The Sound Board

Thank you, guys.

Here is what I have thus far. (If the link doesn't work let me know.) A few factors at play even before SPAT. I just played a few chords (I can barely play but learning) to try to approximate the kind of stuff I'm working on. My mic technique might be lacking a bit and I've heavily eq'd (mostly boosting) with only Acustica eqs (Ivory, Navy, Sand and Purple...I know, possibly too many even with just slight boosts and cuts...probably a world of phase-weirdness happening already) with the Bittersweet Pro hitting just before.

I mic'd it as follows:
(2) Josephson c42 a foot from the back spaced wide, BLA Auteur mic pre
AKG 414 (pad at -6dB) on the strings (I think in cardioid) in the middle, BLA B173 mic pre (will probably do a pair of these also spaced)
Rode Nt1a about 1.5 feet from the back in the middle, motu pre
Some Audio Technica vocal mic? below the Rode but a foot off the floor, motu pre
-Either the Rode or AT was cut -4.5 dB
-also, there is a little bit of distortion happening, I either hit a mic or the B173 too hard or a bad cable; I've been making the effort to record at lower levels trying to get peaks around -12dB.

On to SPAT, instead of sending the speaker outs to different stereo busses (which I didn't really get the handle of or even totally understand) I did sort of the inverse and "multed" the dry signal (which is labeled "C") to two stereo busses which were then sent to SPAT. Previously, I tried to get the piano sounding good and then just add SPAT but it changed the sound so drastically (just piled on the mids) that I started over with SPAT engaged from the beginning. I think trying to create F and A mics to exist separately might not be the right way to go, instead just trying to get the whole sound I'm going after and then maybe reducing the C or others if need be (seems like an extra step).

I used two different settings (Stone Corridor and Med Hall), increased Reverberance and Liveness a bit, and messed with Drop and Radius slightly on one of the presets, forget which one. I'll be more thorough going forward but I'm in this mode of using broader strokes with algo plugins and not fiddling too much.

C is the pre-SPAT signal
F is the closer pair
A the back pair
CFA is rendered w all 3

I should add..the main thing I've noticed is that F and A are just adding a lot of level and air in a somewhat pleasing way. I might be better off reamping but of course this is way faster.
edit- re-upped these since I realized the Bittersweet making things wonky. I had it before all the Acustica eqs and SPAT which intensified the effect too much. I'm still trying to understand where these non-algo plugins sit in the chain. I imagine I should just render them in place and treat them like (virtual) hardware that one commits to. I also listened to other recordings and realized the mids were way out of hand so I dialed them back.

Those speakers in SPAT can be confusing, yes. But if you just think of them as visual representations of SPAT's outputs, there's a lot less to be confused about. In a 'normal' stereo context, when SPAT is used as an insert on a channel or a bus, you can completely disregard those speakers. (If you right-click on them, you can also hide them. Even less confusing.)

So, Rope, are you happy with your SPAT-results on this piano, or are still looking for something else? Cause that's not really clear to me from the above post.

_

I guess I'm just making sure that I'm not missing out on a better approach especially considering that it's not the typical method of using SPAT (as a send). It's an improvement overall to me but I'm probably not going to have much exposed, solo piano going on; it'll have to jive with whatever else is happening. I'm open to any suggestions, from the mics to the stereo bus, but maybe they'll be easier to give with an actual piece of music.

Some piano-centric scores I've been listening to:
early Dustin O' Hallorran
a couple tracks on JJ-Theory of Everything (like the recording more than the music)
Alberto Iglesias - MaMa (although it sounds like a grand piano, and has a sharp quality to it, but dig the music)

Now I am confused.

Ha. About what I posted or the speakers in SPAT...?

@givemenoughrope,
I think what you do is already too complicated considering the result. This would be my advice: Take one mic stereo pair and find a position where the piano sounds good. Run that through a mild, neutral reverb. No EQ. This must sound good, solid and healthy or nothing is going to repair it. Everything else is just an add-on. If you don't think it sounds good then change the position of the mics. Change everything: distance to the source, distance between the mics, angle of the mics, until you know what sounds how. If it does not sound good, back to square one. Try to use spaced omnis, too.

After that you can begin to fiddle with multiple mics, EQs, sophisticated reverbs and whatnot. But if you skip the positioning of the mics you are missing your biggest weapon.

Sorry for being blunt. I just try to save you time.

No, be blunt!

Good point though. Too many factors making my head spin a bit. The J c42s are the only pair I have currently but of course they are cardioid. They do sound good when solo'ed but too narrow. I was planning on getting a second 414. Thanks, Hannes.

That is the problem with cardiods, they easily sound narrow and boxed. I use omnis all the time. Much better bass response, no matter the size. Much more "open" sound, much more natural for many sources. And there is no way you can make a "omni" sound out of a "cardioid" sound. No EQ, no reverb, no filter, nothing can do that.

Actually cardioids are problem solvers against bleed but omnis or semi-cardioids are much more ideal as microphones for acoustical sources.

Here are two things that I often use:
1. Mixing a cardioid pair with an omni pair. You need to adust the positions or else you get comb filtering but soundwise this is interesting.
2. Pointing a pair of cardioids towards the sound source as if they were omnis.

Explanation for 2: One of the problems of the cardioids is that if you use them in an XY configuration (or ORTF or whatever) the sound comes under quite an angle into the microphone. Only very expensive cardioids have a smooth frequency function when addressed from the side (Sennheiser MKH is king in that regard, Schoeps too, DPA and Neumann SDCs work too). Mostly everything else gives you a dull sound plus nasty frequency spikes when addressed from the side.

All this must be tried and verified by positioning, recording, listening, repetition. It is the small 1x1 of recording, and every bit of experience in that regard will be more worth to you than a bunch of VSTs if you are going after a good recording.

Getting a second C414 is a good idea. This is a quality microphone, a studio standard for piano, and you can switch the characteristics, I think with 9 varations. They are expected to go up in price soon since the factory in Vienna is closing down.

Good to know. I'll get one soon.

Regarding no. 1, are you suggesting that the two pairs face the same way, both be on the back or front? I though it would make more sense to have one pair on the back and one on the front.

I didn't think the C42s and 414 sounded bad (and I did more them around a bit) but I didn't get much low end out of them so that's why I added the Rode and AT about a foot or so back. I'm not sure they added much. I've really relied on eq for boosting lower frequencies. Does it make more sense to bus both pairs together and eq or do that separately?

@givemenoughrope
What characteristic did you dial into the C414?

Recording an instrument from front and back at the same time is a good idea in theory but never worked out in practise for me. Too much runtime problems. The most usual approach for mixing different mic characteristics would be either:
1. To have all 4 microphones meticulously adjusted on one bar in order to have the same distance to the sound source (what counts is the position of the membranes)
2. To have an XY pair (cardioids) in the front and an AB pair (omnis) at least 1 or 1.5 meters back in order to avoid phasing.

Working with AB omnis is kind of an art compared to XY. Note that your stereo image is strongly dependent on the distance between the both omni mics: If you have a small distance between the mics (like 20 cm) then it will be like a wide angle lens regarding the stereo image. If you have a big distance between the mics (like 1 m) then it will be like a tele lens. You can visualize this here but it is really worth trying out in order to get a feeling for it:
http://www.sengpielaudio.com/HejiaE.htm

BTW what you can try with your existing microphones:
Put them on a bar with the both cardioids facing outside 45°, distance 25 cm, and the 414 switched to omni in the middle of them. Add some of the omni signal to both channels with a high cut (low pass) to taste*. That should give you a better bass response.

*Use only linear phase EQs for different mic signals of the same source before they mix together. After that point you can use what you want.

Update from NAMM: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=8Kt0L53ZuBo

It's called Spat Revolution and lives outside of the DAW. Looks like it's ticking boxes so far. My main question would regard instances: will one be able to open more than one instance if several different spaces are required (pop/conventional mix) or are we limited to one and having all instruments in the same room?

According to this press release, http://www.kvraudio.com/news/flux-annou ... tool-36026 the price is set at $1490 and €1390 but the gentleman in the video seems to suggest around "a thousand." Bit of a discrepancy there. I'm obviously hoping for a discount for previous owners, seeing that it is a sizeable investment.

Releasing April/May. Eagerly awaiting a demo.