In the first piece there seemed like a faster third than the rest, right at the beginning...oh well... David Ilvedson, RPT Pacifica, CA 94044 ----- Original message ---------------------------------------- From: "Kent Swafford" <kswafford at gmail.com> To: "Pianotech List" <pianotech at ptg.org> Received: 11/29/2007 8:03:56 PM Subject: Re: Whadayathink of this piano sound? >Thanks, everyone, for listening to the piano files. I'm trying to find >a good way to distribute audio files of piano tuning for students. It >looks like 2 sets of files will be a good option -- MP3 files for >most, and Apple Lossless files for those that want highest fidelity. >You know how there is the right way, the wrong way, and the Steinway? >Now, add the Ron's-way! The piano in the recording is a Steinway B >redesigned by Ron Nossaman. It is a very special piano. (I rescued it >from a church some years back; it was a real dog. No longer.) >On Nov 28, 2007, at 10:11 PM, William R. Monroe wrote: >> I'm no recording engineer, but the treble sounds a bit punchy to >> me. Don't know if that's the piano or the miking. > The hammers are Ronsen bacon felt; even so, it's still very easy to >get it punched up too far. >On Nov 28, 2007, at 10:35 PM, David Ilvedson wrote: >> I couldn't tell any difference in the 2 formats ...not equal >> temperment though? >Well, no, it's not equal temperament -- but it's as close to equal as >I can make it. 8^) >On Nov 29, 2007, at 12:00 AM, Richard Brekne wrote: >> Sounded reminicent of an older piano type in the first file. Not >> unpleasant at all... but a bit thin. Unisons were kinda wavery. >> Just listened to the first file one time quickly before leaving for >> work this morning. Cool blind test. It will be interesting to see >> what it ends up being. >What did you have in mind when you said "older piano type"? >On Nov 29, 2007, at 1:36 AM, Jlmatt at aol.com wrote: >> On my computer the first file sounds like a digital piano. >Digital pianos are recordings, as this is, so the recording doesn't do >the real instrument justice. If anyone wants to come by and hear the >piano live, you are welcome. Just call ahead. 8^) >On Nov 29, 2007, at 5:03 AM, Phil Bondi wrote: >> 4.mp3 was my favorite 'sound'. To my ear it sounded like it was >> recorded on a different day than the other samples. >I turned on the recorder and played everything all at one time, then I >cut and pasted the pieces into separate files. That you liked 4 is a >real surprise to me. It took me a while to make this piece "sound" on >this piano. I finally voiced up the piano just a bit, and learned to >play with very little pedal. >> This sound has more of a 'room' mic affect for me. I know you said >> everything was close, but that's what I got from that sample. >You may be hearing the resonance of the piano with the dampers up. The >great sustain of this instrument causes the pedal resonance to sound >like electronic reverb; it can be a very dramatic sound. >> My least favorite was 2.mp3. To my ear, it was the least appealing, >> and I love that style of play too, but didn't like that particular >> recording. >A few notes need voiced down. >On Nov 29, 2007, at 6:01 AM, David Boyce wrote: >> Very nice. Have only listened on laptop but will try through hifi >> later. Piano sounds a bit Bosendorfer-ish to me in some of the tracks? >> >> Great idea to send sound samples, wish there were more so we could >> hear pianos list members work with. How nice to hear Randy newman's >> exquisite little song "When She Loved Me" from Toy Story 2. And >> love the harmonies in The Bonny banks O' Loch Lomond. (You know >> that's a terribly sad song?) >0 When She Loved Me, Randy Newman >1 To a Wild Rose, Edward MacDowell >2 Blue Sphere, Thelonius Monk >3 Simple Gifts, Marian MacPartland >4 Harlem Blues, Phineas Newborn, Jr. >On Nov 29, 2007, at 9:25 AM, Stéphane Collin wrote: >> I listened your files on Genelec 1030 studio monitors, and on this >> kind of >> recording, I couldn't hear any difference between mp3 and lossless >> compression. What quality of mp3 did you use ? >320 kb/s. >> That being said, there is some saturation at high volume on all your >> files. >> Maybe your gain meters are not well calibrated, was it at record >> time or at >> process time. What do you use as recording device (or software) ? >> The >> sound looks like quite natural though. What microphones did you >> use ? You >> put them close to the bridge ? Also, I'm sure there are cheap preamps >> around that reach a better signal to noise ratio, but this is not so >> important as the saturation thing. >OK, see the photo of my recording set-up. >The recording was done with an iPod Nano, an iTalk, and a Sony stereo >mic. I have been carrying this set-up around as a tech's field >recorder. I put the mic in the same place on different pianos and can >get a very good A/B comparison that can't be done easily any other >way. This has helped me improve my voicing skills. Close miking is >important because it minimizes the different room effects and keeps >background noise down. >I can't hear the saturation, but then it is amazing this little set-up >does as well as it does. 30 years ago I had "pro" equipment that >couldn't make a recording anywhere near this good. The iPod with flash >memory instead of a hard drive makes for a very quiet recorder. >So I carry a cell phone, a pocket PC for tuning, a digital camera, and >now I don't go anywhere without my iPod field recorder. >Thanks so much! >Kent
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC