A brand new Steinway from VSL: 1887 model D concert grand

Vlad All we need is…

Food and… water (preferably running and warm too).
I would add electricity too. Without it 99% of our occupations (jobs) will be a disastrous chore. Even preparing a meal (food).

PASHKULI Acoustic pianos are difficult to record (properly): you need good and well acoustically treated room (studio), great mics, mix of recorded signals (phase correlation especially, EQ tweaking, recording device as audio interface and recorder, typically laptop with such audio software). Not many piano players have such setups.
Hence, most of them dream about it. Others have it (in house, at the school music hall) but the hassle of recording is too much.

I don't know. I made this recording of an acoustic piano in a church I was serving in 7 years ago. It wasn't that difficult. Couple mics, my laptop, an audio interface, and I uploaded it right from that sanctuary. Maybe it's not considered properly done, but I think it accurately captures what that piano sounded like in that space at that time. I remember it was in the winter and very cold in that sanctuary. My fingers felt like they never warmed up.

God Bless,
David

David B It's not difficult to record, but to record well requires effort and skill. And fortunately, sample library makers know how to do it.

David Lai It's not difficult to record, but to record well requires effort and skill. And fortunately, sample library makers know how to do it.

If I could afford it and had the space for an acoustic piano, I'm pretty confident I could get decent recordings out of it. I would not attempt to sample the piano to make a virtual instrument out of it, but I think recording music with it would be fairly simple once I got it setup right. There are all kinds of good acoustic piano recordings on YouTube by amateurs. I don't think it's as complicated as @PASHKULI makes it out to be.

If I was making an album or was a professional musician, I'd rather record a real acoustic piano rather than use a virtual recording of one. The irony is that I'm certain I can't always tell the difference between an actual acoustic or virtual piano on a recording, but I know I'd be biased towards recording the acoustic if I had the choice.

God Bless,
David

David B Same here.

He's a guitar player, who really doesn't like the piano, to put it mildly. He had said in past exchanges regarding using pickups to record piano, that's about the strangest thing I've ever heard!!!

David Lai a bit of an older article (27 years) but these techniques haven’t changed much.

https://www.soundonsound.com/techniques/recording-real-pianos

David Lai Hi David.. I think they are just being silly and humorous 😊

David B It wasn't that difficult. Couple mics, my laptop, an audio interface, and I uploaded it right from that sanctuary. Maybe it's not considered properly done, but I think it accurately captures what that piano sounded like in that space at that time.

Exactly my words: you went to a special venue (church), spacious probably but I can see it was not optimally placed. On the other hand you record two close‑up mics only (it seems), so that is just that. Minor phasing I could hear but that is normal with such setup. Needs E] for sure (no, it won't destroy "the real sound" of the piano because it is not "the real sound" — it is the sound of the mics, each with its own EQ freq. resp. profile). Then, of course, more mics = more difficulties

David Lai to record well requires effort and skill

Exactly my words.

David Lai sample library makers know how to do it

Not my words.

I can write down here how it should be done (if mics are to be used) but it is pointless.

1. you need a proper ac. treated studio with cable mics coming down from ceiling (6 mics) to the strings
   4 close‑up + 2 (a stereo pair to capture studio reverb)
2. remove the lid (completely), place the close‑up mics: low, mid, upper mid, highs to their resp. zones (trial error) → small record bits to test
3. cover the iron frame with some fluffy sleeves, put some thick carpet(s) under the piano and smaller ones to cover studio floor
4. adjust height and spacing for proper phase alignment (trial error) → small record bits to test
5. check levels (soft to very loud playing) adjust height of stereo pair mics (phase align to close‑up, could\should be done also in post‑recording stage, mixing)

No mic stands (important) and the mic cables should be wrapped with some soft material sleeves (bands) to prevent strung "string" function. That's it.

PASHKULI seems very specific. You’ve tried this recording method how many times successfully thus far? Please share some recordings.

dikrek

I have not, because I do not have those items mentioned.

Jose EB5AGV

Thank you for your pragmatism!

👌

HZ

CyberGene we’re not at war with the acoustic, we love it.

Hear, hear!

💚

🎶

HZ

PASHKULI then it’s not an axiomatic statement as you presented it but rather your theory.

Until proven, you need to be clear that this is what you suspect to be true.

CyberGene You don’t see Ferraris that often either but aren’t they the most desirable cars? 🙂

They are!

Gifted one, I'd sell it in a heartbeat and buy myself a succulent CFX!!

😋

🏎️ --> 🎹

HZ

HZPiano anything that even used commands a higher price than new, is, indeed, very desirable, by definition.

dikrek

It is a possibility. An idea. A try if you will. Backed by irrefutable logic.

How much "better" it will be? I have no idea, so compared to what objectively? Maybe sound louder, more balanced?
Will it need post production tweaks mainly EQ? Of course it will. Microphones were used. On its own it will need some, in a mix with other instruments it will need more — that is mixing as part of audio engineering.

Everything was (is) a theory until proven right or wrong by experimentation or experienced.
Let's say that it is how I would have done it. Acoustic pianos are the biggest in size instruments (next after pipe organs).

Yes, I know that proof is in the pudding, not in the recipe.

PASHKULI irrefutable?

I think there’s a mixture here of some good recording practice and quite a lot of cargo-cult engineering.

A good room: yes.

Experiment with mic placement and actually record test passages: absolutely.

Check the complete dynamic range and listen carefully for phase/comb-filter problems when combining multiple mics: yes.

But I don’t understand why the rest follows.

A grand piano isn’t four loudspeakers called bass, mid, upper-mid and treble. The strings excite bridges and a very large soundboard, and the radiation pattern is extremely complicated and frequency dependent. One of the reasons a grand sounds like a grand piano at some distance is that all of this integrates acoustically.

So starting with four close microphones and reconstructing the piano afterwards seems rather backwards if the objective is a natural piano recording.

Likewise, why is removing the lid automatically correct? The lid is part of the acoustic design of a grand and changes its radiation into the room. You can absolutely record lid-off if that’s the sound you’re after, but it isn’t some objectively superior configuration.

The bit I disagree with most is “phase align” the six microphones.

Phase-align them to what, exactly?

You have a physically huge source, different strings in different locations, a vibrating soundboard, four close microphones, two distant microphones and hundreds of frequencies. You can time-align the arrival from one chosen location or transient. That doesn’t somehow phase-align the entire piano.

And if the distant pair exists specifically to capture the room, why would I necessarily want to time-align it to the close microphones anyway? The delayed direct sound and early reflections are part of the information that creates perceived distance and depth. Removing that delay can partially destroy the very spatial information you’re trying to capture.

Same problem with covering the frame in fluffy material and carpeting the floor. What specific audible problem has been measured or identified that we’re fixing? If there’s a bad floor reflection, fine — deal with it. But if I’ve paid for a beautiful acoustic room, I’m certainly not going to start covering reflective surfaces just because reflections exist.

“No microphone stands” being important also needs an explanation. Good stands and shock mounts are used on excellent recordings every day. Hanging microphones can be useful for sight lines, access or isolation, but there’s no obvious acoustic principle by which a microphone becomes better because its cable comes from the ceiling.

Likewise, secure your cables so they don’t transmit mechanical vibration. Fine. But dressing every cable in fluffy sleeves so it doesn’t become a resonating “string” sounds rather like a solution looking for a problem.

For a natural solo grand recording I’d start almost exactly the other way around:

Find the position where a very good stereo pair already captures the piano as a coherent instrument in the room.

Then ask what is missing.

If I need more attack, definition or control, add close mics. If I need more room, add an ambience pair.

Six microphones might eventually be the answer. But “six microphones” shouldn’t be the premise.

The fundamental difference is that I’d try to record the piano, whereas your (100% unproven) approach seems to record a collection of piano components and then try to reconstruct the piano afterwards.

PASHKULI "I can write down here how it should be done (if mics are to be used) but it is pointless."

Exactly, because you not only don't play the piano, you don't like the piano, and you don't record the piano. So, what makes you so proud in talking about recording the piano, and in this weird way as you've proposed?

Rach3master is on pianoclack I believe. His recordings (of NY Steinway D) are excellent, I'd ask him for his mic setup and that's all there is to it.

His Garritan CFX VST settings were also quite good if I recall.

dikrek

You used AI agent to write that long response. Deny it and we will go on a giant off‑topic (it can be verified with antiAI although you might have touched the formatting here and there → reminds me of our private conversation). Cheeky.

I do not mind. AI is still learning.

dikrek The bit I disagree with most is “phase align” the six microphones.

Effing AI at it right there. So…

On piano, being a big musical instrument, you can place many, many mics. Ideally, I would have placed Nu‑multi pickups under each note's strign(s) and piezos on bridges. But we are restricting ourselves to microphones (typical acoustic recordings).
Ok, use 5 mics (close‑up) if you will. Or another one under the piano → that confined acoustic space also contributes to the overall sound.

Use 3 close ups (at least). Low, mid, highs, omni directional. One mic → no problems, two mics (stereo or binaural) → you can\will get phase issues unless you know what you are doing (pointing parallel, 90° or worst is 180° to one another). With omni mics it is expected and inevitable. More direct pattern mics, more individual ranges but heavier setup. Hence → better is with individual pickups.

It is cringe that I have to write this self evident rant but we all learn at some\any point.

The lid. Ok, keep it closed. The only way the sound comes out of that "box" will be from underneath (and rumble resonance of cabinet and lid) → the opposite sound of the soundboard where the strings are blocked by it. This setup has nothing to do with any other string instrument. None. So, good luck.
Remove the lid. Expose the string and the soundboard. Dampen as much as possible reflections from metal frame. It is not and should not be a part of the acoustics → it is a structural reinforcement. But being metal and hard it reflects and shifts the real sound of string, soundboard and cabinet.

Phase aligning is only valid between 0 to 200Hz above which it becomes an impossible task to align denser freq. waves. That is why in audio mixes all instruments but bass (incl. synth bass) and kick drums are cut off either with deep shelf (as I prefer) or more generally with a 12 to 24dB even 36dB or 48dB (extreme) per renova ("octave") slope low cut. Mics capture it but it is not needed.

Hence on those piano mics I place, only the low and low mid will have info there (0 to 200Hz) → the other (2 or n) mics will get a shelf cut there. Phase alignment will be much facilitated that way.

The stereo (room\studio) pair does not need time alignment → it is distant for the reason to capture late reflection off studio room acoustics. But it will have low information below 100Hz at least which is not important. The bass strings from ≈30Hz to 120Hz have their fundamentals lower in dB than actual harmonics of new (well cleaned) strings (usually wound coiled too). So you do not need that rumble especially on distant mics which will only mess up the phase. Phase between each mic in the stereo pair should be checked and mics adjusted if need be.

dikrek For a natural solo grand recording I’d start almost exactly the other way around:

Find the position where a very good stereo pair already captures the piano as a coherent instrument in the room.

That is because you do not want to record the piano but the acoustic environment in which it is placed\used\emitting sound.
I am talking about recording the piano itself. And in fact would prefer to replace the room stereo pair with IR (impulse response) sets.
For the latter though the actual room should be close to anechoic (if too expansive — it is — to do all this in a proper anechoic one).

dikrek The fundamental difference is that I’d try to record the piano, whereas your (100% unproven) approach seems to record a collection of piano components and then try to reconstruct the piano afterwards.

F‑off AI.