Piano World Home Page Forums Our Most Popular Forums Adult Beginners Forum Acoustic or digital recording

Someone should build and market an acoustic piano with built-in mics, battery powered preamp, and line out connections for recording.


They do it for acoustic guitars.

>built-in mics, battery powered preamp, and line out connections for recording.

Nah, everyone has an iphone these days so why try to "add value" this way. I'd rather spend my money on the quality of the piano itself.

No contest... the acoustic despite a less than perfect recording. The tones are deeper and richer... more human, more emotion.

I have a DP but take my lessons on an acoustical Yamaha... once you get the hang of the difference in the action and sound it can even make me sound better.

>built-in mics, battery powered preamp, and line out connections for recording.

I understand where you're coming from Studio Joe but I have to agree with wouter79 on this one. Being an engineer type and familiar with electronic gadgets, the thing I like most about the acoustic is that it doesn't have batteries, wires, etc. It's always ready for me to attempt to make pleasing sounds, and it responds with sometimes painful noises as I try. But I sense it's patiently waiting for the day when together we can produce something magic.

I have a Zoom H4n and feel it's right for the recording job if I could just figure out how to position it.

Joe,
I am in your exact situation too. First off, nice work with the videos. I love that masking effect!!

As for your videos; I prefer your digital version. Mainly due to the sound issues with your acoustic recording but I also like the angle and the light better in the digital version. Normally I also prefer acoustic recordings though.

I did a similar experiment the other day with the piece I am currently working on. Here are my two video clips. The acoustic version was recorded with a Zoom H2 mic placed inside the piano and the digital version was recorded as a WAV file directly onto a USB stick on the DP. If you look closely you can see the H2 in the piano.

[video:youtube]RVfh_fCfklI[/video]

[video:youtube]It6csohlxE0[/video]

I realize guciek asked a very different question than where this thread has morphed, but as long as we are here, I have a question about the equipment - (and this will confirm, once and for all, my gross ignorance about digital recording devices!):

The ZOOM line seems to be quite popular with you gentlemen. guciek uses a Zoom Q3 recoder, while Amateur Bob has a Zoom H4n, and Amaruk a Zoom H2 mic. In your opinions, are there big differences between these models?
Is this Zoom line or brand used extensively because it is extra good value for its price?
Is it availability that makes it so popular?
Is its ease of use, or wide range of suitability, the primary factor?
How would you place these on a scale of ( 1 (lowest) to 10 ) for professional-grade quality?

I am attempting to find out if recent advances in digital recording equipment are making non-studio-style audio masters more faithful to the source sounds.

Thanks,
Ed

LoPresti,

A lot depends on the room acoustics, piano quality and mic placement.

The zoom can give you a very good recording if used properly (assuming great acoustics and piano). If you want to spend money on good sound, I'd suggest to put it in the piano and room and not in an expensive mic.

But the zoom series limits you severely in mic placement since the two mics are fixed together. That's why I would not count these even close to "professional".

Ed,
The reason I have a Zoom type mic is the convenience factor. No computer and no cables needed. Not even a mic stand. I got the H2 due to its price/performance ratio. I got mine for $110 incl shipping and 1GB card. I used to have mic stands with condenser mics etc but that was just too much of a hassle as I had to set it up every time I wanted to record.

Wouter, putting money towards piano and room are great suggestions but most of the time those are very expensive options.

Thanks. Certainly good advice, but I am already assuming a great piano, and a room that is not very "live".

My reason for asking is this: It is my understanding that it is MUCH harder to get a respectable recording of an acoustic instrument with digital recording equipment, than with analog recording equipment (like Amaruck's condenser mics). I thoroughly understand the convenience factor - it makes great sense. Also, the idea of recording oneself for critique and improvement.

However, once one wants to make a serious recording, I am wondering how far up the current "dollar scale" one needs to go before the digital equipment starts producing a sound that is faithful to the source. Any additional thoughts?

Not true. All modern recording methods use digital technology. The cassette tape was the dying gasp of consumer level analog recorders.

As far as condenser mics: All mics are analog devices. The analog signal from the mic is digitized when plugged into a laptop computer, or hand held device such as a ZOOM.

Yes as Studio Joe says. FAIK profs also use digital.



That really depends on 'how faithful' you want to get. And in fact, many people don't like the 100% faithful sound and try to get a 'warmer' sound, 'remove unwanted noise', 'hear hammer noise', 'more bass', 'wider stereo image' etc.

Maybe how I record myself meets your 'faithful'. What I'm doing is straight recording of left and right mic to left and right channel of the recording. So no mixing of the two channels, no equalization or filtering etc. The mics are very-flat response mics placed 25cm apart, with a jecklin disk in between. A stereo pair of these mics is around $1000, and the AD is about $200 I think.

Hi Joe,

This is one of those rare occasions where I will not be able to agree with you - at least not completely. The recording engineers that I know go from mics to tape - and certainly NOT cassette tape. Once they have a good master, then they transfer to either other analog equipment, or to digital.


I am certain you are technically correct here, but in my naïveté, I tend to think of, say, the "microphones" within cell phones, or cam corders as "digital". In contrast, stero pairs of condenser or dynamic mics, I think of as analog. In retrospect, I see you are right. It is the difference in functionality on which I am focusing.
Ed

Wouter,

What you are doing is precisely what I call "faithful" to the source sound. I suppose when one is starting to record oneself, and looking for things like wrong notes or defective rhythm, improper phrasing, a VideoCam is OK (better without the video, perhaps!) But as soon as one is looking for sublty, nuance, tone in the recording, then I believe your technique is critical.

Ed

Nice playing on both! Listening to the two recordings, I found two things to be true:

1) the digital recording is clear and pristine and has a wonderful piano sound, in terms of its presence and its tone.

2) the acoustic piano sound is less balanced and more ambient due to mic'ing issues and all the rest, and yet I prefer it hands-down to the digital.

To me, the digital is sterile and I lose interest in listening to this simple piece quickly. The acoustic, on the other hand, has nuance and complexity that the digital can't match, and I prefer it despite the limits of the recording technique.

I say this as both a former recording engineer, and someone who today owns both a good acoustic and a pretty good digital.

Mr. S-H is correct...

For those who are interested there is a great article on Wikipedia that compares digital and analog recordings:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analog_sound_vs._digital_sound

As for home recordings, I think the most important thing the mic itself and its placement in addition to a tuned piano.

I shall remember the trick with putting the microphone inside the grand piano; however, in case of the Zoom recorder, would it not be better if it were attached to the lid and pointing downwards? For this device has directional microphones! (Btw., nicely played.)



Thank you Larry B, this is pretty much what I'm thinking now, with an addition of

3) in case of YouTube, a professional-sounding tone can weigh quite heavily on how a piece is perceived.

Guciek,
That is true that the mic is directional. I never tried to point it down which I am sure would work out great. I noticed big differences between different placements when I did some experiments. Inside the piano facing towards the center worked out great for me. But in this particular recording the gain settings was too low as I have since discovered how to adjust the gain.

Your playing was great too. By the way, I am a huge Tiersen fan. I even got an accordion just to be able to play some of his songs...

Dittos.