Yamaha-P200 soundfont

Hi all,

I'd like to announce that I've completed a piano soundfont. I'm quite
pleased, and I am happy to share it, and to hear your experiences.

http://www.akjmusic.com/packages/yamaha_p200.sfArk

I made it out of frustration with the many moderatly high to low quality
free soundfonts which are found on Hammersound, the most praised of which
somehow always left me feeling like I needed better...I feel this one is,
but YMMV. I also love playing my P200, but alas, no microtuning, hence
another justification for doing this. Since I can send tuning tables to my
soundfont engine, FluidSynth, I'm in business.

It is a soundfont based on samples from my Yamaha-P200 digital piano,
which has I think, the most realistic sound and playability on the market,
and at least 2 other pro classical pianists I know share this opinion,
having shopped around for their digital pianos long and hard as well. Many
'net reviewers I've read also share this opinion, and I would say the main
competitor in this market, Kurzweil, has a fine digital piano, which is
microtunable to an extent, but doesn't match Yamaha's models general
warmth, IMO.

Of course, there are some really fine .gig pianos for sale, but I'm giving
this away for free, so if you use soundfonts, and don't want to shell out
one to several hundred $$$ for top-quality commercial GigaSamples, you
might want to try this and see if it fits your needs.

I didn't use any loops, so the font is rather large (~43MB, download is
~11MB, you must unpack it with sfArk), but the benefit is a nice realism
to the original keyboard, which itself is made from samples from a real
Yamaha 9' grand. It has 16 velocity layers, and I've been working off and
on on this project for months. Enjoy!

-AKJ

Hi Aaron,

I'm surprised more people haven't responded to this. It sounds very nice!
Though hard to tell when playing a midi file (uniform velocities and
durations, ick). Thanks for this.

Chris

On 29/11/2007, aaron@... <aaron@...> wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> I'd like to announce that I've completed a piano soundfont. I'm quite
> pleased, and I am happy to share it, and to hear your experiences.
>
> http://www.akjmusic.com/packages/yamaha_p200.sfArk
>
> I made it out of frustration with the many moderatly high to low quality
> free soundfonts which are found on Hammersound, the most praised of which
> somehow always left me feeling like I needed better...I feel this one is,
> but YMMV. I also love playing my P200, but alas, no microtuning, hence
> another justification for doing this. Since I can send tuning tables to my
> soundfont engine, FluidSynth, I'm in business.
>
> It is a soundfont based on samples from my Yamaha-P200 digital piano,
> which has I think, the most realistic sound and playability on the market,
> and at least 2 other pro classical pianists I know share this opinion,
> having shopped around for their digital pianos long and hard as well. Many
> 'net reviewers I've read also share this opinion, and I would say the main
> competitor in this market, Kurzweil, has a fine digital piano, which is
> microtunable to an extent, but doesn't match Yamaha's models general
> warmth, IMO.
>
> Of course, there are some really fine .gig pianos for sale, but I'm giving
> this away for free, so if you use soundfonts, and don't want to shell out
> one to several hundred $$$ for top-quality commercial GigaSamples, you
> might want to try this and see if it fits your needs.
>
> I didn't use any loops, so the font is rather large (~43MB, download is
> ~11MB, you must unpack it with sfArk), but the benefit is a nice realism
> to the original keyboard, which itself is made from samples from a real
> Yamaha 9' grand. It has 16 velocity layers, and I've been working off and
> on on this project for months. Enjoy!
>
> -AKJ
>
>
>

--
"If terrorists can maneuver democracies into employing tactics
indistinguishable from theirs, it could be argued that they have won no
matter what the outcome on the battlefield." -Stanley Fish

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Hate to be a negative nancy here, but did I understand correctly
that you've sampled a sampler? I've heard of people doing that,
and I'm afraid I just can't get my head around it. One layer of
sampler is bad enough.

All y'all should check out pianoteq.

Or at least... Aaron, you've got a nice real piano! Why didn't
you sample that?

-Carl

At 06:58 AM 12/1/2007, you wrote:
>Hi Aaron,
>
>I'm surprised more people haven't responded to this. It sounds very nice!
>Though hard to tell when playing a midi file (uniform velocities and
>durations, ick). Thanks for this.
>
>Chris
>
>
>On 29/11/2007, aaron@... <aaron@...> wrote:
>>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I'd like to announce that I've completed a piano soundfont. I'm quite
>> pleased, and I am happy to share it, and to hear your experiences.
>>
>> http://www.akjmusic.com/packages/yamaha_p200.sfArk
>>
>> I made it out of frustration with the many moderatly high to low quality
>> free soundfonts which are found on Hammersound, the most praised of which
>> somehow always left me feeling like I needed better...I feel this one is,
>> but YMMV. I also love playing my P200, but alas, no microtuning, hence
>> another justification for doing this. Since I can send tuning tables to my
>> soundfont engine, FluidSynth, I'm in business.
>>
>> It is a soundfont based on samples from my Yamaha-P200 digital piano,
>> which has I think, the most realistic sound and playability on the market,
>> and at least 2 other pro classical pianists I know share this opinion,
>> having shopped around for their digital pianos long and hard as well. Many
>> 'net reviewers I've read also share this opinion, and I would say the main
>> competitor in this market, Kurzweil, has a fine digital piano, which is
>> microtunable to an extent, but doesn't match Yamaha's models general
>> warmth, IMO.
>>
>> Of course, there are some really fine .gig pianos for sale, but I'm giving
>> this away for free, so if you use soundfonts, and don't want to shell out
>> one to several hundred $$$ for top-quality commercial GigaSamples, you
>> might want to try this and see if it fits your needs.
>>
>> I didn't use any loops, so the font is rather large (~43MB, download is
>> ~11MB, you must unpack it with sfArk), but the benefit is a nice realism
>> to the original keyboard, which itself is made from samples from a real
>> Yamaha 9' grand. It has 16 velocity layers, and I've been working off and
>> on on this project for months. Enjoy!
>>
>> -AKJ

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Carl Lumma <carl@...> wrote:
>
> Hate to be a negative nancy here, but did I understand correctly
> that you've sampled a sampler? I've heard of people doing that,
> and I'm afraid I just can't get my head around it.

Ok, try getting your *ears* around it! Tell me what acoustic soundfont
*sounds* better than this font, and I'll use it. I haven't found one,
at least on Hammersound.net All the super-praised ones that I tried
always left me feeling like the reviews were by people who have never
heard a nice real piano in their life.

BTW, making a good soundfont from scratch (not really what I did,
which is easy by comparison) is tough, an art even.

The engineers at Yamaha did a clean professional job
recording/recreating a piano sound, arguably the best on the market.
We aren't talking about a piano 'patch' on a Korg M1 here. We're
talking about the best sounding digital piano of it's time on the
market. All I needed to do was to get a clean signal into my computer
and wrap it up as a font, which was tedious, but technically easy enough.

But really, if you haven't bothered to listen to it, this is academic.
You're just 'armchair' handwaving.

> All y'all should check out pianoteq.

Pianoteq is nice, cost decent $$, and not available on all platforms.
Mine is a universal format, and free. Granted, not as nearly perfect
sounding, with details like pedal resonance, etc....but still quite nice.

Speaking of commercial products...the one that recently BLEW ME AWAY
was Garritan's cello product. I don't think I could tell it wasn't
real if you didn't tell me. I'm most impressed with recent sampling
technology.

> Or at least... Aaron, you've got a nice real piano! Why didn't
> you sample that?

You haven't seen where I live now...one of the busiest streets in
Evanston...I'd have to take samples at 3am.

I do want to sample my overtone flutes at some point. AND---I'd love
to sample the big wurlitzer organ I play at Temple Sholom---that would
be fun!

Imagine playing those sounds in JI or what have you!

-AKJ.

>> Hate to be a negative nancy here, but did I understand correctly
>> that you've sampled a sampler? I've heard of people doing that,
>> and I'm afraid I just can't get my head around it.
>
>Ok, try getting your *ears* around it! Tell me what acoustic soundfont
>*sounds* better than this font, and I'll use it. I haven't found one,
>at least on Hammersound.net All the super-praised ones that I tried
>always left me feeling like the reviews were by people who have never
>heard a nice real piano in their life.

The P200 is good for a dedicated MIDI instrument, but it can't
hold a candle to modern software instrument like Ivory. Sure, if
you're comparing to Hammersound, you might think it's great.
But it's 10 years old, with a whopping 16MB of memory.

>BTW, making a good soundfont from scratch (not really what I did,
>which is easy by comparison) is tough, an art even.

True.

>But really, if you haven't bothered to listen to it, this is academic.
>You're just 'armchair' handwaving.

Are you saying it's better than a P200? Because I took reading
lessons on one for several weeks this year; I know what it
sounds like.

>You haven't seen where I live now...one of the busiest streets in
>Evanston...I'd have to take samples at 3am.

Mm, I've been in that situation (most of my early recordings
are marred by occasional parrot screams). Evanston, however, rocks.

>I do want to sample my overtone flutes at some point. AND---I'd love
>to sample the big wurlitzer organ I play at Temple Sholom---that would
>be fun!

Talk about lots of work!

>Imagine playing those sounds in JI or what have you!

That would be supercool.

-Carl

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Carl Lumma <carl@...> wrote:
>
> >> Hate to be a negative nancy here, but did I understand correctly
> >> that you've sampled a sampler? I've heard of people doing that,
> >> and I'm afraid I just can't get my head around it.
> >
> >Ok, try getting your *ears* around it! Tell me what acoustic soundfont
> >*sounds* better than this font, and I'll use it. I haven't found one,
> >at least on Hammersound.net All the super-praised ones that I tried
> >always left me feeling like the reviews were by people who have never
> >heard a nice real piano in their life.
>
> The P200 is good for a dedicated MIDI instrument, but it can't
> hold a candle to modern software instrument like Ivory. Sure, if
> you're comparing to Hammersound, you might think it's great.
> But it's 10 years old, with a whopping 16MB of memory.

And it still sound fairly decent. Mine has held up quite well.

You have to hand it to Yamaha for doing the work they did within those
16MB (is that true? 16?--that's amazing)

I don't know Ivory. I know pianoteq, which you've mentioned.

> >BTW, making a good soundfont from scratch (not really what I did,
> >which is easy by comparison) is tough, an art even.
>
> True.
>
> >But really, if you haven't bothered to listen to it, this is academic.
> >You're just 'armchair' handwaving.
>
> Are you saying it's better than a P200? Because I took reading
> lessons on one for several weeks this year; I know what it
> sounds like.

I haven't played on Yamaha's latest. I would guess that they still
make the beststage pianos out there, but I'm admittedly not a
subscriber to a gear lust magazine like Keyboard at the moment... I
was looking to get a lighter keyboard, but I like the builtin
speakers, and I think that always makes it heavy. Anyway, I can
imagine the latest digital pianos from yamaha are better still than
the P-200, I would hope so.. I don't know what Kurzweil's latest sound
like, goodas they were/are, I was still never as impressed by their
sound as I am by Yamaha's.

On the commercial soft sampler side, I like the online samples I've
heard from postpiano.com

After all is said and done, nothing beats a Steinway made between
1880-1920. Ditto Mason and Hamlin, which is another gorgeous
instrument. Modern Bosendorfers are better than modern Steinways in my
experience. The thing about Steinways is their ping...i do need to
mellow my piano out a bit, I like a mellower piano, so my dream is a
mellow-voiced Steinway.

I would love to take a decent upright and/or less critical grand
instrument and make a tack piano out of it. I'm fascinated by and
attracted to the sound of tack piano.

> >You haven't seen where I live now...one of the busiest streets in
> >Evanston...I'd have to take samples at 3am.
>
> Mm, I've been in that situation (most of my early recordings
> are marred by occasional parrot screams). Evanston, however, rocks.

Evanston is a great place to live for sure. Not as nice weather-wise,
or nature-wise as Cali/Bay Area, which makes me drool (however, man is
it 'trop cher') but it has it's share of amazing plusses---the entire
Chicago area has I think one of the greatest concentration of
high-quality restaurants in the world, and many of these are in
Evanston. It also has a cultural buzz quite apart from Chicago.

> >I do want to sample my overtone flutes at some point. AND---I'd love
> >to sample the big wurlitzer organ I play at Temple Sholom---that would
> >be fun!
>
> Talk about lots of work!

Yes, indeed.

> >Imagine playing those sounds in JI or what have you!
>
> That would be supercool.

Yes, but I think I'll start with the flutes.

-AKJ.

>> >> Hate to be a negative nancy here, but did I understand correctly
>> >> that you've sampled a sampler? I've heard of people doing that,
>> >> and I'm afraid I just can't get my head around it.
>> >
>> >Ok, try getting your *ears* around it! Tell me what acoustic soundfont
>> >*sounds* better than this font, and I'll use it. I haven't found one,
>> >at least on Hammersound.net All the super-praised ones that I tried
>> >always left me feeling like the reviews were by people who have never
>> >heard a nice real piano in their life.
>>
>> The P200 is good for a dedicated MIDI instrument, but it can't
>> hold a candle to modern software instrument like Ivory. Sure, if
>> you're comparing to Hammersound, you might think it's great.
>> But it's 10 years old, with a whopping 16MB of memory.
>
>And it still sound fairly decent. Mine has held up quite well.
>You have to hand it to Yamaha for doing the work they did within those
>16MB (is that true? 16?--that's amazing)

Yes, they certainly did.

>I don't know Ivory. I know pianoteq, which you've mentioned.

Ivory is amazing. It blew my mind when I first heard it.
It has a neat feature that lets you inspect the velocity
dynamic range of your keyboard controller (hint: none of them
produce 127 levels... it's often more like 4 or 5).

>I haven't played on Yamaha's latest. I would guess that they still
>make the beststage pianos out there, but I'm admittedly not a
>subscriber to a gear lust magazine like Keyboard at the moment... I
>was looking to get a lighter keyboard, but I like the builtin
>speakers, and I think that always makes it heavy. Anyway, I can
>imagine the latest digital pianos from yamaha are better still than
>the P-200, I would hope so.. I don't know what Kurzweil's latest sound
>like, goodas they were/are, I was still never as impressed by their
>sound as I am by Yamaha's.

I haven't kept up either, but I know what was going on in
2004/05. The focus across the board was away from hardware
instruments. Kurzweil had died multiple deaths, and so
hadn't come out with anything great for a while. They're
currently trying to come back from the grave again, and if
they can get their PC3 out the door I'll probably buy it.
A big stink was made over the Nord Stage, but it's main focus
is electroacoustic piano sounds. The industry favorite
seemed to be the Kawai:
http://www.kawaius.com/main_links/digital/mp_8.html
though I always thought the action (of the predecessor of the
above, anyway) was too heavy.

I think it's incredibly important for microtonal musicians to
elevate their production quality. So I don't consider any of
this off topic.

>After all is said and done, nothing beats a Steinway made between
>1880-1920.

I never believed in this history crap. Any piano that old is
actually a modern instrument (that is, rebuilt). Oh, the wood
this or that. No, you just tend to get a good rebuild because
the vintage instruments are considered valuable and therefore
justify more expensive rebuilds.

Anyway, the best pianos ever made are probably Stuart & Sons',
with modern Faziolis and Masons close behind. No rebuilt
vintage instrument can come close.

>The thing about Steinways is their ping...i do need to
>mellow my piano out a bit, I like a mellower piano, so my dream
>is a mellow-voiced Steinway.

There's a tremendous variance between instruments of the same
make/year, depending on who tuned it and who regulated it (and
how it's been treated if it's not brand new). It's very hard
to compare manufacturers like this.

-Carl

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "Aaron Krister
Johnson" <aaron@...> wrote:
>
> I would love to take a decent upright and/or less critical grand
> instrument and make a tack piano out of it. I'm fascinated by and
> attracted to the sound of tack piano.
>

You might find an acceptable effect from an old five pedal Wing or
a four pedal Crown for a more efficient use of space, though a
stripped player console with a rinkytink rail would be easier to
move.

http://books.google.com/books?id=OG4CAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA76

Clark

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Carl Lumma <carl@...> wrote:

> Aaron wrote:
> >I haven't played on Yamaha's latest. I would guess that they still
> >make the beststage pianos out there, but I'm admittedly not a
> >subscriber to a gear lust magazine like Keyboard at the moment... I
> >was looking to get a lighter keyboard, but I like the builtin
> >speakers, and I think that always makes it heavy. Anyway, I can
> >imagine the latest digital pianos from yamaha are better still than
> >the P-200, I would hope so.. I don't know what Kurzweil's latest sound
> >like, goodas they were/are, I was still never as impressed by their
> >sound as I am by Yamaha's.
>
> I haven't kept up either, but I know what was going on in
> 2004/05. The focus across the board was away from hardware
> instruments. Kurzweil had died multiple deaths, and so
> hadn't come out with anything great for a while. They're
> currently trying to come back from the grave again, and if
> they can get their PC3 out the door I'll probably buy it.
> A big stink was made over the Nord Stage, but it's main focus
> is electroacoustic piano sounds. The industry favorite
> seemed to be the Kawai:
> http://www.kawaius.com/main_links/digital/mp_8.html
> though I always thought the action (of the predecessor of the
> above, anyway) was too heavy.

Well, again, I can't speak for Kawai, except I hate their acoustic
instruments (made in China), but I like Yamaha's sound and action in
digital pianos best. Their acoustic instruments, like any companies,
vary widely.

> I think it's incredibly important for microtonal musicians to
> elevate their production quality. So I don't consider any of
> this off topic.

Me too. Agreed.

> >After all is said and done, nothing beats a Steinway made between
> >1880-1920.
>
> I never believed in this history crap. Any piano that old is
> actually a modern instrument (that is, rebuilt). Oh, the wood
> this or that.

You're just being contrary. Old wood is different than new wood--the
chemical composition changes, and changes the sound. Just play a
rebuilt steinway vs. one off the assembly line...the new ones have a
'glassy' sound that a lot of jazz players seem to like, but I think it
sounds awful compared to older Steinways in that period mentioned. Of
course, I'm not strict about boundaries, and nothing can be said
absolutely...there are of course new soundboards that sound great.

> No, you just tend to get a good rebuild because
> the vintage instruments are considered valuable and therefore
> justify more expensive rebuilds.

There's a reason they are considered valuable, besides being ancy
furniture. People desire *that* sound.

This is the same phenom that makes people drool over Strad fiddles.

> Anyway, the best pianos ever made are probably Stuart & Sons',
> with modern Faziolis and Masons close behind. No rebuilt
> vintage instrument can come close.

I don't know how you can justify that, but ok then. I disagree.

But that's just my taste. These things are personal. Faziolis are sure
nice, as are Bosendorfers, which are the best piano for triple
pianissimo playing of Viennese music. I tend to try to play my best on
what ever instrument I'm offered, and it help to have a gorgeous one,
and i have my preferences.

Probably the most gorgeous piano I ever played was a 9' rebuilt
antique Steinway. I just did exactly what I thought, it felt like
there was no barrier between my mind and the sound---amazing. i also
love Mason and Hamlins, if it's the right one. A colleague of mine has
an incredible mason from the 1920s, a rebuilt, that almost crescendos
while decaying. It sings like mad.

I also nearly cried just playing middle C on the piano I bought (1886
Steinway rebuilt--85 keys). No piano on the floor came close to that
sound, so I knew I had to have it.

> >The thing about Steinways is their ping...i do need to
> >mellow my piano out a bit, I like a mellower piano, so my dream
> >is a mellow-voiced Steinway.
>
> There's a tremendous variance between instruments of the same
> make/year, depending on who tuned it and who regulated it (and
> how it's been treated if it's not brand new). It's very hard
> to compare manufacturers like this.

Yes, but notice we _both_ did, and made strong statements anyway..

We really should take where this is going over to metatuning.

-A.

>Well, again, I can't speak for Kawai, except I hate their acoustic
>instruments

Agreed.

>> >After all is said and done, nothing beats a Steinway made between
>> >1880-1920.
>>
>> I never believed in this history crap. Any piano that old is
>> actually a modern instrument (that is, rebuilt). Oh, the wood
>> this or that.
>
>You're just being contrary.

Not at all. I've spent a lot of time studying this, and I've
always held this belief (even before I knew about alternate
tunings). Most rebuilds replace the soundboard, meaning the
only wood left is the case. How much do you think that influences
the sound?

>Old wood is different than new wood--the
>chemical composition changes, and changes the sound. Just play a
>rebuilt steinway vs. one off the assembly line...the new ones have a
>'glassy' sound that a lot of jazz players seem to like, but I think
>it sounds awful compared to older Steinways in that period mentioned.

How many Steinways of that period have you played? If the
soundboard is original, there might be some justification for
the wood theory. Except why is old wood better? Why isn't
it worse? Or maybe it's the same?

The main argument for old wood isn't aging, by the way (the
best Father time can do is not let the 'board get too dry and
crack). It's that 'all the best timbre has already been taken'.
Except Fazoili claims otherwise -- they've got a spruce forest
in Italy that is supposed to be the best in history. And
they've got SEM photos of the cell walls, etc. etc. to prove it.

But really pianos can't hold a candle to violins, where the
theory of 'Stradivarius' wood' is explained with everything
from 'the trees were infected by a special fungus' to some
magical elixir formula he had for lacquer.

Special fungus would be one explanation for all of this (nyuck
nyuck). It also makes a great sales pitch. But there are many
simpler reasons Fazioli pianos are fantastic. I've played quite
a few rebuilt vintage Steinways (in NYC, which is the only place
in the US to do it). And they typically sound a lot like the
rebuilt Steinways from the 1970s *from the same rebuilder*.

>> No, you just tend to get a good rebuild because
>> the vintage instruments are considered valuable and therefore
>> justify more expensive rebuilds.
>
>There's a reason they are considered valuable, besides being ancy
>furniture. People desire *that* sound.

Nah. Most people driving up the price of these instruments
couldn't tell the sound from a tack piano. Furniture sales have
kept piano manufacturers in business for over a generation.

>This is the same phenom that makes people drool over Strad fiddles.

On this I can completely agree.

>> Anyway, the best pianos ever made are probably Stuart & Sons',
>> with modern Faziolis and Masons close behind. No rebuilt
>> vintage instrument can come close.
>
>I don't know how you can justify that, but ok then. I disagree.

How many Stuart & Sons pianos have you played?

>I also nearly cried just playing middle C on the piano I bought (1886
>Steinway rebuilt--85 keys). No piano on the floor came close to that
>sound, so I knew I had to have it.

Sorry, but all the new Steinways in Chicago (or anywhere in the
midwest, and most places on the West coast) are guaranteed to
sound and play like crap due to a lack of voicing and regulation.

The main change in pianos in the last 50 years is that this used
to be done by dealers. It isn't any more. And even if a dealer
wanted to do it, the art of it has basically died -- who you gonna
hire? Even at Steinway Hall, there was a clear decline from 1997
to 1999 to 2001. I am told that during this period, whatever was
left of their old guard either retired or was hired away by
Faust Harrison.

Pianos are NOT meant to be played out of the factory (with the
exceptions of Stuart and Faz.). Your only option is to send your
new piano for a $10K Stanwood job (and many serious artists are
now doing so). A good rebuilder, however, will still take the
time to voice and regulate.

Of course around the turn of the last century, the pianos probably
were freaking incredible, due to the level of craftsmanship
applied. But we'll never know, because pianos are mortal.

-Carl

Greetings,

Ah! AKJ You and I are surely on the same wavelength. I never thought of how the wood's chemistry changes! Thanks for making me think of that.

I've never played a Fazioli, just heard them. There is one of the top of the line full sized (extra large) ones here in Calgary and I have found it quite limited. For example, even a first rate powerhouse pianist recently did not produce anything special. Further, the sound seemed quite dull.

The antique Steinway being great I can fully understand. The pianist Gunnar Johansen owned a 1921 Hamburg Steinway that was the best piano I ever played. Needed to be rebuilt, since he recorded all of Liszt's music on it, but I shudder to think what a bad restoration would do to it...

It seems to me each maker had a different ideal of sound. I have an 1847 Broadwood grand and it is nothing like a modern piano.

Now, what might also be significant is how these historic instruments were tuned. I believe that the tuning, plus variation in the pitch (not A440) might make the sound of these pianos most remarkable. They might just ring differently...But so far, I've not been able to experiment. It's on my to do list.

All best wishes,

Gordon Rumson

> You're just being contrary. Old wood is different than new wood--the
> chemical composition changes, and changes the sound. Just play a
> rebuilt steinway vs. one off the assembly line...the new ones have a
> 'glassy' sound that a lot of jazz players seem to like, but I think it
> sounds awful compared to older Steinways in that period mentioned. Of
> course, I'm not strict about boundaries, and nothing can be said
> absolutely...there are of course new soundboards that sound great.
>
>> No, you just tend to get a good rebuild because
>> the vintage instruments are considered valuable and therefore
>> justify more expensive rebuilds.
>
> There's a reason they are considered valuable, besides being ancy
> furniture. People desire *that* sound.
>
> This is the same phenom that makes people drool over Strad fiddles.
>
>> Anyway, the best pianos ever made are probably Stuart & Sons',
>> with modern Faziolis and Masons close behind. No rebuilt
>> vintage instrument can come close.
>
> I don't know how you can justify that, but ok then. I disagree.
>
> But that's just my taste. These things are personal. Faziolis are sure
> nice, as are Bosendorfers, which are the best piano for triple
> pianissimo playing of Viennese music. I tend to try to play my best on
> what ever instrument I'm offered, and it help to have a gorgeous one,
> and i have my preferences.
>
> Probably the most gorgeous piano I ever played was a 9' rebuilt
> antique Steinway. I just did exactly what I thought, it felt like
> there was no barrier between my mind and the sound---amazing. i also
> love Mason and Hamlins, if it's the right one. A colleague of mine has
> an incredible mason from the 1920s, a rebuilt, that almost crescendos
> while decaying. It sings like mad.
>
> I also nearly cried just playing middle C on the piano I bought (1886
> Steinway rebuilt--85 keys). No piano on the floor came close to that
> sound, so I knew I had to have it.
>
>>> The thing about Steinways is their ping...i do need to
>>> mellow my piano out a bit, I like a mellower piano, so my dream
>>> is a mellow-voiced Steinway.
>>
>> There's a tremendous variance between instruments of the same
>> make/year, depending on who tuned it and who regulated it (and
>> how it's been treated if it's not brand new). It's very hard
>> to compare manufacturers like this.
>
> Yes, but notice we _both_ did, and made strong statements anyway..
>
> We really should take where this is going over to metatuning.
>
> -A.

Gordon wrote...

>I've never played a Fazioli, just heard them. There is one of the
>top of the line full sized (extra large) ones here in Calgary and I
>have found it quite limited. For example, even a first rate
>powerhouse pianist recently did not produce anything special.
>Further, the sound seemed quite dull.

You found it quite limited even though you've never played it?
The sound is also influenced by the hall -- have you heard any
other pianos in that hall?

That said, Faziolis have a unique sound that not everybody
likes. I myself am lukewarm on the sound. However they play
and respond marvelously. And they're a good brand to talk
about in this fashion, since they are delivered ready to go,
and play remarkably evenly from one to another. Steinways,
by comparison, vary hugely from one to another, right off
the line.

Yamahas are another brand that come from the factory in good,
consistent shape.

>It seems to me each maker had a different ideal of sound. I have an
>1847 Broadwood grand and it is nothing like a modern piano.

There are many differences between any piano from the
mid 19th century and one from the 20th.

>Now, what might also be significant is how these historic instruments
>were tuned. I believe that the tuning, plus variation in the pitch
>(not A440) might make the sound of these pianos most remarkable.

How could how they *were* tuned influence how they sound today?

-Carl

> >Old wood is different than new wood--the
> >chemical composition changes,

Really? Can someone cite a source that corroborates that statement? It's
hard to believe that the chemical composition of wood changes significantly
in such a short period of time as say, 50 or 100 years.

> all the best timbre has already been taken

An argument for new instruments if I ever heard one... Heh heh. :-)

Rick

Greetings,

It sounds like you were insulting me with your comment. No one, except very 'special' people (not even all faculty) are ALLOWED to play this instrument. I am not faculty at the school that owns it.

It seems perfectly reasonable to comment on a piano that I have heard. This was sounded shrill, that was voiced for jazz, this one was warm and rich.

When I said I found the Fazioli limited I refered to the effect of the sound in the hall and in the repertoire performed. The hall I know very well. The repertoire also was well known to me.

In terms of what was limited I refer to the overall range of sound from soft to loud and from staccato to thickly voiced chords.

That is, not a very soft sound, certainly not with any magical halo to it. In loud passages no depth to the supporting bass and little or no clarity to the upper register.

Further, the ring of the tone was not that long, considering the size of the instrument and it seemed to have far more attack that resonance in individual pitches. In fact, the attack sounded very wooden to me. The result was that legato playing wasn't very legato. Sadly, the percussiveness of the attack wasn't clear enough to render staccato chords very well.

Please note, I've heard several pianists, all experienced, one of international standing, play this instrument.

This is why I have found it limited.

For the last, consider how some instruments are designed for a certain pitch, how some instruments when tuned well have a rich extra ring to them. Consider how some inexperienced tuners can make a fine piano sound dull. Could it be that pianos may behave in a similar fashion? Could it be possible that a piano needs to be in tune with itself? If various temperaments were use, perhaps the assumed temperament had an effect on the instrument and builders might have aimed at just such a special ring.

It is a theory which I would like to investigate.

All best wishes,

Gordon Rumson

On 3-Dec-07, at 11:40 AM, Carl Lumma wrote:

>
> You found it quite limited even though you've never played it?
> The sound is also influenced by the hall -- have you heard any
> other pianos in that hall?
>
>> Now, what might also be significant is how these historic instruments
>> were tuned. I believe that the tuning, plus variation in the pitch
>> (not A440) might make the sound of these pianos most remarkable.
>
> How could how they *were* tuned influence how they sound today?
>
> -Carl

At 11:31 AM 12/3/2007, you wrote:
>>Old wood is different than new wood--the
>>chemical composition changes,
>
>Really? Can someone cite a source that corroborates that statement?

Seriously.

>> all the best timbre has already been taken
>
>An argument for new instruments if I ever heard one... Heh heh. :-)

Quite a slip of the tongue, I must say!

-Carl

Hi Gordon,

I'm sorry, I did not mean to be insulting. If you're familiar
with a hall and so forth, yes of course you can comment on the
sound.

Note, I never said I was a big fan of the Fazioli sound
(though I wouldn't quite describe it as you have). The Faziolis
I have played have had excellent sustain, and have been plenty
loud.

I'm not clear on what theory you're proposing regarding the
tuning of vintage pianos.... that the tuning they were initially
given would bear on their sound a century later?

Perhaps you are thinking of *scaling* (the choice of string
lengths and diameters, as well as where in the scale the wound
bass strings begin), which was indeed done differently in
the past than it is today. Generally speaking, however, most
people agree that scaling is done better today, as we have
computer tools that let us see the effect of different choices
on the inharmonicity in real-time. Often when vintage instruments
are rebuilt, the scale is "redesigned" by the rebuilder.

As for tuning, yes it is very true that the tuning of unisons
has a *huge* effect on the timbre, sustain, and loudness of a
piano (read
http://www.speech.kth.se/music/5_lectures/weinreic/strings.html
for some insight on just how far that can go*). That is one
reason it is very difficult to compare one instrument to another
without controlling for this variable.

-Carl

* Note, I don't necessarily believe this theory.

At 11:34 AM 12/3/2007, you wrote:
>Greetings,
>
>It sounds like you were insulting me with your comment. No one,
>except very 'special' people (not even all faculty) are ALLOWED to
>play this instrument. I am not faculty at the school that owns it.
>
>It seems perfectly reasonable to comment on a piano that I have
>heard. This was sounded shrill, that was voiced for jazz, this one
>was warm and rich.
>
>When I said I found the Fazioli limited I refered to the effect of
>the sound in the hall and in the repertoire performed. The hall I
>know very well. The repertoire also was well known to me.
>
>In terms of what was limited I refer to the overall range of sound
>from soft to loud and from staccato to thickly voiced chords.
>
>That is, not a very soft sound, certainly not with any magical halo
>to it. In loud passages no depth to the supporting bass and little
>or no clarity to the upper register.
>
>Further, the ring of the tone was not that long, considering the size
>of the instrument and it seemed to have far more attack that
>resonance in individual pitches. In fact, the attack sounded very
>wooden to me. The result was that legato playing wasn't very
>legato. Sadly, the percussiveness of the attack wasn't clear enough
>to render staccato chords very well.
>
>Please note, I've heard several pianists, all experienced, one of
>international standing, play this instrument.
>
>This is why I have found it limited.
>
>For the last, consider how some instruments are designed for a
>certain pitch, how some instruments when tuned well have a rich extra
>ring to them. Consider how some inexperienced tuners can make a fine
>piano sound dull. Could it be that pianos may behave in a similar
>fashion? Could it be possible that a piano needs to be in tune with
>itself? If various temperaments were use, perhaps the assumed
>temperament had an effect on the instrument and builders might have
>aimed at just such a special ring.
>
>It is a theory which I would like to investigate.
>
>All best wishes,
>
>Gordon Rumson
>
>On 3-Dec-07, at 11:40 AM, Carl Lumma wrote:
>
>> You found it quite limited even though you've never played it?
>> The sound is also influenced by the hall -- have you heard any
>> other pianos in that hall?
>>
>>> Now, what might also be significant is how these historic instruments
>>> were tuned. I believe that the tuning, plus variation in the pitch
>>> (not A440) might make the sound of these pianos most remarkable.
>>
>> How could how they *were* tuned influence how they sound today?
>>
>> -Carl
>

At 07:29 PM 12/3/2007, you wrote:
>Hi Gordon,
>
>I'm sorry, I did not mean to be insulting. If you're familiar
>with a hall and so forth, yes of course you can comment on the
>sound.

However, note that sound is only one aspect of a piano (and to
me not the most important one).

-Carl

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Rick McGowan <rick@...> wrote:
>
> > >Old wood is different than new wood--the
> > >chemical composition changes,
>
> Really? Can someone cite a source that corroborates that statement?
It's
> hard to believe that the chemical composition of wood changes
significantly
> in such a short period of time as say, 50 or 100 years.

As wood ages, it tend to dry, eventually fossilizing. Dry wood
reflects more sound.

a study pertinent to the fact that wood chemistry changes with age,
which is what you wanted shown:
http://www.springerlink.com/content/l1439312747x2krr/

also here is a link from a luthier regarding the importance of aging
wood, and the characteristic sounds of different woods:
http://www.hoffmanguitars.com/woods.htm

That's what I came up with by a quick Google...I've also heard similar
things regarding soundboards from piano techs, including my current
tuner/tech...mind you, there is not universal agreement, nor should
there be, that old soundboards are ALWAYS better, but any sensitive
ear can here that there is certainly a 'soul' and 'depth of character'
to many well-maintained older pianos. This may have several causes,
including higher quality workmanship at the time, too. But I would
find it hard to 'a priori' exclude, for the sake of I don't know what,
the effect of the acoustics of wood.

-AKJ.

>> > >Old wood is different than new wood--the
>> > >chemical composition changes,
>>
>> Really? Can someone cite a source that corroborates that
>> statement?
>> It's hard to believe that the chemical composition of wood changes
>> significantly in such a short period of time as say, 50 or 100 years.
>
>As wood ages, it tend to dry, eventually fossilizing. Dry wood
>reflects more sound.

That's not a chemical change, it's a mechanical one. In fact
there's a range in which soundboard water content is considered
ideal. Too low and the wood loses its ductility. New soundboards
are aged to have water content within this range. Your job as an
owner is just keep the piano at a humidity that minimizes changes
in this ideal water content.

>a study pertinent to the fact that wood chemistry changes with age,
>which is what you wanted shown:
>http://www.springerlink.com/content/l1439312747x2krr/

uh... no.

>That's what I came up with by a quick Google...I've also heard similar
>things regarding soundboards from piano techs, including my current
>tuner/tech...mind you, there is not universal agreement, nor should
>there be, that old soundboards are ALWAYS better, but any sensitive
>ear can here that there is certainly a 'soul' and 'depth of character'
>to many well-maintained older pianos. This may have several causes,
>including higher quality workmanship at the time, too. But I would
>find it hard to 'a priori' exclude, for the sake of I don't know what,
>the effect of the acoustics of wood.

I know guys who swear that heavy-bottom valve caps on their
trumpets change the sound in all kinds of amazing ways, too.

The bottom line is that most vintage instruments are actually new
instruments. I do not see how any of this soul stuff can stand up
to this simple fact.

-Carl

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Carl Lumma <carl@...> wrote:
>
> >> > >Old wood is different than new wood--the
> >> > >chemical composition changes,
> >>
> >> Really? Can someone cite a source that corroborates that
> >> statement?
> >> It's hard to believe that the chemical composition of wood changes
> >> significantly in such a short period of time as say, 50 or 100 years.
> >
> >As wood ages, it tend to dry, eventually fossilizing. Dry wood
> >reflects more sound.
>
> That's not a chemical change, it's a mechanical one. In fact
> there's a range in which soundboard water content is considered
> ideal. Too low and the wood loses its ductility. New soundboards
> are aged to have water content within this range. Your job as an
> owner is just keep the piano at a humidity that minimizes changes
> in this ideal water content.

True, but only because we don't want the board to crack and lose it's
functioning as a resonating board, not because the water 'helps' the
sound...too wet, and you lose resonance. Yes, there is a balance.

Plus, see right below, chemistry also changes:

> >a study pertinent to the fact that wood chemistry changes with age,
> >which is what you wanted shown:
> >http://www.springerlink.com/content/l1439312747x2krr/
>
> uh... no.

uh...yes.

"Although more resistant, the lignin is converted chemically and its
structure differs increasingly from its original state."

let's look at a key phrase: "converted CHEMICALLY".

Or, check out the title of this paper, found on this site:
http://www.aewc.umaine.edu/research/pubs/publications.asp?pgn=9

"Gardner, D.J.; Gunnells, D.W.; Wolcott, M.P. 1993. Chemical
Characteristics of Short Term Aged Wood Surfaces. 67th Colloid and
Surface Science Symposium; Toronto, ON, Canada."

Let's highlight those words: CHEMICAL CHARACTERISTICS of short term
AGED wood surfaces. It didn't say 'Chemical Characterisics of wood
surfaces'

There are other scientific papers that say as much too...wood science
papers. As you would say "Google is your friend, dude". You would just
have to snoop, which of course you wouldn't want to do, because you're
not interested in falsifying yourself.

> >That's what I came up with by a quick Google...I've also heard similar
> >things regarding soundboards from piano techs, including my current
> >tuner/tech...mind you, there is not universal agreement, nor should
> >there be, that old soundboards are ALWAYS better, but any sensitive
> >ear can here that there is certainly a 'soul' and 'depth of character'
> >to many well-maintained older pianos. This may have several causes,
> >including higher quality workmanship at the time, too. But I would
> >find it hard to 'a priori' exclude, for the sake of I don't know what,
> >the effect of the acoustics of wood.
>
> I know guys who swear that heavy-bottom valve caps on their
> trumpets change the sound in all kinds of amazing ways, too.
>
> The bottom line is that most vintage instruments are actually new
> instruments. I do not see how any of this soul stuff can stand up
> to this simple fact.

I dunno Carl, all I can say is that when I bought my piano, no newer
Steinway, Mason, or Baldwin that they had on the floor came close to
the sound of the 1886 piano. Could be other factors, but the sounding
board is the original, and the sounding board is a *huge* part of why
a piano sounds the way it does. I'm not claiming old strings sound
great, old actions are great, etc. I've only said 'old sounding
boards'...and the key is that often have to be in working order, and
are often restored through expert repair of cracks by gluing, etc.

Mozart said in one of his letter that he prefered a certain maker that
intentionally cracked his sounding boards and then glued them. It is a
well known phenomenon that this can strengthen and stiffen a board,
making it more reflective and resonant. Broken bones are strengthened
once healed, too. Not that I would recommend going out and breaking
any bones.

The fact that others attest to the same phenomenon leads me to believe
there is some truth. Many others, and an important point--they are
the players and technicians who use and work with the pianos. I don't
know how else I would explain why so many old instruments that have
been restored sound so damn good compared to new instruments.. As a
test case when I bought my piano, I played the 2nd mvt of the
Beethoven Pathetique--lyrical long lines, singing tone, long sustain
make this piece sound best. Again, just like middle C sounded best on
the 1886, so did this beautiful melody and balanced accompaniment. The
other pianos were dull, flat, lifeless in comparison. My wife, not a
professional musician, *immediately* said "OHHH!" It was extremely
obvious. Your explanation is a pseudo-explanation---'it's a new
piano'. One, that's not true, since the sounding board is 1886, the
metal frame is 1886, the frame is 1886 with new finish--only the
string and action are new. Two, why do so many new pianos, all else
being equal, SUCK in comparison?

What's so hard to swallow about wood changing it's resonating
properties with age? You make it like it's voodoo, which it ain't.
Ever heard of an impulse response? Different woods have different IR
characteristics, as you know. As the properties, physical and or
chemical, of a resonant body change, so will it's IR signature.

Frankly, I'm surprised as hell you would argue this...

-A

>> >a study pertinent to the fact that wood chemistry changes with age,
>> >which is what you wanted shown:
>> >http://www.springerlink.com/content/l1439312747x2krr/
>>
>> uh... no.
>
>uh...yes.

There's nothing in this abstract that's relevant to pianos.

>Or, check out the title of this paper, found on this site:
>http://www.aewc.umaine.edu/research/pubs/publications.asp?pgn=9
>
>"Gardner, D.J.; Gunnells, D.W.; Wolcott, M.P. 1993. Chemical
>Characteristics of Short Term Aged Wood Surfaces. 67th Colloid and
>Surface Science Symposium; Toronto, ON, Canada."
>
>Let's highlight those words: CHEMICAL CHARACTERISTICS of short term
>AGED wood surfaces. It didn't say 'Chemical Characterisics of wood
>surfaces'

OK, but there's no detail here.

>There are other scientific papers that say as much too...wood science
>papers. As you would say "Google is your friend, dude". You would just
>have to snoop, which of course you wouldn't want to do, because you're
>not interested in falsifying yourself.

Um, no. You're the one making the claim (that chemical changes
in 100-year-old soundboards make them sound better). All Rick
asked for was evidence.

>> The bottom line is that most vintage instruments are actually new
>> instruments. I do not see how any of this soul stuff can stand up
>> to this simple fact.
>
>I dunno Carl, all I can say is that when I bought my piano, no newer
>Steinway, Mason, or Baldwin that they had on the floor came close to
>the sound of the 1886 piano.

I've already posted an explanation for this that doesn't involve
magical wood.

>Could be other factors, but the sounding
>board is the original, and the sounding board is a *huge* part of why
>a piano sounds the way it does.

OK, yes that's true.

>I'm not claiming old strings sound
>great,

Yes, well there's no rebuilt piano over 30 years old with original
strings.

>old actions are great, etc.

Actually you'd have some agreement from me (and Clark) on that one.
Not the old actions themselves, but the designs which were
abandoned with the piano was standardized at the turn of the
century.

>I've only said 'old sounding
>boards'...and the key is that often have to be in working order, and
>are often restored through expert repair of cracks by gluing, etc.
>Mozart said in one of his letter that he prefered a certain maker that
>intentionally cracked his sounding boards and then glued them. It is a
>well known phenomenon that this can strengthen and stiffen a board,
>making it more reflective and resonant. Broken bones are strengthened
>once healed, too. Not that I would recommend going out and breaking
>any bones.

It's reasonable that breaking and gluing a soundboard could
improve it. Seems more likely to me than 'old wood' (which is
also not unreasonable, it's just that I know it can be at best
the significant factor out of many involved when comparing pianos).

>The fact that others attest to the same phenomenon leads me to believe
>there is some truth.

It's a myth, plain and simple, unless you've got better evidence
than you've presented to change my mind. Perhaps I should dig
up pianotech threads agreeing with me. You can start with Del
I guess
http://www.pianobuilders.com/soundboards.html

>Many others, and an important point--they are
>the players and technicians who use and work with the pianos. I don't
>know how else I would explain why so many old instruments that have
>been restored sound so damn good compared to new instruments.. As a
>test case when I bought my piano, I played the 2nd mvt of the
>Beethoven Pathetique--lyrical long lines, singing tone, long sustain
>make this piece sound best. Again, just like middle C sounded best on
>the 1886, so did this beautiful melody and balanced accompaniment. The
>other pianos were dull, flat, lifeless in comparison. My wife, not a
>professional musician, *immediately* said "OHHH!" It was extremely
>obvious. Your explanation is a pseudo-explanation---'it's a new
>piano'. One, that's not true, since the sounding board is 1886, the
>metal frame is 1886, the frame is 1886 with new finish--only the
>string and action are new. Two, why do so many new pianos, all else
>being equal, SUCK in comparison?

I already explained that in another message. Maybe you're
replying to this one first?

-Carl

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Carl Lumma <carl@...> wrote:
>
> >> >a study pertinent to the fact that wood chemistry changes with age,
> >> >which is what you wanted shown:
> >> >http://www.springerlink.com/content/l1439312747x2krr/
> >>
> >> uh... no.
> >
> >uh...yes.
>
> There's nothing in this abstract that's relevant to pianos.

Rick (and you) wanted proof that chemistry of wood changed with age.
Whatever is relevant to pianos is relevant because soundboards are
made with spruce typically, which last time I checked, was a type of wood.

> >Or, check out the title of this paper, found on this site:
> >http://www.aewc.umaine.edu/research/pubs/publications.asp?pgn=9
> >
> >"Gardner, D.J.; Gunnells, D.W.; Wolcott, M.P. 1993. Chemical
> >Characteristics of Short Term Aged Wood Surfaces. 67th Colloid and
> >Surface Science Symposium; Toronto, ON, Canada."
> >
> >Let's highlight those words: CHEMICAL CHARACTERISTICS of short term
> >AGED wood surfaces. It didn't say 'Chemical Characterisics of wood
> >surfaces'
>
> OK, but there's no detail here.

Yes, but the phrase was enough to prove my point that wood changes
it's chemistry with age, which, unless I'm mistaken, you were denying.

> >There are other scientific papers that say as much too...wood science
> >papers. As you would say "Google is your friend, dude". You would just
> >have to snoop, which of course you wouldn't want to do, because you're
> >not interested in falsifying yourself.
>
> Um, no. You're the one making the claim (that chemical changes
> in 100-year-old soundboards make them sound better). All Rick
> asked for was evidence.

Let me clarify: my claim is that in my experience, the old pianos I've
played sounded like they had more beauty, warmth, character.

My 'old soundboard' theory is a possible explanation, not a definitive
one.

We would have to first prove that wood changes with age, which I think
I have established as a fact. The acoustical properties of that aged
wood are a harder bit to establish, but there is precedent in the
realm of violin study, and guitar makers.

So consider what I'm saying as a hypothesis in need of more testing.

I'm reacting to the position that you seem to be taking: that this is
insignificant, impossible, and at best, mythological voodoo.

> >> The bottom line is that most vintage instruments are actually new
> >> instruments. I do not see how any of this soul stuff can stand up
> >> to this simple fact.
> >
> >I dunno Carl, all I can say is that when I bought my piano, no newer
> >Steinway, Mason, or Baldwin that they had on the floor came close to
> >the sound of the 1886 piano.
>
> I've already posted an explanation for this that doesn't involve
> magical wood.

The factors you brought up *are* significant, but I fail to see how
you can ignore the one common fact that a restored old piano generally
sounds better than an in-shape new one (of course that is subjective,
but it's been my experience)

> >Could be other factors, but the sounding
> >board is the original, and the sounding board is a *huge* part of why
> >a piano sounds the way it does.
>
> OK, yes that's true.

Glad we agree!

> >I'm not claiming old strings sound
> >great,
>
> Yes, well there's no rebuilt piano over 30 years old with original
> strings.
>
> >old actions are great, etc.
>
> Actually you'd have some agreement from me (and Clark) on that one.
> Not the old actions themselves, but the designs which were
> abandoned with the piano was standardized at the turn of the
> century.

You pulled my phrase out of context I think...I said "I'm not saying
old actions are great". I'm trying to say that an old pianos is not
great by virtue of simply being old---restoring it *is* incredibly
important...but I *am* saying that there exists a possibility that
older original soundboards might have properties due to their age that
exhibit desirable acoustical properties.

The only way to test this theory would be to record the same piano
twice: once before an old renovated soundboard was replaced with a
newer one, and once after, and study the signals. The restorer would
have to be an unbiased tech who was responsible for getting the piano
into it's best shape for each test.

> >I've only said 'old sounding
> >boards'...and the key is that often have to be in working order, and
> >are often restored through expert repair of cracks by gluing, etc.
> >Mozart said in one of his letter that he prefered a certain maker that
> >intentionally cracked his sounding boards and then glued them. It is a
> >well known phenomenon that this can strengthen and stiffen a board,
> >making it more reflective and resonant. Broken bones are strengthened
> >once healed, too. Not that I would recommend going out and breaking
> >any bones.
>
> It's reasonable that breaking and gluing a soundboard could
> improve it. Seems more likely to me than 'old wood' (which is
> also not unreasonable, it's just that I know it can be at best
> the significant factor out of many involved when comparing pianos).

Well, it seems like you are hinting here that old wood might play some
role, which is good to see.

> >The fact that others attest to the same phenomenon leads me to believe
> >there is some truth.
>
> It's a myth, plain and simple, unless you've got better evidence
> than you've presented to change my mind. Perhaps I should dig
> up pianotech threads agreeing with me. You can start with Del
> I guess
> http://www.pianobuilders.com/soundboards.html

...and now you're not.

Really, I read this, and it's filled with great info, but I hardly
find the salesman or spokesman for a new soundboard company to be the
most objective interpreter of this phenomenon.

> >Many others, and an important point--they are
> >the players and technicians who use and work with the pianos. I don't
> >know how else I would explain why so many old instruments that have
> >been restored sound so damn good compared to new instruments.. As a
> >test case when I bought my piano, I played the 2nd mvt of the
> >Beethoven Pathetique--lyrical long lines, singing tone, long sustain
> >make this piece sound best. Again, just like middle C sounded best on
> >the 1886, so did this beautiful melody and balanced accompaniment. The
> >other pianos were dull, flat, lifeless in comparison. My wife, not a
> >professional musician, *immediately* said "OHHH!" It was extremely
> >obvious. Your explanation is a pseudo-explanation---'it's a new
> >piano'. One, that's not true, since the sounding board is 1886, the
> >metal frame is 1886, the frame is 1886 with new finish--only the
> >string and action are new. Two, why do so many new pianos, all else
> >being equal, SUCK in comparison?
>
> I already explained that in another message. Maybe you're
> replying to this one first?

Well, I think we are agreeing on many things more than
disagreeing...it seems, however, I put more weight into the
possibility that old wood might play a big role in the sound.

I read about the fascinating theory that Stradivari violins sound good
because the wood was harvested during a mini-ice age in Italy, and the
wood grew stiffer and denser...just a theory, but it goes in line with
the jist of what I'm saying---a long complex history of an amazing
material--wood--would likely impart very complex characteristics to
the sound of a piano that we would interpret as 'rich'....everything
else being equal. We *know* this is true with old wine being aged in
barrels--I hypothesize an analogous thing may be happening with old
pianos.

-AKJ

> Rick (and you) wanted proof that chemistry of wood changed
> with age.

Yes, thanks. Then the follow-on question would be "how much age?" The one
article seemed to be about long-term (geological age) effects. But
obviously the Gardiner et al 1993 article mentiones short-term aging. One
would need, of course, to read the article, etc.

> Let me clarify: my claim is that in my experience, the old
> pianos I've played sounded like they had more beauty, warmth,
> character.

I'm not saying necessarily that I disblelieve the claim, but I also find
it difficult to believe that 100+ years of piano evolution since the 1880s
have produced consistently inferior instruments, or that *really* "old
wood" on its own makes a perceptible difference, or that any
run-of-the-mill old piano is any better than a run-of-the-mill new piano.

> So consider what I'm saying as a hypothesis in need of more testing.

Sure, of course. To get any data or to establish facts about differences
in pianos due to age, one would need an extensive blind taste test and some
controlled pianos. Might be worth someone pursuing... but it would be a
rather extensive experiment... Side-by-side instruments, identical
listening conditions, same performer, same piece, etc, etc.

And... Two of the best, most character-ful instruments I've ever played
were both old. One was a Pleyel from mid-1800s. The other was a 1913
Hardmann studio grand that I once owned.

Rick

> > There's nothing in this abstract that's relevant to pianos.
>
> Rick (and you) wanted proof that chemistry of wood changed with
> age.
> Whatever is relevant to pianos is relevant because soundboards are
> made with spruce typically, which last time I checked, was a type
> of wood.

That paper apparently deals with fossilization of wood
over long periods of time. Wood does not become fossilized
without sitting next to some silica- or other mineral-rich
thing like rock for long periods of time.

> > OK, but there's no detail here.
>
> Yes, but the phrase was enough to prove my point that wood changes
> it's chemistry with age, which, unless I'm mistaken, you were
> denying.

I was, and still am doubtful that there are chemical changes
in soundboards that are musically significant.

> > It's reasonable that breaking and gluing a soundboard could
> > improve it. Seems more likely to me than 'old wood' (which is
> > also not unreasonable, it's just that I know it can be at best
> > the significant factor out of many involved when comparing
> > pianos).
>
> Well, it seems like you are hinting here that old wood might
> play some role, which is good to see.

It might (which is better than might not), but it doesn't (which
is worse than does).

> Really, I read this, and it's filled with great info, but I hardly
> find the salesman or spokesman for a new soundboard company to be
> the most objective interpreter of this phenomenon.

Del is not a 'new soundboard company'. It's funny you should
say this, because the 'old wood' myth is purely sales pitch
in origin.

> I read about the fascinating theory that Stradivari violins
> sound good because the wood was harvested during a mini-ice age
> in Italy,

Yeah, that's a good one. Did it mention fungus?

-Carl

> I'm not saying necessarily that I disblelieve the claim,
> but I also find it difficult to believe that 100+ years
> of piano evolution since the 1880s have produced
> consistently inferior instruments,

The *best* modern instruments are almost certainly better,
though as I mentioned one cannot go back in time and play
the old instruments as they were when they were new, so we
can't be *sure*.

The *average* quality of pianos has almost certainly
declined, since it is no longer the darling instrument of
our culture, and because human labor has gotten so much
more expensive (relatively). Yamaha has automated much of
the art, and you've got to hand it to them for that. But
there's still a lot of skilled labor involved. Getting rid
of wood altogether would solve most of that, as well as
things like the instrument spontaneously going out of tune
or needing to be rebuilt every 40 years. Don't tell the
'old wood' fanatics.

One thing that can be said is that the market has favored
big instruments for some reason. So pianos have gotten
worse *for playing in small rooms*. You know, like where
99% of the population lives. The delicacies of the
fortepiano have been lost, in the sense that the only
instruments of that kind which exist today are replicas
or restored versions of antiques. There is no modern
fortepiano, and the upright is a poor proxy.

Stuart & Sons certainly specializes in large instruments,
but are certainly a refreshing development, bringing to
market the first major innovation in piano design in a
very long time.

-Carl

> > It's reasonable that breaking and gluing a soundboard could
> > improve it. Seems more likely to me than 'old wood' (which is
> > also not unreasonable, it's just that I know it can be at best
> > the significant factor out of many involved when comparing
> > pianos).
>
> Well, it seems like you are hinting here that old wood might
> play some role, which is good to see.

Sorry, there was a typo there. It was supposed to say "the
least significant factor out of..." -C.

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <carl@...> wrote:

> The *average* quality of pianos has almost certainly
> declined, since it is no longer the darling instrument of
> our culture, and because human labor has gotten so much
> more expensive (relatively). Yamaha has automated much of
> the art, and you've got to hand it to them for that. But
> there's still a lot of skilled labor involved. Getting rid
> of wood altogether would solve most of that, as well as
> things like the instrument spontaneously going out of tune
> or needing to be rebuilt every 40 years. Don't tell the
> 'old wood' fanatics.

I would certainly favor any instrument that sounded better than
another--I wouldn't care if it was made entirely of sheet metal
(although I doubt it could look as nice as furniture)

In that sense, at least, I'm no 'old wood fanatic'

> One thing that can be said is that the market has favored
> big instruments for some reason. So pianos have gotten
> worse *for playing in small rooms*. You know, like where
> 99% of the population lives. The delicacies of the
> fortepiano have been lost, in the sense that the only
> instruments of that kind which exist today are replicas
> or restored versions of antiques. There is no modern
> fortepiano, and the upright is a poor proxy.

This is one facet of the sad fact that the old German ideal of
'Hausmusik' has declined.... the WTC was written for this ideal, and
the idea of playing it back to back in concert is a (somewhat)
ridiculous modern invention. It was music written to be pondered and
privately enjoyed.

The music survives a concert performance b/c it is great, but I find
it not the ideal setting....ditto the Goldbergs. In a way, the modern
home stereo system is one of the best ways to enjoy Bach keyboard
music (i.e. harpsichord/clav/piano).

I think a small piano-like keyboard for the home is fine, but the
sound of bass in most uprights is so bad.

> Stuart & Sons certainly specializes in large instruments,
> but are certainly a refreshing development, bringing to
> market the first major innovation in piano design in a
> very long time.

I must admit I don't know anything about them.

At 08:34 PM 12/4/2007, you wrote:
>--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <carl@...> wrote:
>> The *average* quality of pianos has almost certainly
>> declined, since it is no longer the darling instrument of
>> our culture, and because human labor has gotten so much
>> more expensive (relatively). Yamaha has automated much of
>> the art, and you've got to hand it to them for that. But
>> there's still a lot of skilled labor involved. Getting rid
>> of wood altogether would solve most of that, as well as
>> things like the instrument spontaneously going out of tune
>> or needing to be rebuilt every 40 years. Don't tell the
>> 'old wood' fanatics.
>
>I would certainly favor any instrument that sounded better than
>another--I wouldn't care if it was made entirely of sheet metal
>(although I doubt it could look as nice as furniture)

There's something to be said for a nice wood case. Making just
the soundboard out of carbon fiber would provide the advantages
I mention. It could also probably produce pianos that are loud
as f***. But of course you can choose any modulus you want, as
well as a variety of constructions.

Would it sound better? That's highly subjective. It would
probably sound different, and that might mean worse, since our
music/ears have evolved around the piano as we know it.

It may sound worse in some universal sense. Wood does have some
pretty neat material properties. But I remain optimistic. We
won't know until we try, anyway.

>> One thing that can be said is that the market has favored
>> big instruments for some reason. So pianos have gotten
>> worse *for playing in small rooms*. You know, like where
>> 99% of the population lives. The delicacies of the
>> fortepiano have been lost, in the sense that the only
>> instruments of that kind which exist today are replicas
>> or restored versions of antiques. There is no modern
>> fortepiano, and the upright is a poor proxy.
>
>This is one facet of the sad fact that the old German ideal of
>'Hausmusik' has declined.... the WTC was written for this ideal, and
>the idea of playing it back to back in concert is a (somewhat)
>ridiculous modern invention. It was music written to be pondered and
>privately enjoyed.

Exactly. Or just from a generic point of view, piano music
has been forced out of our lives somewhat, due to the cost and
size and volume of pianos.

>The music survives a concert performance b/c it is great, but I find
>it not the ideal setting....ditto the Goldbergs. In a way, the modern
>home stereo system is one of the best ways to enjoy Bach keyboard
>music (i.e. harpsichord/clav/piano).

I like the classical concert setting better than most rock concerts.
But it's unclear what place it has in our culture. Oh, it has its
place, but the living room is maybe the best venue I can think of.

>I think a small piano-like keyboard for the home is fine, but the
>sound of bass in most uprights is so bad.

Exactly. So they shouldn't put it on. There's no reason to
have 88 on a home instrument. That said, you can do a lot better
with 76 or 80 than anyt upright out there today with the right
approach.

>> Stuart & Sons certainly specializes in large instruments,
>> but are certainly a refreshing development, bringing to
>> market the first major innovation in piano design in a
>> very long time.
>
>I must admit I don't know anything about them.

You should definitely check it out. It'll make you want to
book a flight to Australia, I promise.

-Carl

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Carl Lumma <carl@...> wrote:

> >> One thing that can be said is that the market has favored
> >> big instruments for some reason. So pianos have gotten
> >> worse *for playing in small rooms*. You know, like where
> >> 99% of the population lives. The delicacies of the
> >> fortepiano have been lost, in the sense that the only
> >> instruments of that kind which exist today are replicas
> >> or restored versions of antiques. There is no modern
> >> fortepiano, and the upright is a poor proxy.
> >
> >This is one facet of the sad fact that the old German ideal of
> >'Hausmusik' has declined.... the WTC was written for this ideal, and
> >the idea of playing it back to back in concert is a (somewhat)
> >ridiculous modern invention. It was music written to be pondered and
> >privately enjoyed.
>
> Exactly. Or just from a generic point of view, piano music
> has been forced out of our lives somewhat, due to the cost and
> size and volume of pianos.

It remains, sadly, a badge of moneyed families to have a piano and
provide piano lessons. Not sad for me, as a piano teacher, I sure
benefit, but sad for the overall cultural availability of music education.

> >The music survives a concert performance b/c it is great, but I find
> >it not the ideal setting....ditto the Goldbergs. In a way, the modern
> >home stereo system is one of the best ways to enjoy Bach keyboard
> >music (i.e. harpsichord/clav/piano).
>
> I like the classical concert setting better than most rock concerts.
> But it's unclear what place it has in our culture. Oh, it has its
> place, but the living room is maybe the best venue I can think of.
>
> >I think a small piano-like keyboard for the home is fine, but the
> >sound of bass in most uprights is so bad.
>
> Exactly. So they shouldn't put it on. There's no reason to
> have 88 on a home instrument.

Trouble is, one cuts out an awful lot of repertoire that way, more so
cutting out bass than treble...I have 85 keys on my grand, and I
couldn't think of a single passage that wasn't playable, until I read
through 'Reflets dans L'eau' from Debussy Images I...it goes up to the
top Ab.

> That said, you can do a lot better
> with 76 or 80 than anyt upright out there today with the right
> approach.

Do you mean rearranging the music?

I'm much less a purist here than most---if it's just acoustically
doubled octaves--why not...the great composers were all practical for
the most part, esp. during common practice. The exception where you
wouldn't want to do this would be where the chord must be in inversion
instead of having the root in bass---I couldn't handle that. Also,
it's hard to swallow Beethoven not having some of those extreme
register contrast---very high and low textures at once---Brahms too.

The opposite situation should be considered, too...there are passages
in Scarlatti that don't go beyond f'' and clearly would, given the
exposition material--on a modern instrument, why not play what
Scarlatti *would have done* had he had the range?

As for grands in the home, I think with the right room, it's
wonderful, even if boomy.

-A.

AKJ wrote...

> http://www.akjmusic.com/packages/yamaha_p200.sfArk

Yesterday I wrote to AKJ off list, but perhaps he didn't get my note.

I downloaded this a few days ago but when I try to decompress it with
sfark extractor it says it isn't a valid sfark file. I just tried to
download again, and I get the same error.

Also, when I put that link into my browser, it just displays the darn file
as *text*. I had to make a little index page with a link on it, then
save-as. The file I get is 10.9mb or 11,479,785 bytes.

Anyway, it apparently doesn't work.

Has anyone successfully downloaded & unpacked this file?

Rick

Hi Rick-

I got your note late last night, and haven't yet responded, sorry.

I'll respond here...I think Igs and Chris Bryan successfully unpacked
it. I can't speculate what's happening on your end, but perhaps I can
just zip it instead of sfArk-ing it. It'll be a larger download, but
maybe that will solve your issue(s)

Let me know if you want to try that...it might be a couple of days
before I can do it...I'm already behind on MidwestMicrfest promised
audio to a couple of people.

It seems like you are having a browser issue as well.

Best,
Aaron.

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Rick McGowan <rick@...> wrote:
>
> AKJ wrote...
>
> > http://www.akjmusic.com/packages/yamaha_p200.sfArk
>
> Yesterday I wrote to AKJ off list, but perhaps he didn't get my note.
>
> I downloaded this a few days ago but when I try to decompress it with
> sfark extractor it says it isn't a valid sfark file. I just tried to
> download again, and I get the same error.
>
> Also, when I put that link into my browser, it just displays the
darn file
> as *text*. I had to make a little index page with a link on it, then
> save-as. The file I get is 10.9mb or 11,479,785 bytes.
>
> Anyway, it apparently doesn't work.
>
> Has anyone successfully downloaded & unpacked this file?
>
> Rick
>

Hi Aaron,

In Netscape, it downloads, but in IE it hangs forever after 10.5 MB and
doesn't seem to finish.

If you could zip it that would be great. Hopefully it will work and I can
pick it up.

Still... has anyone else yet successfully downloaded and opened it?

Thanks,
Rick

Aaron,

> http://www.akjmusic.com/packages/yamaha_p200.sfArk

Never mind with the zip format. I tried a few more times, using different
browsers, and finally got a file that is larger than the one I got before,
and sfArk unpacked it with apparent success.

I am able to open the sf2 file in "sfz" soundfont player.

Just for kicks, I tried to convert it to Wusik format using Extreme Sample
Converter 3.5.1, but ESC apparently can't read this sf2 format properly.
At this time, I'm therefore unable to make a version usable with
microtuning, at least with Wusik. Not being able to convert this could be a
bug in ESC, so I'm going to report that...

Meanwhile, it sounds nice in the few minutes I've had to play with it.

Rick

>> Exactly. So they shouldn't put it on. There's no reason to
>> have 88 on a home instrument.
>
>Trouble is, one cuts out an awful lot of repertoire that way, more so
>cutting out bass than treble...I have 85 keys on my grand, and I
>couldn't think of a single passage that wasn't playable, until I read
>through 'Reflets dans L'eau' from Debussy Images I...it goes up to the
>top Ab.

I think 80 is a good number. Most keyboards are 76. Actually
if you look at sales, most keyboards today are 25.

>> That said, you can do a lot better
>> with 76 or 80 than any upright out there today with the right
>> approach.
>
>Do you mean rearranging the music?

I meant you can make that low C sound better than the low C on
any upright today and leave off the A, Bb, and B.

>Also,
>it's hard to swallow Beethoven not having some of those extreme
>register contrast---very high and low textures at once---Brahms too.

I think Beethoven's largest piano was a 6-octave broadwood... (?)

>The opposite situation should be considered, too...there are passages
>in Scarlatti that don't go beyond f'' and clearly would, given the
>exposition material--on a modern instrument, why not play what
>Scarlatti *would have done* had he had the range?

Range is good, but not when it works harm with size and cost.

>As for grands in the home, I think with the right room, it's
>wonderful, even if boomy.

Can be. Carpet is pretty much a necessity. My grandmother had
a big room with real wool wall-to-wall carpet and cherry panelling.
Her baby grand sounded fantastic in there. In my rented 2-br.,
my rented Yamaha U5 blows the doors off. Serves me right for
moving to California.

-Carl

Hi there,

When I played the 'cello some years ago now, just an ordinary student type 'cello nothing special and certainly my playing was nothing special as I was very much a beginner - but I felt that it sounded better as a result of "playing it in" (It wasn't new, but playing it more still seemed to help the sound quality). There, what I wondered is whether it is to do with the sound vibrations themselves traveling through the wood. The idea would be that as the sound travels through the wood it deforms it slightly then the wood springs back again. Over a period of time with that happening many times then you would expect the wood to be affected in some way, mechanically, wood fibres just slightly shifting about to let the sound at many frequencies travel through the wood more easily, at any rate loads of movement at the molecular level surely - so making the wood more resonant and richer in sound e.g. richer in the higher harmonics.

It could be tested, do old pianos sound better if they have been played a lot than they do if they have been just kept in someones shed or seldom played for a century? I have a feeling they might. And it might also depend on how they are played as well if it is mechanical changes due to the sound vibrations passing through the wood, maybe a good player might end up with a better piano as a result of the wide range of note voumes they play for instance, e.g. if they play lots of pianissimo and fortissimo type notes then that may have a different effect from an amateur who tends to play with much less of a dynamic range plonk plonk plonk style.

Even the rhythms played could affect it as well if it is mechanical and to do with the way the fibres respond to movement of the wood..

Just another idea to enter into the mix.

Robert

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Rick McGowan <rick@...> wrote:
>
> Aaron,
>
> > http://www.akjmusic.com/packages/yamaha_p200.sfArk
>
> Never mind with the zip format. I tried a few more times, using
different
> browsers, and finally got a file that is larger than the one I got
before,
> and sfArk unpacked it with apparent success.

Great!

> I am able to open the sf2 file in "sfz" soundfont player.
>
> Just for kicks, I tried to convert it to Wusik format using Extreme
Sample
> Converter 3.5.1, but ESC apparently can't read this sf2 format
properly.
> At this time, I'm therefore unable to make a version usable with
> microtuning, at least with Wusik. Not being able to convert this
could be a
> bug in ESC, so I'm going to report that...

That's too bad--I know nothing about Windows or Mac soundfont engines
being a Linux user myself. On the Linux platform, FluidSynth accepts
tuning tables, which can be prepared by Scala, or as I have done,
since I didn't want to open scala every time I wanted a new scale, i
converted all the .scl files in the archive to .fluid files,using a
custom Python script, and they are ready to loadat any time.

I'd be surprised (or not) to learn that there wasn't a
tuning-table-able soundfont engine for Windows...anyone?

> Meanwhile, it sounds nice in the few minutes I've had to play with it.

Glad you like it....hopefully, we can get you doing 15-edo with it
sometime.

-AKJ

HI Aaron --

> I'd be surprised (or not) to learn that there wasn't a
> tuning-table-able soundfont engine for Windows...anyone?

Yeah, I think there is, but I can't recall it off-hand!

In any case Wusik has ".tun" file support, and usually works well for me,
but it has its own format and can't use .sf2 files... So I use Extreme
Sample Converter to convert the soundfonts, only in this case, it can't
handle the file. I did post a question to the ESC support guy, but have no
answer as yet.

Rick

At 09:44 AM 12/6/2007, you wrote:
>HI Aaron --
>
>> I'd be surprised (or not) to learn that there wasn't a
>> tuning-table-able soundfont engine for Windows...anyone?
>
>Yeah, I think there is, but I can't recall it off-hand!
>
>In any case Wusik has ".tun" file support, and usually works well for me,
>but it has its own format and can't use .sf2 files... So I use Extreme
>Sample Converter to convert the soundfonts, only in this case, it can't
>handle the file. I did post a question to the ESC support guy, but have no
>answer as yet.
>
> Rick

Rick- is the piano that comes with Wusik any good?

Did you know you can get this 560 MB piano for $10

http://www.wusik.com/w/extra_soundsets.html

or this 1.8 GB piano for a small amount of money (5 free
credits when you register, so you only have to buy 3)

http://www.wusik.com/go.php?cat=onlysounds&mag=019

?

-Carl

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "Aaron Krister
Johnson" <aaron@...> wrote:

> ...

on metatuning

A couple of days ago, Carl asked:

> Rick- is the piano that comes with Wusik any good?

Which one? :-) It seems like Wusik comes with several pianos, including
Essenfelder; Fritz Dobbert; M Schwartzmann... I don't know if they're based
on one source or different sources. If you'd like to hear them I could
probably come up with an example.

There is also a Wusik piano called "Christmas Piano" that was put up for
free, and I think mentioned on the Wusik forum a couple of years ago.

As to their quality, well, I don't know, really. It depends on what you're
looking for, I guess.

> Did you know you can get this 560 MB piano for $10
> http://www.wusik.com/w/extra_soundsets.html
> or this 1.8 GB piano for a small amount of money (5 free
> credits when you register, so you only have to buy 3)
> http://www.wusik.com/go.php?cat=onlysounds&mag=019

Thanks. I haven't investigated a lot of the add-on sounds for Wusik.

Anyway, I'll leave this thread for now. The point of the exercise was to
try out AKJ's piano, and I was hoping to get it working with Wusik...

Rick