I have a cousin who is a professional classical music performer, I lived in her house right next to her room for many years and she played her Steinway 10 hours a day if not more. Among all the speakers I have owned (over 20 pairs), Dynaudio Confidence 5 came closest to live piano. Not Wilson, not B & W, not ProAc, not even the new Dynaudio Confidence.
In fact, Dynaudio Confidence 5 was so good in many area I had a tough time replacing it. Nothing really replaced it, I am merely getting a "different" sound for a change in taste. |
Muralman, there is not a speaker in the world today that cannot straight line to 20dB. 20 Hz is certainly another matter. You are confusing loudness with frequency response, which I find listeners of speakers with erratic impedance curves often do. For the record I am not a Quad owner but I feel they best meet the criteria for the subject of this thread which is reproduction of classical piano and Medieval music. As a classically trained pianist with a Steinway 'M' in my living room I am fairly familiar with this repetoire. The vast majority of this music falls easily between 55 and 3500 Hz where the Quads are peerless IMHO. With all due respect I really like your passion for your Scintillas but I wonder how you explain their demise while the Quad thrives. Also I am not aware of any recorded music that captures a 20 Hz tone so I would be appreciative if you could recommend one, especially one of classical piano or Medieval music and preferably above 20dB. |
Khrys...You are quite correct about there being little in the way of music below about 50 Hz. With the exception of organ pipes and bass drums there is only turntable rumble and studio air conditioning sounds down there. If you operate a subwoofer with the grill removed this is obvious.
20 to 20,000 Hz is the accepted range of normal human hearing. Somehow this has become confused with the range of frequency needed for music reproduction. |
Ritteri - My wife has a Yamaha grand piano and plays it a little. We have no problems whatsoever telling the difference between a Yamaha, Steinway, Baldwin and a Boesendorfer, either live or on our reference system. Once a system is at the level ours is at, it's no problem. |
Khrys, for your information:
Scintilla Review HiFi News:
"... the response can be classed as very smooth. The
upper section can be seen to be mildly resonant at 50Hz, the lower more dominant at 30Hz. As the curve shows, the output had not fallen below the median line by 20Hz, virtually subwoofer performance."
I rest my case.
Also this: the Scintilla is a unique speaker, even among the Apogee line. The mid ribbon and the tweeters are feather weight naked currugated aluminum ribbons. For each speaker, there are five feet of mid ribbon, and twenty feet of tweeter ribbon. The tweeter ribbons mechanically bleed off signals from the mid ribbon above 3kHz.
It is the lightness of the ribbons and their simple crossover that play the greatest part in making the Scintilla the most natural speaker I have yet heard. The painstaking force focussed magnet array is another. A 700 square inch Kapton backed aluminum panel handles the Bass.
The only reason such speakers are no longer made is because, according to one great speaker maker, "Every day for the Scintilla maker was Ground Hog Day."
The Scintilla matches the Quad's mids, and far out reaches it in the treble and bass. Yes, Medieval music and piano sound exceptionally well on the Scintilla. The difference is the Scintilla can rock too. |
There's plenty of music and tons of sound below 50Hz. The lowest note on a 4 string bass guitar is 41Hz. The increasingly popular 5 string bass guitar is even lower. Synthesizers, a ubiquitous instrument in modern pop/rock, can go well down past 50Hz. Also below 50Hz is the sonic signature of mid to large sized recording venues. This information is essential for proper soundstaging. IMO, a speaker should be able to go down to around 32Hz to be considered fully bass capable. |
Onhwy61...I don't do pop/rock so I guess I missed that 41 Hz string. I should have said that classical music has little content below 50 Hz. And I should have mentioned hall reverb along with studio air conditioning. I was focused on the music.
Actually I do have an elaborate multi-subwoofer system that measures flat to 20 Hz, but it remains dormant most of the time. |
This is a link to an article in the current Mix magazine regarding how engineers record piano. Of particular interest should be the comments by Tony Faulkner. |
Onhwy61...that is an extremely interesting article...
besides the topic at hand, reproduction of piano tonally... it also struck me how incredibly difficult
it must be to record a truly fine large orchestral recording...we are really at the mercy of the engineers'
expertise and artistry as well as the musicians....I'm probably stating the obvious but when we complain
of poor recording quality or inaccurate reproduction it makes you appreciate the know-how that goes
into a fine recording....a great performer/musician sometimes does not always make for an impassioned
recording....
thanks for that link....! |
WHoa,whoa whoa, there isnt much music below 50hz???!?!?!?!!
I wont even comment here other than there is musical information(called HARMONICS)that goes below 20hz.
|
Audioengr: I dont doubt you can tell the differences between em under normal circumstances, all have different tonal characteristics. But can you tell the differences under a controlled environment without visual ques and specific tunings? Id think twice before saying yes outright to this. |
Let's get some facts straight. The lowest note of your typical grand piano is A 27.5 Hertz, so it could be argued that any speaker that does not go this low, and fairly accurately, is not a good candidate for "best for piano". To say that there isn't much information in this range, in classical music, is simply not true. If one understands the physics of music, one knows that in addition to the harmonics of musical tones, there exist difference tones. Difference tones are the tones that are produced when, for instance, two tones are sounded simultaeniously, and the difference of those two frequencies is perceived as a third tone. In theory, if music is written, and played on a piano for say, a chord with A-27.5 Hertz as the root, there would be a perceived tone of a frequency considerably below 27.5 Hertz. This would not be necessarily be heard as a seperate tone, but rather as richness and fullness in the overall sound. The existence of these tones, as well as upper harmonics, is one the things that gives music it's richness and complexity.
Having said all that, I would say that in my experience, Quads come closest to capturing the tinbre of a real piano. How can that be possible, given the Quad's limited frequency response? Heck if I know! What it says to me is that there is still a whole lot that we don't understand about this business of record/playback; and that's fine by me. But timbre is only one aspect of reality in music playback. What about dynamics? In my experience, and I don't claim to have heard nearly all the great loudspeakers ever manufactured, Snell Type Aiii's with VTL Wotans got the dynamic impact of a grand piano fairly accurately. The timbre was not even close in accuracy to that of Quads, however. In absolute terms, neither got either timbre or dynamic impact close enough to the real thing to suspend disbelief.
What it all says to me, is that the real thing is, thankfully, so rich and complex that electronics still have a long way to go before "accurate" record/playback is a possibility. I see that as a good thing.
Ritteri, I don't know what not being able to tell which is the Yamaha vs. the Steinway, without prior familiarity proves. I can tell you that most experienced audiophiles, who can tell the difference between MIT and Nordost cabling, would have no trouble discerning the differences between a Yamaha and a Bosendorfer. The differences are actually much more apparent, IMO.
There's nothing like the real thing.
Good listening. |
Frogman...Agreed: four full octives down from middle A at 440Hz results in 27.5Hz. How many composers have actually used this bottom key?
Here is the question that I would like to see answered.
My subwoofers are flat to 20 Hz, as verified by spectrum analysis using test signals and plainly evident by ear. The source electronics are capable of extreem LF output as evidenced by strong SW activity when playing certain recordings of organ music. A warped LP also keeps them busy.
However, when playing almost all other classical music, some of which subjectively sounds as if there is lots of bass, the subwoofer cones scarcely move. This is verified, not only by listening close to them, but also by lightly touching the cones.
Regarding the beat frequency subharmonics, these would be created in the listening room by proper reproduction of the fundamentals, and do not require reproduction of the subharmonic frequencies themselves. This is the same as in the performance venue, where the instruments do not directly generate the subharmonics. |
Eldartford: Ever listen to alot of Jazz with Tenor Sax's,bass?How about a 20" kickdrum? How about big band with a few tuba's? Though I currently dont use subs(but will be soon)and have floor standers that are flat to 20hz, I feel Im still losing a bit of presense. Same holds true for the other end of the spectrum with other instruments.
Truth in the matter is that your subwoofers shouldnt be "flat" to 20hz. The last 2 octaves(20-80hz roughly) should be tuned to be about 3-4db higher up at least, while the top 2 octaves(5khz-20khz) should be roughly attenutated about the same amount for our ears to percieve a flat natural response due to our ears natural sensitivity. I just wanted to touch base on this, I dont know how you setup your own system, but if it was flat across the board its gotta be really bright sounding.......
|
To shorty interupt: I will settle for Cary slp88, Odyssey Stratos monoblocks and HARBETH STUDIO 40. Will buy them used, of course. Just mention my findings regarding ESL or Planar speakers that i auditioned. ML and Maggies have certain qualities, but as far as natural sound, they aren't as good as dynamic speakers. They sound very FAKE! I do not know about Quad though. Thanks for your suggestions. |
Muralman, I now understand your passion for the Scintillas. Whatever part of the "Ground Hog Day" loop you and the Apogee Corporation are trapped in I am so glad that it allows you to revel in obsolescence.
Frogman, you are right on. Physics and mathematics defy the appeal of the Quads but they sound most like a piano to me too.
As to frequency response I can only say GET REAL. Name me a recording with a 20 Hz tone, please. |
Although people know Im bull headed about being a big fan of dynamics speakers, Planers,esls etc do come in handy in certain circumstances. For "easy listening" at low volumes I do have a place in my heart for my ML prodigies, though they are nothing compared to the Salon's.
Harbeth Studio 40's: Very nice! =) |
Khrys, you obviously do not understand. ;-) |
A recording with a 20hz tone? Dr. Dre's Chronic Album for one. There are alot of popular rap albums with loads of synthesized bass notes that go well below 40hz, too many to list.
311's Music album is another great example. Its loaded with alot of harmonic sweeps from 20-40hz too that blend with the bass guitarists melodies. |
Ritteri...I'm glad that you endorse boosting 20-80 Hz by several dB, because that is what I usually do after geting the system flat. But I always felt guilty about it...like eating too much ice cream. I also use the tweeter padding resistors with my Maggies, to roll off the high end, and that gets flac also.
Organ music and bass drums do get down to the 20Hz range, no argument about that. It's just that organs and bass drums are a tiny fraction of the music I listen to. I don't do rock/pop, but I do know that it always sounds like it has a lot of bass content. However, this music is customarily presented via ProSound loudspeakers, that do not claim response below 30 Hz.
I have a CD of a German "um-pa" band with many tubas. When I find that disk I will make a point of checking for SW activity. I also have an LP of the Dukes of Dixieland which sounds as of it has a lot of bass, but to my surprise it really is not that low in frequency.
|
Quote by Eldertford:
"Ritteri...I'm glad that you endorse boosting 20-80 Hz by several dB"
Was that a sarcastic remark? =O
Do I ever deserve a sarcastic remark? =) lol!
Its true, a naturally sounding "flat" response to our ears looks like a gently rolling slope downward from 20hz to 20khz. Our ears are least sensitive to the bottom 2 octaves and most sensitive to the highest 2 octaves. |
Ritteri, thanks for your suggestions regarding recordings with ultra-low frequency tones. I will truly check them out. My experience has been that most redbook CDs trying to articulate low bass simply double the 40 Hz tone (+3-4dB) and allow room resonance to do the rest. It is well known that you do not have to produce the fundamental tone (spectral pitch) in order to "hear" it (virtual pitch). In fact the difference between spectral and virtual pitch may explain why we naturally want to boost the bass and attenuate the treble in order to obtain "full-range". A pure spectral 20 Hz tone is extremely hard to produce acoustically (think 32 foot diapason) and though fairly easy to synthesize electronically even more rarely recorded as such. Why bother when a 40 Hz tone overloaded into a boosted subwoofer "sounds" like the real thing? |
Ritteri...Not sarcastic my friend. I guess it is even difficult to agree with you. |
A few clarifications:
Khrys, difference tones produced in the
performance/recording venue as a result of real instruments sounding the fundamental frequencies will, by definition, be more accurate than those produced in the listening room by the playback equipment. Why this is so, should not require much explanation. There is much information in the 20hz that gives recording venues their characteristic sound signatures. This is a well documented fact, and easily demontrated by playing a good recording, done in a good hall, and turning those "flat to 20hz" subwoofers off; the soundstage will often shrink in size. There simply does not have to be an actual 20hz (or so) musical tone present in the recording, for the effects of these frequencies to be audible. Subwoofer cones do not need to be working hard and flapping wildly for their contribution to be heard. Simply turn them off and listen to the difference in the sound.
Ritteri, big band with a few tubas? I'm intrigued; seriously. Where can I hear this?
Slotdoc, just a gut reaction: If you think that Maggies and ML's sound fake, I think that, ultimately, you would not be happy with planars at all. Sounds like you would be happiest with a good full range dynamic speaker. Whatever sacrifice you would be making as far as ultimate timbral accuracy, I think would be made up for in the dynamics dept. Ever sit close to a concert grand played at full tilt? The sheer weight and and impact can be scary. For all their beauty of tone, not even Quads can do this.
Happy listening. |
Eldartford: I know, Im kidding............ |
I hope that everyone read the link provided by Onhwy61 in his post on 11/22. I didn't know that recording engineers customarily put microphones inside the piano. As someone who has played a musical instrument I generally like close mic recordings, but inside the instrument seems extreem. |
Eldartford, recording for pop/rock music imposes a different set of priorites than for classical or even jazz. Instrument separation is one of the key factors. You don't want the sound of another instrument bleeding into the piano's microphones. If it did, it would hamper the mix down to stereo process. In a small or medium sized studio this presents some problems. If you have access, take a look at photos of Phil Spector, Aretha Franklin, any Motown or Chess recording sessions and take note of how close together the musicians are positioned. One of the solutions to the separation problem is to place the microphones within the piano and close the lid. It won't sound like a real piano, but in most pop/rock mixes the piano isn't "naked" , but instead placed deep within the mix. Any of the classic Elton John tracks is an example of this technique. The engineers placed the microphone(s) inside the piano and covered the piano with several heavy moving blankets. |
Onhwy61...Uch!!! Why not just get a synthesized piano and be done with it? |
Why not get a synthesized piano and be done with it?!?! you're kidding, right?
The reason is that, unlike Ritteri's contention, even a less than perfectly miked acoustic piano, will sound better than any electric piano; assuming a real piano sound is what's wanted. Engineers know this all too well; not to mention that players usually prefer to play on the real thing.
By the way, in case anyone was not sure about this, close miking of pianos is done in the recording studio, not in the concert hall; usually.
Good listening. |
Frogman...Since a real piano can be perfectly reproduced (Ritteri told me so) there should be no problem making a perfect synthesized one. Right? :) |
|
To get back to what Gileon said, I must agree that the Thiel CS1.5's are very enjoyable on piano. I have heard the CS1.6's, and while the focus has certainly been bumped up a notch, I wouldn't necessarily call them more musical. Of course, I did not get to A/B them directly, and it had been some time since I had heard the CS1.5's. However, with regard to larger Thiels, I own a pair of CS3.6's, and I find them to be very enjoyable on piano, with good lower register reproduction (and I am an upright and electric bass player, so I like clean, tight, accurage lows).
I must add, though, that my father-in-law has a pair of CS.5's (which I helped him pick out, thank you) that are simply amazing for the money. Sure, they are frequency limited, but match them up with a good sub or two, and they can hold their own against speakers several times their price. The greatest thing about these particular speakers is that they really got my father-in-law back into listening to, and enjoying music (mostly piano). Of course, my mother-in-law is not so thrilled, but hey, you can't please everybody.
Later, Tom. |
As I was reading a review in Absolute Sound, they were mentioning that the suckout that comes from adding a subwoofer to 2 ch music playback systems and the mayhem it causes, may not make it worthwhile to add subs, unless you can have 2 (due to phasing issues), and a 4th order xover....they argue that most 2nd order xovers included in most hardware doesnt do the job at all, and they actually have changing "Q's" as you adjust the freq cutoff./
Have you guys with subs measured your curve lately? |
I've found that my system reproduces lifelike piano music. I prefer SACD recordings of piano, though some CD labels can get pretty close (Reference Recordings, Chesky, JVCXRCD, Emil Berliner Studios etc).
We have a 1976 Kawaii grand that my wife teaches on in the studio. It has a very pleasing tone, though the action is a little heavy for small hands. I love the music that a piano is capable of.
My SACD's are sourced through a Denon DVD 2900 "hybrid" player, CD through Cambridge Audio DiscMagic/S700 DAC combination, with Creek 5350SE amplification, Totem Forest speakers and Wireworld Atlantis cables throughout.
IMO the transducer is only part of the equation in optimizing the realism of the reproduction of acoustic music. If you truly want to accurately reproduce acoustic instruments, you need to optimize source, amplification and the transducer.
I've yet to hear a recording of a piano that sounds "the same" as our piano. Given that I haven't hired a professional to come in and record our piano in its space to create a fair "test", that isn't too surprising. Having said that, I am totally satisfied by the realism offered by my modest stereo system. |
Jsuso, you are correct; the use of subwoofers is problematic. Piano recordings are particularly good at demonstrating just how difficult it is to integrate a sub into a quality system. The timbral "sameness" of the piano throughout it's wide frequency range, make the problems at the "crossover" points, very obvious. I use a REL Strata III with three very different speakers (Stax F-81, Maggie IIIA's, Genesis IM8300), and while the added fullness that the REL contributes is, at times, appreciated, I am always aware of the fact that the lower frequencies are reproduced by a very different, and in the case of the Stax and Maggies, much slower transducer.
dmmcgregor, nice post. I agree, point for point. The issue is really about being satisfied. We don't need perfection to achieve that.
Best. |
Hey Frogman, how do you know that the expanded soundstage added by your subwoofer isn't due to the 0.2msec delay between the sub and your mains at 80 Hz? Or the phase shift between running a mono sub with binaural mains? Why are you so sure that it's due to 20 Hz "undertones" that only a nearly inactive subwoofer can produce? Do you really think these practically inaudible tones are present on redbook CDs? As a recovering subwoofer user my opinions on this matter could be suspect but I offer them honestly. Jsujo is absolutely correct but Sam Tellig says it best in the current 12/03 Stereophile (p.36, col.2, p6): "Deep bass is almost always more trouble than it's worth." Free your ears from the tyranny of frequency response. Try going "subless"! |
Khrys...I think that your "going subless" is certainly reasonable. As I have observed, most of the time the SW cones are doing nothing. And "doing nothing" means exactly that. There is no subsonic hall sound that somehow gets reproduced without any motion of the cone. However, there are some recordings that do have hall sound, with cone movement, and there is some music that does really give the sw a workout. But these cases are few and far between.
I have an elaborate SW system built into the wall (3 systems/6 drivers), but it did not cost me a lot because I designed, built, and tweeked it. I enjoyed the construction process as much as listening. The amps are on a separate power switch. Sometimes I join the subless gang by throwing the switch. |
Hey Khrys, how do I know? I don't! I don't need to "know", if "knowing" means being able to "prove" it. What my ears tell me is all the proof that I need. What I can tell you, is that I have spent hundreds of hours in concert halls, and the sound and feeling of a good hall, it's scale of size, is present in the extreme low frequencies. And you don't need bass instruments to be playing to hear it, and very clearly. I am sure that there are are some with much more technical knowledge than I, that can explain what I am hearing; but hear it I do. Very full range speakers, and good subs, let me hear that sound/feeling. Is it an artifact? Who knows? I know what phase related distortions sound like, and it doesn't sound like that to me. Am I advocating the use of subs? Hell no! I definitely have a love/hate relationship with mine; and I use the term love loosely. However, in the case of my Stax F-81's, speakers that to me, have a midrange truth that no speaker, and I mean NO speaker, that I have ever heard has, the absence of anything below about 70hz, makes the experience incredibly frustrating. So, I'm willing to live with the obvious, but not gross, discontinuity between the midrange and bass, and the difference in timbre, to get some of the underpinnings present in music.
I will stick by my comment about how the woofers don't need to be flapping wildly for their contribution to be heard.
Good listening, and Happy Thanksgiving to all. |
Frogman you are a good sport and I do appreciate your perspective. I literally tried for years to mate various subs with speakers whose midrange was glorious but low end insufficient. Perhaps the most entertaining combo I devised was ML CLSs with binaural Entecs. The sound was spectacular regardless of the recording which certainly impressed people but quickly became aurally tedious. I tried AP Virgos with a mono Minos and found that the lower the setting of the Minos the better I liked the music and once when my maid unplugged the Minos I listened for days congratulating myself on how well I had dialed it in until I discovered the plug on the floor! Thus began my disaffection with these things. With all due respect I find them to be low frequency reverb devices and little more. Try putting 0.05 msec delay between your R/L mains and see how that "recreates" the concert hall feeling. YMMV and I certainly understand your desire to augment the Stax which I agree is an awesome midrange mindblower. However there is no subwoofer on the planet that I have found to improve the sound of my W/P 7s, even Wilson's own WatchDog or Pow Wow. But I have certainly found a few that will "blow away" my guests and any semblance of real music as well. I've conceded the match but truly respect that you have take up the banner.
Good listening and Happy Thanksgiving to all, indeed (unless you're Canadian, of course). |
Frogman you are a good sport and I do appreciate your perspective. I literally tried for years to mate various subs with speakers whose midrange was glorious but low end insufficient. Perhaps the most entertaining combo I devised was ML CLSs with binaural Entecs. The sound was spectacular regardless of the recording which certainly impressed people but quickly became aurally tedious. I tried AP Virgos with a mono Minos and found that the lower the setting of the Minos the better I liked the music and once when my maid unplugged the Minos I listened for days congratulating myself on how well I had dialed it in until I discovered the plug on the floor! Thus began my disaffection with these things. With all due respect I find them to be low frequency reverb devices and little more. Try putting 0.05 msec delay between your R/L mains and see how that "recreates" the concert hall feeling. YMMV and I certainly understand your desire to augment the Stax which I agree is an awesome midrange mindblower. However there is no subwoofer on the planet that I have found to improve the sound of my W/P 7s, even Wilson's own WatchDog or Pow Wow. But I have certainly found a few that will "blow away" my guests and any semblance of real music as well. I've conceded the match but truly respect that you have take up the banner.
Good listening and Happy Thanksgiving to all, indeed (unless you're Canadian, of course). |
Pulling the subwoofer topic back into the main discussion, I do believe it is an advantage to have all frequencies expressed by the same driver type. The Scintilla can do all the frequencies required, without the aid of a sub. It also, as I have noted before, has just about the lightest unencumbered drivers ever devised. That leads to ultra fast recoveries, with no smearing. The marvelous frequency complexities inherent in a grand piano are fully expressed in life like manner. |
The Scintillas commercial success speaks for itself, don't you think? |
A casual look into a piano will reveal many stings that get hit by felt hammers to produce sound. One might think that the sound source is the strings. Actually, behind the strings, and below them in a grand piano is a sound board. This is a large area of thin wood, and its name indicates its purpose. The tonal quality of the instrument depends very much on the quality and condition of this wood. Note that the sound board resembles a planar loudspeaker.
I have noted that loudspeaker fidelity is often improved when the loudspeaker resembles the instrument in some way. This is most obvious with trumpet reproduced by a horn driver. I have also noted that the titanium tweeter in a small B&W speaker that I have makes violins (with metal A and E strings) sound very real. So, according to my theory, planar speakers have a head start in reproducing piano. |
Eldartford, you can't be serious? |
Khrys, read this - http://www.apogeespeakers.info/scintilla.htm - and write a report. Hand it in on Monday. Thank you very much. |
Ohnwy61 maybe Eldartford is on to something here. I believe that good horns produce horn sounds closer to real horns. The piano with planers, I'm not sure about that but his case does warrant investigation. Did you know that Jud Barber of Joule Electra uses spruce in his "musicwood" amps to maybe capture the resonance of the spruce wood of real string instruments? Of course you know by now that nothing can be ruled out in audio especially coming from such a skeptic as Eldartford. |
Eldardtford: Cant go along with your theory on this one. Piano's have strings, so do Violins( I used to appraise and still play em), and what makes the sounds coming from the Violins is also the "wood" just like the soundboard of a piano. The bridge attached to the strings are coupled to the main body of the Violin. THe wood is what makes the sound resonations on the body of a violin, not the strings themselves. This being the case debunks your theory. I dont know of ANY transducer in the intricate shape of a violin. Besides its been widely accepted that dynamic drivers are best at reproducing the dynamics and harmonics of a piano. |
Dynamics arguable, but harmonics? |
Ritteri...It's a bit hard to follow your logic. Your analogy to a violin, where the wood body is what makes the sound, is one that I might use to explain the function of the sound board in a piano.
Your preference for cone drivers in boxes is just your opinion. Others may disagree.
The idea of installing a small driver in an actual violin body has long interested me, but I haven't got around to doing it yet. Do you have any spare old violins kicking around?
And Tubegroover...I may be a "skeptic" but after rendering my opinion I often go away quietly and do some experimentation. A "crackpot" idea sometimes leads to something good, even if the original idea isn't. My "skinny wire for tweeters" biwire scheme is an example...IMHO. |
The logic is that you state the strings make the sound for a Violin and state that a metal dome tweeter most resembles a "string". But the strings dont make the sound on a Violin, the wooden body does. |
