cables and mic simply taped together. He then said "zis vil be sufficient!"

I was extremely suspicious, but he was the sort of musician not open to compromise, so I tried it. Amazingly with only a tiny bit of eq right at the bottom to get rid of the rumble from the pedal rods, it sounded excellent. I told him and he explained that Yamaha had showed him the trick, that works on C series Yamahas - on every other piano, even other Yamahas it sounds horrible.

Good sound is rarely down to absolute rules, it's usually a mix of skills, experience, equipment and experimentation. Somebody once told me that in sound, the only rule is there are no rules. Like John said, video is easy by comparison. With enough light, virtually anyone can get a pleasing picture. This is certainly not the case with sound. Stereo sound introduces a huge variation in available techniques which then need an operator with good ears. When I was involved with designing the UK exam spec for music technology, one area was always handled very badly, year after year. We gave marks for use of the soundpsace - one task was a pop recording, multi-tracked and the other, more linked to what we're talking about here, was what was called the natural acoustic - a recording made in stereo of a real event. It could have been a choir, and orchestra, barbers shop, folk music on acoustic instruments, a string quartet, that kind of thing. I used a plug in on my computer system to let me see the soundfield. A great tool to back up your ears. Whenever I heard something 'wrong' the meter could instantly show you what was happening. The worst thing was that the recording was totally or almost mono - a straight line on the meter, or worse still, they'd recorded stereo but one mic was inverted (usually a wrongly terminated cable). The weird hollow sound was the clue, the meter the evidence. Others had very strict left right separation. The best ones sounded realistic and you could with your eyes closed, point to where the musician was. It was very clear that stereo live recording was done pretty poorly in general. After I stopped my involvement, they scrapped this part of the exam as something not needed - a very poor decision I think. Video people are attempting to produce these kinds of recordings all the time - hence why I feel so many do it badly. Many of the students would read the books and do internet research and attempt to use very specific techniques - The Decca Tree being a favourite, but very few actually had microphones other than cardioids, so their attempts were usually horrible sounding.

Most video people when they've finished editing the picture feel it's complete, just the sound to tidy up and it's done! Sound does seem to be recorded almost by accident, based on what we read on forums.

There's an interesting video about recording grand pianos here

Not the kind of mic most of us have, but he does explain how difficult recording pianos can be.

Re: If 2/3rds of good video is audio, how come there is only one Audio section?
 

One thing about upright pianos which even many pianists don't appreciate is how much their tone varies when heard from the rear rather than the front. Most of us who are challenged for space (and money!) for a piano in the home choose an upright model and put it up against a wall and think no more of it. I have asked pianists to listen to their instrument from round the back and quite often their perception of how the instrument sounds is changed by doing so, because (not unreasonably) they have never actually heard what it sounds like to an audience when they are playing it. Apart from anything else, many pianos used in schools in the UK at least are much louder when heard from the back so even experienced accompanists sometimes have to be told gently that they are actually playing far louder than they think.

One advantage that upright pianos do have when recording from round the back is that there is less chance of creaking pedals and rustling pages being faithfully recorded along with the music.

Re: If 2/3rds of good video is audio, how come there is only one Audio section?
 

Just thought I'd try to wrap up this tread and I really owe it to the last two posters for their informative replies. There is a huge amount of new information there for me to digest as I delve into the area of making videos of someone playing an instrument.

This is an area that I hadn't considered before. So, not only do we want to have an audio track that replicates how the sound is perceived, but in some cases the room where the sound is heard can change how it sounds. That is an awesome leap forward in complexity for the person recording the audio. What this means is it isn't all about just having or selecting a "good mic" to make the audio track, it's about the selection of the mic(s), it's/their positioning, where the video or recording will be listened to, etc. There is just sooo much to know.

Back to the hofbrau sign: "Zu zoon vie geht alt, unt zu spate vie gehet schmart."

One of the problems with internally mic-ing an accordion is that very same thing. Accordions in the 1950s were acoustical but when the electric amplified guitar came along (Elvis, Beatles, Bill Haley, etc.) they were able to play to a large audience. More people = more money. (Money can't by love but it can make you rich.) Accordionists with their reeds buried inside a small box couldn't compete income-wise to the electric guitar so they started experimenting with installing pickups inside the box. First it was one pickup per side then two. Because the reed blocks are long rectangular blocks the pickup would be necessarily really close to some reeds but distant from others. For those with a good sense for the sound this was unacceptable.

As time and technology moved along there were new developments. One option was to install one micro pickup per key and another was to actually have a reedless accordion, essentially like an electronic keyboard. The problem persists, though, that these new developments do not, to sensitive ears, sound as nice as the acoustic reed accordion. It's that little nuance in how a reed sounds that makes the difference.

Another alternative is to have a couple external mics attached to the accordion. These are quite small and extend out about a foot from the box on each side in a V formation but provide pretty good results. The nice part is the artist can move about and the mics stay at the same distance, but there are drawbacks.

For myself, and for the moment, I'll be living with a single mic on a mic stand and a boom pole. The artist won't be able to move around but that's one of the drawbacks. The audio will be far from perfect but I can only use what I have and then be on the lookout for how the audio can be improved without braking the bank. Maybe I can get the video part so good that they won't notice the bad audio???

Paul: thank you very much for your post, it was really informative. Let me see how much of this I can capture. One of my accordion playing friends works at a local dance studio and I'll ask her what they do for music. If you have any CDs or DVDs you can recommend please feel free to contact me off-line. Thanks.

For me, the audio needs to be as good as I can get it. I'm going to be putting a lot of time and effort into the video as it is and I want it to sound good, too.

Re: If 2/3rds of good video is audio, how come there is only one Audio section?
 

Among other things as mentioned at the top of my previous post, I've made two "takes" of my talented talent playing the piano and they are so different even though they were made with the same recording gear.

The rustling pages did show up in my recordings where the piece wasn't memorized memorized.

I haven't tried recording from the back of the piano yet but will give it a try. In hi-fi/stereo they say that the bass is "omnidirectional" while the higher frequencies are more directional (like from a tweeter, for example). What I was trying to do is mic the treble end of the piano so the mic could "see" the strings while allowing the bass to be picked up more from the side, if you will.

I realize this is a far cry from the way a pro recording would do this but given the one mic I had it was an attempt to see how good I could get it. I could post a couple clips here of the upright (one with lid closed, one with top lid open) but there are a multitude of issues. Once I can get some more meaningful records I'll come back with a whole new thread just for this one topic.

In the meantime, I really want to thank everybody for their input. The replies to this thread has been a real education for me and there is so much to adsorb.

With regard to the original thread, "If 2/3rds of good video is audio..... ", I hope the webmasters here take a look at the "Audio" section and consider having a few sub-sections. Do some number counting of numbers of viewers, numbers of posts, what subjects the posts are about, etc., and consider adding some subsections. One, for sure, would be "What is the best mic for....." After that, I don't know but I'm sure the experts here could come up with come categories.

Until then, I've got enough stuff to keep me occupied for a while:

need a ConnBox for my Rycote Windshield,
Trying to get my new Toast 11 copy registered through Roxio and Corel (this has been an ordeal),
There are a couple new (used but new to me) backdrops I'm trying to buy,
The videos I have to edit are stacking up....

Re: If 2/3rds of good video is audio, how come there is only one Audio section?
 

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?

Re: If 2/3rds of good video is audio, how come there is only one Audio section?
 

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!.....

Re: If 2/3rds of good video is audio, how come there is only one Audio section?
 

.. 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

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.

Re: If 2/3rds of good video is audio, how come there is only one Audio section?
 

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

Re: If 2/3rds of good video is audio, how come there is only one Audio section?
 

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).



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.



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



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

Re: If 2/3rds of good video is audio, how come there is only one Audio section?
 

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!

Re: If 2/3rds of good video is audio, how come there is only one Audio section?
 

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.

Re: If 2/3rds of good video is audio, how come there is only one Audio section?
 

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

Re: If 2/3rds of good video is audio, how come there is only one Audio section?
 

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.....

Re: If 2/3rds of good video is audio, how come there is only one Audio section?
 

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.

Re: If 2/3rds of good video is audio, how come there is only one Audio section?
 

+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.

Re: If 2/3rds of good video is audio, how come there is only one Audio section?
 

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...

Re: If 2/3rds of good video is audio, how come there is only one Audio section?
 

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.

Re: If 2/3rds of good video is audio, how come there is only one Audio section?
 

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.

Re: If 2/3rds of good video is audio, how come there is only one Audio section?
 

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!)

Re: If 2/3rds of good video is audio, how come there is only one Audio section?
 

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...

Re: If 2/3rds of good video is audio, how come there is only one Audio section?
 

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

Re: If 2/3rds of good video is audio, how come there is only one Audio section?
 

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.

Re: If 2/3rds of good video is audio, how come there is only one Audio section?
 

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!

Re: If 2/3rds of good video is audio, how come there is only one Audio section?
 

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.

Re: If 2/3rds of good video is audio, how come there is only one Audio section?
 

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 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".

Re: If 2/3rds of good video is audio, how come there is only one Audio section?
 

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...

Re: If 2/3rds of good video is audio, how come there is only one Audio section?
 

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.

Re: If 2/3rds of good video is audio, how come there is only one Audio section?
 

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

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

Re: If 2/3rds of good video is audio, how come there is only one Audio section?
 

>> "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. :)

Re: If 2/3rds of good video is audio, how come there is only one Audio section?
 

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.

Re: If 2/3rds of good video is audio, how come there is only one Audio section?
 

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-...ml#post1755187

Re: If 2/3rds of good video is audio, how come there is only one 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 ?... :-)

Re: If 2/3rds of good video is audio, how come there is only one Audio section?
 

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.

Re: If 2/3rds of good video is audio, how come there is only one Audio section?
 

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!