"Tone" doesn't exist.

[thalbergmad]

Pianos would be better if they had tone rings like banjos. A good one makes a hell of a difference.

hic

Thal

[chopin2015]

The statement you're responding to seems to suggest that if we hear two sounds and decide on the basis of our ears that the first is louder than the second, but then measure them scientifically and discover that the second is actually a small percentage of a decibel louder than the first, we should still call the first "objectively" louder. So self-reported human human experience is now "objective" and the results of scientific measurement "subjective".  

We need to remember that these are not in themselves value-laden terms. Objective judgments are not "better" than subjective ones. Indeed, in music (as opposed to the science of sound) it's ultimately only subjective ones that matter. But good quality sound analysis equipment properly used doesn't make elemental mistakes like this. If it says that one sound is 0.1db louder than another sound at the place of recording, then that is simply what it is.

What it DOES show is exactly what you say here and I've been saying all along (and which is such a universally recognised fact in all areas of music and acoustics that I can't believe it's even being treated as controversial): that there are more things contributing to our experience of the loudness of music than sheer decibel level.

spectrum analysis...is rarely useful in music. As you were. here, knock yourself out!
https://www.dept.aoe.vt.edu/~aborgolt/aoe3054/manual/inst4/index.html  
(first sentence talks about probing. Need I say more?)  

 Pianists and musicians have plenty of resources for learning and improving in piano, and controlled tone is one of the objects that suggest improvement in piano. In fact, we may have more than Beethoven did, seeing as we now have Beethoven to learn from and many that followed after him!

Math is great and all, but if you tell me I sounded louder than the other guy or here's a funny one. My mother commented on my performance of the chopin valse no 69 no 2 and said I take the high notes prettier than Rubinstein's particular performance in recording. Funny, once I corrected her and said "it is the piano and where it sits in the room", I asked her if she remembered what she said, she reminded me: This valse played on this piano sounds so much prettier in the high registers! (Please, let's just kill any magic left on this planet!)

Also, people keep ignoring my point about the pianist's point of view, sitting infront of the keyboard, visually absorbing mechanical functions of the piano, synchronizing movements to sound! where as the audience hears sound as it expands and fills the room (hopefully) and just sees the pianists' hands moving, in less or more detail per person or visual focus not influenced by synchronization of sound to movements, logical, linear, whatever!


My bit about studio recordings and live performance recordings: We were talking about halls, actually. And, you did mention studio recordings. I was not trying to impose but to make an obvious comparison by forming a very subjective point of view...apparently.  

When it comes to touch, velocity and (timbre/please say this word with a TEXAS accent!), I guess it depends on where and when you are measuring the frequency content of the total sound coming from the piano, if you are measuring time at rest, too!...but based on one same note at same velocity (and 2 different pianists ?)...I would suggest that it is timed, and the pianist starts with the hand already on the note, at rest. then he is given 5 seconds before he is to press the key, at any volume he may please but at a given velocity. (wait, velocity?)  

Pianisnts dont say, "oh, I am going to play this note at 60km/decade."

Maybe rate of repetition? IDK I am actually going to read over what I am responding to, again. Then edit my reply once more. 1 sec

Objective views just don't always line up with subjective ones, that's all. There is nothing that pisses me off more, than having to think about velocity of a pianist...and how velocity of a pianist's hand is different than the velocity of a pianist's finger and how much faster is it than his/her kidney...

 

[dima_76557]

I just feel that a studio setting always has that same sound and same approach, too much presence of the engineer!

That's right. In order to evaluate tone QUALITY, you need more than one way of measuring, because tone goes through different stages from source to hearer. Engineers tend to measure too close to the source. Some food for thought for the sceptics among us:

The Physical Principles of Sound (a more or less technical article that still gives interesting info about the different stages of tone)

Tone Production by the Pianist
Piano technicians discussing the topic of how tone quality can be modified on a piano. More than enough food to change one's perception of what really makes good tone, even outside of a musical context.

Remarkable is the experience of one of the technicians with Cybertuner® in the mid-to upper treble of the instrument: when measuring a piano using this piano tuning software, it is sometimes possible to find a particular style of key playing that produces a clearer tone with better sustain - a tone quality that is firm without being hard, and empirical explanations are given for why that may be so.

P.S.: Science simply can't crack this nut if the researchers don't modify their assumptions.

[chopin2015]

That's right. In order to evaluate tone QUALITY, you need more than one way of measuring, because tone goes through different stages from source to hearer. Engineers tend to measure too close to the source. Some food for thought for the sceptics among us:

The Physical Principles of Sound (a more or less technical article that still gives interesting info about the different stages of tone)

Tone Production by the Pianist
Piano technicians discussing the topic of how tone quality can be modified on a piano. More than enough food to change one's perception of what really makes good tone, even outside of a musical context.

Remarkable is the experience of one of the technicians with Cybertuner® in the mid-to upper treble of the instrument: when measuring a piano using this piano tuning software, it is sometimes possible to find a particular style of key playing that produces a clearer tone with better sustain - a tone quality that is firm without being hard, and empirical explanations are given for why that may be so.

yes, when it comes to tuning, the unisons tuning is practically impossible. The piano tech professional who tunes my pianos and the pianos at the college and all across the state, he tunes by ear. He was able to set an extreme clarity of pitch all the way up to the last note of the piano. Partly the amazing piano that I am very lucky to have, and of course, the tuner.

Just the spectrum software or analog equipment is not enough to create something functional. i am sure the technician used the software temporarily, while learning to distinguish any sound quality difference, by looking at the graph while listening, as well.

[andd845]

To the OP - definitely, yes it does, absolutely.

The engineer in me is inclined to believe that tone is a function of piano tuning, voicing, overlap of notes, pedal use - in short, I'm skeptical that a virtuoso's playing of middle C would sound much different from mine as long as the hammer hit the string at the same speed and pedaling didn't occur at any point.

So, that got me thinking, can someone's superior tone be demonstrated on a digital piano? At what point would it become apparent? The first note, phrase...?

If so, it would mean something. I'm not sure quite what, but I suspect it would be relevant. We might be able to stop talking about hammers and golf at least...

[timothy42b]

So, that got me thinking, can someone's superior tone be demonstrated on a digital piano? At what point would it become apparent? The first note, phrase...?

I like your thinking.  Sounds like a good test. 

[nyiregyhazi]

I like your thinking.  Sounds like a good test.  

Test of what? I have never experienced the illusion of changing the sound of one note on a digital (here it certainly would be an illusion rather than a reality). Good pianists certainly sound better than bad ones on a digital. But given that nobody on the planet would be so foolish as to think that relative factors are not an issue, it proves nothing but the obvious fact that they are indeed. You need a decent instrument to feel you can change the colour of one note and I'm not aware of anyone who thinks they can can on a digital. If people experienced an illusion, then it would be significant example. I'm not aware of anyone who does, so it demonstrates nothing either way.

The only thing you get from a digital is awareness that relative factors can change many things. Given how limited even the finest digitals are though, compared to real pianos, they don't give an impression that they account for the whole story.

[timothy42b]

Yup.  No reason to do an experiment, when you already know the answer.

Nothing to see, folks, move along. 

[awesom_o]

So, that got me thinking, can someone's superior tone be demonstrated on a digital piano? At what point would it become apparent? The first note, phrase...?

I think I could probably demonstrate superior tone on something like an Avantgrand. It wouldn't be apparent on the very first note. Probably on the second or third note it would become apparent.

Most digital pianos wouldn't work for this.

For me, producing tone is about manipulating the energy in the soundboard via the keyboard.

Digital keyboards do not produce real musical energy.

[nyiregyhazi]

I think I could probably demonstrate superior tone on something like an Avantgrand. It wouldn't be apparent on the very first note. Probably on the second or third note it would become apparent.

Most digital pianos wouldn't work for this.

For me, producing tone is about manipulating the energy in the soundboard via the keyboard.

Digital keyboards do not produce real musical energy.

Why would the avant grand be any different? They're just bullshit. A few extra speakers don't change the fact that it's still samples being played back. You can create illusions to some extent on anything with relative dynamics. I don't see why the avant grand would be any better-as you're still just triggering volume levels from each note. There's no mechanism for anything but speeds to be translated into recorded sounds.

There's a film where Katasaris plays an avant grand. They really trod on their own cock with that one, as he only shows how limited it is for conveying the sound of a real artist.

[awesom_o]

I could demonstrate superior tone on an Avantgrande, because at least the keys are actual levers and not the buttons found on most digital 'instruments'.

Of course, I could demonstrate superior(er) tone on a Steinway, but that's beside the point

[nyiregyhazi]

I could demonstrate superior tone on an Avantgrande, because at least the keys are actual levers and not the buttons found on most digital 'instruments'.

Of course, I could demonstrate superior(er) tone on a Steinway, but that's beside the point

I think most have genuine levers and not buttons. My CLP 370 does. A better action may offer more control, but you're still merely triggering the same prerecorded sounds and only able to make the same illusions as on a mid-price digital. I don't believe that the Avant Grand even goes beyond the standard 127 different volumes of MIDI. There's a lot of song and dance about it, but the technology is really nothing special.


Listen here:

There are a few rare occasions when you could almost be fooled that it's a real piano and there are are certain degrees of illusion from the relative dynamics. But the sheer neutrality and uniformity of the tone quality is unmistakeably that of the rather ordinary digital piano sound. Very little sense of "tone" comes across in the waltz, even in the hands of Katsaris (or perhaps ESPECIALLY in the hands of Katsaris, whom the instrument just  cannot respond to).

PS. On the original topic, although it hardly proves that tone is real on a grand piano and can be heard (seeing as there are other ways in which the instrument could be deficient), it certainly doesn't suggest that relativity alone generates more than a fraction of the pianist's sense of "tone". Although I'd have to stress again that it doesn't prove anything in itself, the impression it gives really couldn't really be much more to the contrary of the idea that tone quality is merely about proportions and no other issue.

[falala]

I think most have genuine levers and not buttons. My CLP 370 does. A better action may offer more control, but you're still merely triggering the same prerecorded sounds and only able to make the same illusions as on a mid-price digital.

I don't know the avantgrand, but it's not true to say that all digital pianos are "merely triggering the same prerecorded sounds". My experience is in software samplers triggered by MIDI, and I know that in the more sophisticated ones there is a whole bunch of ways in which synthesis etc. is used to moderate samples on the fly. I'm pretty sure some of that technology has made its way into standalone instruments by now.

Two limitations do remain however. The first is that the only TRIGGERING mechanism transmitted via MIDI in the first place, is velocity. There's no point even debating whether acceleration in touch makes a difference because MIDI has no way of transmitting it. Of course the relevance of this depends on whether it is indeed true that it makes a difference on an acoustic piano - a question that we still haven't definitively resolved one way or the other. If it doesn't, then there's no difference of kind between acoustics and digitals here - they both change tone colour as they change velocity (although the digital will obviously do so differently, and in all but the most cutting edge models, more crudely).

What's probably more fundamental, and will apply regardless of the answer to the other question, is the limitation of the 127 steps of MIDI velocity. Just supposing for a moment that it were proven that tone on an acoustic piano can only be manipulated as a function of velocity, then that would obviously demonstrate that if the greatest pianists can achieve such amazing, varied and subtle effects of tone, they must have incredibly subtle control of velocity. Probably a hell of a lot more subtle than 127 discrete steps.

There are a few rare occasions when you could almost be fooled that it's a real piano and there are are certain degrees of illusion from the relative dynamics. But the sheer neutrality and uniformity of the tone quality is unmistakeably that of the rather ordinary digital piano sound. Very little sense of "tone" comes across in the waltz, even in the hands of Katsaris (or perhaps ESPECIALLY in the hands of Katsaris, whom the instrument just  cannot respond to).

Yeah that's sort of what I mean.

FWIW though I think the question of whether a digital piano can "fool" people into thinking it's a real one, is different from the question of whether it can produce variety of tone. The answer to the first question will always be no on some level (depending on the piano, and the person) for the simple reason that it isn't one. The answer to the second question is obviously yes, subject to the limitations of the input mechanism (which again, will always be different to the input mechanism of an acoustic piano).

Continuous controllers operated via pedals etc. make a huge difference on non-percussive sounds. The problem is that emulating a piano means emulating a basically percussive envelope and playing mechanism, so it's back to those feeble 127 steps of MIDI.

Man, it really is time they updated the MIDI spec.

[chopin2015]

I really don't think digital pianos count, as they all sound the same since their action does not affect what their basic sound is like. You may EQ, but there is not much you can do to change the way a speaker projects sound, and all it's specs...as opposed to a piano, where the instrument has natural ability to resonate, given that the piano is of artisan quality...less plastic.
I bet a pro could very well demonstrate that an electronic keyboard only functions as a piano when there are actual mechanics considered, allowing to control dynamics, which have less or more effect on open strings and such. (as opposed to mono keyboards...very old school. ignore I ever mentioned it.)

Keyboards would not even have an organic overtone series, it would have to be assigned to each individual note or worse, it is limited due to limited polyphony. Keyboards are limited to polyphony whereas pianos are limited to strings or by their simple design...

so, any pianist trying the digital keyboard or piano would not be demonstrating authentic tone.

besides, all these yamahas and kawaiis just boast touch. real hammer action. I mean, that's a start! But, personally, I would not want to plug a piano in. I don't even use light during the day! (Some people actually turn on lights in the house when they could just open the window...)

https://www.soundonsound.com/sos/Oct02/articles/synthsecrets10.asp


also, the thing about even the piano-looking upright digital pianos, or silent pianos...even though they have a designed action, it is still hitting a surface, not a string. Think about it. if the same action was put on a piano, it would not work, and I bet it would make awful sounds and would be impossible to control. Maybe a pro could make some nice sounds, but...yeeaaah.

Piano action and clavichord action, it is far too sacred, electronics cannot faithfully reproduce the functions of all the parts that make up the piano action mechanism (all attributing to quality of the  piano and it's tone) especially not through digital means.

Now, a fender rhodes I would marry...

[timothy42b]

I really don't think digital pianos count, as they all sound the same since their action does not affect what their basic sound is like.

They don't sound the same for all players.

Whether or not a string can be attacked in more than one way at a given velocity, there is no doubt that many other factors contribute to tone - voicing, evenness, subtle differences in overlap between notes, pedal, etc.  All of those are available on digitals.  The only thing that is not available is the actual string.

I am not convinced that a "mere" 128 steps is a limitation.  How many discrete differences can you make between velocity 64 and 65?  (somebody keeps saying 127.  I think it's 128, I think it starts at 0, could be wrong.) 

What would happen if you had a performance on an acoustic and told the listeners it was a digital?  I'd be willing to bet you'd get all sorts of comments on how sterile and lifeless it was. 

Also note that MOST of our listening experiences are of recorded digitized samples.  That's what a CD of Horowitz is. 

[nyiregyhazi]

They don't sound the same for all players.

Whether or not a string can be attacked in more than one way at a given velocity, there is no doubt that many other factors contribute to tone - voicing, evenness, subtle differences in overlap between notes, pedal, etc.  All of those are available on digitals.  The only thing that is not available is the actual string.

I am not convinced that a "mere" 128 steps is a limitation.  How many discrete differences can you make between velocity 64 and 65?  (somebody keeps saying 127.  I think it's 128, I think it starts at 0, could be wrong.)  

What would happen if you had a performance on an acoustic and told the listeners it was a digital?  I'd be willing to bet you'd get all sorts of comments on how sterile and lifeless it was.  

Also note that MOST of our listening experiences are of recorded digitized samples.  That's what a CD of Horowitz is.  

The point is that Horowitz recordings record INTERACTION between sounds in the sound board. Digitals just play back individual samples of notes. As I said before, although the evidence of listening to a digital would seem to suggest that absolute tone quality is one of the missing ingredients, it can't be considered outright "proof", because the proper interaction between overtones into an open pedal is not very well recreated by digitals. I'd be interested to try one of the more sophisticated modelling based instruments and see if any notable illusion of tone quality comes across on them.

I would never mistake a real instrument for a digital unless it was staggeringly bland and poorly recorded, so as to mask the inherent qualities of the sound. They are doing an increasingly good job of making real acoustic pianos sound blander and more neutral, but it's just not hard to tell the difference still. A digital can potentially fake a recording of an acoustic when punched out in certain styles and masked by other instruments, but not in solo pieces with extensive pedal and significant tonal interactions. In fact, not long ago I got rather confused because I saw a film of a pianist playing an acoustic upright, but my ears clearly told me that I was hearing a digital piano. It turned out that it was one of those convertible pianos that goes into silent mode. You can fool some people, but you certainly can't fool everyone. The only time I got fooled was when I was wondering how my ears could be hearing what they had so clearly heard. They weren't wrong, however.

[chopin2015]

They don't sound the same for all players.

Whether or not a string can be attacked in more than one way at a given velocity, there is no doubt that many other factors contribute to tone - voicing, evenness, subtle differences in overlap between notes, pedal, etc.  All of those are available on digitals.  The only thing that is not available is the actual string.

I am not convinced that a "mere" 128 steps is a limitation.  How many discrete differences can you make between velocity 64 and 65?  (somebody keeps saying 127.  I think it's 128, I think it starts at 0, could be wrong.)  

What would happen if you had a performance on an acoustic and told the listeners it was a digital?  I'd be willing to bet you'd get all sorts of comments on how sterile and lifeless it was.  

Also note that MOST of our listening experiences are of recorded digitized samples.  That's what a CD of Horowitz is.  

you completely missed my point, and are still arguing the old point of whether a digital piano is believable as a piano.

Sure, when it comes to sound I bet you could come pretty close to creating a keyboard that allows the pianist to control sound according to touch.

YET STILL, the digital piano key mechanism (no matter how many allotted digital attributes per note) is NOT the same. IT IS MUCH LESS. So, even if we cannot hear a difference, SOMEONE will. The digital pianos will always be lacking a quality when it comes to tone reproduction. It already colors a pianist' sound to how the manufacturer brand believed a piano sounds. It does not even interact with room acoustics.

I really think that when it comes to tone, the discussion should be more discrete (not computer-literally), with respect to acoustic pianos.

[falala]

I am not convinced that a "mere" 128 steps is a limitation.  How many discrete differences can you make between velocity 64 and 65?  (somebody keeps saying 127.  I think it's 128, I think it starts at 0, could be wrong.)

A MIDI velocity of 0 is silence, so it's 127 gradations of velocity inducing actual sound.

I'm only thinking that some of what a great pianist does in varying tone, probably has to do with playing slightly louder or softer, but not so much that you notice it as louder or softer. In which case it's reasonable to expect some of that "falls between the cracks".

Also, think of something like a long crescendo from p to mp, or from mf to f. The starting and finishing notes might only have the equivalent of 15 or 20 steps of MIDI between them, but there could be a whole bunch of fast, gradually louder notes between, and the pianist might also want to phrase the crescendo other that strictly linearly.

Hell the crudeness of MIDI velocity is well known to people who work with it all the time, where it can cause "zipper noise" if changed too fast on certain samples or programs. I really can't believe that the touch of a Horowitz or a Michelangeli could be reduced to such a crude grid, without the difference being massively noticeable.

[timothy42b]

I'm not a MIDI expert, but I think 0 is not necessarily silence, but maybe just the lowest volume used.

Are you sure 127 steps aren't enough?

Here's my thinking.  The average dynamic range (difference from loudest to softest) in a concert hall is about 80 dB.  An LP gives you about 55 dB when new, 30 when worn.  I found a source that says the smallest difference we can hear is 1 - 3 dB (I'm not sure what it depends on - maybe frequency, etc?) .  Call it 2 to make the math easy.  That means we can hear 40 steps of loudness in a concert hall (80/2), and MIDI can divide that by 127, so almost 3 times the resolution we can use. 

What am I missing? 

[j_menz]

What am I missing? 

That the Bel scale is logarithmic, not linear?

[chopin2015]

I'm not a MIDI expert, but I think 0 is not necessarily silence, but maybe just the lowest volume used.

Are you sure 127 steps aren't enough?

Here's my thinking.  The average dynamic range (difference from loudest to softest) in a concert hall is about 80 dB.  An LP gives you about 55 dB when new, 30 when worn.  I found a source that says the smallest difference we can hear is 1 - 3 dB (I'm not sure what it depends on - maybe frequency, etc?) .  Call it 2 to make the math easy.  That means we can hear 40 steps of loudness in a concert hall (80/2), and MIDI can divide that by 127, so almost 3 times the resolution we can use.  

What am I missing?  

the threshold of human hearing is 20 micropascals. The db spl level of a speaker means nothing when there is an electronic measurement of signal-to-noise that already dillutes any tone the computer may try to generate (with the use of op amplifiers, controlled voltage oscillators, which are probably powered by some sort of diode, or even worse, a transformer...) electricity fluctuates, and you already have temperature of day and night to account for when you play the piano...I am sorry, I love to ramble about this stuff.

Like I said earlier, a keyboard will not resonate as much as a piano would, even in a hall. Speakers generate sound due to electronic signal, not acoustic. A piano is made of organic materials and the sound cannot be reproduced in a recording, a sample or an algorithm.
127 steps is also still different from polyphony, where only a given amount of notes will make sound at the same time. ALL plugins have polyphony, even the avangrande keyboard:

Tone Generation   Tone Generating Technology   Spatial Acoustic Sampling
Polyphony   Number of Polyphony (Max.)   256
Preset   Number of Voices   5

vs Casio CDP 100 Polyphony: 32- note;

either way, it is still limited to electronic noise and is made by inorganic means, as it is only capable of reproducing acoustic piano sound.

A tone from a piano will reflect, reverberate in much more complex ways, and interact with the piano in ways that directional speaker sounds do not. they do not affect the way your touch sounds. only your touch, limited to how fancy your controller is, affects your tone.

someone who plays the keyboard does not have to know much of acoustical properties of the piano, they do not have to worry about tuning...

did you know there are ways to play a key and make the same note sound more flat or more sharp, depending on the way you play it? How can you do that with a keyboard? You could never stretch the pitch of a given note in a keyboard, without software. so this does not give you much power in terms of voicing.

[falala]

did you know there are ways to play a key and make the same note sound more flat or more sharp, depending on the way you play it? How can you do that with a keyboard?

Pitch bend wheel! 

[timothy42b]

did you know there are ways to play a key and make the same note sound more flat or more sharp, depending on the way you play it?

No I did not know that.  Please explain.

How can you do that with a keyboard? You could never stretch the pitch of a given note in a keyboard, without software. so this does not give you much power in terms of voicing.

Even my ancient keyboard does this well.  I have a pitch wheel that actually lets me play glisses like a trombone if I want, most keyboards have something similar.  Most also have buttons for historic temperaments, just in case you want to hear a piece the way its composer intended.

[timothy42b]

did you know there are ways to play a key and make the same note sound more flat or more sharp, depending on the way you play it? How can you do that with a keyboard?

My keyboard also has aftertouch.

When a key is all the way down, slight additional pressure can generate an additional effect - an echo, a crescendo, a change in the timbre, etc. 

That's not something I ever use but it is available. 

[nyiregyhazi]

My keyboard also has aftertouch.

When a key is all the way down, slight additional pressure can generate an additional effect - an echo, a crescendo, a change in the timbre, etc. 

That's not something I ever use but it is available. 

And you can programme that to respond in the same way as a piano, can you?

No, you can't.

PS I've heard the pitch bend momentarily in Nyiregyhazi recordings, when he plays very loud. I'd be interested in knowing more about the mechanics. I've heard people speak of giving a tiny bit more intensity to sharps yet softening flats (consider how different Schuberts g flat impromptu would feel when written in f sharp) but I believe this is purely in the realms of the subjective rather than a literal means of subtle pitch bending.

[falala]

If by "subjective" you mean imaginary, then yes.

[timothy42b]

And you can programme that to respond in the same way as a piano, can you?

No, you can't.

What does a piano do when you hold down the key after it's played?

As far as I know, nothing.   How do I program a digital to do nothing?  Well, I guess I could just NOT SELECT after touch! 

Aftertouch is a feature that only exists on the digital.

Er, except for the thump if you crash into the keybed.  But I think most of us try to avoid doing that.   

[ahinton]

Pianos would be better if they had tone rings like banjos. A good one makes a hell of a difference.

Thank God that they don't! Still, better even that than ring tones, one may suppose. You'll be telling us next that they ought to have strings like banjos as well!

hic

Quite.

Best,

Alistair

[nyiregyhazi]

What does a piano do when you hold down the key after it's played?

As far as I know, nothing.   How do I program a digital to do nothing?  Well, I guess I could just NOT SELECT after touch!  

Aftertouch is a feature that only exists on the digital.

Er, except for the thump if you crash into the keybed.  But I think most of us try to avoid doing that.  

Trying is easier than doing. Anyway, you seem to have turned this into a contest between pianos and digitals. The prior poster detailed areas where digitals do not respond like pianos. That's what this was about- not which can do the most things. You replied as if introducing these issues suggested that they can after all. They can't, however.

[timothy42b]

The prior poster detailed areas where digitals do not respond like pianos. That's what this was about- not which can do the most things. You replied as if introducing these issues suggested that they can after all.

But that's not really how we got here, is it?

Some people allege that the tone of the piano string can be varied by how you press the key, independent of the dynamic of the note. 

Others including me are more skeptical.

The digital was included in the conversation because there isn't a string to strike, so if tone exists it must be due to the other factors that all recognize exist.  So tests using the digital might be revealing, if the listener did not know. 

We're pretty certain if the listener DOES know it's a digital, tone differences will immediately disappear. 

There is an assumption here that digitals cannot vary tone - but at this point there is zero evidence, so your statement that

The prior poster detailed areas where digitals do not respond like pianos.

is at best completely irrelevant.

[nyiregyhazi]

But that's not really how we got here, is it?

Some people allege that the tone of the piano string can be varied by how you press the key, independent of the dynamic of the note.  

Others including me are more skeptical.

The digital was included in the conversation because there isn't a string to strike, so if tone exists it must be due to the other factors that all recognize exist.  So tests using the digital might be revealing, if the listener did not know.  

We're pretty certain if the listener DOES know it's a digital, tone differences will immediately disappear.  

There is an assumption here that digitals cannot vary tone - but at this point there is zero evidence, so your statement that  is at best completely irrelevant.

? There's no mechanism by which to vary tone. And I've never heard of anyone who sincerely believes they can on a digital. They show merely that dynamic variety influences perception - which is no revelation. I always know when I'm listening to a digital. Even when I thought I was seeing a real piano my ears told me. The absence of pro ounced tone colour is the give away. Overtones don't interact right, whether real pianos have absolute tone or not. With reference to the topic, digital pianos prove nothing- but if they suggest something it's most certainly not that relative dynamics are adequate to give a full impression of a sense of tone colour.

[falala]

? There's no mechanism by which to vary tone.

Er, one was just clearly described. You can vary tone by assigning aftertouch to some parameter that affects tone.

You could also do it via a pedal. Just assign it to a continuous controller affects EQ or whatever, and hey presto - tone control.

You don't seem to be distinguishing between "varying tone" and "varying tone IN THE SAME WAY THAT A PIANO DOES". Clearly digital keyboards can't do the latter - but then, I haven't seen anyone here claim that they can, from the moment they were introduced to the discussion.

[nyiregyhazi]

Er, one was just clearly described. You can vary tone by assigning aftertouch to some parameter that affects tone.

You could also do it via a pedal. Just assign it to a continuous controller affects EQ or whatever, and hey presto - tone control.

You don't seem to be distinguishing between "varying tone" and "varying tone IN THE SAME WAY THAT A PIANO DOES". Clearly digital keyboards can't do the latter - but then, I haven't seen anyone here claim that they can, from the moment they were introduced to the discussion.

Yes, I didn't state it explicitly but I was referring to via the key strike. As you say, nobody believes they can on an electric, so it's a dead end for anyone who expects it to be relevant.

This isn't about merely knowing that it's objectively impossible and losing the illusion either. There are some pianos where try as I might, I never experience significant tone colour. I don't get any sense of possibility on my modern petrof upright. I do get it on my antique bluthner. So it's not just a case of experiencing an illusion if you believe it (if it is an illusion at all).

[chopin2015]

And you can programme that to respond in the same way as a piano, can you?

No, you can't.

PS I've heard the pitch bend momentarily in Nyiregyhazi recordings, when he plays very loud. I'd be interested in knowing more about the mechanics. I've heard people speak of giving a tiny bit more intensity to sharps yet softening flats (consider how different Schuberts g flat impromptu would feel when written in f sharp) but I believe this is purely in the realms of the subjective rather than a literal means of subtle pitch bending.

I suppose it is possible to "double-strike" a note by pressing the key just so, and in one movement. If a string can vibrate, it can also flex in tension. Actually, I bet it is what the piano does to the string while you are playing, that makes it more tense or less tense. Sometimes, you hear a recording sound like this in weird spots. I bet it is hard to control. To me, it rarely happens. But when it does, it is awfully strange. Playing the same note and same passage differently with a different touch, fixes it.

ever hear a pianist play on a piano and you can tell the instrument is a little out of tune? Then, another pianist plays, and it sounds perfectly fine!

I swear, you can change the pitch of a single note, on the piano. NOT imaginary.

[richard black]

it's not just a case of experiencing an illusion if you believe it

Don't be so sure, mate! For many years (until very recently) I was part of a large and thriving industry that relies on exactly that (fancy hi-fi). And that prompts me to observe that the most persistent limiting factor in synthesisers is the loudspeakers. If I can always tell a recording of a piano from a real one (and most people can), it kinda stands to reason that spotting an electronically-generated simulation of a piano played via speakers ain't gonna be that hard.

Incidentally, keyboards, even thoroughly indifferent ones, do of course have a degree of 'tone' by exactly the same mechanism that applies to pianos - the mechanical thuds made by your fingers as they strike the keybed and, indeed, similarly with the sustain pedal.

[ahinton]

Don't be so sure, mate! For many years (until very recently) I was part of a large and thriving industry that relies on exactly that (fancy hi-fi). And that prompts me to observe that the most persistent limiting factor in synthesisers is the loudspeakers. If I can always tell a recording of a piano from a real one (and most people can), it kinda stands to reason that spotting an electronically-generated simulation of a piano played via speakers ain't gonna be that hard.

Incidentally, keyboards, even thoroughly indifferent ones, do of course have a degree of 'tone' by exactly the same mechanism that applies to pianos - the mechanical thuds made by your fingers as they strike the keybed and, indeed, similarly with the sustain pedal.

Again (as in the "fortissimo" thread) a blast of good common sense simply expressed. Both of these threads seem to have generated rather more hot air than most; some fresh air is therefore all the more welcome.

Best,

Alistair

[chopin2015]

I quit

[liszt85]

Again (as in the "fortissimo" thread) a blast of good common sense simply expressed. Both of these threads seem to have generated rather more hot air than most; some fresh air is therefore all the more welcome.

Best,

Alistair

There seems to be one very conspicuous common factor to both the threads that you mention. I just came in here since I got fed up of the other and I see that the same factor that made me quit the other thread also made someone quit this thread.. I guess I better look elsewhere now for an intelligent discussion about the piano.

[nyiregyhazi]

Don't be so sure, mate! For many years (until very recently) I was part of a large and thriving industry that relies on exactly that (fancy hi-fi). And that prompts me to observe that the most persistent limiting factor in synthesisers is the loudspeakers. If I can always tell a recording of a piano from a real one (and most people can), it kinda stands to reason that spotting an electronically-generated simulation of a piano played via speakers ain't gonna be that hard.

Incidentally, keyboards, even thoroughly indifferent ones, do of course have a degree of 'tone' by exactly the same mechanism that applies to pianos - the mechanical thuds made by your fingers as they strike the keybed and, indeed, similarly with the sustain pedal.

? I was saying exactly that, in response to another poster, in the comment that you wrote this under. Simply thinking that something must be a real piano doesn't lead to any illusion of a real piano being heard, exactly as you said. See the Roy Holmes films on youtube. My rational mind had at first thought I was seeing a real piano, but my ears knew it to be the sound of a digital. Sure enough, I discovered that the rational explanation was that he has an acoustic piano that switches to digital. Ears don't lie when it's so obvious as that in the sound, even if the conscious mind gets a little puzzled by other factors.

However, in response to the second paragraph, the absence of a soundboard is the issue. With an open pedal, the sound itself is affected on a real piano. On a digital, the thump is an external addition and cannot actively influence the musical sounds in a direct way.

[falala]

With an open pedal, the sound itself is affected on a real piano.

How is the sound itself affected?

[thalbergmad]

I guess I better look elsewhere now for an intelligent discussion about the piano.

 

[hardy_practice]

When you find one let me know.