theory of tone production

[mike1127]

I took many years of piano as a kid, and no one said anything about tone. Or technique. Basically if I hit the right notes, I was fine.

When I started to reevaluate my technique as an adult, the first surprise was that people talked about tone production on the piano. My understanding is that the hammer flies free and the only relevant parameter is velocity at the moment it strikes the string. So it can get louder and softer. But change timbre? How would that work?

As I practice now on my upright piano, I notice tone again and again and again. As I vary how I deliver the impulse into the key, I get different tone. When I first got this piano, I thought it had an ugly sound. I've learned that was me, not having learned to deliver an impulse yet.

Or is all this an illusion?

Where can tone come from? Any theories that are connected to physics?

[keyboardclass]

If you understood clavichord construction a little you'd know it stands or falls on its soundbox.  It's amazing the difference a tiny change in design can bring about.  That keybedding can affect the soundboard of a piano and therefore the tone you hear is obvious to me.  Don't forget how the sound travels through the mechanism into your body as well - I think that's very perceptible to the player.  I've heard the same piano played by 20 different people in a row.  Only 4 made a nice sound.

[richard black]

Tone comes from the relative loudness of simultaneous, and successive, notes. There isn't really much 'tone' in a single note - well, not as regards the player. Single notes are defined by the instrument, multiple notes by the player. There's no mystery to it, though a lot of people are happy to construct one.

[bbush]

It is NOT an illusion, Mike!  And, while lots of the particulars of your piano do matter, in the production of tone (or note "color", as some prefer) you ARE responsible.

I graphically recall the mini-lesson in tone production I received from Donald Betts, a great pianist who taught at Macalester College, during my one and only graded recital there.  He demonstrated - and had me (try to) duplicate - several techniques for producing various tones on the grand he used.  Now, with an upright, the key-stroke/action is completely different and more limited in range than with a grand, but still, as you're discovering, there is a tremendous range of tone largely dependent upon your approach to each key.

Keep experimenting - and concentrating!

Best Wishes,
Bruce

[richard black]

He demonstrated - and had me (try to) duplicate - several techniques for producing various tones on the grand he used.

Of a single note, a chord, or a sequence of notes?

[bbush]

To Richard's question about my mini-lesson in tone during a graded recital:  At first, Mr. Betts made me hear the variations of tone in striking only one note with differing approaches, dropping from different heights, using more wrist action or more arm, even what he called "follow-through".  Then he ran me through chord production and arpeggiation, similarly showing and having me try different approaches to the keys... always emphasizing LISTENING.

True beginner as I was, that was all quite amazing to me; I had never been on a concert grand before and never had tried to dissect each note's production from much more depth than its volume... and his enthusiasm for helping me to "see" something that, to him, was so basic was contagious.  While he may have had other reasons (like not being able to stand crude playing), I appreciated his taking the time to instruct and, therefore, to expand my world of pianist possibilities, rather than simply to sit there and criticize my prepared pieces.

Bruce

[richard black]

At first, Mr. Betts made me hear the variations of tone in striking only one note with differing approaches, dropping from different heights, using more wrist action or more arm, even what he called "follow-through".

You see I'm a little sceptical about this. I don't doubt that you heard something, just exactly what it is you heard - small differences in volume can be terribly misleading. Has anyone ever done properly controlled experiments to establish the extent to which we can hear the tone of a single note? It's not that hard to envisage, indeed I'm tempted to have a go myself - just record a whole bunch of single notes played with different approaches to the key, and then from that bunch select example which come out at the same loudness.

The big trouble with listening when you can see what you are listening to is that your sense lead each other on. I know this in great detail from my work in the world of hi-fi: very large sums of money are regularly spent because people _think_ they hear something.

I'm not saying that there's absolutely no difference in tone of a single note, by the way, just that I really can't see any reason why it should be much of a factor, when the business of balancing multiple notes is so much more important.

[nyiregyhazi]

I'm not saying that there's absolutely no difference in tone of a single note, by the way, just that I really can't see any reason why it should be much of a factor, when the business of balancing multiple notes is so much more important.

Wouldn't multiple percussive sounds sound uglier than multiple smooth sounds- regardless of relations? Sometimes, while teaching I've heard the percussive thumps so heavy (without necessarily a very loud sound from the string at all) that I've literally been able to pick out the sound of the key hitting the keybed as a totally separate entity. I also recall hearing the same phenomenon exceptionally vividly in a competition- where a really terrible pianist pounded hard yet achieved very little tone. I could literally distinguish between the sound from within the piano and the thump of the keys. The difference in tone can be very big. I've heard plenty of pianists who basically relate tones rather well- but still sound plain ugly and lumpy to me. Conversely, some of Rubinstein's recordings are frankly rather bland and monotonous in terms of relations- yet somehow he creates a sound that comes across as being beautiful.

Contrary to the widely repeated myth that "science" ever proved tone to be impossible, there are experiments that have shown differences in sound waves and that people could perceive these differences. Apparently the very beginning of the note is the most significant part.

[richard black]

It's an interesting subject! Let's bear in mind that the velocity of the hammer is determined by the velocity of the key, and in the few mm of travel between the hammer escaping and the key hitting the key bed there isn't anything that can affect the velocity of the key significantly. What must be important, then, is the momentum behind the key, which is in turn means mass of finger/hand/arm coupled to it. (Momentum is (mass) times (velocity) and we've just said that velocity is fixed so we've looking for a variation in mass. Obviously momentum is important - this is basically just saying that a 1kg weight hitting the keybed at a certain speed would make more noise than a 10g weight at the same speed.)

Depending on how stiff the muscles are as the key goes to the bed, the coupled mass can indeed vary. At this point, though, it all gets terribly complicated because there are lots of places where the muscles can decouple, and it's not 'on' or 'off', it's an infinitely variable scale of coupling. All the same, one would think that the case where the finger is at least somewhat decoupled before the key hits the bed would give less 'spurious impact noise' (for want of a better term) than the one where the arm is stiff. And certainly, this will be at the start of the note. But how important is it really?

I think that can only really be answered by experiments. Here's one I propose to try out. I will pick a note at random (A440 would be suitable, I think) and play it lots of times with two different techniques - first, with as 'soft' an approach as I can manage, and second, with my arm as rigid as I can make it. I'll record this (I've got very good professional recording equipment in my music room) and I'll select pairs of impacts (one 'soft', one 'hard') that are as closely matched in level as possible. I'll encode them as high quality MP3 and post them on here.

Does anyone have any suggestions that could improve the experiment? Nothing TOO time-consuming, please!

[nyiregyhazi]

It's an interesting subject! Let's bear in mind that the velocity of the hammer is determined by the velocity of the key, and in the few mm of travel between the hammer escaping and the key hitting the key bed there isn't anything that can affect the velocity of the key significantly. What must be important, then, is the momentum behind the key, which is in turn means mass of finger/hand/arm coupled to it. (Momentum is (mass) times (velocity) and we've just said that velocity is fixed so we've looking for a variation in mass. Obviously momentum is important - this is basically just saying that a 1kg weight hitting the keybed at a certain speed would make more noise than a 10g weight at the same speed.)

Yeah, I think that makes a lot of sense- although the momentum depends how much of the arm is used. If the action initiates in the knuckle (and is felt to move around the spot of contacting the key) a small amount of "spare" momentum is basically directed forward and up (with the arm's mass to absorb it) rather than into the keybed. Some people make the mistake of thinking everything has to be tension and instant release- but this action is free of impact and stress whether you concern yourself with release or not. There's no real point of tension in the first place. I think it's important to conceive of the contact between finger and key as the fulcrum, for this reason.

Conversely, with whole arm pressures, vastly more spare momentum (in the whole arm) would typically be directed straight against the keybed unless done with millisecond timing of release. These actions MUST be released- as the momentum and force behind it is far greater. Aiming straight through could cause compression and impact. However, I think the forward press might be a little closer to the finger action in redirecting energy- as the wrist rolls forwards to redirect it. Still, because energy from higher up is transmitted through so many joints, it's always going to be harder to do it efficiently- compared to the simple levering action of the finger. I think what a lot of pianists try do with arm pressure (to protect their fingers) just perpetuates stiffness, inefficient and unpredictable transmission of large amounts of energy and heavy landings.

[nyiregyhazi]

Could you put the pedal down when recording, by the way? I've never understood why the idea for such an experiment typically involves a clean single note. As long you already depress the pedal before starting and begin from silence, it doesn't introduce anything that would compromise the experiment. I think that involving the pedal makes the thump far more notable. It can resonate through the whole overtone series.

[richard black]

Pressing the pedal isn't a bad idea and I can see every reason why it would magnify the effect, but I've already done the experiment and posted it in a separate thread. Next time!

[jinfiesto]

I'm not really sure that momentum can be applied that way. As far as I know, once the escapement kicks in, the energy transmitted from the key is translated into the radial motion of the hammer and flange. I'd suspect that we'd have to employ more difficult physics along the lines of statics/dynamics stuff to answer this question. Any engineers around? Also, it's easy to see that tone exists. Just use the una corda pedal. Why I think will need an engineer.

[richard black]

Just spotted that last post. I am an engineer (OK, not qualified as such, qualified in physics, but it's close enough to have got me a full-time job in engineering which I followed by various bits of freelance engineering piecework).

Of course the una corda has an effect, but it doesn't modify the hammers' movement.

And of course, again, tone exists in any kind of 'reductio ad absurdam'. If you hit the keytops hard with fingernails it's a clearly audible component of the sound.

None of that takes anything away from my simple contention that to most intents and purposes, most of the time, by far the most important component of piano tone is the relative loudness of notes sounded sequentially and simultaneously. As already mentioned, I'm happy to investigate that experimentally, as time permits, according to any feasible suggestions anyone might have.

[gvans]

For an excellent primer on piano tone production, I recommend a thin $4.95 book by Josef Llevine, Basic Principles in Pianoforte Playing. Llevine, a concert pianist from some generations ago and long deceased, devotes several chapters to this issue. He's convinced that using the fleshier portions of the finger in striking the key for legato melodic passages, while still going to key bottom, will improve one's tone. To use the bony tip of the finger just behind the nail (while appropriate for staccato passages) can result in the dreaded "thumping" mentioned above. But he goes way beyond such technical issues--clearly, to him, one's tone is the core of one's piano playing. Listen to yourself, go beyond hitting the right notes, he repeats again and again. Too often, he writes, one hears piano playing that reminds one of a blacksmith hammering on an anvil.

I know Mr. Llevine is long gone, but I highly recommend this brief treatise to anyone who wants to improve his or her tone. I've read it three times, and plan to read it a fourth. Best five bucks I ever spent.

[keyboardclass]

He's convinced that using the fleshier portions of the finger in striking the key for legato melodic passages, while still going to key bottom, will improve one's tone. To use the bony tip of the finger just behind the nail (while appropriate for staccato passages) can result in the dreaded "thumping" mentioned above.

Ortmann showed perfectly well this is bunkum.  You wasted your money.

[bbush]

I find the last reply strange, since Ortmann certainly recognized differences in tone production by different pianists and, in fact, spent most of his life researching those differences and the physical movements needed to make good piano tones.  Indeed, in HISTORY OF PIANO PEDAGOGY AND TECHNIQUE, chpt. 18, the author writes:  It is interesting that Ortmann believes that the variances in tone production between two pianists are in the different lines of their movements.

Or is it just Llevine's suggestions for good piano tone with which exception is being taken?

[keyboardclass]

It is now definately known through both theory and experiment that all qualitative differences, excepting the variations in the noise-element, are quantitative differences.

Ortmann The Physiological Mechanics of Piano Technique pg. 337.

Later in a section called The play of Imagary he concludes the difference is all down to the player's psychology (physically affected by the level and place of tension).

[venik]

I am an engineer, although not specialized or very knowledgable about the physics of sound. But intuitively pertaining to physics I don't see how the same velocity could reach a different tone.
I would ask a piano technician. My best guess would be the following:


The momentum behind the strike should have no direct effect on tone, as the hammer is in free-fall when it actually hits the string. Unless you hit it with such velocity and momentum that it hit the string twice or got close enough to effect the pressure wave coming off the string. This could be the thump you hear, and it would likely only happen when there is tension on the key when the hammer falls back down from hitting the string. The tension would make the hammer bounce back higher than if there were no tension.

That said, the tone one perceives I believe is highly dependant on the accentuation of that note in contrast to the others. Whether you intend or expected to hear that volume. And when you expected to hear it. A note hit at the right velocity at the wrong time can make me dislike the note altogether including it's tone. The same goes for notes which were louder or softer than I wanted to hear.

If someone plays all the right notes in tempo but with bad dynamics, I won't like a single tone in the piece.

[tenderland]

The best physics book on tone is by Hermann Helmholtz "On the Sensation of Tone"

[venik]

I asked my piano tuner today as he tuned my piano if this was true or not, and he said it is.

He said steinways tend to do it alot, and it depends on the piano's design. The hammer is wood with a felt cushion on the edges. If this cushion is soft the dynamics can change alot as you play. When you hit harder more of the wooden core gets into the string, and when you play softer the felt gets more of the action. When you hit really hard most of the impact is taken by the wood etc.

[keyboardclass]

This is the question:

As I practice now on my upright piano, I notice tone again and again and again. As I vary how I deliver the impulse into the key, I get different tone. When I first got this piano, I thought it had an ugly sound. I've learned that was me, not having learned to deliver an impulse yet.

How you 'deliver the impulse' not that you deliver an impulse.

[eminemvsrach]

If anyone is really into reading. I recommend Tobias Matthay's "The Act of Touch in all its Diversity". I've never finished it but the advice is very very helpful.

https://www.archive.org/details/actoftouchinalli009163mbp


Em.

[venik]

This is the question:How you 'deliver the impulse' not that you deliver an impulse.

So you're saying that velocity is the same could produce different tones?

By what mechanism?

Once again, the hammer is in free fall when it strikes the string. If you hit the key slow enough it won't reach the string at all. Unless uprights are different.

[jbj]

Coming to a resolution on this subject is essential to a better scientific approach to studying technique. It's very possible once the exact mechanisms of the piano and corresponding tones are known a great deal of what constitutes technique will be revealed as unnecessary and inefficient.

Although differences in a single note may not be obvious, large clusters played in different tones are likely quite distinguishable from each other.

Here's another explanation which may be a possible answer to tone differences.
https://www3.sympatico.ca/norma.barr/library/piano/tone_piano_playing.html

The text below is an excerpt from the article:

We have here the explanation of the shape of the sound curve. When a piano key is depressed, the energy is transmitted to hammer-and-arm and then, when the string is struck, from hammer to string. The flaw in the simplistic model is the assumption that all the energy in the hammer is the kinetic energy of its forward motion. This would only be true if hammer-and-arm were a rigid body. But because it is quite flexible, depression of the key not only throws the hammer forward, but causes it to vibrate. And the vibrations are at the natural frequencies of hammer-and-arm, which differ from those of the string. When the hammer strikes the string, two things happen: the kinetic energy of the forward movement is translated into the natural frequencies of the string; the vibrating hammer imposes its own extraneous frequencies on the string for the 6 or 7 milliseconds of contact. Hence the prompt sound consists of both natural and imposed frequencies: as soon as contact is broken, the latter quickly disappear and only the former remain. The prompt sound, which lasts for the first one or two hundredths of a second, contains the harsh dissonant frequencies; the after sound consists only of the natural string frequencies.

A sound is pleasing and musical when it is dominated by the lower harmonics of the note and discordant frequencies are weak. Thus the pianist wants to maximize the energy in the natural frequencies, i.e. the kinetic energy of the forward motion, and minimize the vibrational energy that produces the discordant frequencies in the prompt sound. The relative strengths of the natural frequencies are determined by the structure of the piano. But the division of energy between forward motion and hammer vibration can be controlled by the pianist. A key that is hit from above will jar hammer-and-arm into strong vibrations but, if the key is accelerated smoothly, vibrations are minimal, and so are the discordant frequencies in the prompt sound. The key to tone control thus lies in the way the key is depressed and the hammer is accelerated.

[keyboardclass]

So you're saying that velocity is the same could produce different tones?

No, I disagree it can.  There's a big effect on the player dependent on how they play but not to the listener.

[nyiregyhazi]

Once again, the hammer is in free fall when it strikes the string.

This is a frequent argument but it makes no sense. A cricketer hitting a ball (with an otherwise totally identical trajectory) is greatly dependent on the timing of acceleration. If he simply thought of the bat as going faster or slower, the pacing of the shot would be disastrous. It makes no more sense to say you cannot move the hammer differently because you are not in contact any more, than it does to say you can only use more or less speed in a forward drive (because the ball then leaves contact, just as a hammer does). It's almost like the argument is supposed to imply that cricketers and golfers go on to operate the ball by a remote control. Exact pacing through the moment of contact continues to have results a long time afterwards. No longer having a direct contact doesn't mean you cannot ALREADY have put something into entirely different states.

Of course, there are other variables in any cricket shot. However, if you set up a machine to swing the bat in a consistent path, pacing would be everything. If the bat was simply swung at constant speed, it would not make for a good shot. Pacing of acceleration through the contact with the ball is vital. You can't just swipe at it. To say the bat only goes faster or slower into the ball would be utterly nonsensical. The contact can be paced in many ways and then the ball is gone- just like a hammer. I really can't see why anyone would want to pretend piano keys only result in one speed. The whole timing of acceleration counts. There are many ways to pace that- some of which bang more into the keybed and some of which cushion that (potentially very noisy) impact.

[keyboardclass]

Once again, the hammer is in free fall when it strikes the string.

Absolutely correct if you understand even the most basics of physics.

[nyiregyhazi]

did anyone say it isn't correct? The issue is what relevance that is supposed to have- which is why I pointed out that it's equally true of any cricket ball post-contact with a bat. What already happened obviously defines what continues to happen- meaning that it's an instrinsically flawed argument that really doesn't imply anything much at all. Particularly if you consider that a hammer is not perfectly stiff and that no body acts that way when accelerated in a rotational path.

[tb230]

As I practice now on my upright piano, I notice tone again and again and again. As I vary how I deliver the impulse into the key, I get different tone. When I first got this piano, I thought it had an ugly sound. I've learned that was me, not having learned to deliver an impulse yet.

Or is all this an illusion?

Where can tone come from? Any theories that are connected to physics?

Back to the original question - I think this article: https://www.acoustics.auckland.ac.nz/research/research_files/keane_nzas04.pdf contains a lot of information that frankly is easier to understand than most of the text in this thread. Cricket included (who understands the game anyway?).

[venik]

This is a frequent argument but it makes no sense. A cricketer hitting a ball (with an otherwise totally identical trajectory) is greatly dependent on the timing of acceleration. If he simply thought of the bat as going faster or slower, the pacing of the shot would be disastrous. It makes no more sense to say you cannot move the hammer differently because you are not in contact any more, than it does to say you can only use more or less speed in a forward drive (because the ball then leaves contact, just as a hammer does). It's almost like the argument is supposed to imply that cricketers and golfers go on to operate the ball by a remote control. Exact pacing through the moment of contact continues to have results a long time afterwards. No longer having a direct contact doesn't mean you cannot ALREADY have put something into entirely different states.

Of course, there are other variables in any cricket shot. However, if you set up a machine to swing the bat in a consistent path, pacing would be everything. If the bat was simply swung at constant speed, it would not make for a good shot. Pacing of acceleration through the contact with the ball is vital. You can't just swipe at it. To say the bat only goes faster or slower into the ball would be utterly nonsensical. The contact can be paced in many ways and then the ball is gone- just like a hammer. I really can't see why anyone would want to pretend piano keys only result in one speed. The whole timing of acceleration counts. There are many ways to pace that- some of which bang more into the keybed and some of which cushion that (potentially very noisy) impact.

So defensive. And your argument is flawed to boot. The hammer action is more analogous to a curler throwing a curling Iron. The push of the key is allready in contact with the hammer. In golf/baseball your hitting a moving object with a moving object, in piano you're -throwing- a moving object at a still object.

That said I can understand jbj's argument. That the impulse from dropping on the key as opposed to resting on the key and accellerating, vibrates the hammer... and the vibrating hammer produces a different tone on the string for a slight instance of a few hundredths of a second.

[richard black]

The analogy of the cricket (or baseball, depending on your continent) bat has been used before but is deeply flawed. A bat has six degrees of freedom: it can move linearly in three dimensions and can rotate about three axes. A hammer striking a piano string has only one degree of freedom: rotation of the hammer/shank assembly about the shank's pivot point. Plus, to be pedantic, very minor degrees of freedom offered by shank flexing, but it's far from obvious to what extent these have any effect on anything relevant to sound.

In addition, the bat is still controlled at the moment of impact (unlike the piano hammer, which in a normally-adjusted piano has left the control of the key by the time it hits the string). This means that things the batter does _during_ the impact (continuing to accelerate, for instance) make a difference.

Just sayin'.

[nyiregyhazi]

"The analogy of the cricket (or baseball, depending on your continent) bat has been used before but is deeply flawed. A bat has six degrees of freedom: it can move linearly in three dimensions and can rotate about three axes."

Sure, that's why I specifically referred to a bat that is moved in a strict pattern by a machine. Pacing of acceleration remains vital when you eliminate the extra factors. You don't just generate a single instant of speed as the ball leaves the bat. The pacing of acceleration through contact determines the level of compression and how long you can stay in contact with the ball for etc. It is a major issue- regarding what happens AFTER the ball leaves the bat. By analogy flexion of the hammer will definitely occur and is definitely variable. In order for such a factor to be left out, first it has to be proven as neglible- or the whole argument is based on selective ommision rather than anything faintly scientific.



"A hammer striking a piano string has only one degree of freedom: rotation of the hammer/shank assembly about the shank's pivot point. Plus, to be pedantic, very minor degrees of freedom offered by shank flexing, but it's far from obvious to what extent these have any effect on anything relevant to sound."

That's not the issue. There's no onus of proof on saying these COULD contribute towards what recent experiments have picked up in sound waves. The onus of proof is on those who claim science proves that tone could never be possible (based on unproven assumption that these are "probably" irrelevant. "Probably" is not good enough to say it's neglible). These are absolutely real factors and nobody has ever proven these do not affect the sound. The only proper scientific stance is to say that knowledge remains totally inconclusive- certainly not conclusive enough to rule out tone. Physics has never not ruled it out- contrary to what most people claim. Unproven assumption that these are minor factors is what rules it out- despite experiments that have shown different sound waves. The fact that you're no longer in contact with the hammer is a total non-issue, just the same as when hitting a cricket or golf shot. It doesn't leave you with a single speed and no other factors- as has been frequently claimed in error.

"In addition, the bat is still controlled at the moment of impact (unlike the piano hammer, which in a normally-adjusted piano has left the control of the key by the time it hits the string). This means that things the batter does _during_ the impact (continuing to accelerate, for instance) make a difference"

Sure, but it doesn't mean you're left with a final speed and nothing else. If people want to say science dictates that there's simply a single moment of speed to consider, first science is going to have to actually prove that the other very real factors cannot make any audible effect whatsoever. Rationally, the only argument ought to be over how much of a difference very real factors can cause and whether it can be perceived.

[nyiregyhazi]

So defensive.

What am I defending? I'm just pointing out that the fact something is no longer in contact with another body does not mean that a single instant of speed is the only variable. Such explanations simplify in such a way as to pretend that any issues which are inconvenient to the matter do not even exist. They do exist. The only question is as to whether they are significant enough to be heard.  


EDIT:

"The hammer action is more analogous to a curler throwing a curling Iron. The push of the key is allready in contact with the hammer."

This analogy assumes you never contact the key from a height. Some people do- and it often makes for what is regarded as hideous tone. Even if the inside parts are touching, coming at the key without having already been in contact with it is certainly not much like beginning in direct contact with a curling iron. There's an impact that is nowhere is the curling push. It's more like taking a run up and hitting something that is in contact with a curling iron. Just because the end of the chain is connected, does not make setting things in motion with a bang a non-issue.

[nyiregyhazi]

_

[keyboardclass]

Anybody willing to read all that!?

[richard black]

If people want to say science dictates that there's simply a single moment of speed to consider, first science is going to have to actually prove that the other very real factors cannot make any audible effect whatsoever.

Well, the true scientific approach would be to do some measurements but no one apart from me appears to be interested and frankly in the circumstances I can't be arsed!

[tb230]

Well, the true scientific approach would be to do some measurements but no one apart from me appears to be interested and frankly in the circumstances I can't be arsed!

The true scientific approach would be to check whether someone hasn't done this already, start by looking for articles in scientific journals using Google Scholar for example. There's no point in performing repeat experiments (difficult to get funding for that anyway....).

[keyboardclass]

The true scientific approach would be to go to Victoria library and read Ortmann.

[nyiregyhazi]

The true scientific approach would be to go to Victoria library and read Ortmann.

Ortmann's work is ancient. Recently, people have questioned whether some device that he attached to the hammer might have compromised the results. More recent experiments have shown listeners could detect differences and that sound waves can vary. Who wants the oldest research when plenty more has been conducted with more modern technology?

[nyiregyhazi]

Well, the true scientific approach would be to do some measurements but no one apart from me appears to be interested and frankly in the circumstances I can't be arsed!

I've seen research that has done this and revealed differences and without even involving the sustain pedal- which ought to be involved at least some of the time in all experiments, in my opinion.

[ongaku_oniko]

I think sometimes people believe in "science" so much that it's almost like a cult.

We have to remember that modern science has only been around for but a few hundred years, and in these short few hundred years, there has been so many shifts in paradigms. Just because something doesn't "exist" in current science doesn't mean it doesn't exist at all.

How do we know if our current science is even correct? Just because you can't see any difference in mechanics doesn't mean there are no differences.

For example, you should know about chaos theory, also known as the butterfly effect, if you're physics students. How would we know, that a difference in the way we strike the keys, heck, even a difference in how our brain thinks and wants the keys to sound won't make a difference at the quantum level and change the resulting sound slightly?

The test of playing notes successively is not exactly a good test. Ever use a word so much that it doesn't look like a word anymore? This happens a lot to me during my computer science assignments where we have to write the command words a lot.

But point is, when you hear the same, or similar sounds so many times in a row, it distorts your sense of hearing and judgement.

[richard black]

The true scientific approach would be to check whether someone hasn't done this [experimenting] already, start by looking for articles in scientific journals using Google Scholar for example. There's no point in performing repeat experiments (difficult to get funding for that anyway....).

Well, yes, you're quite right of course - indeed I've already collected a few articles.

How would we know, that a difference in the way we strike the keys, heck, even a difference in how our brain thinks and wants the keys to sound won't make a difference at the quantum level and change the resulting sound slightly?

Blimey - are you a hi-fi salesperson by any chance? e.g. -

https://www.bybeetech.com/ourtech.asp

[ongaku_oniko]

Blimey - are you a hi-fi salesperson by any chance? e.g. -

https://www.bybeetech.com/ourtech.asp

I have no idea what you're talking about, and I still don't understand even after clicking that link. I'm not sure if you're trying to make fun of me or something.

All I know is I'm tried that people assume that their science is the absolute truth.

[richard black]

I have no idea what you're talking about, and I still don't understand even after clicking that link. I'm not sure if you're trying to make fun of me or something.

All I know is I'm tried that people assume that their science is the absolute truth.

If you've no idea, then relax - you obviously aren't a hi-fi salesman! I work a little in hi-fi, and there are a few people who make a (good) living selling incredibly unlikely and implausible 'tweaks' that claim to work in wondrous ways to improve sound.

The supposed point about science is that it's not 'their' or anyone's in particular, but dispassionate and above that kind of personalisation. Of course, since it's formulated and articulated by people, with all their quirks, that's not always true. Nevertheless, it's pretty good in many areas as explaining known phenomena and predicting new ones.

[ongaku_oniko]

yup. That's what science is "supposed" to be.

But some people don't really know much about science at all (like me), hear some random statistics that are probably fake from some place, or some other equally bizarre claims and claim its science.

I'm not saying that's what you're doing. Just that some people do this, and it annoys me. I mean I'm no physics specialist - I barely got 65 on my physics course in year 1 univ... I can't possibly even begin to tell whether something is BS or something might be real, so I tend to be a little bit doubting of claims, as most are probably more ignorant than informed.

[keyboardclass]

Recently, people have questioned whether some device that he attached to the hammer might have compromised the results. More recent experiments have shown listeners could detect differences and that sound waves can vary. Who wants the oldest research when plenty more has been conducted with more modern technology?

Sources?

[nyiregyhazi]

Sources?

https://www.speech.kth.se/music/5_lectures/askenflt/pianist.html

[keyboardclass]

20 years old and adds nothing:

In summarizing the present results, we cannot rule out the possibility that the pianist's touch may have an influence on the character of the piano tone. As regards the initial "thump" it seems rather clear that it contributes to the character of the note, while an actual influence on the tone character via the hammer motion has not been verified yet.

Plenty??  Sound waves vary??  People can detect differences??  - there's none of that in this paper.

[nyiregyhazi]

20 years old and adds nothing:Plenty??  Sound waves vary??  People can detect differences??  - there's none of that in this paper.

The onus of proof is on the person who declares tone to be "bunkum"- not the person who acknowledges that current research is wholly inconclusive.

Regarding whether it can be heard- the whole means of testing is totally inadequate to "disprove" audibility of tone. While adding more notes adds more variables, it's also perfectly possible that it makes the results of inherent tone accumulate in addition to what the extra variables cause. If you had two pieces of paper of miniscule difference in thickness it might be that nobody could tell the difference. Put together even 10 or 20 pages however, and the tiny difference could be multiplied into immediate visibility for all. There is no cause to assume that tone definitely does not work this way. There is a major problem with having to offer somebody the equivalent of two tiny sheets of paper to distinguish, when real piano playing offers the equivalent of a whole stack to perceive. The inconvenience of it being impossible to separate other relative variables from a situation in which the impact of individual sounds might accumulate, is not cause to say that absolute tone cannot exist and accumulate in audibility. It makes no more sense than saying if someone cannot distinguish two individual pieces of paper, they could not distinguish the amplified result of the difference within larger stacks. Such assumptive reasoning is totally unscientific.

Regardless:

https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/ast/28/1/1/_pdf

This study shows that people could hear differences- even from one sound with no pedal.

The only bunkum is from those that believe that either mechanics or statistical experiments offer no evidence or explanation for tone. In terms of mechanics, it's the explanation of impossibility that is bunkum. It's like doing calculations for a projectile in a vaccuum and assuming that friction with the air "probably" doesn't make much difference. You cannot just assume such things in true science.