@richopp Clarification understood and appreciated. It seemed pretty clear that recording a piano is difficult, so I was a bit confused by the energy you put into your rebuttal. But we agree! Cheers!
How does solo piano help you evaluate audio gear?
A pianist friend just recommended this article and pianist to me, knowing that I'm presently doing a speaker shoot-out. My question to you all is this:
How important is solo piano recordings to your evaluation of audio equipment -- in relation to, say, orchestra, bass, voice, etc.? What, specifically, does piano reveal exceptionally well, to your ears?
Here's the article:
https://positive-feedback.com/reviews/music-reviews/magic-of-josep-colom/
90 responses Add your response
A fact not mentionned here with the importance it has : No audio system and speakers will sound the same in two different rooms... A controlled and treated room will give to an audio system his real potential S.Q. and this potential S.Q. will have NO RELATION to the same system in a non controlled and non treated room... Then the best way to listen to any instrument recording in a chosen system is to model the room with his dynamical zones pressures accordingly not to the "measured by tool " specs. of the speakers but accordingly to what your ears will say to you in this progressively TUNED room one step at a time... Then you will listen the specific "recording" of an instrument and you will discover that not one piano recording sound the same on different system but ESPECIALLY in different room... Then chosing some voices and instrument to chose gear is possible like proposed by the OP but in a non treated room and in a non controlled room this have his limit...Acoustic is more powerful than MOST change or upgrade of gear in improving sound... I chose my speakers by reading for months reviews and i did the same for my amplifier and for my dac...I could not listen before chosing any piece of gear where i live... When i listened to them in my non controlled room i was not displeased but not pleased either... 😁 BUT when after buying them i modelled my room with acoustic devices and treatment for this specific system i owned now, i reach a level of S.Q. which had no relation with the original sound of this system in my plain room, no relation at all, NONE... Then i know the OP asked another question than the answer i give in this post, but people must be conscious of this fact... Acoustic is the key to high fidelity not the gear choice by itself... Be it magneplanar or my Mission Cyrus speakers, or any dac compared to mine, or My Sansui versus any good amplifier.... The bad news is they will be all different in S.Q.with plus and minus... The good news is this difference between gear DECREASE very much versus the difference between plain room acoustic and fully controlled room adapted to each system itself... Then magneplanar or box speakers it is possible to be happy with any of these two and forgetting any future upgrade if we use acoustic rightfully... It is possible because the same room must be controlled in a different way completely with magneplanar or with my box speakers...If someone know how to do it with his tuning ears the results will be happy for the two type of speakers... Different but very good... I know because my friend own magneplanar and me box speakers...He is a magneplanar addict and guess what was his surprize listening my small box speakers in my controlled room ? Then dont trust sellers, trust acoustic science and your ears using it.... It is very easy to buy good gear anyway, but less easy to learn how to treat a room and control it FORTHIS SPECIFIC GEAR AND FOR YOUR OWN EARS... My best to all and i apologize for being beside the question of the OP... |
this may be relevant to the discussion - most would agree that voice is critically important... https://www.cnet.com/tech/home-entertainment/insanely-great-the-harbeth-40-2-monitor-speakers/ |
Piano has stretched overtones. I believe it is somehow related to the fact that string has mass. Extremely long and thin string under extremely high tension would have straight harmonics, but it is not practical. Because of this stretching piano octave is not tuned to double frequency, but a little bit higher when the beating with overtones of lower octave stops, resulting in about 30 cents error at both ends. That is why tuning of the piano is so difficult and also why reproduction of the sound is very difficult as well. Any harmonics produced by the playback system might beat against stretched piano overtones. Overly warm systems produce even order harmonics that sound great with other instruments or voice, but piano sounds almost like out of tune. |
Great post that explain well why piano is so useful for tuning our system/room... Thanks very much..... My deepest respect....
|
@mahgister Thank you. I read this while ago in Wikipedia. The title was Piano Tuning. Opinion about sounding "like out of tune" was expressed by John Siau - technical director of Benchmark. |
@brownsfan and others, I've been listening to the 1.5 minute piece, "Britten’s Serenade for Tenor, Horn, and Strings." It's an outstanding test, easy to get to know, and very revealing. |
Thanks i will go for it after listening it on youtube... Really good for sound and interpretation... Britten rules...
|
@mahgister @hilde45 I have that Britten piece also. I love it, and pretty much everything else Benjamin Britten wrote. |
@ hilde45 FFS? really? You asked:" How important is solo piano recordings to your evaluation of audio equipment -- in relation to, say, orchestra, bass, voice, etc.?" I attempt to tell you that as an "evaluator" for sound, that no one instrument be it a piano, guitar, oboe or human voice may by itself, hold utmost importance. So no, I do not pray to the "piano" altar as some do as the definitive test for accuracy in sound repro. It to me does no better than a guitar, cymbal, voice, trumpet or clarinet, etc in depiction of timbre, accuracy, dynamics or true to reproduction. An attack note is an attack note. A transient is a transient and a decay is a decay. I’ve heard wonderful piano and shitty voice and have heard wonderful trumpet and shitty piano all on various perspective speakers. When a person garnering attention here turns petulant, I’m out. Have fun child. |
I dont think that nobody claim that ONLY one instrument will do the job for judging the S.Q. of an audio system... The OP thread speak about a question : is the piano may HELP? indeed it may help a lot for all the reasons many here spoke about... Some and me too, only said that piano is particularly interesting to use for that...Not ALONE...Voices or chor or anything else will reveal some details or aspect of sound more clearly...No one argue about that.... Then your qualification "altar" of the piano is preposterous and reveal only your own frustration not knowledge or any factual existence of piano idolatry here......
Second, you description about evaluating speakers FORGET that no evaluation of speakers is DEFINITIVE till the speakers/ room is acoustically under control in a treated room.. For sure for a first evaluation in some seller room a piano cd can help or a chor or a voice cd...It is relative to the listenings experience history of each of us..... No speakers sound the same in different room especially in different untreated rooms ... Then the choice of piano, voices, etc is mandatory not only to test speakers in a nude room but also to TUNE the speakers/room relation... Then a decay is not the same decay with the same speaker in different room...A transient and an attack note either... Then when you claim that you have heard wonderful piano on a speaker and shitty voice on the same speaker, this was more an illusion created by the room/speaker specific relation there, because any RELATIVELY good speaker in a well controlled and treated room CANNOT give a wonderful piano sound and a shitty voice in the same room acoustic condition ... Why ? Because only on a very well treated room and in a well acoustically controlled one a transient is a transient, an attack is an attack and a decay is a decay... WHY ? because acoustician use controlled room to set their standards...They dont use speakers only in any bad room....
When somebody turn acerbic by lack of attention , i am out.... I wish you could have fun though even with so great need for attention..
😊😊😊😊
|
@dodgealum thanks for the pointer, which Uchida disc # please. Jim |
@ arro222 : Why did you find it necessary to act so harshly toward a fellow commenter? OK, so you disagree with hilde45? Fine, that’s your privilege and right - all of us disagree at times for various reasons. However, attacking someone personally as having no more worth to you than a wad of used toilet paper or sheet of Kleenex that someone has blown their nose into is another thing entirely. You appear to have difficulty controlling your anger. We must all try to address each other with at least a minimal degree of civility. |
@hilde45 I also find the 2L download bench very helpful….lovely recordings often in challenging reverberant space, IMO typically expertly done. Jim |
In the beginning days of "perfect sound forever" CDs, it was easy to notice how, even on better record labels such as ECM, DG etc, that acoustic pianos sounded un-natural, sometimes "rounded off" with bizarre high registers, distortion, etc. |
| Post removed |
Right. And I said more than once that I was not asking the question, "Which is the *one* instrument to use for evaluation?" Read back through the thread.
When someone responding to a thread turns petulant and leaves, I rejoice. |
UPDATE: I listened to a bunch of recordings mentioned today. The piano recordings were unbelievably revealing tools. The power of the Colom recordings and also the Schiff pushed the speakers for dynamics, subtlety, honesty of color, hall reverb, and yes --piano bench noise and the pianist breathing or moving. Some passages, it was clear that the hands were separated on the piano -- with the towers. The two way speakers mushed things together a bit. In other passages, it was the piano's treble region that really brought out differences -- were they rinky-tinky highs or shimmery, ringing highs? That was a clear difference which spoke, again, in favor of the tower. The French horn pieces were excellent, too. That is an instrument with a lot of condensed complexity -- and quirks. I can see now why it is such a test for speakers. The more boring of the two speakers, the ribbon tower, did a far better job than the two way stand mount with these instruments. When I added the subs and dialed them in, color and space flooded in while the towers retained their honesty. |
| Post removed |
I apologize if i reacted a bit rudely but your post was a bit rude also... 😁😊 You seem to be a gentleman though... I am more wired to understand people but i also tend to react too swiftly .. i understand you better now and i offer to you my deepest respect... Sincerely yours...
Your past experience is welcome here for sure....
|
sounds like you are having fun... 👍 i think someone mentioned earlier that piano is also hard to mike, that and overall recording/mix quality is really important in how sound is then portrayed in room by a well set up system, i think that is what your experience thus far is highlighting (not to mention the challenges this poses to a system to handle transients, the full range of frequencies, overhang of notes etc) i look at a piano, how big the enclosure is, say a grand with its lid open, the nature of direct, reflected, resonant sound, quite a complex set of sound waves emanating... |
@jjss49
Apparently, you’ve got additional wiring. FWIW, glad to see you stuck around and that whatever petulance you perceived in my reaction turned out to not be quite enough to cause you to abandon the thread. (I apologize for my use of FFS. I will try to be nicer.) Glad you still have the will to contribute constructively. Good outcomes for us both, I think. |
| Post removed |
@jjss49 Spot on..Absolutely! :) It’s funny, over several years I focused on both of these instruments when dialing in lowest midrange frequency and bass drivers in my custom speakers. And the same again dialing in more musical subwoofers, finding the right drivers there too. Cello and bowed bass are amazing for sure, thanks for bringing these up, good thoughts! |
Thanks for partaking your interesting story... I am glad we understood one another better... I was more lucky.... I have a very good hearing judging by my work in small room acoustic... I decided to realize my Hi-FI dream after my retirement few years ago...But no money... I succeeded with improvising my homemade devices for electrical,mechanical and especially acoustical aspects, the three working embeddings dimensions for any audio system....All this at almost no cost... I discovered by experiments that acoustic treatment and especially acoustic mechanical control over pressure zones distribution and laminar air flow guided by Helmholtz method and Has wavefront law in acoustic that no improvement upgrade can beat acoustic.... It is the reason why my 500 bucks system present a S.Q./price ratio over the roof....Embeddings control of the system... My deepest regards to you....
|
While I agree that we’ll recorded piano is excellent in some ways for testing speakers & whole systems in terms of tone, body & real subtlety, I think in many ways well recorded drums can be even better. Bass drums, tom toms, snares, cymbals of all kinds are great tests of dynamics, frequency extension, speed & even imaging. Both styles of music & recordings are important to get a complete picture of what a speaker or system can do. |
I will add this observation, it takes many instrument and especially voices to evaluate the S.Q. of new speakers ... Piano was always a favorite of mine but cannot reveal all there is by itself alone for sure... Think for example like someone rightfully observed about cymbal decay...But by itself i think piano is a good "thermometer" of the room and not only a way to evaluate speakers...
But one this is said, remember that NO speaker can beat the room... No speakers at any cost will beat by his upgrading power acoustic control,
Here are these 6 aspects of acoustic control parameters in a room i experimented with : 1 -Balance between absorbing surfaces, 2 -Reflecting one, 3 -Diffusive one.... This was "classical" passive material treatment of a room, now these 3 new other factors are related to my concept of the mechanical active control of a room ( what i called a mechanical equalizer): 4-control over reverberation time and timing of the wavefronts 5- control over the distribution of the pressure zones 6- fine layering and tuning of the laminar flow These 3 last aspects could be controlled with Helmhotz mechanical method NOT by electronical equalization... Then the piano will not sound the same from the same pair of speakers in a non controlled room and in a controlled one...Not even close...
Dont upgrade good speakers with costly one BEFORE studying and experimenting with acoustic... My acoustic devices and experiments were all homemade and cost me nothing... I can then claim that great hi-Fi experience is possible at low cost contrary to what is claimed or supposed almost everywhere by almost everyone... People dont know acoustic and never seriously try experimenting with it in a dedicated small room.
|
@mahgister, I've agreed with pretty much everything you have said in this thread. I will add a few comments/commentary. When I am auditioning in a Brick and Mortar setting, time is limited and the variables are complex and not always controllable. A speaker audition is a complex problem that is best solved by simplification. Piano is a single, more or less full range instrument, whose harmonics are well known to most of us. You can get to issues like tonal correctness across the audible spectrum and coherence/integration of drivers within a minute or two. If a speaker fails this, you move on and haven't wasted 2 hrs on a speaker that might seem ok with other types of music, but 6 months and 20K later you want to get rid of. I've personally not auditioned a speaker that passed the piano test and failed the voice test. My guess is there are none. But piano won't tell you a lot that you need to know. Generally speaking, issues with imaging, soundstage width and depth, and dynamics, where many speakers can get very congested with a high volume complex orchestral work, may not be best discerned using solo piano. So one certainly can't make a purchase decision based on piano alone, and I don't think anyone is really advocating that approach. Piano is for me the first hurdle a speaker must pass. I can reject a lot of speakers quickly using one or two well recorded and well known piano sonatas. What you say about the room is critical for anyone to understand. But I won't take a pair of speakers home that don't sound right hoping the vendor had a lousy room. Also, the caution you issue suggesting that people not go chasing expensive speakers until they are sure they have their room set up properly is extremely important. Better speakers won't necessarily sound better in a room that is poorly treated and set up. Relatively inexpensive speakers can sound mighty good in a room that is well set up. Along with absorbing and diffusing surfaces, you mention reflective surfaces. In my opinion, reflective surfaces and woefully underutilized. Reflective surfaces that can convert early reflections into late reflections is a trick I stumbled into by accident. Proper use of reflective surfaces, in my experience, are an order of magnitude more effective in improving imaging and stage than absorbing surfaces. |
I concur with your post... Especially this part..
|
But also remember that all these qualities you mentionned here are easily improved to a huge extent by passive material treatment and active mechanical acoustic control, if we have realtively good speakers commensurate to the room dimensions to begin with...
|
There has always been a bit of uncertainty for me about which piano manufacturer I prefer. No, I am not a pianist, but my father was. He also tuned pianos. I only accompanied him while tuning a few times. Most of them by my taste were a fair example of a great instrument. Since we lived in a small town, there were few people that owned much above a spinet model so that tells a lot right there. I do remember being present to hear him for a part of the tuning of a Kawai. He would test his ability by a short performance. It was Better. The attack was not exaggerated or diminished and the tone was not too soft. The body that it developed was SO much better than what I was used to hearing. So recording a Good instrument has to be the starting point. Then the pianist. Don't forget the composition and of course the recording venue. I only own a few recordings of this fine instrument that truly move me, either owed to the recording, or maybe just an exceptional performance that transcends the ability of that time when recording instruments in general was enough of a challenge. I tried only once to record my father playing. I just had to accept the fact that it was the best that I could do to have a remembrance of him. |
@tomic601 Mitsuko Uchida Live in Concert Philips 432989-2. 2 CDs from 1992. Creamy sound with great proximity to the instrument and lifelike tone. Superb playing and unique style with a light, deft and musical touch. The antithesis of many of the plodding and heavy interpretations that I’ve heard. The only comparable disc that adopts a similar approach and also has good sound is Gottlieb Wallisch Mozart in Vienna on Linn Records SACD. Both are worth tracking down if Mozart appeals. |
I took a couple days off of social media to focus on work. Glad to see the thread continues in informative and constructive ways. @perkri -- just added the Charlap. Thank you! @dodgealum My streaming service doesn't have the Uchida! I'm bummed. @mahgister Thanks for the comments about the importance of room. I totally agree, and it's only because I have done enough work on the room that I am comfortable comparing speakers. The factor of the room has been neutralized (enough). Thanks to others for the suggestions of additional instruments. I have added cello and also some woodwind quintets to my listening repertoire.
@brownsfan Your recent post is a powerful brief answering the OP question, "Why is piano helpful?" It may also answer the (unasked question), "If you could only evaluate using one instrument, which would it be and why?" and "What provides the fastest assessment tool in the relatively rushed and untreated environment of the brick and mortar store?" Of course, we are typically *not* forced to use just one instrument, and you're right to reaffirm that piano is not the *only* way -- let's all acknowledge he said that! -- but it is (perhaps) a uniquely powerful way. I completely agree about reflective surfaces. This is a powerful tool that you've taught me about and which most people don't fully understand. In conjunction with room measurement tools, it is possible to sharpen the soundstage imaging without throwing too much deadening absorption at the room. The system remains focused and lively with the right kind of 12ms-50ms reflections that create the sound of space without smearing the images on the soundstage or creating too much brightness. |
@dodgealum @perkri , Roxy Yes, strongly agree on Bill Charlap ! My streaming service has lots of Uchida where it is easy to hear the nimble grace and fluidity in her playing… For additional Jazz reference, i would add Jessica Williams - Live at Yoshi’s Volume 2 |
