[pianotech] mp3 recordings

[Dale Erwin]

Hi Mark
  This is a wonderful idea to start kicking around. I'm working on some recording options right now. One is to post these things to U-tube.  Its easy and accessible and it won't get caught up in the PTG antics/bureaucracy


Dale Erwin... RPT
 Mason & Hamlin/Steinway/U.S pianos
www.Erwinspiano.com
209-577-8397

 
  





-----Original Message-----
From: Mark Dierauf <pianotech at nhpianos.com>
To: pianotech <pianotech at ptg.org>
Sent: Wed, May 30, 2012 3:22 pm
Subject: [pianotech] mp3 recordings


              Several years ago I made a modest investment in some digital    recording equipment capable of capturing nuances of piano tone. This    included a digidesign mbox 2 (available for <$100 on ebay) a pair    of Behrenger B1 large condenser mics ($100 each new, much less on    ebay), and a pair of stands and cords. The mbox comes with ProTools    recording/editing software and the whole thing is quite portable and    easy to set up and use. The preamps built into the mbox are quite    good for such an inexpensive device and ditto for the mics. My    purpose in getting this equipment was to be able to produce    soundfiles that would be capable of showing off a piano to potential    buyers who might see it advertised on my website. I can say from    experience though that the results are highly dependent not only on    the particular equipment used, but also on the mics and their    positioning as well as (of course) any post-processing done. So    unless everybody is using the same equipment, etc., it's a bit like    comparing apples and oranges, although I still think it could be    informative. Regardless, I highly recommend that rebuilders outfit    themselves similarly in order to be able to post sample files of    their work on their websites. 
    
    For illustration,  here    is a recording I just made on an A-III that I sold this past    weekend. This is a raw recording with no editing or enhancements,    made in a tiny finished basement room that is absolutely    acoustically dead. Here    is the same recording with some added reverb to simulate a better    room. (Forgive the wrong notes).
    
    - Mark
    
    
    
    On 5/30/2012 11:07 AM, Dale Erwin wrote:    
Hi Jim
            Thank you Jim for the understanding clarifying words.
            I made my comments as I did to address the multitude of          impedance variables that Gene was asking about and that Del          clearly referenced in a post the other day. I was hoping to          have a discussion on the literal weight of rib and soundboard          material used and their specific weight in relationship to          impedance. SO for now that'll wait.
             I openly  risked  sharing some general design specifics of          my own recipe & process as another soundbaord model          that is being built and very successfully by our shop. To          answer the question will it still be a Steinway & we          covered a bunch of responses last month under the "Gen-u          -whine Steinway parts" posts.
            My response?... I describe the outcome as refining the best          components of the original sound with increased tonal focus          and clarity while eliminating the most inherent glaring          weaknesses such as the 6th octave and bass crossover,          increased projection while still giving adequate feedback to          the pianist at the bench(very important) etc etc etc.
           It was not intended to make anyone argumentative and          certainly not defensive. My point was we all have a design          choice to make for artisanal & financial reasons. I find          if I move to far away from the robust Steinway type of sound          etc. described, then some pianists won't go there.
           Whatever...I think you called it right Jim. The next best          thing to onsite hearings of differing designs are Mp-3 files.           These of course will have some drawbacks once the actual sound          goes thru the unknown electronic filters and a host of          different types of recorders etc. We must realize that the          piano needs to be listed with its acoustic location and type          of recorder, facts to recall before passing some kind of          subjective evaluation. and...we will need to take it as it is          what it is. Never the less I now think that some reasonable          facsimiles can be made.
           I posted about the Zoom H4-N hand held recorder that I          purchased last month.  I have now used it on quite a few          occasions & I can speak on this later in detail. In my          opinion it does give a very fair tonal assessment. My goal          quite soon is to post these recordings of various pianos we've          built to my own web site for anyone to hear.This is the next          best thing short of displaying at conventions/rebuilders          gallerys as we can reasonably expect given the world wide          nature of our P-tech audience.
           I've said it for years now, we can talk talk, talk but          hearing is believing. That is why I've routinely showcased our          rebuilds/builds at convention for 20 plus years.
          Dale
          
          
Dale Erwin... RPT
                   Mason &                            Hamlin/Steinway/U.S pianos
                            Sitka Soundboard supply
                                                    www.Erwinspiano.com
                    209-577-8397
                  
                   
                  
            
          
          
          
          
-----Original            Message-----
            From: jim <jim at grandpianosolutions.com>
            To: pianotech <pianotech at ptg.org>
            Sent: Wed, May 30, 2012 7:19 am
            Subject: [pianotech] --Centering the bridge--was S&S            something
            
            
              
David,

Interesting post.

David, Ron, Dale, Del, etal,

At this point in the discussion that we need mp3 capability!  We need a 
clear understanding of what aesthetic assumptions are driving each 
contributor's design approaches, otherwise its just  an hopeless 
exercise in conflicting verbosity.

All of what you are saying David, what Dale was saying yesterday, What  
Ron has been saying, and Del's voice when he chimes in, as well as mine 
and whoever else contributes or lurks in this discusssion, only has 
meaning in relation to the aesthetic tonal goals we are looking for in 
the tonal palette.   Words are useless, unto counterproductive, after a 
point, in describing these aesthetic goals.

For example, when I read what David has described in terms of tonal 
goals, which I read as more complexity and range of tonal palette which 
includes greater noise at the attack (I could be wrong about what 
David's getting at...but that's my point, we need the sound),  these 
words have been used endlessly to describe sounds I can hear in any 
conservatory performance instrument; instruments  whose sound and touch 
I have no desire to reproduce in my own shop.

What venue(s) are the instruments designed for?  What types of music, as 
my experience of "full expressive range" always means, when push comes 
to shove, bloody Lizst and Rachmaninoff (and then I have to leave the 
room).  In many ways  Mozart, Bach and lots of Jazz, music conceived for 
small  venues, or popular music, very well suffocate under this targeted 
late romantic "full expressive range".

So please, we've talked about this for years!  Lets create a library of 
sounds to accompany your posts.  We could link to the main PTG.org in 
all its non-functionality, but still the sounds would be there.
It would be a lot of work for the contributors, but I really think the 
discussion can only advance with this aural info.

What say?

Jim Ialeggio



-- 
Jim Ialeggio
jim at grandpianosolutions.com
(978) 425-9026
Shirley, MA


            
                      
         
    
    
    
  
 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://www.moypiano.com/ptg/pianotech.php/attachments/20120531/142c7ba7/attachment.htm>