MJ Oktava 012 on piano vs DPA, QTC1, U87

[hv_]

I picked up a Joly-modded set of Oktava 012 mics a few weeks ago with cardioid and omni caps mainly to try out some mid-side possibilities with the fig-8 adapter recording my grand piano. But in an effort to get to know them, I thought I'd try them out every which way. I haven't decoded and mixed the mid-side files yet, figuring I'd start with the easy stuff first. So here are the test recordings I made comparing the Oktava cardioids in X-Y config to the compact DPA 4021s I usually use on stage for live concert recording. I did all the test recordings directly into a Sound Devices 744T. To take my room which is quite live out of the recording I used a bunch of Aurelex max-wall panels then prepared both dry and wet versions of each recording. I added a dash of Bricasti Sandor Hall and minimal eq for the wet versions. The dry versions are totally raw save for my attempt to match the levels. I didn't want to mess with the stereo imaging so I only sought to match right channel levels letting the bass-side left channel fall where it may. I'm going to try and attach a few pics and the files in 320k mp3 format.

Howard

[hv_]

... and here are the omni test recordings. For these, I compared the Oktava 012s to a pair of Earthworks QTC40 (aka QTC1). I should mention that the Earthworks mics output is so hot I had to put the Sound Devices recorder into low-gain range which is kind of like padding them. All the other mics I recorded used the normal gain range.

Howard

[didier.brest]

I listened to the 35 first seconds of the dry versions. Both DPA and
Earthworks takes are better focused than their Oktava respective takes.
Thank you for sharing these tests.

[hv_]

Thanks for the feedback. I've only listened to them through headphones so far myself. When I'm done with the mid-side ones I'm planning on having a few people over, including my piano tuner, and doing a proper listen in that same room with the group. For some weird reason I hear better when I'm not alone.

Howard

[amfortas2006]

I also prefer DPA or Earthworks, but it was hard to listen because the piano needs serious tuning
Except if the recording is for a western-movie, in that case, its just right

but thanks for the effort! And played well thumbsup

[mrhudson]

Nice to see all the piano recording work around here, definitely a lot to learn from and compare notes. I actually thought that I liked the Oktava mics at first because it seemed to soften what is a fairly bright piano, but I wasn't sure at the end whether the volumes were perfectly matched. The biggest thing that stood out to me across all takes was how bright the piano was. For me, the biggest thing sonically would be concocting something that would take the edge off a little bit, whatever happened to deliver that. Of course, I spent some time today recording my piano, wishing it could be a little brighter :-)

I agree that the DPA seemed to have a solidarity of image, etc,. that stood out.

I'm curious - have you recorded with and without the lid treatment? That's something I haven't played with much yet myself, but curious if you noticed a big change to the recording and, if so, what 'went away' with that treatment.

[hv_]

And I thought my piano tech would be the only one to rib me about the tuning and unisons that didn't sing... but he won't be by till next week for the paying gig. For which I'm hoping this test session will decide my mic setup.

Hi there, mrhudson. Generally in a concert session I don't get to mess with the lid unless its a dual piano deal where we remove one of them. When the lids on the high stick I usually go with the DPAs... its not as critical with cardioids but you will get less clear imaging from the reflections and more volume and less clear bass with the lid acting like a horn. It's a bigger problem with omnis. I've only ever used them live with the lid off which is common in settings where the audience surrounds the performer. If I had a non-obtrusive mid-side setup, I think I'd prefer to go with that over omnis.

Howard

[amfortas2006]

Originally Posted by Mr.Hudson

I actually thought that I liked the Oktava mics at first because it seemed to soften what is a fairly bright piano...

Yeah, me too

Originally Posted by hv_

And I thought my piano tech would be the only one to rib me about the tuning and unisons that didn't sing...
Howard

Try recording simple chords before it was freshly tuned, and then after the tuning, compare these and you will hear even clearer what I mean

Cheers, thanks!

[hv_]

Finished the mid-side mixes last night and realized there was one combo I missed... the Oktava fig-8 with the Earthworks as a mid. I'll probably do that one right after the piano tuning next week. The ones below, however, were done in the same session as the earlier ones.

For the mid-side recordings, I did the decoding in a daw with the mid recording centered and the side figure-8 cloned onto 2 more tracks, one panned hard right and the other hard left with a phase reversal. The side channels were ganged and set to a mix level of -6 db relative to the mid. I had previously normalized all the side and mid tracks to -23 db rms in an effort to make all the stereo spreads objectively consistent. But when I listened to these mixes, I noticed that one of the combos I tried had a substantially different sounding stereo characteristic. Curious if everyone else hears it like I do.

Here's the different combos I tried. I started with the mid-side setup suggested by an Oktava distributor: cardioids all the way around. I also tried a setup similar to what I usually use with my u87/qtc40 (which I also recorded, btw): Oktava cardioids for the figure-8 and an Oktava omni for the mid. Then I tried Oktava omnis all the way around... the distributor was very skeptical that would even work. Maybe I'll leave this a blind listening test for a little while till I get some feedback on which ones folks like best.

I have a couple photos below of the Oktava figure-8 adapter which is pretty interesting. It contains 2 larger screen caps which screw over the mic caps after they're screwed in. The bag they came in had a tag on it warning not to use the adapter without the extra screen caps. So naturally I tried it. The mic went into roughly a -6db screech until both screen caps were screwed on. So much for that.

I haven't done the wet mid-side mixes yet. Maybe this weekend. One of the cool things about mid-side recording is that you can apply reverb with different pre-delay settings to mid and side signals before decoding which yields a 3-D like effect with enhanced front to back depth. More to come later for that.

Howard

[mrhudson]

Eager to listen tonight on some nice speakers, thanks for sharing! Neat ideas on the M/S reverb options. So, for the the acoustic treatments, looks like you have them resting only around the left side (lid underside) and then suspended in front of the tail of the piano?

[hv_]

I took the 1st pic in the original post before I set up most of the foam just to show how the space is shaped. But I used four 3-panel maxwalls placing the top of each against the lid and raising the remaining 2 on each up to roughly the top of the piano case pretty much entirely surrounding it. I'll add another shot up top with 2 of the stands swung out just enough to see the piano and mic. Those couple pieces on the lid might have been sufficient for X-Y but I like to go all out whenever I do mid-side or use an omni unless I'm in a great sounding space.

Howard

[mljung]

Interesting - first time I've heard recordings with the odd looking Oktava fig8. adapter

After a very quick listen on my HD580 headphones. My first impression is that I prefer MS3 followed by MS4 and MS1.

MS2 was strange and "metallic", probably the one with oktava omnis in the adapter.
Maybe you should try the adapter with hypercardioids as well...

Anyhow - seems like the Fig8 adapter actually works thumbsup

::
Mads

[mrhudson]

I was most struck by not liking MS2. The others are all very close. I have the exact same preferences - MS3, MS4, and then MS1. MS2 seemed too harsh, which, again, is a taste thing I suppose. I would definitely say that the biggest determining factor to my ear is "which set of mics softens the piano to some extent, without killing clarity, etc." Which sounds most like the piano in the room? MS3 seemed to maintain more separation/clarity in the right hand parts (comparing around 1:20, say)

Thanks for the new pic - where do you sit? Looks like the one near the seat is up way close?

[hv_]

Sorry. I totally neglected to mention that the piano is midi fitted. If you look closely at the 2nd pic you can make out the black solenoid cover under the piano directly below the hammers as well as the solenoid lever that operates the pedal dampers. The protrusion nearer the middle is a Dampp-Chaser. The midi control unit is sitting at the tail end of the piano just past it's leg. My wife played the piece before I set up the foam which I recorded in midi and played back after each mic change.

Howard

[mrhudson]

Wow, that makes for consistent takes! Wondered if that was the case after seeing the picture. Thanks!

[hv_]

Here are the wet mid-side recordings with an attempt at stereo 3D. I used the same Bricasti M7 patch as in the earlier wet takes but applied separately to the mid and side tracks with different pre-delay and other settings to try and create more depth. I applied a pre-delay of 40 ms to the side track and 14 ms to the mid. The idea being to pull the extreme bass and treble notes closer to the listener for a wrap around effect with those in between spreading out a bit too. Let me know what you think.

Btw, I'll send a pm to anyone interested in knowing what mics are in the different mid-side recordings.

Howard

[andrew montreal]

Great test. Having only listened to the first batch, it seemed pretty clear to me that there was more depth and clarity with the DPA's. The reverb on the distant mics seemed to move UPWARD! What on earth is that? There was a real 3-dimensionality to them and more clarity. I didn't get that with the Octava's.

Kind of sad because I was hoping this wouldn't be the case. Thanks for nothing.

[hv_]

Hi, Andrew. Not sure what you're referring to by distant mics. The mid-side, perhaps? All mics however including the mid-side arrays were positioned identically for all recordings. 16 inches above the strings directly over middle-C. Anything using an omni and all the mid-side recordings with the side-facing figure 8 will pick up more piano resonance and a little more room too since I didn't try and treat reflections from above. If you listened to the wet recordings earlier, I did update them to match the levels I ended up using for the mid-side recordings.

I agree, btw, about favoring the DPAs for xy recording. I hear a lot more texture in the sound with them. But when my wife listened, she thought they sounded a little harsh compared to the Oktavas. Matter of taste, I guess. I did favor all the mid-side recordings over the xy and ab ones myself. I hear more detail, especially in those places where she drops a note ahead of a chord like around the 43-second mark of the wet mixes.

I did a little eq on the wet MS2, btw, which really smooths it out I think. It still sounds a little different from the rest, however, with a more focused stereo spread. But oddly enough seems to have more front to back depth than the others and the type of edge I think would work well in a mix with other instruments. Which I think I might try one of these days.

Howard

[andrew montreal]

Originally Posted by hv_

Hi, Andrew. Not sure what you're referring to by distant mics. The mid-side, perhaps? All mics however including the mid-side arrays were positioned identically for all recordings. 16 inches above the strings directly over middle-C. Anything using an omni and all the mid-side recordings with the side-facing figure 8 will pick up more piano resonance and a little more room too since I didn't try and treat reflections from above. If you listened to the wet recordings earlier, I did update them to match the levels I ended up using for the mid-side recordings.

Sorry about that. I misread what you had written. I didn't realize that you had actually used the word "wet" in its actual sense of with effect. I thought they were just at a different distance.

Originally Posted by hv_

I agree, btw, about favoring the DPAs for xy recording. I hear a lot more texture in the sound with them. But when my wife listened, she thought they sounded a little harsh compared to the Oktavas. Matter of taste, I guess. I did favor all the mid-side recordings over the xy and ab ones myself. I hear more detail, especially in those places where she drops a note ahead of a chord like around the 43-second mark of the wet mixes.

I will have to check out the actual XY to MS versions. I'm very curious about that. Thanks for the test by the way.

[hv_]

Hi, folks. I completed my piano recording project a couple weeks ago after listening tests with the performer and my piano tuner. The performer liked MS3 and MS4 the best but couldn't choose. So I did an additional setup splitting the difference with the side from MS3 and the mid from MS4. Called it MS5. Which they both loved. So we went with that setup. A few days ago when approving his own mixes for production, the performer told me that as he listened to them at home, he had this eerie weird feeling of being right back in the recording session hearing what he heard as he played. The MS5 post-tuning test recording, wet and dry, is below.

Howard

[Oldone]

Call me crazy but in all tests I preferred the Oktava. The piano sounds more real and rich and less overly bright. Listend on AKG K702 headphones.

[Jean30]

Many thanks for this test. My preferences for the M/S takes :

MS 3, very equilibrate, good stereo and presence, perfect.
MS 1, less precision but easy to correct with just a little more high frequencies
MS4, a small problem with the S mike wich seems less precise than M mike
MS2, not good at all, because of the S mike very aggressive.

So I think MS 3 is U87+QTC40
MS 1 is all OKTAVA with correct figure of 8 (covered)
MS4 is Oktava for M with QTC40 for S
MS2 is Oktava with uncovered Side figure of 8 mike

Sorry for my english, I'm french, correct me if you want, I'm here to learn.
I wanted to by a figure of 8 oktava and you would help me sending me a private message to know if I was wrong or good.

Jean

[hv_]

Thanks for the listen, Jean. Just PM'd you with the answer key. Btw, I didn't do any recording with the side-caps off of the Octava MS holder... got a howling screech when I tried that.

Howard

[Jean30]

Many thanks for your fast reply, blind test is always interesting and surprising !! Very helpfull to me.

So I experienced a very simple modification with the MK 12 wich consist to close the holes beside the head of the microphone. Not al the holes, but only one slice, the one wich is back, or in the middle of the three areas.

i use some toric rubber seal :
Some pictures are joined to help you
and recordings (I'm not guitarist) made with cardioid in couple 110° 17cm (ORTF)
5 : no modification
6 : rubber on back holes
7 : rubber on the middle holes

For me the take 6 with rubber on back holes is very good, more precision in stereo image et just a little more high frequencies for the folk guitar (a Seagull).

I never experienced the M/S recording, very interesting for me because I work in 5.1, it will become less critical in the future because of the entire digital restitution without compression of the data's, but we have to take care to the phase problems, and M/S is ideal to avoid that.

I suggest you to try this small modification in some cases where you need high frequencies accentuation. I will do a new post perhaps about that.

Jean.

[hv_]

That's quite interesting. I've thought of doing that myself with a cardioid mic but never got around to actually trying it. I think those vents are what help give the mic its directional quality and partially covering them might widen the pattern a bit. Bringing the response closer to that of an omni with more even frequency response.

Howard

[didier.brest]

Sorry but I do not hear the rubber takes being better. Comparing the spectra shows that rubber on back holes make loose high end above 8 kHz and rubber on mid holes makes a 6 dB dip at 90 Hz if it is not caused by playing being different.

[PDC]

I am sorry. I really do not like any of them, because the piano sounds too electronic to me. The zippiness and ringing....it is just not the right piano for that style IMO.