Yahoo Tuning Groups Ultimate Backup tuning acoustic piano "latency"

Recently Aaron Hunt and I had an aside about latency
in MIDI controllers, and from that came the notion of
latency in acoustic piano actions. Here's some more
info on that:

http://www.ofai.at/cgi-bin/get-tr?paper=oefai-tr-2003-15.pdf

They test hammer velocities up to 7 m/s on three
pianos, in both stacatto and legato keystrokes.

The first thing to note is that above about 2 m/s,
the note sounds before the key bottoms out. The
free flight of the hammer takes < 5ms above 1 m/s,
and < 2ms above 2 m/s.

Below 1 m/s, the latency goes up to about 20ms.
The volume of the instrument goes down drastically
with these hammer velocities, and it's safe to say
that the vast majority of all playing takes place
above 1 m/s.

All three pianos perform pretty similarly. Their
measurement methodology seems very good, and is by
far the best I could find on the issue. They cite

http://www.speech.kth.se/music/5_lectures/askenflt/keybott.html

, where the figure of 1ms is given for a performance-
regulated instrument.

Other tidbits:

* Legato playing is only good for up to about 4 m/s
of hammer velocity.

* In my lit. search I noticed that there seems to be
a consensus that touch quality on the keys can effect
vibrations in the hammer shank that in turn affect the
way the hammer strikes the string and finally the tone
produced. In other words, pianophiles who swear that
touch affects tone aren't crazy and aren't just hearing
subtle rhythmic cues. One illustration is here:
http://www.speech.kth.se/music/5_lectures/askenflt/hammres.html

Later,

-Carl

🔗threesixesinarow <CACCOLA@NET1PLUS.COM>

The lead to Galembo and Askenfelt's Dec. 2006 Piano
Technicians Journal article about perceiving notes
in sequence, "Perception and Control of Piano Tone"
says: "In Part One (see the August 2006 issue of the
Journal), we addressed the question of whether the
pianist can control timbre independently of loudness
on single tones. We asked pianists to listed to
recordings that they believed demonstrated such
effects. At a distance from the piano, the pianists
were unable to do so at a rate higher than simple
randomness."

Clark

🔗Carl Lumma <clumma@yahoo.com>

🔗Aaron Andrew Hunt <aahunt@h-pi.com>

Hi Carl.

Good work finding this! We should consider how this pertains to
combination acoustic-electronic keyboard actions, such as the
Groven piano project: http://www.wmich.edu/mus-theo/groven/
as this appears to be the most promising path for acoustic
microtonal pianos. A master keyboard and many soundboards
is physically a good practical solution to the many problems posed
by large numbers of strings and hammer action on a single
soundboard. This idea was suggested some time ago by
Patrick Ozzard-Low. One imagines a giant instrument cabinet which
houses many soundboards, controlled by one master keyboard-
in essence a microtonal piano which operates like a modern
pipe organ, ecxept that the keys are velocity sensing. If the key
mechanism is to have similar characteristics to the modern
piano, then the results of studies like this one certainly pertain.

Personally, I imagine a Tonal Plexus keyboard having velocity sensing
(changeover button-type switch) keys controlling many soundboards
having strings actuated by normal piano actions. Since button
actions have extremely different response characteristics from
lever actions, the task would be to find ways to match timings of
the various parameters to such data as found in this study, or as
would be obtained from the actual action of the gigantic instrument.
Other actions like the hall effect action of Terpstra's keyboard, or
normal dual contact actions found in most velocity sensing MIDI
keyboards could also be calibrated. As the 'bottom key' timing has an
observed effect, perhaps aftertouch would even play a role.

Aaron Hunt
H-Pi Instruments

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <clumma@...> wrote:
>
> Recently Aaron Hunt and I had an aside about latency
> in MIDI controllers, and from that came the notion of
> latency in acoustic piano actions. Here's some more
> info on that:
>
> http://www.ofai.at/cgi-bin/get-tr?paper=oefai-tr-2003-15.pdf
>
> They test hammer velocities up to 7 m/s on three
> pianos, in both stacatto and legato keystrokes.
>
> The first thing to note is that above about 2 m/s,
> the note sounds before the key bottoms out. The
> free flight of the hammer takes < 5ms above 1 m/s,
> and < 2ms above 2 m/s.
>
> Below 1 m/s, the latency goes up to about 20ms.
> The volume of the instrument goes down drastically
> with these hammer velocities, and it's safe to say
> that the vast majority of all playing takes place
> above 1 m/s.
>
> All three pianos perform pretty similarly. Their
> measurement methodology seems very good, and is by
> far the best I could find on the issue. They cite
>
> http://www.speech.kth.se/music/5_lectures/askenflt/keybott.html
>
> , where the figure of 1ms is given for a performance-
> regulated instrument.
>
> Other tidbits:
>
> * Legato playing is only good for up to about 4 m/s
> of hammer velocity.
>
> * In my lit. search I noticed that there seems to be
> a consensus that touch quality on the keys can effect
> vibrations in the hammer shank that in turn affect the
> way the hammer strikes the string and finally the tone
> produced. In other words, pianophiles who swear that
> touch affects tone aren't crazy and aren't just hearing
> subtle rhythmic cues. One illustration is here:
> http://www.speech.kth.se/music/5_lectures/askenflt/hammres.html
>
> Later,
>
> -Carl
>

🔗Carl Lumma <clumma@yahoo.com>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Aaron Andrew Hunt" <aahunt@...> wrote:
> Hi Carl.
>
> Good work finding this! We should consider how this pertains to
> combination acoustic-electronic keyboard actions, such as the
> Groven piano project: http://www.wmich.edu/mus-theo/groven/
> as this appears to be the most promising path for acoustic
> microtonal pianos.

Using multiple instruments? I prefer the single-instrument
approach (where 31-ET is possible in a single-hand-reachable
octave).

> A master keyboard and many soundboards
> is physically a good practical solution to the many problems posed
> by large numbers of strings and hammer action on a single
> soundboard.

What's the problem with lots of strings on a single soundboard?

> This idea was suggested some time ago by
> Patrick Ozzard-Low. One imagines a giant instrument cabinet which
> houses many soundboards, controlled by one master keyboard-
> in essence a microtonal piano which operates like a modern
> pipe organ, ecxept that the keys are velocity sensing.

I had this idea in 1995, and I'm sure I wasn't the first.

> If the key
> mechanism is to have similar characteristics to the modern
> piano, then the results of studies like this one certainly pertain.

Brent Gillespie has modeled the piano action and implemented
it on (larger-than-scale) solenoid-controlled keys. His
thesis should be the starting point for anyone attempting
to make an electric/onic piano-like keyboard controller.
If Yamaha, Roland et al had any brains at all, they'd be
fighting over who gets to hire him.

> Personally, I imagine a Tonal Plexus keyboard having velocity
> sensing
> (changeover button-type switch) keys controlling many soundboards
> having strings actuated by normal piano actions. Since button
> actions have extremely different response characteristics from
> lever actions, the task would be to find ways to match timings of
> the various parameters to such data as found in this study, or as
> would be obtained from the actual action of the gigantic
> instrument.

See above.

> Other actions like the hall effect action of Terpstra's keyboard,

I prefer to call it Horvath's keyboard. The Hall effect does
seem to be one of the best ways to do action-tracking.

> or normal dual contact actions found in most velocity sensing MIDI
> keyboards could also be calibrated. As the 'bottom key' timing has
> an observed effect, perhaps aftertouch would even play a role.

Two contacts don't give much of data. Yamaha uses optical
hammer tracking in their latest line of Disklavier grands.
Paul Vandervoort is using optical tracking on his Janko
keyboard.

-Carl

🔗Carl Lumma <clumma@yahoo.com>

By the way, a good way to figure out if hammer shank
vibrations make a difference in sound would be to compare
a traditional piano to one with non-wooden shanks.
At NAMM 2005, Kawai demonstrated ... I think carbon fiber
shanks, claiming they eliminated unwanted flex. I didn't
much like the way those instruments played, but that was
possible due to other factors.

Also somebody told me in the mid '90s that Yamaha had
experimented with aluminum shanks, but gave it up. Don't
know if that's true.

-Carl

> > The lead to Galembo and Askenfelt's Dec. 2006 Piano
> > Technicians Journal article about perceiving notes
> > in sequence, "Perception and Control of Piano Tone"
> > says: "In Part One (see the August 2006 issue of the
> > Journal), we addressed the question of whether the
> > pianist can control timbre independently of loudness
> > on single tones. We asked pianists to listed to
> > recordings that they believed demonstrated such
> > effects. At a distance from the piano, the pianists
> > were unable to do so at a rate higher than simple
> > randomness."
>
> What were the pianists unable to do? By "At a distance
> from the piano", are they referring to the fact that
> they used recordings?
>
> -Carl
>

🔗Aaron Andrew Hunt <aahunt@h-pi.com>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <clumma@...> wrote:

> Using multiple instruments?

One gigantic super-instrument with multiple soundboards.

> I prefer the single-instrument
> approach (where 31-ET is possible in a single-hand-reachable
> octave).

I guess you mean a-la Ban and Salinas, or in the manner of the
Clavimusicum Omnitonum? It's OK if you are happy with 31 keys.

> > A master keyboard and many soundboards
> > is physically a good practical solution to the many problems posed
> > by large numbers of strings and hammer action on a single
> > soundboard.
>
> What's the problem with lots of strings on a single soundboard?

1) The physical space becomes too crowded.
2) A single frame can't support so many strings.

I remember Patrick Ozzard-Low wrote some things about this in
his 21st C Orchestral Instruments, and Cris Forster has some
relevant research.

> > If the key
> > mechanism is to have similar characteristics to the modern
> > piano, then the results of studies like this one certainly pertain.
>
> Brent Gillespie has modeled the piano action and implemented
> it on (larger-than-scale) solenoid-controlled keys. His
> thesis should be the starting point for anyone attempting
> to make an electric/onic piano-like keyboard controller.
> If Yamaha, Roland et al had any brains at all, they'd be
> fighting over who gets to hire him.

I know from my time as a pipe organ tuner that solenoid velocity
sensing for pneumatic action was toyed with many years ago in the
organ world. I don't have citations or names on that one, though.

>
> Two contacts don't give much of data. Yamaha uses optical
> hammer tracking in their latest line of Disklavier grands.
> Paul Vandervoort is using optical tracking on his Janko
> keyboard.
>

Yes, the problem with this whole thing is money. So many high
quality sensors becomes prohibitively expensive. But I guess as
we're describing an instrument that is prohibitively expensive
anyway, why note descibe the ideal. So let's have optical sensors
on every key. What else?

Aaron Hunt
H-Pi Instruments

🔗Carl Lumma <clumma@yahoo.com>

> > I prefer the single-instrument
> > approach (where 31-ET is possible in a single-hand-reachable
> > octave).
>
> I guess you mean a-la Ban and Salinas, or in the manner of the
> Clavimusicum Omnitonum? It's OK if you are happy with 31 keys.

They are most definitely not OK. I mean in the manner of
Norman Henry.

> > Brent Gillespie has modeled the piano action and implemented
> > it on (larger-than-scale) solenoid-controlled keys. His
> > thesis should be the starting point for anyone attempting
> > to make an electric/onic piano-like keyboard controller.
> > If Yamaha, Roland et al had any brains at all, they'd be
> > fighting over who gets to hire him.
>
> I know from my time as a pipe organ tuner that solenoid velocity
> sensing for pneumatic action was toyed with many years ago in the
> organ world. I don't have citations or names on that one, though.

In Gillespie's mockup, the solenoid was the feedback
device. Maybe the sensing device too, I don't know.

> > Two contacts don't give much of data. Yamaha uses optical
> > hammer tracking in their latest line of Disklavier grands.
> > Paul Vandervoort is using optical tracking on his Janko
> > keyboard.
>
> Yes, the problem with this whole thing is money. So many high
> quality sensors becomes prohibitively expensive. But I guess as
> we're describing an instrument that is prohibitively expensive
> anyway, why note descibe the ideal. So let's have optical sensors
> on every key. What else?

Starr Labs uses piezo (he won't say, but it's pretty obviously
the case).

-Carl

🔗Tom Dent <stringph@gmail.com>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "threesixesinarow" <CACCOLA@...> wrote:
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <clumma@> wrote:
> >
> > there seems to be
> > a consensus that touch quality on the keys can effect
> > vibrations in the hammer shank

Sounds improbable, except in the sense of the shank flexing slightly
under acceleration, which it must no matter how the key is played.
But how could you affect with your finger the vibrations in the shank
before it hits the string, when all that the key can transmit is a
velocity (and possibly, when considered over a longer period, an
acceleration)?

A key could indeed transmit vibration, but only if it was coming
loose...

Remember too that the hammer decouples completely from the rest of
the mechanism a short time before it hits the string.

> > that in turn affect the
> > way the hammer strikes the string and finally the tone
> > produced.

Mumbo-jumbo, unless you can put forward some way that different
pianists playing with the same dynamic could produce consistently
different pre-vibrations.

> > In other words, pianophiles who swear that
> > touch affects tone aren't crazy and aren't just hearing
> > subtle rhythmic cues.

Unless you give some objective definition of 'touch' this whole
question is meaningless. Good players on well-regulated instruments
are able to achieve extremely fine dynamic and rhythmic gradations
and the chief weapon in their armoury is keeping finger contact with
the key to control its velocity. To me, that IS 'touch', which is
nothing more or less than being in control of the dynamic and timing
of every note.

Since piano timbre is strongly correlated with dynamic, good dynamic
control automatically implies better (i.e. more artistically
appropriate) distribution of timbre both in chords and in lines.
Piano-playing is not about producing more or less beautiful
individual tones, it is about choosing, out of the enormous possible
correlated dynamic/timbral range latent behind each of the 88 keys,
the right level for each note within a musical context.

No need to invent stories about special finger properties influencing
shank vibrations in some occult fashion...

Of course if you *imagine* your fingers covered with velvet pads or
some such nonsense it may help you psychologically, to hold them in
such a way as to maintain key contact and produce a more musical
result - because, say, you can then play this or that chord more
quietly and evenly and together.

> > One illustration is here:
> > http://www.speech.kth.se/music/5_lectures/askenflt/hammres.html
> >

What that illustrates is nothing to do with player-related 'touch' -
it shows that different pianos have hammer shanks that vibrate
differently. (No surprise there)

"Although the observations suggest that the hammer can make a rubbing
motion against the string during contact, it has not yet been shown
that such a motion takes place. Even if it does, it remains to be
shown that a motion of this kind could influence the string
excitation and hence the tone quality."

"Interestingly, the magnitude of this shift in timing with level was
about the same for an untrained subject as for a professional
pianist..."

Controlling the absolute timbre of individual tones is surely a wild
goose chase compared to the work that everyone can do on controlling
artistically the relative dynamics of different notes in a piece. If
you listen to great classical pianists the vital thing they use is
playing on several different dynamic levels at the same time. This
requires, crucially, consistency within each level, which is what is
so hard to do with your fingers...

~~~T~~~

🔗Ozan Yarman <ozanyarman@ozanyarman.com>

Jolly good show, Tom.

Oz.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Tom Dent" <stringph@gmail.com>
To: <tuning@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: 13 Nisan 2007 Cuma 23:48
Subject: [tuning] Re: acoustic piano "latency"

> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "threesixesinarow" <CACCOLA@...> wrote:
> >
> > --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <clumma@> wrote:
> > >
> > > there seems to be
> > > a consensus that touch quality on the keys can effect
> > > vibrations in the hammer shank
>
> Sounds improbable, except in the sense of the shank flexing slightly
> under acceleration, which it must no matter how the key is played.
> But how could you affect with your finger the vibrations in the shank
> before it hits the string, when all that the key can transmit is a
> velocity (and possibly, when considered over a longer period, an
> acceleration)?
>
> A key could indeed transmit vibration, but only if it was coming
> loose...
>
> Remember too that the hammer decouples completely from the rest of
> the mechanism a short time before it hits the string.
>
> > > that in turn affect the
> > > way the hammer strikes the string and finally the tone
> > > produced.
>
> Mumbo-jumbo, unless you can put forward some way that different
> pianists playing with the same dynamic could produce consistently
> different pre-vibrations.
>
> > > In other words, pianophiles who swear that
> > > touch affects tone aren't crazy and aren't just hearing
> > > subtle rhythmic cues.
>
> Unless you give some objective definition of 'touch' this whole
> question is meaningless. Good players on well-regulated instruments
> are able to achieve extremely fine dynamic and rhythmic gradations
> and the chief weapon in their armoury is keeping finger contact with
> the key to control its velocity. To me, that IS 'touch', which is
> nothing more or less than being in control of the dynamic and timing
> of every note.
>
> Since piano timbre is strongly correlated with dynamic, good dynamic
> control automatically implies better (i.e. more artistically
> appropriate) distribution of timbre both in chords and in lines.
> Piano-playing is not about producing more or less beautiful
> individual tones, it is about choosing, out of the enormous possible
> correlated dynamic/timbral range latent behind each of the 88 keys,
> the right level for each note within a musical context.
>
> No need to invent stories about special finger properties influencing
> shank vibrations in some occult fashion...
>
> Of course if you *imagine* your fingers covered with velvet pads or
> some such nonsense it may help you psychologically, to hold them in
> such a way as to maintain key contact and produce a more musical
> result - because, say, you can then play this or that chord more
> quietly and evenly and together.
>
> > > One illustration is here:
> > > http://www.speech.kth.se/music/5_lectures/askenflt/hammres.html
> > >
>
> What that illustrates is nothing to do with player-related 'touch' -
> it shows that different pianos have hammer shanks that vibrate
> differently. (No surprise there)
>
> "Although the observations suggest that the hammer can make a rubbing
> motion against the string during contact, it has not yet been shown
> that such a motion takes place. Even if it does, it remains to be
> shown that a motion of this kind could influence the string
> excitation and hence the tone quality."
>
>
> See also
> http://www.speech.kth.se/music/5_lectures/askenflt/keybott.html
>
> "Interestingly, the magnitude of this shift in timing with level was
> about the same for an untrained subject as for a professional
> pianist..."
>
> Controlling the absolute timbre of individual tones is surely a wild
> goose chase compared to the work that everyone can do on controlling
> artistically the relative dynamics of different notes in a piece. If
> you listen to great classical pianists the vital thing they use is
> playing on several different dynamic levels at the same time. This
> requires, crucially, consistency within each level, which is what is
> so hard to do with your fingers...
>
> ~~~T~~~
>
>

🔗Aaron Andrew Hunt <aahunt@h-pi.com>

Hi Tom.

I guess you must be a pianist? I'm curious because
the technique you describe of keeping fingers on the keys
sounds much more like harpsichord or organ technique
to me, where sustain requires a key held down, rather
than piano technique, in which the hands are often leaping
around quite a bit, the tones being sustained through use
of the damper pedal. When I studied piano I was often told
that my fingers were too "stuck to the keys" because I have
contrapuntal organ technique, not piano technique. True
that playing contrapuntal music on piano requires a similar
technique, but most literature for piano isn't strictly
contrapuntal.

Anyway, quite right about musicians playing actual music.
Measuring this or that key in isolation ends up being pretty
meaningless. Still, my feeling is that these kinds of studies
can help towards the design of better interfaces for electro-
acoustic hybrid instruments. Then again, such studies might
be a complete waste of time. The music that follows after
the instruments are there is what matters most.

Yours,
Aaron Hunt
H-Pi Instruments

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Tom Dent" <stringph@...> wrote:
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "threesixesinarow" <CACCOLA@> wrote:
> >
> > --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <clumma@> wrote:
> > >
> > > there seems to be
> > > a consensus that touch quality on the keys can effect
> > > vibrations in the hammer shank
>
> Sounds improbable, except in the sense of the shank flexing slightly
> under acceleration, which it must no matter how the key is played.
> But how could you affect with your finger the vibrations in the shank
> before it hits the string, when all that the key can transmit is a
> velocity (and possibly, when considered over a longer period, an
> acceleration)?
>
> A key could indeed transmit vibration, but only if it was coming
> loose...
>
> Remember too that the hammer decouples completely from the rest of
> the mechanism a short time before it hits the string.
>
> > > that in turn affect the
> > > way the hammer strikes the string and finally the tone
> > > produced.
>
> Mumbo-jumbo, unless you can put forward some way that different
> pianists playing with the same dynamic could produce consistently
> different pre-vibrations.
>
> > > In other words, pianophiles who swear that
> > > touch affects tone aren't crazy and aren't just hearing
> > > subtle rhythmic cues.
>
> Unless you give some objective definition of 'touch' this whole
> question is meaningless. Good players on well-regulated instruments
> are able to achieve extremely fine dynamic and rhythmic gradations
> and the chief weapon in their armoury is keeping finger contact with
> the key to control its velocity. To me, that IS 'touch', which is
> nothing more or less than being in control of the dynamic and timing
> of every note.
>
> Since piano timbre is strongly correlated with dynamic, good dynamic
> control automatically implies better (i.e. more artistically
> appropriate) distribution of timbre both in chords and in lines.
> Piano-playing is not about producing more or less beautiful
> individual tones, it is about choosing, out of the enormous possible
> correlated dynamic/timbral range latent behind each of the 88 keys,
> the right level for each note within a musical context.
>
> No need to invent stories about special finger properties influencing
> shank vibrations in some occult fashion...
>
> Of course if you *imagine* your fingers covered with velvet pads or
> some such nonsense it may help you psychologically, to hold them in
> such a way as to maintain key contact and produce a more musical
> result - because, say, you can then play this or that chord more
> quietly and evenly and together.
>
> > > One illustration is here:
> > > http://www.speech.kth.se/music/5_lectures/askenflt/hammres.html
> > >
>
> What that illustrates is nothing to do with player-related 'touch' -
> it shows that different pianos have hammer shanks that vibrate
> differently. (No surprise there)
>
> "Although the observations suggest that the hammer can make a rubbing
> motion against the string during contact, it has not yet been shown
> that such a motion takes place. Even if it does, it remains to be
> shown that a motion of this kind could influence the string
> excitation and hence the tone quality."
>
>
> See also
> http://www.speech.kth.se/music/5_lectures/askenflt/keybott.html
>
> "Interestingly, the magnitude of this shift in timing with level was
> about the same for an untrained subject as for a professional
> pianist..."
>
> Controlling the absolute timbre of individual tones is surely a wild
> goose chase compared to the work that everyone can do on controlling
> artistically the relative dynamics of different notes in a piece. If
> you listen to great classical pianists the vital thing they use is
> playing on several different dynamic levels at the same time. This
> requires, crucially, consistency within each level, which is what is
> so hard to do with your fingers...
>
> ~~~T~~~
>

🔗Carl Lumma <clumma@yahoo.com>

> > > there seems to be
> > > a consensus that touch quality on the keys can effect
> > > vibrations in the hammer shank
>
> Sounds improbable, except in the sense of the shank flexing
> slightly under acceleration, which it must no matter how the
> key is played.
> But how could you affect with your finger the vibrations in
> the shank before it hits the string, when all that the key
> can transmit is a velocity (and possibly, when considered
> over a longer period, an acceleration)?

It contributes an acceleration, and the mechanical properties
of the hammer take over.

> > > that in turn affect the
> > > way the hammer strikes the string and finally the tone
> > > produced.
>
> Mumbo-jumbo, unless you can put forward some way that different
> pianists playing with the same dynamic could produce consistently
> different pre-vibrations.

Did you follow the link I provided with the measurements of
this? The link to tone is however unclear.

> > > One illustration is here:
> > > http://www.speech.kth.se/music/5_lectures/askenflt/hammres.html
>
> What that illustrates is nothing to do with player-related 'touch' -
> it shows that different pianos have hammer shanks that vibrate
> differently. (No surprise there)

There is an illustration there. You actually have to read the
article to get the full details

http://www.speech.kth.se/music/5_lectures/askenflt/motions.html

> "Although the observations suggest that the hammer can make a
> rubbing motion against the string during contact, it has not
> yet been shown that such a motion takes place. Even if it does,
> it remains to be shown that a motion of this kind could
> influence the string excitation and hence the tone quality."

I must have seen a half-dozen papers describing touch-induced
differences in hammer-string contact patterns, but I didn't
look at any of them closely because it wasn't the topic I was
searching for.

-Carl

🔗Carl Lumma <clumma@yahoo.com>

🔗threesixesinarow <CACCOLA@NET1PLUS.COM>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <clumma@...> wrote:

> > > The lead to Galembo and Askenfelt's Dec. 2006
> > > Piano Technicians Journal article about perceiving
> > > notes in sequence, "Perception and Control of
> > > Piano Tone" says: "In Part One (see the August
> > > 2006 issue of the Journal), we addressed the
> > > question of whether the pianist can control timbre
> > > independently of loudness on single tones. We
> > > asked pianists to listed to recordings that they
> > > believed demonstrated such effects. At a distance
> > > from the piano, the pianists were unable to do so
> > > at a rate higher than simple randomness."
>
> > What were the pianists unable to do? By "At a
> > distance from the piano", are they referring to the
> > fact that they used recordings?

> By the way, a good way to figure out if hammer shank
> vibrations make a difference in sound would be to compare
> a traditional piano to one with non-wooden shanks...

I can't find that issue, as well as another one with
an article with photos (here's some
comments from its author about the first
http://www.ptg.org/pipermail/pianotech/2006-September/195202.html).
It's easy to hear pitches bouncing shanks off the rest
rail or their cushions (something like the old story
from the article you linked,
http://americanhistory.si.edu/collections/object.cfm?
key=35&objkey=215)
and you can engineer shanks to have more predictable
weight and bending stiffness than wooden ones (two
samples from same action, from a manufacturer considered
first-class at the time, averaged about 0.03mm different
deflections from the same big weight at the same place,
http://i30.photobucket.com/albums/c348/mireut/shankmeas.jpg),
but the shank is just one part of the assembly.

Clark

🔗Carl Lumma <clumma@yahoo.com>

> (here's some
> comments from its author about the first
> http://www.ptg.org/pipermail/pianotech/2006-September/195202.html).

Thanks, Clark! Key paragraph:
""One final comment. The effect of hammershank vibration can
be observed by the effect it has on causing hammer head to
move (the shank/head glue joint is effectively rigid). This
can change the contact footprint (scuffing). A 4ms contact,
for instance, corresponds to a 250Hz cycle, so the shank
vibration frequencies are definitely in the range where about
1 cycle or more occurs during contact with the string. If the
amplitude is large enough and friction with the hammerhead
and string is low enough you can typically expect motion in
the order of 1mm during contact for a loud bow with a flexing
hammershank. This scuffing we have observed with high speed
imaging. We have also confirmed the frequencies with strain
gages mounted on the top of the shank. All during regular
playing of the key, not artificially clamped and driven
hammershanks.""

-Carl

🔗Tom Dent <stringph@gmail.com>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Aaron Andrew Hunt" <aahunt@...> wrote:
>
> Hi Tom.
>
> I guess you must be a pianist?

I play piano, harpsichord and clavichord

> I'm curious because
> the technique you describe of keeping fingers on the keys

If you read what I wrote, and think a little about it, you will
discover what I meant was maintaining contact BEFORE the hammer
strikes, and using it to control dynamic. I.e. playing 'all the way
down'. What you do after the sound has begun is an entirely different
question.

> piano technique, in which the hands are often leaping
> around quite a bit, the tones being sustained through use
> of the damper pedal.

Er, I know that, but it only applies to certain types of piece.

> most literature for piano isn't strictly
> contrapuntal.

But most literature for any instrument *does* require precise control
of note lengths: on the piano it's usually unacceptable to use only
the pedal to control duration. (Though that's what many pianists
often end up doing, regardless of composers' articulation or pedal
markings.) And actually a lot of 'Romantic' piano music is quite
contrapuntal, in the sense of having different lines going on
simultaneously, which often requires just as much 'finger-twisting'
as say Bach. See Charles Rosen on Chopin.

To get back somewhere near topic, precise details of tuning can and
do have a big influence on timbre. Eg
http://www.speech.kth.se/music/5_lectures/weinreic/mistuned.html

- a tiny 'mistuning' between two strings can strongly influence the
way the note develops... but just a little more 'mistuning' and you
get beats and the whole thing starts to sound ratty.

"it was observed by Kirk in 1959 that a carefully and competently
tuned piano had the strings of the trichords tuned slightly
differently by an amount that appeared to vary randomly from note to
note."

~~~T~~~

🔗Aaron Andrew Hunt <aahunt@h-pi.com>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Tom Dent" <stringph@...> wrote:
> But most literature for any instrument *does* require precise control
> of note lengths: on the piano it's usually unacceptable to use only
> the pedal to control duration. (Though that's what many pianists
> often end up doing, regardless of composers' articulation or pedal
> markings.)

Not being a pianist, I tread lightly, but speaking as a composer and
as a university instructor who knows plenty of piano music, I would
say that more often than not in piano music, the notated durations are
not exactly what the composer wants to sound, as they are changed by a
pedal marking. Without the pedal marking, the durations desired often
would be very difficult to notate, and probably impossible to play.
The pedal also gets used often because the notated durations,
lacking a pedal indication but presumably what the composer wants,
are simply impossible to play dry, so they get fudged.

> And actually a lot of 'Romantic' piano music is quite
> contrapuntal, in the sense of having different lines going on
> simultaneously, which often requires just as much 'finger-twisting'
> as say Bach. See Charles Rosen on Chopin.

Yes, Charles Rosen writes very well about it. There is plenty of
decent counterpoint in so-called Romantic music like Chopin,
Brahms, late Beethoven, etc. But who plays it without using
the pedal, which mucks up all the durations? Brahms's
counterpoint is heavy-handed it depends on the size of
one's hands how it can be managed, and playing it dry is often
impossible, such that a dry sound (right or wrong) isn't what's
expected for Brahms. Glenn Gould's Brahms recordings exemplify
a drier sound. Gould is one pianist who, whether you like his
interpretations or not, indisputably had the absolute dynamic
and rhythmic control which is necessary for the clear articulation
of counterpoint at the piano, and it is well known that he
preferred the light and quick action of his Chickering.

Yours,
Aaron Hunt
H-Pi Instruments

🔗Ozan Yarman <ozanyarman@ozanyarman.com>

🔗Carl Lumma <clumma@yahoo.com>

🔗Aaron Andrew Hunt <aahunt@h-pi.com>

🔗Ozan Yarman <ozanyarman@ozanyarman.com>

🔗Tom Dent <stringph@gmail.com>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Aaron Andrew Hunt" <aahunt@...> wrote:
> notated durations are
> not exactly what the composer wants to sound, as they are changed
by a
> pedal marking.

Indeed ... when the pedal is marked. But that's not what I said. It
seems, from what I can see, that many passages, often with somewhat
complex part-writing and change of harmony, were not intended to be
pedalled at all.

Of course the modern piano is somewhat different from what was around
in 1830-40, and probably damps rather more 'dead', so modern
*discreet* use of the pedal (i.e. without trespassing over too much
harmonic ground) may just be evening up the playing field, as it
were. A style of playing that sounds 'dry' on a modern Steinway may
not have been on a Graf or Pleyel or Streicher.

>
> There is plenty of
> decent counterpoint in so-called Romantic music like Chopin,
> Brahms, late Beethoven, etc. But who plays it without using
> the pedal, which mucks up all the durations?

Well not necessarily, if you oscillate it up and down frequently
enough!!

> Brahms's
> counterpoint is heavy-handed it depends on the size of
> one's hands how it can be managed, and playing it dry is often
> impossible

Not sure what one means by 'heavy-handed' here ... Brahms certainly
sounds heavy if the chords and lines are not carefully voiced. The
worst that can happen is for someone to imagine that each note
deserves to be equally loud unless marked otherwise. As for
impossibility, consider carefully how important it may be for this or
that line to have a continuous legato...

There are a lot of places in Brahms where no pedal is marked and one
wonders what was meant - prime example a late G minor piece I think
op.118 with each hand going its way through continuous three-part
chords, some marked staccato, some not. Well, David Owen Norris tried
it on an old Streicher (BBC radio prog I heard) and it worked fine
without any pedal in the opening statement. He (Brahms) was also
somewhat fond of rapid staccato bass lines which tend to fall a bit
flat if the damping is immediate, so pianists try and pedal over
them, which of course ruins it in a different way.

Gould's Brahms is indeed interesting - a lot more than his Bach, to
me - though it might have been even more so had he used an older
piano, say a Baldwin or Bechstein.

~~~T~~~

PS looking for counterpoint in Chopin, try the Ballades! And even the
Nocturnes have some. NB - counterpoint doesn't mean fugue or
imitation!!