Enjoyed the video very much. I couldn’t help but feel that your piano playing was similar to your videos: sensitive, well organized, thoughtful and precise. :) I’ve been recording piano for many years and have experimented with so many different combinations. It was really fantastic to hear your approach. I learned a lot and I really appreciate it!
Came here for the technical aspects, mesmerized listening to your performance, great Anschlag, and interpretation. Need to try this Blumlein thing now ..., and of course, I subscribed!
Hi Ben, thanks for these very nice videos and congratulations for the excellent sound. It really is a coincidence, because when I heard the first notes of Chopin’s Ballad you played in your first video, it made me immediately think to one of my favourite recordings which I always use to test High End Hifi and which happens to be Krystian Zimerman’s recording on Deutsche Grammophon. I also impressed by the way you play the piano and your interpretation of the pieces!!!
Well…I’m speechless. To me, Zimmerman’s Ballade represents a triple high water mark-the interpretation, the beauty of the instrument itself, and finally, the capture. Just so satisfying in all regards. So, thank you! I’m beaming.
I'm 10 minutes in and this is exactly what I've been looking for! Very few pianists do their own recording sounds (or at least not this deep). I'm setting up a home studio situation and this is so helpful! Thank you so much. Maybe you can talk about real reverb and rooms in your next video (unless you already have), would appreciate it!
@@insidepianos both good ideas. I was thinking about the actual room (when recording and when giving concerts... there is probably a difference depending on thd purpose?)
Belated reply…sorry. This may not address your question head on but I plan on doing some acoustic treatment to my studio and taking whoever will watch on that journey.
Thanks! I'll keep that in mind and maybe put together a video specifically on EQ. I had so much to cover in this last video I feel like some things got glossed.
Was very curious about how you handle phase relationships and prevent comb filtering with so many microphones, and now I know. Thanks for the insight and for sharing your techniques and experience.
@@staffansoderstrom2023 I'm a fan of ORTF and usually prefer it to XY. The only risk is that you WILL hear the room, so if it's not well tuned there could be some problems there.
@@staffansoderstrom2023 You, sir, are an astute watcher of my videos! I did try that with this project and preferred the sound of with the polarity unflipped. This despite the fact that you can see the waveform of the under mic going down as the PROX treble mic's goes up when I zoom in. Go figure! I think the take away is to for sure try it out and go with what sounds best. At this point, I think the positioning of the mics has more bearing than the fact that one mic is over and the other is under, mainly because the soundboard is doing crazy things while in use. It's not a simple speaker diaphragm, for example. Plus, one mic is not directly over the other recording the same area of the soundboard. I may go in and edit out that portion of my previous video. Because, upon reflection, it was a theory that made sense to me and might have some validity, but I think there are complicating factors. Hope this makes sense!
Really nice and detailed video! I did notice something that could be addressed regarding the proximity mics. They are capturing the sound source from top and bottom, opposing each other 180 degrees, which requires a polarity flip on one of the sides, usually on the bottom one. You can clearly see this opposition on the waveform at 4:44 in the video (not superstitious either) - the ” PROX treble” waveform is going up while the ”PROX under” waveform is going down :) I think this might help getting a better coherent sound.
Thanks for the video.. Just subscribed, been struggling with mixing for a long time, ending chasing new plugins, and ending up with to many plugins in the mix. Been going back to a minimalist approach for mixing, and it just sounds better then overprossesing.
Hi Jan, I hope my content helps you do more with less. IMO miking is the most important element in a good piano sound. Unfortunately that happens to be very tricky. :) Are there any fancy plugins that you've decided to keep?
Ive tried a lot, but for compression I think I like tube compressors, like those that are based on the Fairchild/puigchild, I think that sound pretty good on piano, for eq I tried parametric eq a lots of times, but find my self making better mics when using eq that I dont se that eq line espeassily eq that just does subtle things, I liked a lot of what Uad has been making,the neves, and the maag I think is pretty good for piano.. Also the gullfoss just make everything sound better I think.. Been experience with some saturation and tape machine but hasn't really find anyone that has completely convinced me.. But in the end I think what makes the best record is what is recorded in the first place:) A good player a nice piano and some nice mics in a decent room.. Like in this video, and the mixing should be easy:)
Great video and channel - subscribed. I just bought Pianoteq 7, physically modeled piano synthesis that also has virtual sound stage with up to 5 mics and 5 output channels. Thus, I need to master all the micking and mixing methods you presented. Suggestion for you: try changing the order of your effects on the proximate mics so that the compressor comes first rather than last. This gives a “better” signal for the other effects, especially the reverb, which will reverberate much more to the uncompressed signal, perhaps in an undesirable way.
One more idea (I am going to experiment with this myself) -- you might try the "Abbey Road Reverb" treatment for the proximate mics. The signal routing is slightly more complicated because it will require a separate buss or channel for the reverb alone. (A "buss" is just a track that only takes inputs from other tracks.) Take the reverb off those three proximate mic tracks and put a single reverb on stereo buss. Then route the three proximate mic tracks to that buss. Why? So you can put a *separate EQ in front* of that to the reverb without affecting the "dry" signal of the mics, which are on the output of the original three tracks. The "Abbey Road Reverb" treatment uses a high pass + low pass (i.e. bandpass) on the input to the reverb, leaving only the mid-range -- maybe 100 Hz to 3 KHz. This has the effect of keeping out all the harshness (low rumble, high hiss) from the early reflections and reverberations. This buss reverb should be set 100% wet. The result is 5 tracks for the proximate mics -- 3 of the mic to compressor + EQ (yours), and 2 of the stereo output of the reverb with the "Abbey Road" treatment. The result *should be* that you can have more reverb to your proximate mics that you could before but also with much greater clarity and without losing their proximate quality (frequency and dynamics). Experimentation is needed to adjust the upper and lower limits of the "Abbey Road" EQ. One more advantage of this approach -- you have the option of adding a separate compressor in front of the reverb on "Abbey Road" buss, perhaps using only mild compression. This can help reduce the "boom" in the reverb in the loudest passages, compared to the more quiet passages. Whether this is an advantage depending on the music and taste. but it gives you a "knob" to turn to prevent the reverb from loud passage from muddying a quiet passage that follows immediately (for example). Last idea -- maybe a "plate" style reverb is better for the proximate mics, while a "hall" style reverb is used on the Mid+Side mics. Plates don't have early reflections and, overall, tend to have a more even "shimmering" quality. I'm going to test this out myself, and I will let you know how it turns out.
Great to have you as a subscriber, Russell. And thank you for taking the time to lay out all those thoughts. I’ll give them some quality time next time I’m mixing.
Hello how are you? What a great video you made!!!. I learned a lot. 2 questions please: are the reverbs inserted in each channel, not by a send? How are you doing so the noises from the hammers and pedals are not heard, especially in close microphones? Thank you very much for your attention!!!
Very useful! Thank you! Are there any issues with the natural reverb from your room mics with the digita reverb on top of each other? Or is this taken care of, simply by turning the dry signal up?
Glad you liked! I haven't found that I've had that unwanted room-in-a-room problem. This is thanks to the acoustic treatment in the room--both absorption and refraction. Waves IR1 has an early reflection portion that I am free to include in the mix. I never do, figuring I've got that covered. :) Thanks for watching.
Great video. Thanks a lot for all the information you provide. Please, may i know your thoughts on low cuts (high pass filters) in EQ? I record a small choir and would like to know how to go about it. Thanks.
Thanks for watching and for the compliment! I could only tell you how those high and low pass filters work on Logic. Not to pass the buck but I would simply Google or CZcams search for your particular DAW. I will sometimes use a high pass filter to cut out shock noise or if a car with a loud, bass-y stereo passes by. Or I’ll use it on an instrument that I recorded with a piano that doesn’t go as low (singer, clarinet, for example). That keeps the bass of the piano off of that particular track which sounds cleaner in the end.
Hi is it OK to blend two mono mics say one very close and one further away with a stereo pair? Would u keep both mono mics blended lower in the mix and panned centre? Many thanks. This will help me.
Thanks for this video. It would be great if you could show us how to edit the sound of a piano recorded with two microphones in stereo, using the Audacity program, what a I would call a modest set up.
@@insidepianos Thanks for your answer!! I have 2 two AKG C 2000B plus a handy recorder Zoom H4 next. I haven't found yet a favourite position for the mics... my question is more oriented to discover what results can be achived in editing the sound of just thoese two pair of mics with Audacity since this software seems more limited than yours, but I`m no expert.
Hi Ben. great videos. thanks for sharing!!! i wanted to ask you something. why do we should phase allign different pairs of tracks located in another place (room mics) or a mic on another place (like the one below) with the original inside pair? I asume that each pair or a different mic will define his own recording field and from a different distance, which compliments the original sound. I´ve read somewhere that we should only phase align each pair on itself... 🤔 thank you for your comments
The short answer is that I do it because it usually helps. In a controlled environment on a single instrument I can get a cleaner, fuller sound by phase aligning. Not sure I’d find this is a reverberant hall where more comes out in the wash, or if I was recording a chamber ensemble.
Excellent video Ben. Is there a particular reason for not using Buses in Logic? I have noticed you are placing plugins directly on different mic channels.
Because I do unique things to each track--no EQ is the same, for example--I haven't been tempted to create sends for that. Also (and please help me out if I'm misunderstanding something), I've never gotten reverb to sound the right using sends because the dry signal of the main channel is still present.
I agree with Ben. Buses are often used in bands where mics are placed up close to each instrument. By sharing busses, instruments would be "glued" by the same effects (usually with varying degrees of course). Classical piano, in contrast, has multiple mics with different distances to this one instrument. Therefore, effects would need to be applied differently depending on the mic, distance, and miking method. This is just my layman's understanding of why Ben did it this way. I am still learning the craft.
Actually that’s about right, probably closer to 3 than 5. I want my classical recordings to be very annoying to listen to in the car. 😆 But more importantly, when someone is really listening I like them to be rewarded with realistic dynamics.
Usually interfaces offer more quality and flexibility than sound cards. I use an interface so I’m afraid I can’t really tell you much about sound cards. Sorry.
@@insidepianos I don't get it, what do you mean by interface? Usb is an interface, firewire, sata, and so on. You cannot play or record anything on a computer without a soundcard.
By interface I mean an external piece of equipment such as a Focusrite Scarlett 2i2, for example. You’re correct that a computer won’t understand an audio signal without a sound card but most often units like the one above have one built in (sometimes called a converter). It’s basically an external sound card typically of higher quality than the stock sound card your computer comes with. I may not have understood the initial question correctly. My personal interface (plus converter) is a Focusrite ISA 828 which I love for its transparent quality. There are many other worthy contenders that I’ve not had an opportunity to try. I would generally avoid tube preamps for classical, however, as they tend to color the sound with their own “vibe”. I hope this helps.
Dear Ben, I noticed you're putting reverb on the insert of every tracks and not sending it on a buss. You have a specific reason for doing it or just sounds better for you?
I always pull back the dry gain when using reverb for classical. And I just find it less confusing from a levels perspective (of each track, that is) to get each track how I want it to sound then decide how much of it I want in the mix. I sometimes bus to reverb and certainly understand the advantages of doing it that way, so I'd never criticize anyone for doing that; I realize I'm the odd man out.
@@insidepianos always more plugins have an option for chosing how wet/dry you want the signal to be. I guess the "dry gain" is something similar to this internal parallel process. Nothing odd about it, just curious about your workflow! Thanks for reply, much appreciated :-)
I sometimes use multiband compression to play with the impression of brightness of the piano. Perhaps as a way to add luster to ribbon mics. To the above, I’ll try a soft limiter. The close mics exaggerate dynamics, so while I don’t want to squash them I need a way to bring them into the range experienced by a listener who is close to but not right next to the piano.
Very well-done and interesting. Thanks for doing this.
Great channel, and a big thank you for sharing your valuable experiences with us!
My pleasure!
Great stuff, Ben! I came for your piano playing, but stayed for the plug-ins!
I was having trouble mixing a grand piano. And then I came across your wonderful video. thank you. I would like to aim for great mixing like yours.
I've been looking for home recording videos specifically for classical grand piano performances. Please keep posting great videos!
Thanks so much, David! I have plenty upcoming videos planned.
This helps me a lot! Thanks for your video
Thanks for this video! That was great!
Extremely valuable informations once again... Thank you very much for your great work!!
Thank you for taking the time to comment, Marco!
Enjoyed the video very much. I couldn’t help but feel that your piano playing was similar to your videos: sensitive, well organized, thoughtful and precise. :)
I’ve been recording piano for many years and have experimented with so many different combinations.
It was really fantastic to hear your approach. I learned a lot and I really appreciate it!
What kind words! Thank you. I'm very happy my mixing video was a helpful resource for you!
Thank you for this. Great video
You are VERY welcome. Happy mixing!
Thank you! This is what I need! There is always "one more thing" to learn. :)
Don’t I know it! Thanks for the kind words.
Came here for the technical aspects, mesmerized listening to your performance, great Anschlag, and interpretation. Need to try this Blumlein thing now ..., and of course, I subscribed!
this was so helpful my friend!!! :) you've earned another sub!
lol i'm picking up some kind of subliminal suggestion
This is gold. I am about to mix some piano pieces. Thank you!
Sweet! Hope it helps!
Great! Thank you!
You are most welcome!
Hi Ben, thanks for these very nice videos and congratulations for the excellent sound. It really is a coincidence, because when I heard the first notes of Chopin’s Ballad you played in your first video, it made me immediately think to one of my favourite recordings which I always use to test High End Hifi and which happens to be Krystian Zimerman’s recording on Deutsche Grammophon. I also impressed by the way you play the piano and your interpretation of the pieces!!!
Well…I’m speechless. To me, Zimmerman’s Ballade represents a triple high water mark-the interpretation, the beauty of the instrument itself, and finally, the capture. Just so satisfying in all regards.
So, thank you! I’m beaming.
I'm 10 minutes in and this is exactly what I've been looking for! Very few pianists do their own recording sounds (or at least not this deep). I'm setting up a home studio situation and this is so helpful! Thank you so much. Maybe you can talk about real reverb and rooms in your next video (unless you already have), would appreciate it!
It’s great to hear that this video was of help. Regarding your request, do you mean sound treatment or actual acoustic reverb?
@@insidepianos both good ideas. I was thinking about the actual room (when recording and when giving concerts... there is probably a difference depending on thd purpose?)
Belated reply…sorry. This may not address your question head on but I plan on doing some acoustic treatment to my studio and taking whoever will watch on that journey.
Great video! Would really be interested if you continued this series. I'd like to hear more of your thoughts on how you create your EQ.
Thanks! I'll keep that in mind and maybe put together a video specifically on EQ. I had so much to cover in this last video I feel like some things got glossed.
Was very curious about how you handle phase relationships and prevent comb filtering with so many microphones, and now I know. Thanks for the insight and for sharing your techniques and experience.
You are very welcome! It's a challenge, for sure and I don't know if a perfect solution exists. If I have any new thoughts I'll share them.
Thnx :3
Thank you for all the things you are sharing. So useful. Great playing👍🏼
You are most welcome, Staffan!
What do you think of an ORTF for room capturing, two cardioid condensers?
@@staffansoderstrom2023 I'm a fan of ORTF and usually prefer it to XY. The only risk is that you WILL hear the room, so if it's not well tuned there could be some problems there.
One more question, no need of flipping phase of the microphone beneath the piano?
@@staffansoderstrom2023 You, sir, are an astute watcher of my videos! I did try that with this project and preferred the sound of with the polarity unflipped. This despite the fact that you can see the waveform of the under mic going down as the PROX treble mic's goes up when I zoom in. Go figure! I think the take away is to for sure try it out and go with what sounds best.
At this point, I think the positioning of the mics has more bearing than the fact that one mic is over and the other is under, mainly because the soundboard is doing crazy things while in use. It's not a simple speaker diaphragm, for example. Plus, one mic is not directly over the other recording the same area of the soundboard.
I may go in and edit out that portion of my previous video. Because, upon reflection, it was a theory that made sense to me and might have some validity, but I think there are complicating factors.
Hope this makes sense!
Really nice and detailed video! I did notice something that could be addressed regarding the proximity mics. They are capturing the sound source from top and bottom, opposing each other 180 degrees, which requires a polarity flip on one of the sides, usually on the bottom one. You can clearly see this opposition on the waveform at 4:44 in the video (not superstitious either) - the ” PROX treble” waveform is going up while the ”PROX under” waveform is going down :) I think this might help getting a better coherent sound.
Thanks for the video.. Just subscribed, been struggling with mixing for a long time, ending chasing new plugins, and ending up with to many plugins in the mix. Been going back to a minimalist approach for mixing, and it just sounds better then overprossesing.
Hi Jan, I hope my content helps you do more with less. IMO miking is the most important element in a good piano sound. Unfortunately that happens to be very tricky. :) Are there any fancy plugins that you've decided to keep?
Ive tried a lot, but for compression I think I like tube compressors, like those that are based on the Fairchild/puigchild, I think that sound pretty good on piano, for eq I tried parametric eq a lots of times, but find my self making better mics when using eq that I dont se that eq line espeassily eq that just does subtle things, I liked a lot of what Uad has been making,the neves, and the maag I think is pretty good for piano.. Also the gullfoss just make everything sound better I think.. Been experience with some saturation and tape machine but hasn't really find anyone that has completely convinced me.. But in the end I think what makes the best record is what is recorded in the first place:) A good player a nice piano and some nice mics in a decent room.. Like in this video, and the mixing should be easy:)
As an experienced engineer in electronic genres and working with mostly synthesized pianos, this mixing take on an actual grand is super interesting!
That's super cool! Thanks for sharing that.
Great video and channel - subscribed. I just bought Pianoteq 7, physically modeled piano synthesis that also has virtual sound stage with up to 5 mics and 5 output channels. Thus, I need to master all the micking and mixing methods you presented.
Suggestion for you: try changing the order of your effects on the proximate mics so that the compressor comes first rather than last. This gives a “better” signal for the other effects, especially the reverb, which will reverberate much more to the uncompressed signal, perhaps in an undesirable way.
One more idea (I am going to experiment with this myself) -- you might try the "Abbey Road Reverb" treatment for the proximate mics. The signal routing is slightly more complicated because it will require a separate buss or channel for the reverb alone. (A "buss" is just a track that only takes inputs from other tracks.)
Take the reverb off those three proximate mic tracks and put a single reverb on stereo buss. Then route the three proximate mic tracks to that buss. Why? So you can put a *separate EQ in front* of that to the reverb without affecting the "dry" signal of the mics, which are on the output of the original three tracks.
The "Abbey Road Reverb" treatment uses a high pass + low pass (i.e. bandpass) on the input to the reverb, leaving only the mid-range -- maybe 100 Hz to 3 KHz. This has the effect of keeping out all the harshness (low rumble, high hiss) from the early reflections and reverberations. This buss reverb should be set 100% wet. The result is 5 tracks for the proximate mics -- 3 of the mic to compressor + EQ (yours), and 2 of the stereo output of the reverb with the "Abbey Road" treatment. The result *should be* that you can have more reverb to your proximate mics that you could before but also with much greater clarity and without losing their proximate quality (frequency and dynamics). Experimentation is needed to adjust the upper and lower limits of the "Abbey Road" EQ.
One more advantage of this approach -- you have the option of adding a separate compressor in front of the reverb on "Abbey Road" buss, perhaps using only mild compression. This can help reduce the "boom" in the reverb in the loudest passages, compared to the more quiet passages. Whether this is an advantage depending on the music and taste. but it gives you a "knob" to turn to prevent the reverb from loud passage from muddying a quiet passage that follows immediately (for example).
Last idea -- maybe a "plate" style reverb is better for the proximate mics, while a "hall" style reverb is used on the Mid+Side mics. Plates don't have early reflections and, overall, tend to have a more even "shimmering" quality. I'm going to test this out myself, and I will let you know how it turns out.
Great to have you as a subscriber, Russell. And thank you for taking the time to lay out all those thoughts. I’ll give them some quality time next time I’m mixing.
Hello how are you? What a great video you made!!!. I learned a lot. 2 questions please: are the reverbs inserted in each channel, not by a send? How are you doing so the noises from the hammers and pedals are not heard, especially in close microphones? Thank you very much for your attention!!!
Very useful! Thank you! Are there any issues with the natural reverb from your room mics with the digita reverb on top of each other? Or is this taken care of, simply by turning the dry signal up?
Glad you liked! I haven't found that I've had that unwanted room-in-a-room problem. This is thanks to the acoustic treatment in the room--both absorption and refraction. Waves IR1 has an early reflection portion that I am free to include in the mix. I never do, figuring I've got that covered. :) Thanks for watching.
Hello! It’s quite impressive. The intro is nice. What audio interface do you use?
perfect third video
Awesome! I hope to bring out some more recording-based vids soon.
Great video.
Thanks a lot for all the information you provide.
Please, may i know your thoughts on low cuts (high pass filters) in EQ?
I record a small choir and would like to know how to go about it. Thanks.
Thanks for watching and for the compliment! I could only tell you how those high and low pass filters work on Logic. Not to pass the buck but I would simply Google or CZcams search for your particular DAW.
I will sometimes use a high pass filter to cut out shock noise or if a car with a loud, bass-y stereo passes by. Or I’ll use it on an instrument that I recorded with a piano that doesn’t go as low (singer, clarinet, for example). That keeps the bass of the piano off of that particular track which sounds cleaner in the end.
@@insidepianos thanks a lot for your reply. I am very grateful.
Hi is it OK to blend two mono mics say one very close and one further away with a stereo pair? Would u keep both mono mics blended lower in the mix and panned centre? Many thanks. This will help me.
Thanks for this video. It would be great if you could show us how to edit the sound of a piano recorded with two microphones in stereo, using the Audacity program, what a I would call a modest set up.
Noted. Mind telling me more about the rest of your setup? Mics, preamps, mic pattern?
@@insidepianos Thanks for your answer!! I have 2 two AKG C 2000B plus a handy recorder Zoom H4 next.
I haven't found yet a favourite position for the mics...
my question is more oriented to discover what results can be achived in editing the sound of just thoese two pair of mics with Audacity since this software seems more limited than yours, but I`m no expert.
Hi Ben. great videos. thanks for sharing!!! i wanted to ask you something. why do we should phase allign different pairs of tracks located in another place (room mics) or a mic on another place (like the one below) with the original inside pair? I asume that each pair or a different mic will define his own recording field and from a different distance, which compliments the original sound. I´ve read somewhere that we should only phase align each pair on itself... 🤔 thank you for your comments
The short answer is that I do it because it usually helps. In a controlled environment on a single instrument I can get a cleaner, fuller sound by phase aligning. Not sure I’d find this is a reverberant hall where more comes out in the wash, or if I was recording a chamber ensemble.
How you record the wav form from the grand piano thanks
Excellent video Ben. Is there a particular reason for not using Buses in Logic? I have noticed you are placing plugins directly on different mic channels.
Because I do unique things to each track--no EQ is the same, for example--I haven't been tempted to create sends for that. Also (and please help me out if I'm misunderstanding something), I've never gotten reverb to sound the right using sends because the dry signal of the main channel is still present.
I agree with Ben. Buses are often used in bands where mics are placed up close to each instrument. By sharing busses, instruments would be "glued" by the same effects (usually with varying degrees of course). Classical piano, in contrast, has multiple mics with different distances to this one instrument. Therefore, effects would need to be applied differently depending on the mic, distance, and miking method. This is just my layman's understanding of why Ben did it this way. I am still learning the craft.
Can you tell me how many dB of gain reduction you're shooting for on the compressors at the loud sections? Doesn't sound like much at all. 3-5?
Actually that’s about right, probably closer to 3 than 5. I want my classical recordings to be very annoying to listen to in the car. 😆 But more importantly, when someone is really listening I like them to be rewarded with realistic dynamics.
What use for soundcard recommended for recording grand piano,, tanks for the answer
Usually interfaces offer more quality and flexibility than sound cards. I use an interface so I’m afraid I can’t really tell you much about sound cards. Sorry.
@@insidepianos I don't get it, what do you mean by interface? Usb is an interface, firewire, sata, and so on. You cannot play or record anything on a computer without a soundcard.
By interface I mean an external piece of equipment such as a Focusrite Scarlett 2i2, for example. You’re correct that a computer won’t understand an audio signal without a sound card but most often units like the one above have one built in (sometimes called a converter). It’s basically an external sound card typically of higher quality than the stock sound card your computer comes with. I may not have understood the initial question correctly. My personal interface (plus converter) is a Focusrite ISA 828 which I love for its transparent quality. There are many other worthy contenders that I’ve not had an opportunity to try. I would generally avoid tube preamps for classical, however, as they tend to color the sound with their own “vibe”. I hope this helps.
@@insidepianos Ok, thanks. I got it now, I was confounded as I call Scarlett a soundcard, but an external one. Great piano playing by the way!
@@steinwaydhamburg1017 Thanks!!
create a buss for the reverb and send...
Dear Ben, I noticed you're putting reverb on the insert of every tracks and not sending it on a buss. You have a specific reason for doing it or just sounds better for you?
I always pull back the dry gain when using reverb for classical. And I just find it less confusing from a levels perspective (of each track, that is) to get each track how I want it to sound then decide how much of it I want in the mix. I sometimes bus to reverb and certainly understand the advantages of doing it that way, so I'd never criticize anyone for doing that; I realize I'm the odd man out.
@@insidepianos always more plugins have an option for chosing how wet/dry you want the signal to be. I guess the "dry gain" is something similar to this internal parallel process. Nothing odd about it, just curious about your workflow! Thanks for reply, much appreciated :-)
You apply compression on a solo piano playing classical music? Really? I would only be satisfied with a soft limiter for the biggest picks.
What about multiband compression ?
I sometimes use multiband compression to play with the impression of brightness of the piano. Perhaps as a way to add luster to ribbon mics.
To the above, I’ll try a soft limiter. The close mics exaggerate dynamics, so while I don’t want to squash them I need a way to bring them into the range experienced by a listener who is close to but not right next to the piano.