We have recorded Enrique Granados' The Maiden and the Nightingale from Goyescas 3 times on 3 different semi concert grands. Same music. Same pianist. Same location ( we literally put tape on the floor to make sure ). Same piano technician. Same recording engineer. Same recording gear. Same gear set up.
I will reveal the brand or brands and model or models of pianos some time in the near future! Enjoy! I am very much looking forward to people's responses
I'll play. I greatly prefer 1 & 3 over 2. Between 1 & 3, l like the differences they present, but if forced to choose, 1 is my favorite of the recordings.
I'll play. I greatly prefer 1 & 3 over 2. Between 1 & 3, l like the differences they present, but if forced to choose, 1 is my favorite of the recordings.
I can't hear enough difference to consistently choose one over the other. This kind of test is interesting, there was a test comparing old violins vs new violins done some years ago that turned up that no one could tell a stradivarius from a new quality made instrument, including the person who owned the stradivarius. The players were blindfolded and the majority picked a new instrument. It would be interesting to do the same thing with different age and brand pianos.
Listening with Neumann KH120s , a (new) Cranesong Solaris Quantum DAC and Senn HD650s into the Cranesong -- They're all very good but I prefer #1. It seems to have that extra bit of dark tone and richness that I like. But #3 is very good too and so is #2. In that order.
Since you said Semi- concert, is #1 a rebuilt NY Steinway C ? I heard one on your site not long ago that had a gorgeous tone. Are we including 7' models ?
I like 2 slightly better than 3 and find 1 to be indistinct and clumsy sounding.
But hearing this piece makes me remember how simply wonderful my wife can play it. I may have to set her to task if she is willing so I can hear it on my concert grand.
I like 2 slightly better than 3 and find 1 to be indistinct and clumsy sounding.
But hearing this piece makes me remember how simply wonderful my wife can play it. I may have to set her to task if she is willing so I can hear it on my concert grand.
This sounds so romantic.You will have ask nicely.Do not forget -at least one red rose for your wife !
#1, #2, #3 I prefer the bass of the #2 over the #1. In general I like the clarity of #2, the warmth of #1, the #3 had a sharper, brighter tone. I think I could like #3 in isolation but probably for other repertoire than #1 and #2.
I can't hear much difference but maybe that's because I'm just listening on my laprtop's speakers. I hope I could hear a difference listening in your showroom.
Right now, I'd have to say 3, 1, 2. But I think 1 is the most intriguing and potential-filled of the three, and with a little work to brighten it up a bit would almost certainly go to the top of my list.
This is a great study which illustrates not only how varied 3 different quality piano's scalings can be but also how different our aural preferences are. I like the definition of 2 best. It's like fine wines, there is no "best" piano in the world. I am interested in how we are conditioned to prefer certain sounds. I met a Polish professional pianist who for all of her developing years played "European" pianos. When she first played a NYS&S years later she immediately fell in love with the lush sound. I went exactly in the opposite direction.
I can't hear enough difference to consistently choose one over the other. This kind of test is interesting, there was a test comparing old violins vs new violins done some years ago that turned up that no one could tell a stradivarius from a new quality made instrument, including the person who owned the stradivarius. The players were blindfolded and the majority picked a new instrument. It would be interesting to do the same thing with different age and brand pianos.
They did something similar with 'cellos. Same player, same pieces, behind a screen playing for an illustrious panel of 'cellists and concertmasters. The panel couldn't reliably pick old from new and the "winner" was a Moes-and Moes, a contemporary maker in Germany. I guess it wasn't the coal dust in the air or whatever voo-doo they're ascribing this week to the work of Antonio S.
I like 2 slightly better than 3 and find 1 to be indistinct and clumsy sounding.
But hearing this piece makes me remember how simply wonderful my wife can play it. I may have to set her to task if she is willing so I can hear it on my concert grand.
Thanks for your opinion! It is really charming how much you like your wife's playing.
I can't hear enough difference to consistently choose one over the other. This kind of test is interesting, there was a test comparing old violins vs new violins done some years ago that turned up that no one could tell a stradivarius from a new quality made instrument, including the person who owned the stradivarius. The players were blindfolded and the majority picked a new instrument. It would be interesting to do the same thing with different age and brand pianos.
I would also like to ask, can most of you determine how much you like a piano within the first 10 to 15 seconds of listening to it, or as the more you listen your preference may change? And what is your piano background?
Here are my answers to my own questions:
I am a beginner player. I have been a music lover all my life but just recently started taking piano lessons several months ago. Within the first few seconds I obtain a rough ballpark impression whether I "like" or "dislike" the sound, but then unable to get a further more accurate assessment, or a ranking. When I first listened to the three soundtracks I liked 1 the most. A few minutes in I thought 3 was also good. Then I started over and listened once again this time 2 sounded not bad either. At this point I have no answer, my "rankings" continue to change like weather.
Listening with Neumann KH120s , a (new) Cranesong Solaris Quantum DAC and Senn HD650s into the Cranesong -- They're all very good but I prefer #1. It seems to have that extra bit of dark tone and richness that I like. But #3 is very good too and so is #2. In that order.
Since you said Semi- concert, is #1 a rebuilt NY Steinway C ? I heard one on your site not long ago that had a gorgeous tone. Are we including 7' models ?
Thanks for the feedback Dave! I consider a piano a semi concert grand at the 6'10"- 8' size give or take. I also appreciate that you are listening on great equipment which makes a huge difference.
#1, #2, #3 I prefer the bass of the #2 over the #1. In general I like the clarity of #2, the warmth of #1, the #3 had a sharper, brighter tone. I think I could like #3 in isolation but probably for other repertoire than #1 and #2.
I can't hear much difference but maybe that's because I'm just listening on my laprtop's speakers. I hope I could hear a difference listening in your showroom.
Listen with some headphones on your laptop. You should hear some difference.
Right now, I'd have to say 3, 1, 2. But I think 1 is the most intriguing and potential-filled of the three, and with a little work to brighten it up a bit would almost certainly go to the top of my list.
I really want to know what they are!
Larry.
Thank you for your response. I can't wait to reveal but this part is awfully fun!
This is a great study which illustrates not only how varied 3 different quality piano's scalings can be but also how different our aural preferences are. I like the definition of 2 best. It's like fine wines, there is no "best" piano in the world. I am interested in how we are conditioned to prefer certain sounds. I met a Polish professional pianist who for all of her developing years played "European" pianos. When she first played a NYS&S years later she immediately fell in love with the lush sound. I went exactly in the opposite direction.
I would also like to ask, can most of you determine how much you like a piano within the first 10 to 15 seconds of listening to it, or as the more you listen your preference may change? And what is your piano background?
Here are my answers to my own questions:
I am a beginner player. I have been a music lover all my life but just recently started taking piano lessons several months ago. Within the first few seconds I obtain a rough ballpark impression whether I "like" or "dislike" the sound, but then unable to get a further more accurate assessment, or a ranking. When I first listened to the three soundtracks I liked 1 the most. A few minutes in I thought 3 was also good. Then I started over and listened once again this time 2 sounded not bad either. At this point I have no answer, my "rankings" continue to change like weather.
It is not at all necessary to like one more than the other. Listening and noticing differences and similarities is fine as is noticing your own changing taste or even awareness of what is going on with different pianos.
I like 2 slightly better than 3 and find 1 to be indistinct and clumsy sounding.
But hearing this piece makes me remember how simply wonderful my wife can play it. I may have to set her to task if she is willing so I can hear it on my concert grand.
Thanks for your opinion! It is really charming how much you like your wife's playing.
I Agee ! All 3 did sound very similar today ,but I guess I will still go with no 2
I believe that PianoCraft carries the new Baldwin line, and that they might have the new Baldwin 7' in stock. I wonder if one of them is that piano....
Wouldn't be surprised if #1 is the rebuilt Steinway C, though.
I don't think the #1 is a Steinway. It reminds me more of Steingraeber but a touch warmer, even thought about Bechstein but the treble seems different. Anyway, it's mere speculation although I would be very suprised if #1 turned out to be Yamaha.
Great thread Keith, thanks for going to all the work of arranging these recordings and posting this. All of the pianos sound lovely, I particularly like the tenor and bass in No.3. Also the pianist plays beautifully in all three recordings.
I would also like to ask, can most of you determine how much you like a piano within the first 10 to 15 seconds of listening to it, or as the more you listen your preference may change? And what is your piano background?
Don't take the responses in this thread too seriously. The gold standard of audio testing is the ABX test. Which is, you are given two sound sources A and B, of different instruments, amplifiers, whatever is being tested. Then you are given the X recording. X is either A or B, but you don't know which. Your only job is to say if X is also A or B.
*Everyone* falls apart on this. You can go to forums and read books worth of people opining about different amplifiers, tubes, and so on, yet they utterly fail at ABX. Same with things most people would agree make real effects, such as compression levels (mp3 vs whatever). Even when people do notice differences, it is variable, and will get different results on different days. I'm not saying people would confuse a xylophone with a trumpet, but we are profoundly affected by brand, expectations, and so on. As other's have pointed out, a significant # of string players swear by Amati, Strad, and so on, but absolutely cannot pick them out when listening blind. Suddenly, just not knowing the name makes all those amazing and obvious qualities just vanish! Heck, wine experts failed at distinguishing red from white wine (there are nuances to that test that are worth knowing if you are seriously testing wines, but still, shocking result).
And then, of course, this is not blind at all. we all get to read the responses. I see some people say 1 is warm, 3 is bright. So, what am I going to hear? I'm going to be strongly biased in that direction, unless I'm a contrarian, in which case I might go with the opposite.
I'm not bashing the thread, it's fun, but it ain't telling us much about pianos or the aural skills of the listeners. It may be you have the best ears here, or the worst. Who knows?
Anyway, my guess is it is the same piano, 3 different players. Not because I believe that, but I don't not believe it either, and I know we *want* to hear differences, and claim to hear profound differences, even when there is none. I recognize OP said "3 different" pianos, but meh, misdirection is the heart and soul of experimentation.
This is fun! I'm listening to about a minute at a time of each of the three. First off let me say they all sound like wonderful instruments, but I do hear differences between them. I also think I hear subtle differences in the performance based on how the piano responds to the pianist. #1 has the roundest tone, perhaps the hammers are just a bit softer, but it seems getting sparkle out of the high end takes just a bit more effort, but getting a lush warm lyrical sound is what this piano specializes in. If I had to guess this sounds a bit like an Estonia to me. #2 is less warm (but still gorgeous) like a recording engineer EQ'd some of the low mids out (I'm not saying they did, but that's how I would describe the timbre). This sounds more like a concert voicing (designed to project into a large space) except that the instrument was left with plenty of subtlety. It wouldn't surprise me if this was a Steinway. #3 is between the two. One might say best of both worlds, except that it's not as good at lush or sparkle as the other two.
Kudos to the pianist for a fine performance, I really hard a difference in the filigree at the end between #1 and #2. What I didn't hear were some real thundering fortissimos. It seemed #2 and #3 could really jump out of the box if called upon, #1 less so, but given six months of 2 hours a day of practice #1 could become the best of the bunch.
Those are my thoughts and guesses. If I had to state a preference #2, then #1 then #3.
I would also like to ask, can most of you determine how much you like a piano within the first 10 to 15 seconds of listening to it, or as the more you listen your preference may change? And what is your piano background?
Don't take the responses in this thread too seriously. The gold standard of audio testing is the ABX test. Which is, you are given two sound sources A and B, of different instruments, amplifiers, whatever is being tested. Then you are given the X recording. X is either A or B, but you don't know which. Your only job is to say if X is also A or B.
*Everyone* falls apart on this. You can go to forums and read books worth of people opining about different amplifiers, tubes, and so on, yet they utterly fail at ABX. Same with things most people would agree make real effects, such as compression levels (mp3 vs whatever). Even when people do notice differences, it is variable, and will get different results on different days. I'm not saying people would confuse a xylophone with a trumpet, but we are profoundly affected by brand, expectations, and so on. As other's have pointed out, a significant # of string players swear by Amati, Strad, and so on, but absolutely cannot pick them out when listening blind. Suddenly, just not knowing the name makes all those amazing and obvious qualities just vanish! Heck, wine experts failed at distinguishing red from white wine (there are nuances to that test that are worth knowing if you are seriously testing wines, but still, shocking result).
And then, of course, this is not blind at all. we all get to read the responses. I see some people say 1 is warm, 3 is bright. So, what am I going to hear? I'm going to be strongly biased in that direction, unless I'm a contrarian, in which case I might go with the opposite.
I'm not bashing the thread, it's fun, but it ain't telling us much about pianos or the aural skills of the listeners. It may be you have the best ears here, or the worst. Who knows?
Anyway, my guess is it is the same piano, 3 different players. Not because I believe that, but I don't not believe it either, and I know we *want* to hear differences, and claim to hear profound differences, even when there is none. I recognize OP said "3 different" pianos, but meh, misdirection is the heart and soul of experimentation.
RogerRL, thanks for sharing these thoughts. By the way the xylophone to trumpet comparison is the funniest thing I've read in a while.
Some years ago someone posted a number of (8 or 10) recordings of Si Mi Chiamano Mimi, sang by different sopranos while all names removed. I replied with comments on each and a ranking of personal preference, turned out my top two picks (which I had a harder time discerning) were two different recordings of the same soprano Freni. Of course it is much easier to recognize a vocal voice than piano sound, but still I was glad I passed some kind of ABCDEXX test and wasn't one of those wine experts when making opera comments.
Speaking of pianos, the interesting thing is I find my preferences always change. Not that I can't hear the difference, I still feel I hear the same sound every time, but this time I like A, next time I may like B. Even within a same 4~5 minutes recording, I may not like the sound in the beginning but half way into it I start to like it. This is particularly frustrating when purchasing a piano. People always say "there's no right or wrong, just pick the one you like the most." Heck, that's the whole point, I wish I knew which one I like the most!
This was an interesting experiment. I agree with Roger's post, but it doesn't take away from the fun, as long as you recognize the biases that you (we all!) bring to the table.
I thought they all sounded beautiful in different ways - to me the differences in tone were quire apparent when going back and forth between them. I'm of the camp that my preferences change as much as the weather. I dearly love my C. Bechstein, but sometimes I wish I had access to the creme-brulee-like richness of a Steinway. Vive la diference!
I won't even hazard a guess as to the makes or models....but in the spirit of going a different route, let me pose another alternative....they are all the same make and model, just different pianos!
One things is clear....the playing was lovely, and the pianos were set up beautifully. Kudos to performer and technician!
Agree, and I wonder if the order were different, whether we would experience them differently. Regardless, I'd go with 1/3 or 3/1 then 2. But I'm sure they're all excellent.
The limits of youtube audio probably erase/mask 90% of the audible differences (and 100% of the tactile differences!). Not my choice of music to demonstrate differences.
That being said all sound ok for mid-sized pianos.
#1 is the most substantial sounding piano and has more depth in the sound. A wild guess would be a Steinway or perhaps European instrument.
#2 is thinner, lighter and brighter. Some would say feminine or delicate. Nice sound. Maybe a Yamaha or other Asian piano.
#3 is not so pleasant. Rather muddy and definitely shallower. Baldwin? Kawai?
I have seen enough recording studio work to have learned that a piano that doesn't sound/feel that great can be recorded to sound quite good. The super sensitive microphones, wide choice of added reverb, dynamic compression and frequency EQ allow for a multitude of "adulterants" to the original sound.
If you are able to listen to the recordings with better equipment, then finer distinctions are possible. Additionally, YouTube's compression really is very mild unless you're data stream is limited - they focus more on video compression. Music played on the radio or streamed from services are the big offenders of badly compressed audio. I have a fast connection, a modest Bravo Audio headphone amp and a very nice set of AKG K712 cans for critical listening. I have a reasonably good quality external computer speaker system from Bose for general listening.
I've come back and listened to these a second time, and my preferences are still the same order, 1, 3, 2...but I found more about 2 that I did like this time, and found that it was only a few aspects of the tone that bothered me while appreciating more of the whole. They are far closer for me the second time around, but the more gradual tonal change of recording one is probably why I prefer it more than any other aspect of the tone. 2 appeals to me in the different registers more, but less so in how the tone changes at greater dynamic levels.
It's fun to talk about even if the words used are rarely exact enough.
I think it is fair so say that all pianos are in fine shape, with excellent voicing and tuning. So, I think we should give kudos to Keith for that. I think that 1 and 3 sound a bit better than 2, but honestly, who wouldn't be more than thrilled to own a piano that sounded as good as any of them. There is something about the attack portion of piano 1's sound that I tend to associate with Steinway, but boy could I be wrong. I also suspect that if a different brand of hammers was installed in any of the 3 pianos, then the subtle differences in their sound could be changed quite substantially for the better or worse.
To my ears 3 has the best balance of brightness and subtlety, 1 is a tad too brilliant for me, and 2 is too much of a sameness throughout the range, too "mellow" if you will.
But really, these are very personal discriminations I'm making. I think all these pianos sound terrific.
From favorite to lesser favorite, I'd say 3, 2, 1. With 1, I liked the treble better than the bass; with 2, it was the other way round. 3 seems to be the best package.
But: I only listened to the first three minutes of each recording. And I'd probably fail the ABX test.
I simply could not choose. Perhaps I was just so engrossed and charmed by the performance(s) that any discrepancies that might have been there were not discernible to these aging ears.
Exquisite playing!
However, the listening exercise which I followed with the score has tempted me to work on this. I'll never play it as well as the pianist in these (this) recording(s).
From a musician appreciation perspective nice recordings and performance. From a technicians view I heard the same voicing problems in all three, the forte blows don't maintain the same character as the soft blows, and the tenor section often had hammers/strings out of phase, and the registers are not in balance with each other. But, none of that took away from the enjoyable music! Thank you for the hard work in putting this all together!
From a technicians view I heard the same voicing problems in all three, the forte blows don't maintain the same character as the soft blows,
Thanks for your opinion. I consider it a voicing problem ( maybe the most serious as it severely limits the expression available to a pianist ) when forte and soft blows have the same character.
Thanks for your opinion. I consider it a voicing problem ( maybe the most serious as it severely limits the expression available to a pianist ) when forte and soft blows have the same character.
As a new piano owner, I didn't know there was not actually consensus about this. For what it's worth, I am on the same camp as Keith. "Color" for me is when the note is struck hard, the tone character _changes_, not just get louder. Hopefully in a pleasant way
I've been re-listening to the 2015 Chopin Competition, and the Steinway and the Yamaha has clearly more "color". The Kawai sounded very nice, but it lacked that "color". I want the piano to be big and angry in ff, and soft and gentle in pp, and a broad range in between.
I only listened on my laptop, but FWIW, I could hear subtle differences in the character of each piano, and also even changes within the same recordings at different dynamic levels and parts of the piece. I say "character," but not "quality," because they all sounded nice, as did the playing.
Thanks for your opinion. I consider it a voicing problem ( maybe the most serious as it severely limits the expression available to a pianist ) when forte and soft blows have the same character.
As a new piano owner, I didn't know there was not actually consensus about this. For what it's worth, I am on the same camp as Keith. "Color" for me is when the note is struck hard, the tone character _changes_, not just get louder. Hopefully in a pleasant way I've been re-listening to the 2015 Chopin Competition, and the Steinway and the Yamaha has clearly more "color". The Kawai sounded very nice, but it lacked that "color". I want the piano to be big and angry in ff, and soft and gentle in pp, and a broad range in between.
That's why it irks me when the teacher at a masterclass says "you need a different color there". Don't they really just mean a different dynamic since the dynamic change is what changes the color?
Thanks for your opinion. I consider it a voicing problem ( maybe the most serious as it severely limits the expression available to a pianist ) when forte and soft blows have the same character.
As a new piano owner, I didn't know there was not actually consensus about this. For what it's worth, I am on the same camp as Keith. "Color" for me is when the note is struck hard, the tone character _changes_, not just get louder. Hopefully in a pleasant way I've been re-listening to the 2015 Chopin Competition, and the Steinway and the Yamaha has clearly more "color". The Kawai sounded very nice, but it lacked that "color". I want the piano to be big and angry in ff, and soft and gentle in pp, and a broad range in between.
That's why it irks me when the teacher at a masterclass says "you need a different color there". Don't they really just mean a different dynamic since the dynamic change is what changes the color?
They mean a color change which may or may not include a dynamic change. The most obvious example of this would be same dynamic but with or without the shift ( una corda ) pedal. And the color change asked for may include a dynamic change as well as perhaps a different type of attack, balance among notes, release, pedaling etc.
That's why it irks me when the teacher at a masterclass says "you need a different color there". Don't they really just mean a different dynamic since the dynamic change is what changes the color?
I'm with the teacher on this issue. I understand that the dynamic change drives the tonal change, but it's often the tonal change that I'm really after; I truly want the "different color." If it's a different dynamic that gets me there, then so be it.
That's why it irks me when the teacher at a masterclass says "you need a different color there". Don't they really just mean a different dynamic since the dynamic change is what changes the color?
A loaded issue. 😠I would agree with what pianoloverus is getting at. And there's all the fleshy fingertips stuff. I like John Browing's explanation that the finger angle that places the pads of the fingers on the keys produces a slower (softer) tone that doesn't veer into harshness.
That's why it irks me when the teacher at a masterclass says "you need a different color there". Don't they really just mean a different dynamic since the dynamic change is what changes the color?
I think a teacher would never say "play louder-faster", or "play louder-slower". They would rather say "play with anger", "play with anger and grief", "play majestically". Because emotion is what makes music, and every pianist would approach it differently. To me, "play with different color", means play with different emotion--change dynamics, phrasing, tempo, etc.
#1 nice, soft and sultry. No clue as to the make. #2 ladylike & rubber bands. I am going to guess an Estonia, only because every one I have ever heard sounded of rubber band reverb. #3 my favorite. Complex and clear. Bechstein ?
