<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; =
charset=us-ascii">
<TITLE>Message</TITLE>
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2800.1458" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV class=OutlookMessageHeader lang=en-us dir=ltr =
align=left><FONT
face=Tahoma size=2>-----Original Message-----<BR><B>From:</B>
pianotech-bounces@ptg.org [mailto:pianotech-bounces@ptg.org] <B>On =
Behalf Of
</B>Sarah Fox<BR><B>Sent:</B> Saturday, March 05, 2005 9:07 =
AM<BR><B>To:</B>
Pianotech<BR><B>Subject:</B> Re: Modern Tone<BR><BR></FONT></DIV>
<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><FONT 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.<SPAN class=513433918-05032005><FONT
color=#0000ff> </FONT></SPAN></FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial><FONT size=2><SPAN
class=513433918-05032005></SPAN></FONT></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial><FONT size=2><SPAN =
class=513433918-05032005><FONT
color=#0000ff><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.</FONT></SPAN></FONT></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><FONT 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.<SPAN
class=513433918-05032005><FONT
color=#0000ff> </FONT></SPAN></FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial><FONT size=2><SPAN
class=513433918-05032005></SPAN></FONT></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial><FONT size=2><SPAN =
class=513433918-05032005> <FONT
color=#0000ff><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. </FONT></SPAN></FONT></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><FONT 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! ;-)<SPAN
class=513433918-05032005><FONT
color=#0000ff> </FONT></SPAN></FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT face=Arial><FONT size=2><SPAN
class=513433918-05032005></SPAN></FONT></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT face=Arial><FONT size=2><SPAN
class=513433918-05032005><FONT color=#0000ff><GS> =
</FONT> <FONT
color=#0000ff>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.
</FONT></SPAN></FONT></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><FONT 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! ;-)<SPAN
class=513433918-05032005><FONT
color=#0000ff> </FONT></SPAN></FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT face=Arial><FONT size=2><SPAN
class=513433918-05032005></SPAN></FONT></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT face=Arial><FONT size=2><SPAN
class=513433918-05032005><FONT =
color=#0000ff><GS></FONT> <FONT
color=#0000ff>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.</FONT></SPAN></FONT></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><FONT 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.<SPAN
class=513433918-05032005><FONT
color=#0000ff> </FONT></SPAN></FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT face=Arial><FONT size=2><SPAN
class=513433918-05032005></SPAN></FONT></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT face=Arial><FONT size=2><SPAN
class=513433918-05032005><FONT color=#0000ff><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. </FONT></SPAN></FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT face=Arial><FONT size=2>Geoff, Horace, I've =
enjoyed the
discussion! :-)<SPAN class=513433918-05032005><FONT
color=#0000ff> </FONT></SPAN></FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT face=Arial><FONT size=2><SPAN
class=513433918-05032005></SPAN></FONT></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT face=Arial><FONT size=2><SPAN
class=513433918-05032005><FONT color=#0000ff><GS> Me
too.</FONT> </SPAN></FONT></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></BLOCKQUOTE></ZZZBODY></ZZZHTML=
></BODY></HTML>