> But, as you say, why torture the pianist in order to get a little > more 'projection.' It always comes at the expense of sustain and dynamic > range, specifically at the bottom end. Specifically, what do you mean by bottom end? The lower partials of each note? Or the characteristic of a piano's tone to change a bit when playing softly (I think that is part of "dynamic range")? I'm enjoying reading this thread immensely. I was going to ask about the maximum practical size of an auditorium for good piano performance. I'm glad you commented on that. Thanks. Terry Farrell ----- Original Message ----- From: "Delwin D Fandrich" <pianobuilders@olynet.com> To: <pianotech@ptg.org> Sent: Thursday, November 08, 2001 1:47 AM Subject: Re: Tuned front duplexes > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Phillip L Ford" <fordpiano@lycos.com> > To: <pianotech@ptg.org> > Sent: November 08, 2001 12:00 AM > Subject: Re: Tuned front duplexes > > > > Thanks, Phil, for bringing this up. I've been kind of pondering the question > this afternoon and found myself increasingly bothered by this whole issue. > Specifically, the idea that the piano must 'project' out to fill an > auditorium way bigger than it was ever intended to accommodate and filled > with way more people than can comfortably hear and enjoy the performance > regardless of what that 'projection' does to the musicality of the > instrument. Perhaps it's time to put a Wal-Mart keyboard up there with a > gazigawatt amplifier and umpteen dozen speakers and be done with it. Surely > it wouldn't sound much worse than some of the poor pianos that have been > stretched way beyond their limits. > > > > > > What constitutes 'projection' is an interesting question for which I don't > > really have an answer, even though I'm the one who cavalierly tossed out > > the term. If pressed I guess I would say tonal content that allows the > piano > > to be heard over the output of an orchestra or a bit of extra power or > volume > > that allows the piano to be heard further back in a large hall (that > definition > > seems sufficiently nebulous). In any event I think most of us would agree > > that we're talking about something that only applies to a large hall and > this > > situation represents a tiny fraction of the situations in which pianos are > > used. So the question of whether or not to used a tuned duplex would > > really only apply to a concert piano. For other pianos, why torture the > > pianist in order to get a little more 'projection'. > > Well, you're assuming that this tuned-duplex system actually does improve > that mystical 'projection.' I'm unconvinced. It seems to me--and I've not > done any tests at all to confirm my ideas about this--that 'projection' > depends on a rather percussive attack sound and, while that can be aided by > a precisely tuned duplex, it is more a function of a very hard and/or dense > hammer. But, as you say, why torture the pianist in order to get a little > more 'projection.' It always comes at the expense of sustain and dynamic > range, specifically at the bottom end. The piano loses the softness and > warmth of pianissimo. It becomes simply loud and less loud. > > > > > > As to whether the > > performer should have the worst seat in the house, that's another > interesting > > question. Since he is there being paid to do a job and to perform > > for his 'customers' then if a design changes makes things better for the > audience > > and worse for the pianist should it be incorporated? Maybe. > > Then why not simply install a PianoDisk and be done with it. I don't go to > concerts to hear a mechanical performance. I go to see and hear a real live > human, one with emotions and a passion for the music. And, hopefully, some > of that passion will come across during the performance. I don't see how a > performer can get too excited about a performance when the piano sounds like > a tin can and we tell him/her that this is to be expected because the piano > must 'project.' > > But then, I find I don't go to very many concerts these days that are held > in large auditoriums. Increasingly, I find them dead and boring and > frustrating. On the other hand, we furnish a piano for a small recital room > that holds about 50 to 65 people where I've enjoyed some of the most > exciting performances in my experience. While the performers may not be > World Class Pianists by most traditional definitions they are real people > who are in love with their music and passionate about their performances. > > > > > > I think we already expect them to make some accommodations, such as > > limiting dynamic range on the low end so that the sound will 'project' > into > > a large hall and to use a piano that is perhaps overpowered in, or biased > > towards, the bass end and perhaps has a less responsive action than a > > smaller piano. If they also have to put up with a little noise perhaps > that > > comes with the territory. > > And then we wonder why their performances are sometimes mechanical. And it's > the main reason why I no longer worry about achieving a high level of > 'power' in a given piano. Power will take care of itself. I'm much more > concerned with the dynamic range and the bottom end performance. > > > > > > I think we have created an untenable situation with a concert hall that > > holds thousands of people. It's pretty hard to have an intimate musical > > experience with an artist when he's seated several hundred feet away. > > If we didn't insist on having recitals and concerts in spaces the size of > > football fields we wouldn't need to design pianos to fill them up. > > I think you're right. I wonder just what the optimum size for an auditorium > is considering the realistic performance potential of the modern piano. By > that I mean one that is not stretched beyond its musical limits simply for > the sake of 'projection.' I would guess one seating around 500 to 750. But, > again, I've done no definitive tests on this. Just some observations. > > Del >
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC