<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; =
charset=iso-8859-1">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2800.1491" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Hi Geoff, Horace,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial><FONT size=2><FONT face=Arial
size=2></FONT></FONT></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>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.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial><FONT size=2><FONT face=Arial
size=2></FONT></FONT></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>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.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial><FONT size=2><FONT face=Arial
size=2></FONT></FONT></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Geoff: </FONT><FONT face=Arial
size=2><<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.>></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial><FONT size=2><FONT face=Arial
size=2></FONT></FONT></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>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.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial><FONT size=2><FONT face=Arial
size=2></FONT></FONT></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT face=Arial size=2>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? >></FONT></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT face=Arial size=2>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! ;-)</FONT></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT face=Arial size=2>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.>></FONT></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT face=Arial size=2>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!
;-)</FONT></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT face=Arial size=2>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.>></FONT></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT face=Arial size=2>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.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT face=Arial size=2>Geoff, Horace, I've enjoyed =
the
discussion! :-)</FONT></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT face=Arial size=2>Peace,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT face=Arial size=2>Sarah</FONT></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr
style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; =
BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV>
<P><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </P>
<P>-----Original Message----- <BR>From: Horace Greeley
<HGREELEY@STANFORD.EDU><BR>Sent: Mar 4, 2005 3:26 PM <BR>To: Pianotech =
<PIANOTECH@PTG.ORG><BR>Subject: Re: Modern Tone
<BR><BR><ZZZHTML><ZZZBODY><BR>Sarah,<BR><BR>At 01:18 PM 3/4/2005, you
wrote:<BR></P></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE class=cite cite="" type="cite"><FONT face=arial =
size=2>Hi
all,<BR></FONT> <BR><FONT face=arial size=2>Joe said: "Tone =
is nothing
like what the past was, IMHO." <BR></FONT> <BR><FONT =
face=arial
size=2>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.'"<BR></FONT> <BR><FONT face=arial size=2>Later, =
Horace
commented to Barbara, "</FONT><FONT face="Times New Roman, =
Times">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."<BR></FONT> <BR><FONT face=arial size=2>And there's =
*almost* the
point!<BR></FONT> <BR><FONT face=arial size=2>There's a =
very good
reason why the older pianos didn't sound particularly bright. =
The
*recordings* didn't sound particularly bright. </FONT></BLOCKQUOTE>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT><FONT face=Arial =
size=2></FONT><BR>This is
not necessarily true.<BR><BR></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE class=cite cite="" type="cite"><FONT face=arial =
size=2> 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.
</FONT></BLOCKQUOTE>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT><FONT face=Arial
size=2></FONT><BR>Yes.<BR><BR></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE class=cite cite="" type="cite"><FONT face=arial
size=2> 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. </FONT></BLOCKQUOTE>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT><FONT face=Arial
size=2></FONT><BR>Depending.<BR><BR></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE class=cite cite="" type="cite"><FONT face=arial =
size=2> The
amplifier circuitry was adequate (not great), starting around the
1940's.</FONT></BLOCKQUOTE>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT><FONT face=Arial =
size=2></FONT><FONT
face=Arial size=2></FONT><FONT face=Arial =
size=2></FONT><BR>Mostly, I would
agree; except that this date precludes some of the optical and earlier =
electronic work done by Phillips and Telefunken.<BR><BR></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE class=cite cite="" type="cite"><FONT face=arial =
size=2>
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. </FONT></BLOCKQUOTE>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT><FONT face=Arial =
size=2></FONT><BR>Which
is partly why the tape speed was pushed so high.<BR><BR></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE class=cite cite="" type="cite"><FONT face=arial =
size=2>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.</FONT></BLOCKQUOTE>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT><FONT face=Arial =
size=2></FONT><FONT
face=Arial size=2></FONT><FONT face=Arial =
size=2></FONT><BR>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?<BR><BR></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE class=cite cite="" type="cite"><FONT face=arial =
size=2> 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. </FONT></BLOCKQUOTE>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT><FONT face=Arial =
size=2></FONT><BR>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.<BR><BR></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE class=cite cite="" type="cite"><FONT face=arial
size=2> 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.)</FONT></BLOCKQUOTE>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT><FONT face=Arial =
size=2></FONT><BR>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.<BR> <BR></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE class=cite cite="" type="cite"><FONT face=arial =
size=2>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.</FONT></BLOCKQUOTE>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT><FONT face=Arial =
size=2></FONT><BR>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.<BR><BR>Equipment is only part of the =
problem. The
biggest issue is the incredible lack of "ears" on most
engineers.<BR><BR></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE class=cite cite="" type="cite"><FONT face=Arial
size=2></FONT><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT><BR><FONT =
face=arial size=2>So
the pianos from back in the 1950's may have sounded much darker, as
recorded. </FONT></BLOCKQUOTE>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT><FONT face=Arial =
size=2></FONT><BR>Some
did.<BR><BR></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE class=cite cite="" type="cite"><FONT face=arial
size=2> However, I wouldn't be too confident that they were =
really that
dark when heard live. </FONT></BLOCKQUOTE>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT><FONT face=Arial =
size=2></FONT><BR>Some
were. Some were not.<BR><BR></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE class=cite cite="" type="cite"><FONT face=arial
size=2> Some people may remember the pianos from back then, =
but how
*well* do they remember them? </FONT></BLOCKQUOTE>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT><FONT face=Arial =
size=2></FONT><BR>Rather
well. Part of that would depend on how many of them one has =
directly
worked on.<BR><BR></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE class=cite cite="" type="cite"><FONT face=arial =
size=2> I
don't think we really can have any idea what those pianos sounded =
like from
any recordings.</FONT></BLOCKQUOTE>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT><FONT face=Arial =
size=2></FONT><BR>I
disagree. I think that we can learn what we are listening for; =
often in
spite of, rather than because of, a given recording.<BR><BR></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE class=cite cite="" type="cite"><FONT face=arial =
size=2>
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.</FONT></BLOCKQUOTE>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT><FONT face=Arial
size=2></FONT><BR>Perhaps.<BR><BR></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE class=cite cite="" type="cite"><FONT face=arial =
size=2>
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.</FONT></BLOCKQUOTE>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT><FONT face=Arial =
size=2></FONT><BR>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.<BR><BR></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE class=cite cite="" type="cite"><FONT face=arial =
size=2> 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.</FONT></BLOCKQUOTE>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT><FONT face=Arial =
size=2></FONT><BR>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.<BR><BR></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE class=cite cite="" type="cite"><FONT face=arial
size=2>Peace,</FONT></BLOCKQUOTE>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT><FONT face=Arial =
size=2></FONT><BR>You
=
bet!<BR><BR>Horace<BR></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></ZZZBODY></ZZZHTML></BODY></HTM=
L>