<html> <body> Sarah, At 01:18 PM 3/4/2005, you wrote: <blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">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. </blockquote> This is not necessarily true. <blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">  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. </blockquote> Yes. <blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">  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. </blockquote> Depending. <blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">  The amplifier circuitry was adequate (not great), starting around the 1940's.</blockquote> Mostly, I would agree; except that this date precludes some of the optical and earlier electronic work done by Phillips and Telefunken. <blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">  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.  </blockquote> Which is partly why the tape speed was pushed so high. <blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">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.</blockquote> 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? <blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">  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. </blockquote> 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. <blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">  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.)</blockquote> 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.   <blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">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.</blockquote> 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. <blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">  So the pianos from back in the 1950's may have sounded much darker, as recorded. </blockquote> Some did. <blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">  However, I wouldn't be too confident that they were really that dark when heard live. </blockquote> Some were.  Some were not. <blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">  Some people may remember the pianos from back then, but how *well* do they remember them? </blockquote> Rather well.  Part of that would depend on how many of them one has directly worked on. <blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">  I don't think we really can have any idea what those pianos sounded like from any recordings.</blockquote> I disagree.  I think that we can learn what we are listening for; often in spite of, rather than because of, a given recording. <blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">  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.</blockquote> Perhaps. <blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">  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.</blockquote> 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. <blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">  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.</blockquote> 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. <blockquote type=cite class=cite cite=""> Peace,</blockquote> You bet! Horace </body> </html>