Ritteri, I hate to rain on YOUR parade dude, but IMO you have come on way too strong with your assertions. I'm thrilled that you feel so strongly about the merits of your chosen speakers, but...
Are you suggesting that the human ear is not sensitive enough to tell the differences between two same model Yamaha's? Why then, don't many players, and not just professional musicians, simply order a piano over the phone and call it a day? Why bother with test playing them in showrooms, and agonizing over the sometimes subtle, but obvious differences. Are you suggesting that the human ear is not sensitive enough to consistently tell apart a Yamaha electric from a real grand? Or from Dunlavy IV's? Musicians that you know were not able to do this? Professional musicians?!?! (And I don't mean to suggest, at all, that only musicians can do this) Just how much money are you willing to wager?
Email me privately if you would like to extend the challenge. Interesting, though, that you use Yamaha as a reference; of all the major piano brands, probably the least harmonically rich and complex.
Anyway, I agree with you that there are a few speaker systems can come pretty close to reproducing the sound of a real piano. But the impact, the resonance of the wood, the complexity of harmonics and difference tones that even the best recording equipment has trouble capturing? Close? Sure, but no cigar. To suggest otherwise also means that playback equipment and amplification has reached a level of perfection that, I think, most here would agree is simply not the case. Speakers are, by definition, at the mercy of what came before them. As good as it may all be, it's all far from perfect.
Now, about that challenge...
Seriously, happy listening, and don't let this hobby lose it's mistery and challenge. When it starts to happen, I asure you that you're just not digging deep enough. Reproduced sound will never be able to sound like the real thing. Close maybe, but as they say...
Support live music!! |
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. |
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. |
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. |
|
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 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. |
Ritteri, I am glad that your experiences have been educational (education is a beautiful thing); and that you have had the opportunity to take part in these "controlled tests". However, the best education is attained by accepting the fact that there is always more to learn. Just because you don't hear the obvious differences between real and recorded, does not mean that the differences don't exist, and that they are not obvious to others. To make comments like "violins are not difficult to record/reproduce because their audible spectrum lies in the midrange and above", simply weakens your case. I guess this means that female vocals, trumpet, clarinet, flute are also easy to record. These have a range even narrower that the violins , but still in the "midrange and above". When digital recordings first came on the scene, and even today, guess what it was that most listeners objected to about their sound? The sound of strings. Anyway, the idea that one instrument is easier to record than another is, overall, simply absurd. It's a bit like saying: the trumpet is easier to play than the oboe. Not true, they are all difficult to play and to record well; overall, to the same degree. We all focus on different aspects of sound, and deem easier those that we are more confortable with.
Happy listening. |
Congratulations Ritteri, you get the last word. I stand by my comments.
Happy listening and all the best. |
Ritteri, now you go maligning a fine instrument with a rich history. Don't you know that this instrument is based on the African "mirliton"? A sacred instrument used to disguise one's voice.
Eric Clapton, Simon&Garfunkel, Peter, Paul and Mary, are just some of the artists who have used this wonderful instrument in their recordings. Oh, and let's not forget the all-girl Kazoo bands. |
Agreed! Exclude the Avantgardes. My choice would be the Gallos. To properly reproduce the unique timbral textures of the Kazoo/human head interface; the speaker should approximate the shape of the human head. |
