Piano is indeed the toughest, and the greatest source of frustration for me
when listening to vinyl which I consider the superior medium in every other
respect. First of all, you may be particularly sensitive to this type of
distortion; not all listeners are. While the turntable is often a major
contributor to the problem, don't assume that the problem is ALWAYS your
turntable; and you should understand a few things:
Piano (and some mallet instruments) is the only instrument on which
vibrato (deliberate pitch variation used by the player for tone color and
expressiveness) is not possible. A struck piano note sounds with absolute
pitch stability; assuming good tuning of the instrument, of course. In the
case of a badly tuned piano the perceived pitch variation is not vibrato, but
instead, audible "beats" in the pitch caused by incorrect tuning
of the multiple strings designated for each note on the instrument. Every
other pitched instrument is generally played with at least some expressive
vibrato, and even when the musician plays it with a "straight"
tone (no vibrato) there is some pitch variation due to the nature of the
physical process involved in playing it. This very slight pitch variation is not
perceived as such, but simply as a contributor to the instrument's unique
sound, and allows for a bit of latitude when judging pitch compared to the
rock-solid stability of piano notes.
As John Gordon points out, even when a piano is "correctly"
tuned, there are artifacts of the tuning process that can cause perceived
pitch variation. Each string of a piano's note will have a different decay
rate. There is a phenomenon that comes into play that is
unique to the piano's decay characteristics: a piano note has two decay
slopes; there is a relatively fast initial decay and then a point at which the
note begins to decay at a considerably slower rate. Additionally, lower
frequencies have much longer decay rates than do higher frequencies on
the piano. If one considers the fact that lower notes on the piano audibly
"excite" higher notes due acoustic interaction and connection to
the same soundboard as a function of harmonic relationships, it is easy to
see how anything less than perfect tuning would cause perceived pitch
instability. Even with ideal tuning there can be some subtle perceived
pitch variation.
Having said all that, other things to consider when trying to judge your
turntable's contribution to the perception of pitch instability are, first and
foremost, the very real possibility that if the music was recorded with
analog tape what you are hearing is partly due to the recorded pitch
instability of the tape recorder itself. But, the bottom line for me has been
that, sadly, only DD turntables offer the kind of pitch stability that I would
consider above criticism. But I say "sadly" because they have
different issues which are the subject of a different discussion.
Dougdeacon, I am intrigued by your comment about the oboe. |
Dougdeacon, you are correct in your description of the harmonic
characteristics of period vs modern instruments. The opposite is believed
to be true by some (including some musicians) because modern
instruments' apparent brilliance is sometimes assumed to be the result of
increased harmonics (relative to the fundamental), when what is often the
case is the absence (or decrease) of specific harmonics due to
manipulation in design giving the sound a less complete harmonic
structure. This less complete harmonic structure can highlight upper
partials and give the modern instrument an edgy or "brilliant"
sound. The denser, sweeter sound of many period instruments is the result
of a more complete harmonic content.
I am not so sure about your contention that this more complete harmonic
structure would make the sound of period instruments more susceptible to
a tt's speed inaccuracies as all frequencies would suffer to the same
degree. However, you are quite correct about original instrument
recordings being an "acid test" for speed stability. But, IMO, the
main reason for this is what I pointed out in my previous post; the presence
or absence of vibrato. Music performed on period instruments normally is
played with very little or no vibrato. When this music was composed,
performance practice dictated very very sparse use of vibrato; only as an
occasional color as opposed to the constant use of vibrato that is common
today. The reason for this is that, for instance, a modern violin played with
no vibrato will sound louder than an original one, but dry and lifeless
because of (as you pointed
out) the diminished overtone content. |
Lew, "original" or "period" instruments refers to the
instruments that were in use when the particular music was composed and
applies primarily to the music of the Rennaisance and Baroque and, as you
say, the early to mid-Classical period. These may be early, less evolved
versions of instruments that we know today or intruments no longer in use
other than in early-music ensembles and no longer manufactured. By the
late 19th century most orchestral instruments had evolved in design to
essentially what they are today; relatively subtle design improvements
continue until the present. String instruments have evolved with increased
power and volume as a primary goal, brass and ESPECIALLY woodwinds
have evolve with ergonomic improvements as a primary goal in order to
facilitate the higher technical demands of more modern music composition
styles. Early woodwinds were very crude in comparison to modern
versions which have evolved to have much more ergonomic and advanced
key mechanisms and improved tuning. For instance, the chalumeau, the
predecessor of the clarinet used only two or three keys as opposed to the
modern Boehm system clarinet. Clarinet parts found in the modern
orchestral repertoire would be impossible to execute on a chalumeau.
Re vibrato: the instrument does not determine wether vibrato is used or not;
it is a technique that a player chooses to use (or not) depending on wether
the player feels it is musically appropriate or not. You are correct, the
trumpets used by Dizzy and Marsalis, while by different maufacturers, are
not fundamentally different, the instrument has not seen fundamental
design changes for quite some time, although Marsalis' "Monet"
trumpet, a very expensive ultra-high end custom instrument, in theory, has
some subtle design improvements incorporated. In theory, because these
"improvements" are not universally appreciated by musicians.
An interesting parallel between this subject and the audiophile world is that
with the advent of computer programs and analysis used in the design of
modern instruments, in order to "improve" aspects of an
instrument's character, some designers now use less of the old school
method of "if it sounds good, then it must be good" approach
and rely more on technical theory. The end result has been some real
improvements particularly in the area of tuning; but, because
"theory" often conflicts with nature's laws of acoustics and
resonance, attempts to "fool Mother Nature" in the design
process often results in compromises in those hard-to-define aspects of an
instrument's sound and personality. Many modern players prefer
instruments designed before the advent of computer modeling. |
Fleib, I think that you are confusing a couple of issues. First of all, while it
is true that orchestras did, in fact, tune to a lower pitch standard in earlier
(than modern) periods, that fact has little to do with the issue of the tuning
of original (period) instruments vs modern versions as it applies to this
discussion. My comments about the design changes in instrument
manufacture that improved the tuning of instruments referred to the
capability of a modern instrument to play in tune relative to itself. IOW,
early instruments (especially woodwinds and brass) had a lot of problems
with intervallic accuracy; for instance, an early clarinet or oboe may be
capable of producing a perfectly in tune "C", but because of
design imperfections the "C" an octave higher might be terribly
sharp. That is but one example of many tuning issues that a performer on
an early instrument might face. The reasons for these issues are not
simply lack of skill on the part of the designer, but also the fact that there
are certain tendencies that are governed by the laws of acoustics, which as
I am sure you know have a great deal to do with mathematics and the
imperfections in the harmonic series. Modern instrument designers have
the help of computer analysis to manipulate (to a degree) these naturally
occurring acoustic phenomena, but, often there is a downside to the
musician which relates to the issue that you bring up:
It is true that A=440 has been the defacto pitch standard for modern
orchestras, although that is changing very rapidly. First of all, European
orchestras have traditionally tuned to a higher pitch than American
orchestras. However, the trend is for American orchestras to tune to a
higher pitch as well. The NY Philharmonic tunes to A=443, Boston to
A=444; the list goes on. The reasons for this trend is primarily that tuning
to a higher pitch reference results in a more brilliant sound which is
considered more attractive or exciting the listener. Additionally, the
prevalence of visiting guest conductors who are used to the higher pitch
has a bearing, as does the possible presence in a concert hall of a pipe
organ tuned to a particular pitch. The lower pitch yields a sound that is
more opulent and rich and allows an orchestral instrument to play better in
tune relative to itself; as designed. While it is possible to tune an
instrument to a higher (or lower) pitch standard it has to be done by altering
(in the case of a woodwind or brass) the length of its tubing by either
shortening or lengthening it. All modern instruments have the
means to do this "on the fly", but the further one takes that
instrument from the ideal length of tubing (that pesky mathematics issue
again) the more that the pitch relationships between notes on that
instrument will be distorted placing more demands on the player to
compensate (via playing technique) for these pitch-relationship distortions.
Re "perfect pitch" and KOB:
****Even people with perfect pitch don't have a problem with this because
the relative pitch remains consistent. ****
That is PRECISELY why people with perfect pitch have a problem with this.
Perfect pitch is not a particularly keen sensitivity to pitch inconsistency, but
the ability to hear when a CONSISTENT pitch is too low or too high relative
to accepted standards (A=440 +/-). When a listener with perfect pitch
hears, for example, a "Bb" played or played back a quarter tone
flat that listener's brain can't process wether the key is then a flat
"Bb" or a sharp "A".
BTW, there is a lot of confusion and lore out there about the pitch issue on
KOB. The facts are these: Side one only of the original pressing of KOB
was recorded on a tape machine that was running slightly slow. Yes, it was
recorded slow, but when those pressings are played back on a turntable
running at the correct speed the end result is music that is sharp in pitch
(too fast); not flat as is often claimed.
Merry Christmas!
BTW, in case anyone read this before the correction, sorry for the
temporary misspelling of your moniker, Fleib; spellchecker strikes again :-) |
Fleib, allow me to explain. I made a comment about the tuning of
instruments and you appeared to respond to it (since no other comment
specifically about the tuning of instruments had been made up to that point)
in a way that I did not see as relevant to what was being discussed; that's
all. Then you made a comment about perfect pitch that suggested that
people with perfect pitch would not have a problem with the fast speed of
side one of KOB. This is a purely subjective thing. This "trivia"
about KBO has been a well known fact among musicians since well before
the "corrected" audiophile versions of that recording came to
be. Many a musician has been bothered by it when trying to transcribe the
solos on the record. What we are talking about is all a matter of degree.
Perhaps unimportant to some, but surely important to many. BTW, while I
am sure your friend is a fine musician, and strictly as a point of interest,
having perfect pitch is in no way an indication of superior musicianship.
Lastly, we have no disagreement about advances in instrument design
other than the fact that instruments that have these
"improvements" are not played by all musicians; quite the
contrary, many still treasure the unique tonal qualities of some of the older
"modern" instruments; many players like a certain amount of
"fight" (resistance) in their instruments.
Regards. |
Fleib, c'mon, was THAT necessary? Why do you assume some underlying cynicism, it was a simple comment that some may find of interest; no ulterior motive, I made that clear and simply wanted to make sure you understood my intention.
Now, re tuning: of course an orchestra tuned to A444 would not be objectionable, in absolute terms, as far as it being a deviation from some standard. However, on a recording running a quarter tone sharp that same A would sound at aproximately 453 Hz; quite a difference, I am sure you would agree, and clearly could be objectionable to someone with perfect pitch. But, that's not really the main reason why tuning drastically higher or lower is objectionable, I explained that in my previous post. It is the effect that the higher or lower tuning has on overall timbre and the way that many instruments react, response-wise, to that alteration that many players (and some listeners) find objectionable.
BTW, the piano would be tuned to whatever pitch is requested, but if the soloist insists on a lower pitch, the orchestra would oblige..
Merry Christmas! |
You are welcome. Happy Holidays! |
Fleib, electronically generated tones can indeed be a very good way to
judge pitch stability. This brings up an interesting issue related to the
previous discussion about the tuning of acoustic instruments, and the
"improvements" in intonation of some modern instruments, and
why these "improvements" are not always a slam-dunk and
often have a clear downside. Some modern instrument manufacturers
attempt to bend the laws of physics and acoustics in an attempt to correct
some of the traditional and naturally occurring pitch issues in acoustic
instruments. A very simple example would be this: the clarinet, being a
cylindrical vs conical (saxophone) woodwind instrument overblows the
twelfth as opposed to the octave. IOW, the first naturally occurring
overtone is an octave and a fifth. For argument's sake, lets assume that
the first (lowest) note on the instrument is a "C". The easy part
is getting the first twelfth ("G") to be fairly well in tune, then you
have to start finding the absolutely correct placement of the tone holes as
you ascend the scale. You may be able to determine a good placement of
the tonehole for the first note after "C" ("D"); but
then, because of the mathematical imperfections of the harmonic series
(and other issues) what might be a good placement of the "D"
tonehole in relation to "C" below it, that D's twelfth
("A") may be too sharp. So, what to do? Leave it that way, or
do you "force" the instrument to sound that "A" lower
in pitch by manipulating other aspects of the design by, perhaps, making
that tonehole's tube slightly taller? Some modern instrument makers strive
to "correct" all these naturally occurring problems and do so
with quite a bit of success. So what is the problem? Most players will tell
you that the more an instrument's natural tendencies have been
manipulated, the more difficult it is to play in tune within an ensemble
comprised of some of these "improved" instruments. These
intruments have less "core" in their sound because the naturally
occurring harmonics are not allowed to manifest themselves and then there
is a less-well defined pitch center. You can't fool Mother Nature! While, on
the surface, all this may seem to have little to do with the issue of pitch
(speed) stability in turntables, it should at the very least highlight how
crucial issues of pitch and intonation are in just one aspect of music
making. So, why should they be any less important in its playback?
****I'm hoping that the thread prompts a discussion of the differences
between various drive types and the distinction between speed accuracy
and speed stability. **** - Peterayer
IMO, we audiophiles don't pay enough attention to pitch issues. No one is
suggesting that we can't enjoy our music if our turntables are not spinning
at the absolutely correct speed with perfect consistency. But, considering
how we agonize over tiny differences in the tonal quality of some of our
gear, it makes no sense to not give as much consideration to pitch. Just to
give an idea of just how sensitive the human ear is to pitch variation:
We are all familiar with the routine of the oboist "giving the A" at
an orchestral concert. More times than not the oboist gives that A by
playing to an electronic tuner that is supposed to be extremely accurate. It
is not uncommon for players tuning to that oboist's A to, pretty
unanimously, feel that the A is slightly high or low; this in spite of the fact
that the electronic tuner is saying that it is dead accurate. The human ear
can tell when the pitch is leaning one way or the other before our
measuring equipment can.
I have never used any technical method for judging my turntables' speed
stability other than an occasional strobe disc, choosing instead to set my
motor controller's frequency by ear and the use of recorded reference
pitches that I then check the tuning of. To the naysayers that feel that
absolutely correct speed accuracy AND stability are not important, I would
say that they are missing out on a significant amount of what the
performances on their LP's have to offer on MUSICAL grounds because of
the very profound effects that inaccurate speed accuracy has on the
musical intent of a recorded performance and the equally profound effect of
poor speed stability on the rhythm and timing of a performance. The same
way that the tuning "A" can be distorted to a degree that the ear
can detect while an electronic tuner can't, the effects of poor speed stability
on the rhythmic feeling of the music can be distorted in ways that are
subtle, and while not obvious in the usual sense, can make the difference
in our emotional reaction to the music. |
Fleib, we could go much much more in-depth with some of these topics and so far only the surface has been scratched here. But, you are correct in that it's probably "Enough of this for now". If there is further interest on your, or anyone else's, part I would be glad to delve deeper into this. I would simply say that if you are interested you research the prices that vintage flutes and saxophones fetch compared to new ones; there is a reason for this and it has nothing to do with collectors. Anyway, the main reason that I feel any of this is relevant to our audio hobby is as a reminder of just how deep some of this stuff runs, and that at the end of the day all our audiophillic endeavors relate back to the MUSIC, and what takes place in the the process of music making. There are many parallels between what an audiophile concerns himself with and what a musician does. There is a tendency to want the new and the more technologically advanced to be "better", and to rely on technology to exlain most of what we hear. I believe that there is an unavoidable (at least to a degree) conflict between what the essence of music is and some of what technology brings to the table. To recognize this is not being a Luddite or anything of the sort; it's simply respecting the fact that, ultimately, what separates music from simply sound, the emotion, can't be broken down to nor fully explained by numbers.
****I always thought perfect pitch was something one had to be born with, to possess, and ear training was limited to relative pitch. Turns out, perfect pitch can be learned.****
Precisely one of the reasons for my comment about it not being an indication of superior musicianship, since a lot of these things are often shrouded in mystery and many feel that perfect pitch is an indication of musical genius of some kind.
Happy New Year! |
