This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment
Hi Geoff, Horace,
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.
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.
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.>>
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.
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? >>
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! ;-)
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.>>
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! ;-)
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.>>
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.
Geoff, Horace, I've enjoyed the discussion! :-)
Peace,
Sarah
-----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. =
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/29/7a/1d/f0/attachment.htm
---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment--
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC