Re: piano

>>Why not improve the piano rather than sending it to the farm?
>
>Because a good synth is a lot cheaper than a cheap piano.

For one, you're comparing apples and oranges. For two, there are very few
synths I would call good, and hardly a keyboard controller I would call
acceptable. I'll be spending over $6000 for my midi keyboard and synth in
the next 2 years.

Pianos need not be expensive as they are. Stupidity is a large part of the
cost. Aging wooden soundboards for 2 years when $5 worth of fiberglass
gives better sound and lasts twice as long? Making crappy pianos (anybody
own a Baldsin Acrosonic?) with 8 octaves when for the same price you could
have a passable instrument with 5?

Carl

The main reason for not choosing a synthesizer over a piano is that
listening to a soundboard and listening to a loudspeaker are very different
experiences.

While I am also extremely doubtful that carbon fibre or fibreglass is ever
going to be the basis of a good soundboard*, there is one quality about
traditional keyboard construction that I really do not want to give up:
keys made of natural materials. I have yet to encounter a set of plastic
keys which are satisfactory in texture or weight when compared to the San
Franciso-built Broadwood upright with which I grew up. I once contacted
Scott Hacklemann about the possibility of cannibalizing a midi keyboard and
mounting it under one of his hardwood keyboards. The matter got no further
than that, but it'd be interested in hearing if anyone has tried something
along these lines.
__
*Not to mention that the development costs for a carbon fibre soundboard
would be astronomical.

>By the way, with computer technology,
>now we *can* feed the piano some hay
>*and* watch it eat!

NO! The piano is an acoustic instrument.

On Tue, 2 Mar 1999, Carl Lumma wrote:

> From: Carl Lumma <clumma@nni.com>
>
> >>Why not improve the piano rather than sending it to the farm?
> >
> >Because a good synth is a lot cheaper than a cheap piano.
>
> For one, you're comparing apples and oranges.

Your average kid who wants some keyboard-style instrument to play with is
going to make a very real decision between a synth and a piano, despite
the obvious differences between them.

> and hardly a keyboard controller I would call acceptable.

Hardware user interfaces in general are rather pathetic, mostly because
electrical engineers and programmers don't view interfaces as all that
important. I'm unconvinced that there's a good technical reason for synth
keyboards to not have good action on them, but I'm not holding my breath
for improvements either.

> Pianos need not be expensive as they are. Stupidity is a large part of the
> cost. Aging wooden soundboards for 2 years when $5 worth of fiberglass
> gives better sound and lasts twice as long? Making crappy pianos (anybody
> own a Baldsin Acrosonic?) with 8 octaves when for the same price you could
> have a passable instrument with 5?

Has anyone made a serious effort to market an improved piano? And if not,
why not? It might even be possible to make some money selling them.

-Bram

>The main reason for not choosing a synthesizer over a piano is that
>listening to a soundboard and listening to a loudspeaker are very
different >experiences.

Ideally it would be the only reason. But I have yet to hear a convincing
struck-string timbre from a synthesizer. Then there is the resonance
between strings. Generalmusic tried to model this on the Pro2, but failed.
Then there is control. A properly-regulated piano gives unmatched control
over volume and *attack characteristics*. Most of this stuff should be
possible on a synth, but it just hasn't been done.

>While I am also extremely doubtful that carbon fibre or fibreglass is ever
>going to be the basis of a good soundboard

The lighter and more rigid, the better. The more resistant to humidity
changes, the better. Even alluminum makes a fantastic soundboard, if
you've ever heard a Challis instrument.

>I have yet to encounter a set of plastic keys which are satisfactory in
>texture or weight when compared to the San Franciso-built Broadwood
upright >with which I grew up.

Plastic keys? I know of no piano ever produced with plastic keys. The
boys at DS Keyboards experimented, but found wood to be the best material.
If you mean key tops, i.e. plastic v. ivory, I don't think there's really a
significant difference.

>Not to mention that the development costs for a carbon fibre soundboard
>would be astronomical.

How do you figure? Carbon fiber is inexpensive, and soundboard design is
trivial.

>Has anyone made a serious effort to market an improved piano? And if not,
>why not? It might even be possible to make some money selling them.

Pianos don't make very much money, even when you mass produce them. But
I'm sure one could do alright. Marketing would have to be tactful.

Carl