# How to mix/Master solo piano tutorial/debate



## Musicologo (Aug 31, 2014)

I have decided to express my doubts in a form of a case study so I can learn, but also share the experience with others who might feel the same doubts.

The point of this exercise is to learn the process of mixing and mastering a solo piano virtual track until it becomes optimized.

(While I'm fairly relativist regarding the composition process, musical materials and even to some point, performance, and I feel most of that follows highly arbitrary standards, I believe the music Industry of the XXI century has _some objective _standards and expectations regarding sound/production quality - namely on the values associated with *timbre, ambiance and perceived loudness*.

And it's hard for me to find people to enlighten me on that, since when I show my music to my daily life friends they can't tell me if its sounds better on a malmsjo or a steinway, or if it sounds better with a certain EQ or not. They can't, they say it's all the same.)

1. I am starting with a very simple Satie-like piece called Nuance III. The first step was to compose the piece and obtain a musical score. IT is here.

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/14207055/Tiago%20Videira%20-%20Nuance%20III.pdf (https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/142 ... %20III.pdf)

2. The second was to record this piece into a midi file. If anyone doesn't like my performance they are free to make others using the same score, but that is a subject to be discussed.


https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/14207055/Tiago%20Videira%20-%20Nuance%20III.mid (https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/142 ... %20III.mid)

3. The third step was to open my daw. Now we've got to the part that for me is most interesting. When we arrive here, with a MIDI track of a solo piano piece, what one has to do to maximize it?...

4. If I simply record it with the Logic Default piano, I obtain a terrible dull sound:

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/14207055/Tiago%20Videira%20-%20Nuance%20III%20%28Logic%20Piano%29.mp3 (https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/142 ... ano%29.mp3)

5. So, I've decided to go with Sampletekk Black Grand mkII, a steinway D.
Since it's a classical piece, I'm using the default settings of the mic in the ambient position at 65% and the room fairly large. the volume knob is set at 0.

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/14207055/Tiago%20Videira%20-%20Nuance%20III%20%28Sampletekk%20BGmkII%29.mp3 (https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/142 ... kII%29.mp3)

6. It improved the piece in magnificent ways. So clearly the choice of Piano, mic perspective and reverb are in themselves just crucial. But... are they enough?... Is this production wise enough? I still think, even for a simple piano sound it might lack "brilliance". So I've tried other things as well. In this case, I've decided to get also a close mic perspective at 30%, mixed with the ambient perspective at 65%, so I could get a "more in the face" sound. 

And I've decided to use mastering tool Ozone5: I've selected the "jazz piano" mastering preset as a starting point, since it's the closer to a solo piano track available. Then, to EQ the piano, I'm using a Satie Gymnopedie piece as a reference - I've snapshot that track, and matched my track to that Gymnopedie EQ. 
Then I've changed the exciter since I didn't like the "retro" option, it seemed to be creating some strange piercing noises on the highs. Tube or tape, anyone? Tape sounds more brilliant, tube more warm... The dynamics, stereo imaging and maximizer I left them intact since they were already very subtle and normally one doesn't want to mess too much with a piano. All this was an effort to make the sound more "brilliant", more "alive". I've got this:

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/14207055/Tiago%20Videira%20-%20Nuance%20III.mp3 (https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/142 ... %20III.mp3)

7. If I have overdone it, or did something wrong please help me. Or if you have other suggestions. 

8. How would you do it? Departing from the SAME piece, what would be your process to obtain a final pristine track to sell to a client, to put in a movie or as background furniture music?... What approach would you take, what steps would you follow? 

I'd love to hear more and learn.


----------



## marclawsonmusic (Aug 31, 2014)

Hi Musiclogo,

I looked at the score and listened to your examples.

My process is a bit different... specifically, I would have done differently steps 2 and 3.

So, write the piece in Finale, but _print _your score instead of exporting a midi file. Then, choose a pianosound in your DAW that fits this music and spend most of your time trying to _record a good midi performance_. Focus on dynamics, phrasing, pedal usage and adding emotion to the performance.

After that is done, you should need only a very limited amount of audio processing to polish it up. Since there is only one instrument, not much "mixing" needs to happen. But maybe add some reverb (depending on the piano you choose), and use EQ if there is some low-end build up.

In terms of mastering, I do not think a piece like this needs mastering in the traditional sense... it certainly doesn't need a lot of compression (probably none). So, a tool like Ozone might actually end up being destructive. In fact, listening to your example in step 6, I hear some sonic artifacts in that version - they sound like little puffs of air after some of the notes. I _think _this is where the compression is cutting off the transients in the audio... too abruptly in this case. (PS - I am still learning compression, so this may not be the right explanation, but there is definitely something wrong there).

So, to summarize, I would spend much more time getting a quality midi performance than mixing / mastering. On a piece like this, it shouldn't take more than a few minutes to get a nice basic mix.

Best of luck,
Marc


----------



## TGV (Aug 31, 2014)

The piano now sounds a bit "boxed", a bit cardboard like. And there is something weird: the first chord has a nice sound, according to me, but others sound thinner. Perhaps it's an effect of the piano samples. Another possibility is that you EQ'd against a recording with a different velocity range. This sounds as if it should be played between pp and mp, right?


----------



## re-peat (Aug 31, 2014)

Tiago,

I downloaded your midifile, shortened and edited it a bit (well, a lot), gave it to the Galaxy VintageD and *here’s the result*.
(I have the Sampletekk Black Grand also somewhere around here, and I wish I could have rendered it with that piano ― would have been more helpful to you from a sonic point of view ― but, unfortunately, I wasn’t able find the library. Must be one of those HD’s which aren’t hooked up at the moment.)

Anyway, Galaxy it is.

It’s a quick, sketchy job, and certainly not intended to prove or disprove anything, but the reason I’ve done it, is to show that:
(1) if you separate your phrases a little more (both compositionally and performance-wise), and insert some musical _caesuras_, you give the listener a better chance to follow the music, as the structure of the music will become more apparent and your themes will be clearer to discern. See, in your version, the music starts and then ends a few minutes later, but in between those two points the thing just goes on an on ― same dynamics throughout, same 5/4, almost static tempo, similar phrases (which seem all glued to another), … ― and eventually, a listener is bound to loose interest. Well, I did anyway.
Bring in some variation however (I inserted several bars of 3/4, made drastic tempo changes, varied the phrases, played with the dynamics, etc. …) and the music, in my hopeful opinion, becomes a little bit more inviting to follow.
I also removed all your ‘hesitations’, which to me ― and I suppose to most people ― don’t sound very musical, but just very badly played.

(2) Not sure if you like the piano ― I do, but only up to a point: the Galaxy is certainly not at its best in this type of music (*) ― but here’s a little tip which you might find useful:
I loaded up two instances of the Galaxy, one for the discant, and one for the lower half of the instrument. (I often do that for solo piano music.) And the lower half is processed slightly differently: it’s got more room reverb (so it sounds a bit more further back, thus creating more depth to the instrument), it’s slighty more darkened as well, and its bass is pushed somewhat to the centre of the stereofield.
The discant, on the other hand ― or should that be: _under_ the other hand? Hahaha. ― has less room but slightly more plate reverb (the longer tail) and is also clearer. And it has a high-pass filter on it as well.

And that’s all the processing I applied. No compression, no ‘mastering treatment’ … Just two EQ’s (one for each Galaxy-instance) and two reverbs: a room and a plate. Oh, and that little plugin to move the bass to the centre (NuGen’s MonoFilter).

(*) Something more about sampled pianos: if you write for these instruments, I believe it is best to avoid writing melodies with many recurring notes, like you did, especially when they all happen in the same dynamic range, cause these will inevitably all start to sound exactly the same (very noticeable in slow music), and there just no way of covering that up. And it really ruins every hope you might have of simulating a real instrument. That is also partly the reason why I altered some of your phrases: waaaaaay too many D#4’s and D4, I thought. Not even the best sampled pianos can get away with that amount of identical notes (all in the same dynamic range).

Now, I certainly don't think that my example sounds particularly great ― if this were for real, I'd have to spend a lot more time on the midi and the mix (and try out various pianos to find out which suits this piece the best) ― but I hope it contains enough in the way of suggestions nonetheless to maybe help you find solutions for any problems you might encounter when writing and recording solo piano music with/for sampled instruments.

_


----------



## clarkus (Aug 31, 2014)

Look what re-peat's done. This is why I love this Forum. 

I was going to mention reverb. Most people say it's the biggest choice you can make influencing the final result.

Here's what I do, vis a vis reverb.

- Turn off whatever reverb is on the sample (in your case, piano)

- Bus your signal to audio effects.

- Choose a reverb. Valhalla Vintage Verb gets the job done nicely ( a 50. plug-in), but you can move on up to Altiverb, to MIR, to anything you like and can afford.

- Pan the bussed signal (the reverb) to some place that is not where your dry piano signal is (you might start with piano panned center, and the reverb slightly left or right). This emulates the effect of the piano being reflected from a nearby wall or surface. (With MIR & some of the convolution reverbs this step may not be necessary).

- Add or subtract reverb to taste. For more advanced work, you can tweak predelay & other parameters of the reverb.

Et voila!


----------



## marclawsonmusic (Aug 31, 2014)

Wow. Great post, re-peat. I liked your result very much. Also, the advice of separating the low and high piano parts was very enlightening.


----------



## clarkus (Aug 31, 2014)

Hi, marclawsonmusic

Just to clarify, when you compliment the advice about separating highs / lows, what are you referring to, exactly? I didn't see that advice, though there was mention of rolling off lows as needed.


----------



## marclawsonmusic (Aug 31, 2014)

Hi, clarkus. This is what I was referring to...



re-peat @ Sun Aug 31 said:


> (*) ― but here’s a little tip which you might find useful:
> I loaded up two instances of the Galaxy, one for the discant, and one for the lower half of the instrument. (I often do that for solo piano music.) And the lower half is processed slightly differently: it’s got more room reverb (so it sounds a bit more further back, thus creating more depth to the instrument), it’s slighty more darkened as well, and its bass is pushed somewhat to the centre of the stereofield.
> The discant, on the other hand ― or should that be: _under_ the other hand? Hahaha. ― has less room but slightly more plate reverb (the longer tail) and is also clearer. And it has a high-pass filter on it as well.


----------



## rayinstirling (Aug 31, 2014)

Isn't it strange how the brain works. Even if Satie hadn't been mentioned I would still have thought the performance was one of the right hand dancing around trying not to step on the toes of a great tune.


----------



## clarkus (Aug 31, 2014)

Got it, Marc. Thanks.


----------



## blougui (Sep 1, 2014)

thanx for uploading your exemple Musicologo and thanx for taking the time to comment thouroughly Piet. Invaluable.

- Erik


----------



## Musicologo (Sep 5, 2014)

I'm amazed by the quality of the answers I've got. Thank you, thank you so much, specially Piet and Marclawson and Clarkus for the valuable advice and suggestions. The idea of layering the different voices is intriguing. However all these suggestions really rely a lot on EQ and reverb.

I will not comment on performance just yet, because while I know it's a vital part of any track, my concern in this post is mainly "how to obtain a sound" and not so much "how to obtain the best performance", while I clear understand the advice to be a human playing the melodies and giving them room to breathe and proper dynamics and phrasing.

Still, I'm going to ask more "production questions" that I've just asked somewhere else, to gather the most feedback possible on this. 

After noticing the ArtVista sale on their grand piano and the "ability to emulate several recordings sounds" using presets I'm wondering - so it's possible to do all that starting with the SAME piano samples!...

---

So let's just focus on Piano solo and the "sound quality". Mainly I'm trying to learn how to emulate with the same Piano VST several "sounds" I'm finding in records. And I need to know what is happening there.
Is it all a matter of EQ, Compression and Reverb? and if yes, HOW?...

I'm giving examples:
1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=awtWSj_qTkE

So, this to me sounds very close and in my face, and somewhat "aggressive". How is this effect obtained?... 

2. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xEWKp1CBmBU

Here the sound seems a bit more far, but it is still very "aggressive" and "gritty" and the low notes really punch through my phones. Is it just a matter of EQ and reverb? How does one get this effect?...

3. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S-Xm7s9eGxU

Here the sound seems very airy, and smooth... also seems more distant, still very intimate, but the melody is pristine and the chords very subtle...are these two layers?... If one uses the same piano, what is the difference between this sound and the other two? It is just a matter of EQ and Reverb?.. How to get this sound?...

4. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AV7M-wa9ciM

Here it seems a combination... I have the same in your face and raw feeling from the first two tracks, but also the airy, dreamy mood of the third... what is happening?...

5. Would I have to acquire Valhalla vintage verbs to obtain these type of results? Is it not possible to get good tracks with Space Designer from logic?... At the time, people were telling Space designer was a very decent reverb...

Ok, for a start this is good enough. I'd like to better understand the differences between these sounds, what is happening and how can I emulate them using always the same piano. Thanks very much.


----------



## Hans Adamson (Sep 5, 2014)

Musicologo @ Fri Sep 05 said:


> After noticing the ArtVista sale on their grand piano and the "ability to emulate several recordings sounds" using presets I'm wondering - so it's possible to do all that starting with the SAME piano samples!...


Hello Musicologo,

Since you mentioned Art Vista Virtual Grand Piano 2, I thought I'd elaborate a little about the techniques used. All piano brands have their distinctive sound, and it is mostly impossible to make a recording of a Steinway to sound like a recording of a Yamaha, to turn a Kawai into a Fazioli or a Malmsjö. The Art Vista Virtual Grand Piano 2 is based on the recordings of a 1960 Steinway Model "B", a piano used in many piano recordings through times, particularly before Yamaha became more popular as a studio instrument.

The numerous presets in VGP2, emulating piano recordings on famous records from the 50's up until recent times, have less to do with mastering and EQ, and more to do with breaking down the recording technique into a large number of separate parameters and emulating each of them in the way it is done in a certain recording. This was done through listening to, and analyzing (by ear) each parameter of each recording, and then programming and scripting each piano preset to behave as closely as possible as regards to each parameter.

The parameters would minimally include: stereo width, placement (distance and pan), saturation, compression, mike positioning within the instrument, piano voicing, room size, and applied reverb, if any, (including reverb parameters). EQ would be used to recreate any room coloration, for example in earlier recordings, or tour recordings, or club recordings, where the recording location had been less than perfect.

No impulse responses or EQ-copying techniques were used, and EQ was the least significant part of the equation. So, in conclusion, the Recording Styles presets in Art Vista Virtual Grand Piano 2 are relying on recreating the recording parameters of the original recordings.

Elton John switched from Steinway to Yamaha some time after his first record. The VGP2 preset emulating an Elton John recording style was created according to the parameters on his first album (Your Song, Border Song etc). So, it will sound like classic Elton John piano, but less like his later Yamaha recordings. Apparently each of the recordings on this album was engineered differently, so it was a challenge for me to create one single emulation that would work for all the songs on the album.


----------



## clarkus (Sep 5, 2014)

Hi, Musicologo - To your reverb question ... It's deep! You'll find people espousing opinions here about reverb that are somewhat contradictory, and you'll hear these opinions from people that know much more than I do about the topic. 

A quick overview of product:

You'll find Bricasti reverbs coming in at around 5000. for a piece of hardware that some people say will do a better job than any digital plug-in.

http://www.bricasti.com/m7.html

They may be right. I can't afford one.

Altiverb is a big favorite, coming in at about 600. This is a convolution verb, and if you don't know what that means there's enough verbiage on this forum on the topic to keep you up late nights reading.

http://www.audioease.com/Pages/Altiverb/

MIR does a similar job (some say better), that job being to recreate the sound of a hall & place your instruments in it. Price is in the Altiverb range.

https://www.vsl.co.at/en/211/497/1687/2036/1722.htm

2C Audio makes awesome algorithmic reverbs that do fancy things (including reverb) for 200. They will eat all your available CPU and then some. If you have a fast computer with lots of RAM, you won't care.

http://www.2caudio.com/products/b2#_overview

I am using one of two 50. plug-ins from Valhalla on any given mix. These sound very good, and provide a huge range of choices:

http://www.valhalladsp.com

... and are also relatively easy to figure out & use.

The room 'verb and the vintage 'verb are the ones I have. These reverbs have - for me - a big plus, which is they are not CPU intensive, while also sounding quite rich.

Are any of these "better' than the Space Designer that comes with Logic? Yes, I think so. The Logic stock reverbs are pretty good. I am just trying to make my productions stand out, and one of the most immediate differences you can create in an audio production is the reverb you choose and the way you use it.


----------



## marclawsonmusic (Sep 18, 2014)

Hi Musicologo,

I have been meaning to reply to this topic for a while. Sorry it's taken so long.

PS - I am not an expert on these things, but I am learning (and no one else has answered your questions yet). *I expect other forum members to chime in if I say something inaccurate.*

First, I do not think it is possible to have ONE piano library that gives you every possible outcome. You can try, but keep in mind there is an amazing amount of nuance and color among acoustic pianos... A Steinway grand sounds much different than a Yamaha or a Kawai... so the sampled version will also include these differences in tone / timbre.

So, first you need to pick the right _source _material, before having any discussion of mixing or EQ or reverb.

That said, I can only really comment on the spacialization aspect of these recordings. I will do my best.



Musicologo @ Fri Sep 05 said:


> I'm giving examples:
> 1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=awtWSj_qTkE
> 
> So, this to me sounds very close and in my face, and somewhat "aggressive". How is this effect obtained?...


You can use a close mic'd piano to achieve this sound. Most piano libs allow for this. If you use any reverb, use it sparingly and choose a short reverb time.

Another way to get the piano to "come to the front" is to use compression, which will amplify the softer notes and raise the volume of the softest sounds (including the "noise floor"). This will make the piano sound closer and more "intimate" or "in your face".




Musicologo @ Fri Sep 05 said:


> 2. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xEWKp1CBmBU
> 
> Here the sound seems a bit more far, but it is still very "aggressive" and "gritty" and the low notes really punch through my phones. Is it just a matter of EQ and reverb? How does one get this effect?...


Yes, the sound is farther away than the first example, but it's not _very _far (a couple meters, maybe?). To achieve this sound, you need either (a) a sample library recorded at this distance, or (b) a dry / close-mic'd library spatialized (with reverb) to sound like it is a bit farther away. Because this piece moves so quickly, I would think you would want to use a fairly clean reverb (something like PhoenixVerb?) with a short-ish reverb time (but longer than the first example). At least that is where I would start.

PS - I think the aggressiveness you are hearing here has nothing to do with the mix, but everything to do with the piece itself. Although you can change the sound to achieve a more "piercing" quality using EQ if needed.




Musicologo @ Fri Sep 05 said:


> 3. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S-Xm7s9eGxU
> 
> Here the sound seems very airy, and smooth... also seems more distant, still very intimate, but the melody is pristine and the chords very subtle...are these two layers?... If one uses the same piano, what is the difference between this sound and the other two? It is just a matter of EQ and Reverb?.. How to get this sound?...


Again, I think some of the "airy" nature of this recording comes from the piece itself... it's a light, reflective and "airy" piece. It sounds a bit farther away from the last 2 examples, but to achieve this sound, I think the answer is the same - either (a) use a sample library recorded at this distance, or (b) use reverb to spacialize a dry / close-mic'd piano to this distance. (using a bit longer reverb than the last two examples).




Musicologo @ Fri Sep 05 said:


> 4. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AV7M-wa9ciM
> 
> Here it seems a combination... I have the same in your face and raw feeling from the first two tracks, but also the airy, dreamy mood of the third... what is happening?...


Here again, I think some of the sonic qualities you are hearing are because of the piece... it is a dreamy / moody / "rainy" piece. However, the answer of getting this sound is the simplest of all... you just need to buy the SampleTekk Rain Piano! 




Musicologo @ Fri Sep 05 said:


> 5. Would I have to acquire Valhalla vintage verbs to obtain these type of results? Is it not possible to get good tracks with Space Designer from logic?... At the time, people were telling Space designer was a very decent reverb...
> 
> Ok, for a start this is good enough. I'd like to better understand the differences between these sounds, what is happening and how can I emulate them using always the same piano. Thanks very much.



I think the sad truth is that no ONE sample library and no ONE reverb solution can help you achieve ALL these varied sounds (plus all the ones in your head). With samples, one must first contend with the source material (the kind of piano - its tone and timbre), the recording methods used (close mics? which kind? recorded in a hall? chamber? were preamps used? which ones?) and that is just the starting point. 

Beyond that, each reverb brings different things to the table... ValhallaRoom tends to add "color" (or modulation) to the reverberated sound (this sounds lovely on a piano, by the way! try some of Den's Lexi presets!). But, sometimes you need a much cleaner reverb so maybe you reach for something like PhoenixVerb (which is known to be clean - no modulation or 'color'). Or maybe you want the sonic quality of an actual room, in which case you'd reach for QL Spaces or one of Altiverb's "good" presets (some are not so good).

So, you probably need a grab bag of pianos and a grab bag of reverbs to achieve all the sounds that might be in your head! At least, that is my quasi-informed-yet-caring opinion. 

PS - I recently purchased Hans Adamson's Acoustic Grand Piano and it indeed has a lovely sound! It is a Steinway "F", I believe. Lovely tone, but different from the Malmsjo Acoustic Grand, which is also very lovely (and much-praised on this forum)! It really does help to have a handful of these tools at your disposal.

I hope this is helpful,
Marc


----------



## Musicologo (Sep 21, 2014)

Thank you so much for your precious insights, they were all valuable as now I have a more detailed idea on which factors influence the final sound of a solo piano production.

I might add that to confirm my ideas and experiences I downloaded the demo version of Pianoteq5 and submitted some of my midi piano pieces to the D4 using several presets. And I was able to actually hear the enormous difference it makes having the SAME PIANO (Steinway D4) in the preset Classical Recording or Blues or Vintage or Bebop, etc...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qnszN0VoCzM

This video is quite ilustrative of that fact.

When I navigated through the presets I was able to study them and see the differences and they were more or less the same that Hans from ArtVista already explained here regarding his own presets for the Art Vista grand.

I learnt how much difference does it make to have a customized Velocity curve, to costumize the EQ, to tweak the reverb, to change the mic position. Mic position seems paramount in my ears at least. I was able to see the tremendous effect it make to have the same midi rendition by a closed mic piano (much used in Jazz presets) or in distant ambient omni mics (like many classical music is recorded).

I've also learnt more about the importance of hammer hardness and then by using ozone I was also able to listen to the differences by applying an exciter with tube or tape modulation or applying several degrees of compression.

What in the end I've realized is that, although changing the source material (the piano - be it steinway, yamaha, malmjso, upright or grand) makes a difference, my initial intuition regarding my purposes was correct: the SAME MIDI rendition in the SAME piano can be completely overblown or completely ruined simply by changing the presets, in this case, EQ, reverb, velocity curve, etc... And so I've realized the importance all this extra layer of preparation should have in terms on rendering a virtual performance.


----------

