Notice it's the performance that got the Grammy, not the engineering.

True, but the engineering had to be of adequate quality for the performance to shine, too.

Just saying that they used a similar approach to what the OP was thinking of initially, for the Grammy winning album.

Interesting enough, in some reviews, there were comments that the album recording was even more effective than the live performance... ������

"“This duo recital with ‘Joyce and Tony’ seems even better on disc than it did live." Grammophone magazine

M50k and jimjazzdad got it right. Simple ORTF main pair, well-placed, is the best solution to this duo (or any small ensemble). Sure, add spots if you feel the need to cover other post options, but generally, IMHO, a single good ORTF capture is as honest as you can get - that’s the goal, right?

If the recording is for the audition or a competition, otherwise no, the goal is most interesting, most euphonic, etc. capture, even if that means Yamahikos on the piano and mics inside the throat ������������

I don't think a single ORTF pair is good enough or "honest", even for the solo piano, let alone singer and piano, it is not honest to the bass range of the piano at least... You could get something nice and adequate, but why not aim higher?

I don't know. I wouldn't categorically claim who is right, because there are many ways and I also think looking up at what the top recordists do in award winning productions, is reasonable and informative.And when one already has the means to replicate those set ups, why not?

For ten years I recorded all the piano-accompanied recitals of a program of the local opera that were anywhere from 1 to 4 singers on stage at any one time; always performing scenes from opera (of course).

The best recordings I got were towards the end of that period when I began to use (after checking with TF) hypercardioids for the center pair of the Faulkner 4-mic array.

This gave me the maximum 'zoom' range for such a wide variety of voices and scene dynamics. For example when powerful sopranos would really go high and loud, I would drop the hypers all the way down, leaving only the omnis to simultaneously lower the overall level, and have more 'space' around the sound. The effect was much like the way good pop singers will push the mic further away when they belt.

Then, during a sotto voce, say with a baritone, I would lower the omnis to achieve a closer, more intimate result.

This is much more effective than simple gain-riding.

A side benefit (though the OP isn't recording live performances) was that when the singers would give spoken intros to the piece they were about to perform, I would drop the omnis completely and get a nice, dry articulate sound for their speaking.

Hmm Hypers in the middle of a Faulkner 4 mic array...

I haven't tried that. Get good results with Cardioid and Wide Cardioid there.

Totally get what you talk about with the "Zoom", I often think of it as focusing a camera lens.

I like a separate ORTF pair too (as a supplement when recording) as I vary the angle of the middles on a Faulkner 4 mic according to the number and position of performers.

Also this gives a quick mix for Live Stream work and in Rehearsal.

And a safety if there is a problem on main array.

Hello ,
it looks like, by différent way and technique, we try to combine the best of différent microphone quality.

In first : space and full bass of omni / Focus and accuracy

I did a kind of array on drum With A-B technique by using a pair of M160 and a pair ofAT4050in omni .

It give me great results and the possibility to follow the energy of the drummer. The AB in omni were also a beautiful room for the 2 Guit amp in the place.

After, and this could do an interesting new topic :
Unmatched stereo pair technique / Appoint

I use it first on a double bass with M160 and MK21 schoeps.
small ab ( 10cm) near the bridge. Very interesting sound.

I also use it on bass clarinet with large ribbon and schoeps CMC5mk4 : low and mellow full bass of the ribbon, détail and clarity in the upper frequency.
It can be tricky to keep the stability of the stereo picture . But once you've got it, it's really the best of both world !

Here some to listen

I’m idly musing on another approach altogether…..and whether it’s potentially effort-and-time effective or not ? I contend that the following is still on-topic….except that it dispenses with mezzo spot miking.

In a soprano plus piano accompaniment context, a relatively small AB omni pair (30-55cm separation) placed optimally in front of and above the singer can capture a pure direct-yet-ambient sound….and a satisfying balance between voice and piano, often without the need for additional piano spots.

I’ve done so, very often in fact…it works…in the specific context of a permanently suspended spacer bar above the ‘conductor’s podium’ location in a concert hall, and the piano plus singer brought forward enough to bring them into mutual balance and satisfactory direct to ambience ratio.

Now….how to achieve the same in a mobile rig, without using a centrally located stand to deputise for the hall’s suspension bar ceiling-drop support ?

I’m envisioning a pair of widely spaced cast-iron base vertical stands (very specifically NOT tripod-based and not sand-bagged !!) ….suspending a thin gauge yet highly tensile-strong single strand steel wire* (or similarly small diameter stranded, plaited ‘rope’) between the two stands…which are 3-4 metres apart on stage.

A pair of remote cable (ie Collette style) omni capsule SD mics (ie LOW mass) with their mic preamp barrels affixed to the mic stands, so that the ONLY weight borne by the highly-tensioned wire/rope* is that of the SD capsules …and their associated mouse tail thin remote cables.

The SD capsules are cable-tie attached to the taut wire at the appropriate spacing, and both stands are raised to 3.5-4.0 metre height by 2 people (simultaneously)

The stand spacing is wide enough to bring instant joy to any video team….as they’ve got a stand-free unobstructed camera view of both piano/pianist and soprano/tenor….if they zoom in appropriately.

The cast iron stand bases are indeed seriously heavy, hernia-inducing muthas….but safety and solidity of the array is thusly assured !

For the mics, you’d use Schoeps omnis, Neumann omnis, Sennheiser MKH8020’s or Rode NT6’s

Yes, it’s unconventional, yes it’s more work (plus significantly slower) than raising a central stand with a small AB bar….but I think it could give a real shot at optimally located, stand-invisible and video-happy omni-pair placement, for piano plus singer/solo instrument ?

*….think piano wire, stretched really damn tight !

Obviously…. I’ve given no thought to vibration mitigation of the tightly stretched wire and the mics attached directly to it….but there’s simply no leeway permitted for any sort compliant capsule mount, apart from perhaps a little finger-nail sized fragment of foam rubber clamped around the mouse-tail cable by the cable ties…so apart from that measure, I’m simply going to put my head in the sand and ignore stand-transmitted vibrations (….and hope that there aren’t any !)

You could perhaps put some sponge foam between the mic stand base and floor, but it might compromise the wire tension and stand verticality ?

PS …and if you’re devastated by the lack of piano spot mics, by all means add a tail pair of small AB SD condensors….nobody will be troubled by their addition (least of all any video crew)…but rest assured that they are really not necessary

Nice, I had this idea but never found a stand for this or it would be too big onstage. I prefer a unique tiny stand like the K&M 20150 + K&M 25530 with a counterweight

Assuming it's for the video production... and even so, either for album recording or video, you'd get a roomy, perhaps "too distant" (for some tastes) sound, especially for the piano. It can be OK, it can work, but there is a reason why top recordings use a bit closer set ups and mics both for the singer and piano.

I wish someone would post a great example with such a recording setup - of only a single stereo pair for singer and piano and compare to the examples presented in this thread, that were done with mics both for the singer and piano...

There’s a purity of phase…the integration of arrival times from the voice, piano and hall boundaries reflections …at a single pair of mics that is, of necessity, more complicated, more ‘time-smeared and then glued together’ when multiple mic pairs are employed…wouldn’t you agree ?

This plethora of ‘close-but-never coincident-in-time’ arrivals at several mic pairs (3-5 pairs typically….if Germans were involved…often more !) was typically left unchanged in previous times….by necessity, there was no way of manipulating them. In recent times we can delay mic pairs electronically to lean into a fabrication of ‘coincidence’….but it’s by no means universal.

So on a theoretical and practical level one can argue the relative merits of multiple versus single mic pair capture….but when I’ve recorded a singer with an AB omni overhead pair as well as voice and piano spots, I’m often surprised by the purity and ‘wholeness’ of the overhead pair alone. In my personal experience, it’s more common than your ‘appeal to received Decca wisdom’ would suggest !

Are multiple mic pairs, whether slipped forward and back along the time grid for phase and arrival coincidence or not, the Schrödinger’s cat of modern recording practice ?

How many places at once can your ears be located….without a flattening of 3D depth making its appearance ?

Q: How on earth are our single pair of listening ears, back at row J in the auditorium, able to discern the focus of instrument vs voice with full satisfaction….yet a single mic pair, much closer to both, must somehow (according to your doctrine), necessarily ‘be deficient’ ?
A: It’s not

It's well to remember that in this sort of performance - selections from opera accompanied by piano instead of orchestra, the piano has more of a 'back seat' to the singer than it does with art song / lieder which are usually written specifically for voice and piano, with the piano part written by the composer; in the former, the piano is playing an adaptation/arrangement, usually not by the composer, so the singer's performance is the most important thing.

In the ten years I recorded these types of recitals, I always used a 2 or 4-mic main array only, and the Opera company never once asked for 'more piano'.

It should also be noted that, in the auditorium I’m most familiar with, the permanently located AB suspension bar with omnis is fixed in place. Thus it’s incumbent upon the players and engineer to tweak their stage placement in relation to the mics before a performance or session.

20+ years of experience allows me to line things up by eye, then verify via headphones back in the booth, and make small adjustments as necessary (if time before house-lights down permits)

In the context of an unfamiliar hall, with reduced setup/rehearsal/balance time, and no overhead suspension pair (or even with one) …..you can bet I’ll be putting up 3 pairs (main plus 2 spot), and maybe a more diffuse decorrellated upward/backward aimed ambient pair too !

When familiarity and auditory experience cedes to speed, curtailed setup, necessity and unfamiliarity….it’s time to cover your a$s !!

EDIT: on a flippant side note, I’m wondering how long it will be before drone placement of a main mic pair might become a practical possibility ?

Given sufficient rehearsal time, a suspension bar plus mics and cables could hang a metre or two below the drone. Engineer in green room/booth with monitor speakers (or in the hall with headphones on)….AI algorithm of the (phase reversed) drone blade noise allows for almost complete nulling of it in the monitoring feed.

Precision drone navigation during rehearsal/ balance check allows for multiple listening opportunities. Once the optimum mic location is found, a mic stand is raised to meet the suspension bar, perhaps with laser pointer verification to document it ?

Don't drink and post (or smoke pot and post)

Just joking of course... an interesting option - AI automated drone placing main pair... but I suspect it will be redundant, since we will all live in hibernation pods, with brain implants, connected to a mainframe, being fed whatever experience we want. Total immersion.

But more likely - this world will go to hell faster than any of those options will be possible or applied - willingly or unwillingly.

Even more likely (for the time of the several next centuries) - certain things won't change all that much (mic placement and recording), while others could be wildly different.

Anyway - back on topic - all theorizing aside - piano simply projects very differently than solo voice and mic that ideally captures the voice with all the articulation and some sense of intimacy and nice timbre, not only cold "screams in the bathroom", will inevitably capture less articulate and distant piano.

Maybe there IS a perfect spot to capture both, but please, provide some examples to hear.
I simply couldn't find any commercially released/filmed examples. Maybe the opera company, client of M50k was happy with the results, but maybe it was only for the archive purposes, online streaming; maybe it was really very good, but I have to hear it to understand how it sounds and if it would also work for me.

Maybe if I were the producer at that opera house, I would ask for "more" or more articulate piano.

My clients were also satisfied with things that others might deem a POS.

I do like the idea of minimalist recordings, though. I love a lot of recordings by MA Recordings, but there is one recording of a flamenco singer and handpan player in a church and it just doesn't work all that well... handpan sounds like a small tin can compared to the voice in front... maybe they didn't place the mics ideally or maybe it just doesn't work for those two different sound sources.

I have also recorded violin with piano with a single MS setup - Sennheiser MKH40/30, I had CM3 at the tail originally, but thought - "hey, it sounds good enough without and we can have a picture with no mics in it" - but I regret it, the piano was MUCH nicer with the additional mics. And I could make a fancier overall mix and I also didn't like the room that much, either...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hKxg-8cSbwc

Please, show me the recordings of the opera soloist and piano done with a single pair that sound better than those commercially released multi-mic recordings.

All recordings are an illusion, mics are not ears, different stuff projects differently, etc.

I know I like minimalist recordings of certain groups in certain places with certain material... but not all the time for everything.

And for this specific thread - if we don't wander out of context of the OP's question and situation, I don't think the single AB pair is the best suggestion. That's all.

I do love recording ( not only music) with a single stereo bar AB couple of omni or ortf.

For me it's a kind of cinematic research, you've got to find the right angle , point of view. You take out a piece of reality. The purity of the sound let your mind project yourself in a "real acoustic place". You become the eyes behind a camera on a scene.

And You have to organize the stage, the scene.

Multi miking is another sound recording gesture.
Mixing give me the feel of painting. You can add some touch of articulation, timbre, fullness, precision, illusion ... It's true that you can loose some .
But you can feed the listening pleasure with a lot of nuances and details .

I’m unsure whether, given what what followed, your drink/smoke reference was a cautionary note to self…or advice to others ?

I’m not going to compare my own recordings with commercially released items….but I will supply (unidentified) 2 mic-overhead only song-segments with the same employing 6 mics…and leave it to the collective readers here to register their preferences.

Some very nice performances in this list!
I liked the hornplayer who (silently) sung along the Turandot aria.
BTW, did anyone regocnize the center ribon mic in the first recording (di Donato)?

You mean the center mic in front of the singer? That is not a ribbon mic, but a Manley Gold tube condenser.

Thanks for the info. Didn't know that one...

It's a nice mike for pop vocals and it does have that exaggerated overload thing going on, but it would be far from my first choice for a classical singer. But then again... how much of it is actually in the mix anyway?
--scott

Yes, that is what I asked myself too. Most of these recordings listed by David do sound convincing though, and that in itself is remarkable because there have been so many pop-style recordings of classical voices in the last decades where the singer sounds as an artificially processed voice or is even outright unlistenable because their voice is very brittle and aggressive. Jonas Kaufmann has one of the richest and most beautiful voices ever and yet some of his solo albums are totally fatiguing because of close miking and/or pop style microphones. Such a shame. When you hear his voice in an opera with due distance, the richness of his tone is so much more appealing.