---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment Hi, Geoff, At 06:18 PM 3/4/2005, you wrote: >Having been a recording/mixing/mastering engineer for over 15 years, and >having survived, (i.e., I didn't really like), the transition from analog >to digital, I have to say that the biggest difference in how ANY acoustic >instrument was recorded "back then" vs. now was in HOW it was recorded. I >agree that many engineers today simply have no idea what an instrument is >supposed to sound like and rely on close micing for control and aggressive >EQ to see if they can make it sound acceptable. Older recordings relied on >the ability of the engineer to listen and hear the instrument itself, and >mic it so that it sounded the same coming out of a monitor in the control >room. And he did this using one or perhaps two mic's to capture an >incredibly well balanced performance. Precisely. >The reason why these recordings still sound wonderful today is that the >performances were recorded from a distance. This allowed the sound waves >coming out of the instruments to smooth out and for transients to blend in >and a whole lot of other things that we don't think about. Ever notice how >much better a piano sounds when you step back from it? All of this started to change with the advent of multi-channel recording; and was, as you note, massively exacerbated by the advent of digital. >The microphones from back then did a wonderful job of capturing the music, >in the environment that was available, using the technology that was >available at the time. Their very destinct sound is what makes them so >valuable today. Yes. I recently saw a pair of RCA-77s go for over $5K...each, only as a pair. >Marine engines aside, if we are so intent on B&K quality in a music >recording then we're no longer listening to the performance and what the >musician actually has to say. In other words, while the quality and set up >of the instrument is really very important, the performance is what we >should be enjoying. Yup...otherwise, why bother. Best. Horace >-- Geoff - Los Angeles > > >-----Original Message----- >From: Horace Greeley >Sent: Mar 4, 2005 3:26 PM >To: Pianotech >Subject: Re: Modern Tone > > >Sarah, > >At 01:18 PM 3/4/2005, you wrote: >>Hi all, >> >>Joe said: "Tone is nothing like what the past was, IMHO." >> >>Alan responded: "I had asked [Ari Asaac] how a person can learn to really >>hear the subtleties of voicing and what a piano should sound like. His >>response was 'Listen to piano music recorded in the 1950's.'" >> >>Later, Horace commented to Barbara, "The piano aside, the real problem >>with the recording, however was the use of Crown pizeo-electric crystal >>pickups which were placed on the stage." >> >>And there's *almost* the point! >> >>There's a very good reason why the older pianos didn't sound particularly >>bright. The *recordings* didn't sound particularly bright. > >This is not necessarily true. > >> I wish I could speak more authoritatively as a recording engineer. I >> can only speak from general knowledge, which may or may not be up to >> snuff in this area. Anyhow, recording equipment from long ago simply >> wasn't capable of the broad frequency responses available to us today. > >Yes. > >> Particularly at fault were the microphones, which were abysmal at >> best. The transducer elements were HUGE and clunky and didn't vibrate >> too well at high frequencies. > >Depending. > >> The amplifier circuitry was adequate (not great), starting around the >> 1940's. > >Mostly, I would agree; except that this date precludes some of the optical >and earlier electronic work done by Phillips and Telefunken. > >> The magnetic recording equipment could pull a lot of media through at >> any rate desired, but the recording heads were fairly massive and didn't >> respond too well at higher frequencies. > >Which is partly why the tape speed was pushed so high. > >>Some of these shortcomings could be overcome by a competent recording >>engineer, with the help of filters, but the primary limiting factor was >>still the microphone, which was usually about the size of a submarine sandwich. > >Yes and no. If they were all that terrible (and, certainly, many of them >were), why are so many of those designs now commanding exceptionally high >prices and in daily use? > >> I doubt the recording engineers were particularly motivated to >> reproduce the higher frequencies, because consumer sound reproduction >> equipment of the day was incapable of reproducing it. > >With this, I do have to disagree to some extent. The object, in those >days, had only partly to do with the "normal" end consumer. What one >discovers is that there was an amazing dedication to reproducing the sound >as accurately as possible - in the studio. It was accepted that the home >user was not going to be able to achieve that level (by and large). What >was understood was the testamental nature of the act of recording...yes, >profit was certainly involved, too...no question...but, there was still an >over-riding concern with art. > >> Frequency augmented recordings would only be of interest for archival >> purposes -- recording for reproduction equipment that wouldn't be >> developed for many decades. I do have some experience with this, and I >> can assure you that not even academic people are interested in doing >> this. (Sad.) > >I have worked some with this, as well. The basic problem is that, even if >there were to be agreement on the appropriate "sound" for a particular >situation, no one can afford to do it. The re-engineering projects on >which I have worked have involved hundreds of thousands of dollars of >equipment and thousands of hours of time. However tragic that is (and, >from my perspective, it truly is tragic), our society will simply not >support that kind of effort. Even if people were willing to pay $75 - >$100 per CD, you simply could not afford the overhead. > >>Today, we have some very nice equipment available to us. We are now >>capable of a fairly flat response curve up to 20kHz and beyond. Some of >>the research equipment I have designed and constructed for sound >>reproduction has been flat +/- 1 dB from 10 to 6 kHz and flat +/- 5 dB >>from 6 kHz to 20 kHz. That's pretty good, and I could have done even >>better with a higher budget and fancier equipment. The B&K condenser >>microphones I used were much flatter still -- almost magically so. > >Yes - B&K make some instrumentation mics that flat +/- 1dB @ 160dB from >below 6 Hz to nearly 30kHz...sadly, when used on pianos, they sound >exactly like what they were designed for - detecting imminent mechanical >failure in operating marine diesel engines. > >Equipment is only part of the problem. The biggest issue is the >incredible lack of "ears" on most engineers. > >> >>So the pianos from back in the 1950's may have sounded much darker, as >>recorded. > >Some did. > >> However, I wouldn't be too confident that they were really that dark >> when heard live. > >Some were. Some were not. > >> Some people may remember the pianos from back then, but how *well* do >> they remember them? > >Rather well. Part of that would depend on how many of them one has >directly worked on. > >> I don't think we really can have any idea what those pianos sounded >> like from any recordings. > >I disagree. I think that we can learn what we are listening for; often in >spite of, rather than because of, a given recording. > >> Our only hope of understanding these pianos is to reproduce their >> construction as faithfully as possible and to attempt to voice them the >> way we think we remember having voiced them back then. > >Perhaps. > >> But since voicing is a subjective thing, with an end target in mind, I >> think this is where our ability to reproduce the past will fail us. > >The end target is whatever a given instrument will do at a given point in >time. This will be different for different pianos at different >times. Again, much has directly to do with experience. > >> I seriously, seriously doubt we can have any good appreciation for the >> evolution of piano sound, beyond the performance ramifications of design >> changes that have been made throughout the eons. > >I am not sure that I follow you here. The second clause here is one >formulation of what always gets in the way. That is, who is to decide >what performance ramifications, if, indeed any, go with which design >changes? As the recent (lengthy) discussion on soundboards points up, >there really is no agreement - except, perhaps, between the folks who are >and/or have been the most active. The majority of the discussions seem to >inevitably wind up in an endless and meaningless picking of nits that >cannot possibly be reductively analyzed at much beyond the most >theoretical of levels. > >>Peace, > >You bet! > >Horace ---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: https://www.moypiano.com/ptg/pianotech.php/attachments/a7/27/de/c3/attachment.htm ---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment--
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC