Recording Steinway grand piano - damper noise

[John Willett]

I think the high price is because there are only a limited number now as it's out of print.

As Hugh says, it's a wonderful CD because of John Lenehan's excellent playing and interpretation and we let him "perform" while we were recording.

I still think it's the best performance of Satie I have heard and it's probably, at home, my most played CD - just because John's playing is so wonderful.

That's why it's important to get a "performance" - a recording may be note perfect, but if the performer is just playing notes, rather than playing music; you will listen once, say "that's nice" and never listen again. With a performer putting heart and soul into the performance you wil listen again and again and again - and that's what you want with any recording.

I recently recorded the world premier of several works by Peter Maundrell played by the composer, who is also an excellent pianist - and I got the job because the person who organised it used to work with Classic FM and knew my Satie recording. Hopefully to be released very soon, in the final stages now.

[Arpangel]

I think the high price is because there are only a limited number now as it's out of print.

As Hugh says, it's a wonderful CD because of John Lenehan's excellent playing and interpretation and we let him "perform" while we were recording.

I still think it's the best performance of Satie I have heard and it's probably, at home, my most played CD - just because John's playing is so wonderful.

That's why it's important to get a "performance" - a recording may be note perfect, but if the performer is just playing notes, rather than playing music; you will listen once, say "that's nice" and never listen again. With a performer putting heart and soul into the performance you wil listen again and again and again - and that's what you want with any recording.

I recently recorded the world premier of several works by Peter Maundrell played by the composer, who is also an excellent pianist - and I got the job because the person who organised it used to work with Classic FM and knew my Satie recording. Hopefully to be released very soon, in the final stages now.

I know, I'm being churlish, as Satie is my favourite composer of "all time" so I should investigate.
I once thought that I was Erik Satie reincarnated, as our lives were almost identical in how we were living. I wrote a piece in homage to him, I'll post it as soon as I can upload it.
Another absolutely amazing Satie "interpretation" is on this record, which I still have, this completely blew me away when I first heard it. And it's recorded at the old Decca studios in Broadhurst Gardens, near my old flat.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=LXSIEkOKkiI

[Hugh Robjohns]

Oooh er...

Because of the discussion above, I've just been playing John's Satie album... and discovered it has a fairly hefty (-46dB) DC offset on some of the tracks... Don't see that very often these days! Dodgy converter or mastering process somewhere along the line.

A 1Hz high-pass filter cures it.

H

[Rob Kirkwood]

Perhaps John L wasn't sitting dead centre on his piano stool?

Rob

[Hugh Robjohns]

[John Willett]

Oooh er...

Because of the discussion above, I've just been playing John's Satie album... and discovered it has a fairly hefty (-46dB) DC offset on some of the tracks... Don't see that very often these days! Dodgy converter or mastering process somewhere along the line.

A 1Hz high-pass filter cures it.

H

I recorded it on a Sony PCM-F1 system with Sennheiser MKH 20 microphones in the Maltings at Farnham is Surrey.

I did *not* do the editing or mastering, that was totally outside my control - first release was on Earthsounds in 1992 - 27 years ago. The Classic FM CD was a re-release in 1998.

If the DC-offset is only on some tracks, it sounds like it was introduced in the editing or mastering.

[Hugh Robjohns]

I've only played through the first few tracks. I'll check the rest later when I get a chance.

It could well be the PCM-F1's converters -- that recorder was notorious for DC offsets (and the PCM-701 that I had wasn't much better) -- but it really should have been spotted and corrected during mastering. It is trivially simple to correct with a 1Hz filter, after all. I'm surprised it wasn't spotted during editing/mastering as it would have created clicks (unless they used slow crossfades everywhere).

Having said all that, it's only me being a nerd... no one else is ever likely to notice, and any normal CD player or streaming box will remove the DC anyway on replay.

I only spotted it because I have a DK Technologies MSD600M++ goniometer strapped across the digital recording bus of my mastering console, and a DC offset is instantly revealed by the 'ball of string' display drifting away from the centre. Firing up RME's Digicheck toolbox quickly confirmed and quantified the DC offset, and patching in a digital high-pass filter set at 1Hz cured the problem.

As Mr Spock would have said... Fascinating...

H

[John Willett]

It was an original F1 system with an F1 Betamax recorder that I bought in 1983 - straight after Mike Skeet showd me how you could overdub using one converter and two Beta units.

And I never looked back.

One thing the session did throw up was that one of my MKH 20s (and one MKH 40) was manufactured reverse polarity to the other - but I will say that my MKH 20s and 40s were of the pre-production series with no serial numbers (only sticky dots with a number on) and were the limited pre-run before they were put into proper production.

I took them to Sennheiser in Germany in person and Manfred Hibbing himself checked and corrected them for me - so they are all fine now - though one channel was polarity reversed on the Satie recording in the editing to correct the issue.

Mike Skeet's "The Box" showed up the polarity reverse instantly (after the event) - so I immediately bought one and have used it on every session since.

[The Elf]

I recently recorded bro-in-law playing his Yammy piano in his work room. I had half an hour to do the job - Zoom H5 peeking under the lid... lovely recording!

Given sufficient time I would probably have over-complicated things - a good re-learning experience for me!

[Arpangel]

I recently recorded bro-in-law playing his Yammy piano in his work room. I had half an hour to do the job - Zoom H5 peeking under the lid... lovely recording!

Given sufficient time I would probably have over-complicated things - a good re-learning experience for me!

But have you checked it for DC offset? it can turn what you thought was an excellent Grammy award winning masterpiece into a worthless piece of plastic.

Sorry ......

I've got lots of PCMF1 stuff, ooer.....I'd better go and check. Also lots of stuff I did with Mike Skeet, overdubbing two machines.
I've got The Box Hugh, would that show DC offset the same as the display you have, as a shift in image?

[Hugh Robjohns]

But have you checked it for DC offset? it can turn what you thought was an excellent Grammy award winning masterpiece into a worthless piece of plastic.

Just to be clear... The recording of Satie's piano toons is a very good one indeed. The DC offset is just a minor technical fault which won't affect anyone's enjoyment of the music in any way. I was just very surprised to spot it as it's such a rarity these days!

I've got The Box Hugh, would that show DC offset the same as the display you have, as a shift in image?

Nope, because it's an analogue meter.

The DC offset is something which affects the digital audio signal because the A-D converter is allocating the wrong quantising values to the audio signals. It's not audible in itself, although it can affect other signal processes and become audible in that way -- such as asymmetrical clipping etc.

You can think of it as the digital equivalent of a magnetised tape head on an analogue tape recorder. It also causes similar issues when editing -- clicks at butt edits -- and can lead to other problems with all kinds of signal processing, especially dynamics, and lead to inaccurate metering. These are all things that should have been obvious at the editing and mastering stages, and dealt with...

To spot DC offsets you either need a digital meter like the DK Technologies one I use, or a bit meter like the one that comes with RME's interfaces -- or their equivalents.

DC removal was built-in as an automatic process in a lot of mastering DAWs and processors back in the 90s... it's essentially just a high-pass filter with a very low turnover (1 to 5 Hz, typically) and a very steep slope.

H

[Arpangel]

But have you checked it for DC offset? it can turn what you thought was an excellent Grammy award winning masterpiece into a worthless piece of plastic.

Just to be clear... The recording of Satie's piano toons is a very good one indeed. The DC offset is just a minor technical fault which won't affect anyone's enjoyment of the music in any way. I was just very surprised to spot it as it's such a rarity these days!

I know my sense of humour can be a bit strange at times, but it was meant "in the best possible taste" as Kenny would say"
All I can say Hugh is that I wish you were working for me sometimes!
A DC offset isn't in the same glaring league as a lot of other recording faults I'm guilty of, and that old photographic analogy springs to mind in my case sometimes, and that is, you're so intent on concentrating on that beautiful sunset, you fail to notice the electricity pylon blighting the foreground!
Talking of the Sony PCM/F1 system, it was very early digital, and things have moved on greatly, but, at the time, people were falling over themselves to buy them, for the main benefits of digital, low noise, increased dynamic range, but the electricity pylon was definitely there, like early CD, the actual overal sound may have left a lot to be desired.
But 16/44 is still good enough for a lot of things.
I've just ordered a copy of Johns recording, look forward to hearing this.

[Hugh Robjohns]

Talking of the Sony PCM/F1 system, it was very early digital, and things have moved on greatly, but, at the time, people were falling over themselves to buy them, for the main benefits of digital, low noise, increased dynamic range...

I was amongst them, but I waited until Audio & Design (Recording) brought out their own 'professionalised' version of the PCM701 (which I still have, actually), with balanced I/O, calibrated operating levels, and a built-in all-pass filter to correct for the small left-right delay introduced by the ludicrous sequential A-D sampling system.

But the rush to 'go digital' was because the improvement in sound quality over the typical 1/4-inch analogue tape recorders of the day was massive. Yes, the noise floor was lower and dynamic range greater, but the more significant benefits were zero wow & flutter -- so piano and organ recordings were finally tolerable! -- and a consistent and extended (at both ends) frequency response. For the first time as a recording engineer, I could switch the desk monitoring between desk-out and tape replay and not hear a significant difference! It didn't come back with flutter or hiss or a reduced top-end.

And I could record entire live concerts without needing to do reel changes!

And I could carry the recording gear into the back of a church without needing corrective abdominal surgery afterwards! (To facilitate my own studio rebuild I've temporarily relocated my Revox PR99iii and Studer A807 tape machines to my 'man cave' lockup... and boy, I'd completely forgotten just how heavy those machines really are!)

...like early CD, the actual overal sound may have left a lot to be desired.

Sure... the technology was being pushed to its limits and it has been improved substantially in the intervening 40 years... but it really wasn't bad to start with and it was a lot better -- in several very important respects -- than the existing analogue recorders commonly employed. And, perhaps of more influence, it was all a very great deal cheaper too. That's what really encouraged studios and broadcasters to move to use it so enthusiastically.

I've just ordered a copy of Johns recording, look forward to hearing this.

As JW said, they really are lovely performances... and of the four recording versions of Satie's piano noodlings I have here, it's the one that is played most often.

H

[John Willett]

As JW said, they really are lovely performances... and of the four recording versions of Satie's piano noodlings I have here, it's the one that is played most often.

Thanks Hugh,

Do you have the original Earthsounds version? or the Classic FM one?

Just to see if the DC offset was corrected in the re-release.

It was edited on SADiE I think (in 1992 remember) and I forget who did it.

I was taljing to a friend recently (who used to work with Classic FM) and he said that they ought to re-release it.

[Hugh Robjohns]

Do you have the original Earthsounds version? or the Classic FM one?

This one:

[John Willett]

The Classic FM one.

So they took the original master and just re-released it without removing the DC offset then.

Though it would never get noticed by a user, I think, and there are no clicks in the editing - it's only you

[Hugh Robjohns]

It's always 'only me'...

I've picked up so many mastering 'faux pas' over the years that have apparently slipped by some of the most famous, experienced and professional of mastering engineers.... It does make me wonder sometimes...

Most aren't that obvious to the casual listener -- things like left-right reversals, no dither, inter-sample peaks, DC offsets, clicks, duff edits... but they should be obvious to a professional mastering engineer with the right tools and experience! Some are very obvious though: for example, I have a Diana Krall CD which has blatant comb-filtering throughout caused by incorrect routing when the master was run off. It sounds really horrible... yet it went completely unnoticed, apparently.

The annoying aspect is that spotting these things is usually just about having the right tools, looking at them regularly, and knowing how to interpret what they are telling you. It's really just about paying attention...

H

[The Elf]

When I spot things, from dodgy audio on TV to mis-used apostrophes in the local cafe, poor synth design choices to repeated mis-pronunications ("could of", "would of")... I'm told by most that it 'doesn't matter'. And the handcart takes another few yards along the rocky road down...

Don't let your standards slip, Hugh. Some of us are right there with you.

[Drew Stephenson]

Absolutely! There's nothing wrong with working to budgets and tight deadlines, but it should always be an informed decision against what should be possible. General sloppiness should be avoided at every opportunity.

[MOF]

I could switch the desk monitoring between desk-out and tape replay and not hear a significant difference! It didn't come back with flutter or hiss or a reduced top-end.

When I started ENG sound recordist work in 1985 there was a dreadful ‘confidence head’, later it was un-decoded dolby but always a mix of both tracks, never switchable.
Digital camcorders’ audio, later on, was not off-tape monitoring, just input to output, some recent ones do give quality off-tape monitoring.

P.S. The rot set in when sound recordists were no longer required to carry the combined video and sound recorder to which the camera was connected by a multicore cable.

[Tim Gillett]

Oooh er...

Because of the discussion above, I've just been playing John's Satie album... and discovered it has a fairly hefty (-46dB) DC offset on some of the tracks... Don't see that very often these days! Dodgy converter or mastering process somewhere along the line.

A 1Hz high-pass filter cures it.

H

46db is a lot. Does it clip?

[Hugh Robjohns]

No.

[John Willett]

Oooh er...

Because of the discussion above, I've just been playing John's Satie album... and discovered it has a fairly hefty (-46dB) DC offset on some of the tracks... Don't see that very often these days! Dodgy converter or mastering process somewhere along the line.

A 1Hz high-pass filter cures it.

H

46db is a lot. Does it clip?

-46dB - and no.

It was a 1992 PCM-F1 recording after all

Oh - on the original CD it says:-
Recording engineered by: John WIllett
Edited and mastered by: Tony Faulkner, Tim Handley and John Willett

So you can blame Tony Faulkner and Tim Handley for the DC offset getting through And Tony and Tim are among the best in the business.

I did the live recording and then passed the PCM-F1 masters to the record company who passed them on to Tony and Tim for editing and mastering.

[Tim Gillett]

Absolutely! There's nothing wrong with working to budgets and tight deadlines, but it should always be an informed decision against what should be possible. General sloppiness should be avoided at every opportunity.

Yes sometimes poor standards are due to ignorance of what to expect. Expectations of older recordings can be either wildly too high or wildly too low. I'm currently dealing with a customer's wildly low expectations. Their digitized transfers of recordings I was involved in 30 years ago contain nothing above 2.5 kHz. Not even tape hiss! A person "paying attention" as Hugh rightly mentions would immediately notice the absence of tape hiss as a sign something is not right. Another person might just shrug shoulders and say "Oh well, what can you expect? They're old recordings."...

[Arpangel]

Talking of the Sony PCM/F1 system, it was very early digital, and things have moved on greatly, but, at the time, people were falling over themselves to buy them, for the main benefits of digital, low noise, increased dynamic range...

I was amongst them, but I waited until Audio & Design (Recording) brought out their own 'professionalised' version of the PCM701 (which I still have, actually), with balanced I/O, calibrated operating levels, and a built-in all-pass filter to correct for the small left-right delay introduced by the ludicrous sequential A-D sampling system.

But the rush to 'go digital' was because the improvement in sound quality over the typical 1/4-inch analogue tape recorders of the day was massive. Yes, the noise floor was lower and dynamic range greater, but the more significant benefits were zero wow & flutter -- so piano and organ recordings were finally tolerable! -- and a consistent and extended (at both ends) frequency response. For the first time as a recording engineer, I could switch the desk monitoring between desk-out and tape replay and not hear a significant difference! It didn't come back with flutter or hiss or a reduced top-end.

And I could record entire live concerts without needing to do reel changes!

And I could carry the recording gear into the back of a church without needing corrective abdominal surgery afterwards! (To facilitate my own studio rebuild I've temporarily relocated my Revox PR99iii and Studer A807 tape machines to my 'man cave' lockup... and boy, I'd completely forgotten just how heavy those machines really are!)

...like early CD, the actual overal sound may have left a lot to be desired.

Sure... the technology was being pushed to its limits and it has been improved substantially in the intervening 40 years... but it really wasn't bad to start with and it was a lot better -- in several very important respects -- than the existing analogue recorders commonly employed. And, perhaps of more influence, it was all a very great deal cheaper too. That's what really encouraged studios and broadcasters to move to use it so enthusiastically.

I've just ordered a copy of Johns recording, look forward to hearing this.

As JW said, they really are lovely performances... and of the four recording versions of Satie's piano noodlings I have here, it's the one that is played most often.

H

When I went on sessions with Mike we used two Sony systems, as Mike always insisted on running a back-up. He also had the Audio & Design mixer, and the Level Modifier, which enabled him to do crude digital editing, fades etc. Was the PCM/F1 fully 16 bit?
I had to make do with a Casio portable DAT machine, which TBQH, was pretty bad, you could hear digital break up on reverb tails quite clearly, as it run out of bits!
Wow and flutter, yes, was a thing of the past, and it always annoyed me on organ recordings, but it's typical that now I've got pedals, and plug-ins that pride themselves on how realistically they can produce wow and flutter!