This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment Just occurred to me, though, that the great increase in recordings of = dynamic range and ability to reproduce sharp transients might have some = of the effects you're talking about though. If the transients are tamed = a bit in the old recordings, that could make the difference between at = least one kind of brightness or hardness that comes mainly in the = sharpness of the attack sound. =20 =20 Trent =20 -----Original Message----- From: Lesher, Trent J.=20 Sent: Friday, March 04, 2005 4:36 PM To: 'pianotech@ptg.org' Subject: RE: Modern Tone=20 Hi Sarah, =20 How would you put in context the "margin of error" that might apply to = your theory below? I don't know enough about these technologies to = definitely dispute your theory, but I wonder about some things, mainly = whether the magnitude and frequency distribution of the differences in = recording technology really would have the effects on perceived voicing = that you suggest. =20 =20 One thing that I am thinking is that "hardness" in tone can come from = peaks in the 3-5kHz range, and those old microphones and tape recorders = wouldn't necessarily record that range in misleadingly low proportion. = I would be surprised if recordings from the 50's are that deficient = below 10kHz, and my gut sense is that any large differences in voicing = quality will be evident even in recordings truncated at 10kHz. What = little experience I have with older home type tape recorders from the = 50's, for instance a Revere model reel-to-reel that runs at 7-1/2 ips, = suggests to me that if a piano sounds bright or hard in reality, it will = sound bright or hard when recorded on that machine. I have also used = inexpensive large diaphragm dynamic type microphones and have the same = result. I'd buess that what is most noticeably missing in both cases is = more in the 12kHz-plus area, and some of the texture in that range can = actually give the sound a more supple quality, so I wouldn't = automatically say its absence would create a false impression of = mellowness or softer voicing. =20 =20 If there were some general frequency balance pattern present, like a = tendency towards a hump in response around 250Hz or something, I could = see how you could get an impression of a mellower, deeper tone. But I = have never heard of anything like that being the rule, but maybe = something like that was common. =20 I'm also curious about where you mention large tape heads, because my = layman's understanding has been that the width of the gap and the tape = speed governed range more than anything, and also that some of those old = Ampex machines and the like were, and are, very very good. =20 =20 It would be interesting to hear from some of those who have noticed = qualities in a variety of recordings from different periods. I would = expect some instruments (trumpets, flutes, triangles, cymbals, human = voices to some degree) to have a very similar spectral balance today as = they did in the 50's. So in these recordings where the piano sounds = less bright or hard, do the other instruments also sound mellower or = muted or muffled? And how about organ recordings with lots of high = frequencies -- mightn't that be noticeable? =20 Curious about all this. =20 I too have been in a constant quest for pianos with timbral range and = nuance like Barbara talks about, though I doubt my ear is nearly as = discriminating (yet). Over the years, I found a few, mostly Baldwins or = M&H's, in local university practice rooms that became my favorites for = awhile. When I first got my 1921 Bush & Lane upright about 7 months ago, = it was the hardest, most cutting (and yet dead in some way) thing I'd = ever heard, but that was just age and neglect. I know I'm not objective = about it because it's my first real piano project, but I now almost = always play it instead of the 70's-era M&H 50", because there seems to = be just an endless story told in its tone and response. =20 I wonder if there's been a call for brighter and brighter pianos since = the 40's to cut through the mix with a lot of amplified instruments. In = any case, I too am glad to hear that I'm not alone in my general = preference for a wider timbral range and usually a warmer or more mellow = sound and that Barbara has been receiving a lot of appreciation from = musicians for her work. =20 Best regards, =20 Trent Lesher =20 -----Original Message----- From: Sarah Fox [mailto:sarah@graphic-fusion.com] Sent: Friday, March 04, 2005 3:19 PM To: Pianotech Subject: Re: Modern Tone=20 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. = 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. = 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. The amplifier circuitry was adequate (not great), = starting around the 1940's. 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. 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. 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. 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.) =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. =20 So the pianos from back in the 1950's may have sounded much darker, as = recorded. However, I wouldn't be too confident that they were really = that dark when heard live. Some people may remember the pianos from = back then, but how *well* do they remember them? I don't think we = really can have any idea what those pianos sounded like from any = recordings. 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. 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. 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. =20 Peace, Sarah=20 ****** IMPORTANT NOTICE ****** This e-mail, and any attachments hereto, is intended only for use by the addressee(s) named herein and may contain legally privileged and/or confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this e-mail, and any attachments hereto, is strictly = prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please immediately notify me at (312) 207-1000 and permanently delete the original and any copy of = any e-mail and any printout thereof. ---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: https://www.moypiano.com/ptg/pianotech.php/attachments/a4/52/9e/f6/attachment.htm ---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment--
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC