This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment =20 -----Original Message----- From: pianotech-bounces@ptg.org [mailto:pianotech-bounces@ptg.org] On = Behalf Of Sarah Fox Sent: Saturday, March 05, 2005 9:07 AM To: Pianotech Subject: Re: Modern Tone Hi Geoff, Horace, =20 As I said, I'm no recording engineer! However, I've listened to many an = old recording and have groaned about the horrible, highly colored sound. If anything, I would characterize recordings from past eras as highly = variable. (Horace, the capabilities may have been there, but the proof is in the pudding!) Were there some good recordings? Well, yes, obviously. But = I still regard those recordings with considerable skepticism. =20 Geoff, I remember talking with a recording engineer about the little S&S = M that they had just restored for their main recording studio. They had decided against restoring a concert grand (that I later bought from = them), in favor of restoring the 'M'. I admit it was a *very* nicely done = little 'M', and it produced some pretty impressive sound, but it still seemed a tiny little piano to be making recordings on. The engineer responded, = "Ah, that's not an issue. I can make this piano sound however I want. With = the right settings, it'll sound just like a concert grand." I have no = reason to doubt his claim.=20 =20 <GS> I disagree. He may be able to make it sound bigger, fatter and = brighter but what he is demonstrating is that he doesn't know what a large piano sounds like in the first place, and that he is relying on his naive = clients not to be able to notice the difference either. Like the recordings = groan about above, he is just seriously coloring the sound. A small piano will never sound like a big piano for a couple of reasons: A) The resonant characteristics of the box and soundboard are different, and B) The partials coming off short strings just aren't as prominent and they = don't sustain as well as those coming off of longer strings. It's the same = reason a violin is never going to sound like a viola. =20 Geoff: <<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.>> =20 However, wouldn't the engineer still be intent, even then, on enhancing = the sound for a better sounding recording? Wouldn't he still be intent on hiding the instrument's warts? It's the warts, after all, that the = techs on this list are listening for. It's a bit like looking at a retouched photograph for signs of blemishes. It would be easy to draw the = conclusion that people had remarkably good complexion in times past! In truth, it = was just good darkroom technique, just like good recording technique.=20 =20 <GS> The objective is to make it sound as good as it can without = forcing it to sound like something different than what it really is.=20 =20 Geoff: <<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? >> =20 This is the difference between near field and far field sound. At = distances similar to the wavelength of the sound, power falls off with the cube of distance, not the square. At short range, the higher frequencies may be attenuating in far field, while the lower frequencies are attenuating in near field. That's why radio announcers have those seductive, sonorous voices! ;-)=20 =20 <GS> Low frequencies inherently contain much more power than higher frequencies. Using radio announcers as an example, what they are taking advantage of is what's know as the proximity effect in a their "pressure-gradient" microphones. In other words, the closer you get to a microphone the more prominent the lower frequencies will become. That's = one reason why most mics have a switchable hi-pass filter built in.=20 =20 Geoff: <<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.>> =20 But "distinct sound" implies colored sound. That is, sound of a = different spectral envelope. If all microphones transduced sound with perfect fidelity, their response would be flat from DC to whatever. But what I hear, more commonly than not, is people complaining about the mics that = are unusually flat. Yes, they are good for measuring industrial noise, and = they are good for picking off sounds from diesel engines. But I would also = say they are good for musical recording, if they are used judiciously (as = with any microphone). Of course my take on recording is that I want to hear = the warts too -- because the recordings I've made were for different uses. = When doing field recording of frog mating calls, I wanted a frequency = response that was utterly FLAT. That's because I had to perform measurements and analyses on the call. I needed to know what I had. I'm not saying that musical recordings should be done the same way. I'm just saying that if = the warts are removed from those recordings with microphones of "distinct = sound" and equalizer settings that optimized the sound of the instrument, then = we can't well be listening for the warts! ;-)=20 =20 <GS> Going back to our discussion of enhancing the sound of an = instrument; an engineer chooses a microphone for a particular instrument based on = it's abilities to color the sound of that instrument in the most musical and flattering way. Not all microphones are meant to be acceptable for all instruments. A Sennheiser 421 works great on, say, drums but if you are going to capture an acoustic guitar you would probably grab something = like an AKG 414. My point is, unless you are documenting an instrument, (not = the performance), and the final recording is for spectrum analysis, an absolutely flat microphone is not necessarily going to provide the most pleasing recording. =20 Geoff: <<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.>> =20 No argument here! It's just that a musical recording must be understood = in the proper context. It is not truly an archival recording that = accurately portrays the acoustic properties of an instrument, apparently even = today.=20 =20 <GS> Most people who listen to recordings could care less about context. = The purpose of most recordings is not for archival purposes but rather to provide income to the artist. When you go to the store to buy a CD you = are generally looking for a specific artist performing a specific piece of music. You buy that recording because you want to enjoy that performer = and his/her music, not necessarily how it was recorded. Archiving is a whole different discussion.=20 =20 Geoff, Horace, I've enjoyed the discussion! :-)=20 =20 <GS> Me too.=20 =20 Peace, Sarah =20 =20 =20 -----Original Message-----=20 From: Horace Greeley=20 Sent: Mar 4, 2005 3:26 PM=20 To: Pianotech=20 Subject: Re: Modern Tone=20 Sarah, At 01:18 PM 3/4/2005, you wrote: Hi all, =20 Joe said: "Tone is nothing like what the past was, IMHO."=20 =20 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.'" =20 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." =20 And there's *almost* the point! =20 There's a very good reason why the older pianos didn't sound = particularly bright. The *recordings* didn't sound particularly bright.=20 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.=20 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.=20 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. =20 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.=20 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. =20 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.=20 Some did. However, I wouldn't be too confident that they were really that dark = when heard live.=20 Some were. Some were not. Some people may remember the pianos from back then, but how *well* do = they remember them?=20 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/7b/89/05/c0/attachment.htm ---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment--
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC