Piano World Home Page Forums Our Most Popular Forums Pianist Corner Tone and Technology

Hi all...so here's a thought that might generate some discussion.

1) Lots of people have very strong opinions regarding the make, model, voicing, and overall tone of the piano. When asked, they will tell you that the sound of piano is extremely important.

2) Many of those same people do a lot of listening online, using Pandora, Spotify, or YouTube - services which all render music at a relatively low quality level. Two or three decades ago, audiophiles would spend thousands of dollars on equipment so that they could play their vinyl or CD collections back with the best sound possible. Nowadays, people seem content with tinny laptop speakers or cheap earbuds.

I find a lot of cognitive dissonance in that. Discuss.

I think there are two things mixed up in point (2): Maybe they should be separated into (2) and (3)?

2) On the one hand, we have the limits of Pandora's, or whoever's, digital encoding. I suppose it's possible to stream CD quality, but I don't think these folks do. They use some kind of compression which the listener may or may not detect.

3) This is different from limitations from bad laptop speakers and headphones. People do seem more content with bad speakers, but it's perfectly possible to stream digital music to good speakers. When you do that, you're only under the limitations of the encoding/compression.


-Jason

Well, we are all willing to make compromises when it's electronic, because it's not quite real? But NO compromises when it's live because it's little to obvious, and we are more present at the time?

And you have to admit, Kreisler, that sound quality in ear buds and MP3 players has improved dramatically in the last 30 years. What comes out of one's ear buds now is vastly superior to what might have come out of one's high-end, audiophile "hi-fi" in the 1960s.

BTW, do you play the Kreisleriana? Just curious...

Yep.

I grew up with mono L.P. recordings and for years, I thought what I was hearing sounded pretty good. Then stereo replaced mono and I thought what I was hearing sounded pretty good. I listened to C.D.'s and was amazed at the improved clarity and I thought what I was hearing sounded pretty good. Then I replaced my harsh sounding old Baldwin Acrosonic with a Steinway "O" and I thought what I was hearing sounded pretty good. Then I heard my teacher play his 9 foot Steinway in a tiny studio and my knees turned to jelly and I felt like I had entered Wonderland. Since then, I am painfully aware of the limits of lower quality pianos, speakers, compression of recordings and bad room acoustics. Since my aural awakening, my technician tells me I have "expensive ears" because I am no longer satisfied with my Steinway "O" but I can't afford a D.

For some of us, it's a matter of what we're been exposed to. For others, well, I'm convinced that some people just can't hear the difference.

Yes, but there are vastly superior ways to listen to music. Mp3 is one of the worst ways you can listen to music - if you're going to do that, do it with FLAC or something else lossless!

My home hi-fi equipment is pretty old, but is still truly 'hi-fi', and I'm constantly amazed at what the younger generation tolerates these days in terms of poor sound. The same applies to imaging - seemingly, anything goes in terms of out-of-focus, blurry, wonky photographs and videos, taken on cell phones (don't anyone use real cameras anymore?).

My laptop is connected to my hi-fi via a simple lead costing $10, and the sound I get from good live streams (as from BBC Radio 3, which is in HD sound) is pretty good. But very few YouTube recordings are up to scratch. When on the go, and listening to my iPod, I use the best earphones around (Klipsch Image X10i).

I was amazed that one or two people here who were commenting on the recent VCC were listening to the pianists via their computer speakers. Frankly, I can hear lots more detail from (shellac) 1930 recordings, transferred to CD, on my hi-fi than any modern recording via any built-in computer speakers.

I believe analogue throughout is best. Especially as with the very expensive pressing of the first Desmar Nyiregyhazi LP - six months of test pressings went into it before factory production began - if one has for instance the separate stylus for each side of the groove, contemporary cd quality can hardly hold a candle to it!

But if not much effort goes into an LP then its advantage over present day CDs is much reduced.


M.

Yes I am one of those people



Yes, I'm also one of those people.



Yes, make that very low quality level in many cases... But the good thing is that the interpretation usually is still intelligible. And for old recordings, the quality was not high to start with and youtube does not lower it THAT much

So the reason for listening to this crap quality is mostly that it's not so easy to find better recordings. It would take a lot of time, visiting a library or ordering CDs online, etc. Time I prefer to spend on the bench working on my own performances.




Yes, count me in


Not here but yes I see this with many people. What puzzles me even more is that they are listening in the public transport, in the car, while working etc. I can't see how you can enjoy music in such noisy environments, and while doing something else that needs your concentration.

I have very good Sennheiser headphones that I usually listen with. Not that that helps with most online recordings but at least I have a balanced sound with good bass, if the recording at least has that.

And also notice that even top end speakers suffer from particularly poor room acoustics and are also limited in frequency range much more than headphones. I have audiophile speakers and amps but the (much cheaper) headphone outperforms them hands down.

As a "card-carrying" audiophile proved in dollars spent I do see the question posed between the two contrasting points. I guess firstly I'll state my opinion that the audio chain does make a difference, though like many hobbies, one which presents diminishing returns as one moves up. (For those interested I'm running a pair of Audeze Orthodynamics out of a custom transformer coupled Japanese tube amp for rock/hiphop/electronic and for classical: Stax 507s into a tubed extremely hot running New York Woo Audio amp sourced from a top-shelf Marantz SACD all with custom cabling and power conditioning etc. As an apartment dweller, I'm sure my neighbours are happy with my choice of hobbies.)

It's been a very insightful hobby as it's given me an excellent perspective on sonic quality and characteristics in all facets of life and the vocabulary to back it. Certainly playing the D major chord in person on a Yamaha upright and a Steinway A sounds very different to my ear with the Steinway presenting much more complexity and density of tone one could just fall into playing Bach etc. However, my observations in the hobby are that often people stretch credibility in the miraculous differences claimed when I know the differences truly get smaller and smaller.

How I deal with this is to basically let it all pass in one ear and out the other with polite respect. I know what can be substantiated, what can be tested and what sounds reasonable in regards to my experience and am therefore drawn toward articles I can trust and people I can learn from.

Simply put, I have better things to do in life than jump into a flame war about the subtle differences of Steinways on YT. I, myself, have been in audio Nirvana the last couple of years and haven't considered upgrading - normally a chronic condition among audiophiles - and have instead spent the money on buying music and books to read while listening.

I agree completely and have had the same issues as you have over a long life.
I am an audiophile (massive KEFs, independent amps, 3000 watt Velodyne subwoofer rated at max 1/2 % distortion at full output). BUT, Nothing compares to hearing a well played live, well regulated, well tuned piano. Yes, we can hear the innate quality of a performance or a piano on recordings, both poorly recorded and well recorded. Our brains process the sound to match our memory experiences.
I was practicing slowly today, and wondered if most pianists take time to revel in the sonorities that are capable of being produced by a good piano, and not just spend their time "making music"?

A friend of mine has a theory that one of the reasons so many Russian and Eastern Europeans get such a wonderful tone is that the pianos in those countries are often in very poor condition. As a result, they have to work very hard to get a good sound. When one practices on an excellent instrument all the time, it can be a little too easy to let the piano do the work for you.

Interesting statement. I'm not sure if I agree. It is the case that one must work much harder to get a decent tone (or even get the notes to speak) on poorly maintained instruments, or instruments that are inherently poor. That has been my experience throughout my life. I feel that an excellent instrument actually requires more care and finesse, not more work, since its range of dynamics, tonal nuance and colour is so much greater than a poor instrument.

Thank you Mwm. I was struggling to say what you just said very well.

Though the idea of being a "colourist" isn't as prevalent amongst the Russians, which would require fabulous control over a nice instrument. Rather, "Russian" playing evokes thoughts of a singing cantabile, long melodic lines and no harsh sounds....as opposed to "orchestral", "10 kinds of staccato", "varied and colourful playing", and other descriptors for colourists (aka, what many competition pianists try to sound like these days..)

I don't know if I agree with the initial statement of the thread. You see I find that a laptop speaker, with a decent quality mp3, appears to be better to the majority of the people (and not the audiophiles).

The ease of use, the readiness and "cleanness" (as well as the digital-ness) of the file is enough for most people I think. Plus, if I may confess that I can't exactly spot the difference between a 196 kbit mp3 from a wav file, even on my high quality equipment, placed on my audio treated project studio...

Perhaps it is not so much a matter of inconsistency as individual variation in habit, aural sensitivity and preference over a lifetime. I appear to be fussy about some aspects of piano sound while remaining blissfully oblivious to others. I cannot tell the difference in quality between good mp3 recordings I make in the lounge and professional recordings I buy in the shops. On the other hand, the faint creaking of my previous piano stool in recordings annoyed me to the extent that I bought another one, even though nobody else could hear the noise. When I had the means and opportunity to buy a really superior piano I chose instead to rebuild my old Weinbach because I had grown to love its sound, faults and all. I still listen to all recordings through the same twenty year old old hi-fi with big speakers.

I think the mind can transcend poor recordings (of course, there are limits). The mind's ear fills in the gaps and "hears" the tone as it was meant to be. For example, there are recordings of Rubinstein that I enjoy listening to, even though the recording quality is noisy compared to modern standards. I hear the noise of course, but my mind analyze and process the powerful chords and beautiful played melodies. Even the best audio experiences aren't always ideal--think about coughing and other ambient noise during a live music concert. Your mind learns to ignore the noise (and of course, there are limits) and focus on the music.

On the other hand, a bland performance recorded with great recording systems, played with great sound systems will still sound bland. The mind won't be able to fill in the gaps there. That's why it's more important for me to make sure the performance is not bland (good tone, etc) than it is to listen to only highest quality recordings.

I remember reading many years ago an article, I think in a stereo magazine, in which the author found it odd that many famous professional classical musicians didn't much care about the sound of their playback equipment. They could afford much better than they had, and they did listen to recordings and broadcasts, but they just weren't very interested in the sound, per se. IIRC, one said something to the effect that he didn't listen to the sound, and, in fact, if it was too good, it was distracting; he was more interested in the music than in the sound.

That has stuck with me, in part because it aligned with my own experience, and being a bit counter-intuitive, it was nice reinforcement to know that some others heard things the same way. For me, thinking back over a lifetime of listening, I can say that listening to a cheap, static-ridden, mono table-top AM radio has been just as effective a vehicle for great musical experiences as anything "better". I think I first read about this kind of thing in Marshall McLuhan, who talked about how media with less density of information were more involving than those that had more "resolution". Our brains and imagination have to do more work when given less to go on, and that will focus more of our attention on the subject, which in turn will make it more "real" and often more meaningful.

When we listen to a real instrument in real space, it's a whole different proposition. For one obvious thing, hearing itself functions differently - spatial and directional focus comes into play in a way that isn't possible when we listen to a recording. And when playing, I am deeply involved in an instantaneous feedback loop where everything I do affects the result, and that doesn't exist when listening to a recording (or even to a live broadcast). And I don't need to project myself into some different space and time where the music is originating - I'm already there.

There's lots more that could be said, but the gist of it, to me, is that there isn't much cognitive dissonance involved in having different standards for pianos and playback equipment - they just aren't very similar in nature.

P.S.: just saw that neuralfirings posted a message while I was typing that had some similar ideas - synchronicity in action!

I don't know if I can really believe this, but it's an appealing idea, and I mostly buy it: I think that there's value in learning on a poor piano.

We obsess over pianos, recording equipment, and so forth, when our playing would be better served if we primarily obsessed over learning.

Not that you can't go crazy over equipment and so forth (I love piano brand discussions), but if your goal is to become a better pianist, your equipment is far in second place in importance.

As for the OP: I'm happy with my YouTube recordings; it immediately brings me endless interpretations of endlessly-many pieces by endlessly-many musicians. What it lacks in quality it makes up for in convenience and comprehensiveness.

There's a lot of joy to owning physical music. I'm looking to buy CDs and vinyls. And of course I want to buy a new piano.

But I remember that no matter what I have, I need to practice!