Emanuel Ax weighs in on an approach to a single note

[nyiregyhazi]

I didn't intend to apply anything. I'm just pointing out that anyone who feels the urge to explain this must take into account these 3 basic laws of physics otherwise the conclusion will be wrong. They do play a roll in some way as we are a talking about accelerating and applying force.

What point are you saying you have contradicted? I can't even tell what side you are arguing for. All you've done is dispassionately list accurate information, without explaining what points you feel it contradicts or specifically how. I've seen people before talk of using more speed and less force before, which is obviously wrong (although the possibility of achieving more keyspeed with less force DURING THE FOLLOWING COLLISION BETWEEN KEY AND KEYBED is perfect real, which is why they are actually making a valid point, albeit rather carelessly). But nobody made that point here, that I recall seeing.

I assume you're arguing against the possibility of tone (which I can assume solely on the basis that the few laws you've selected, out of those which are relevant, don't offer any direct explanation) ? If so, go through this post and rubbish all the various points I make explaining how the keybed thump is tremendously subject to manipulation:

https://www.pianostreet.com/smf/index.php?topic=56650.msg611127#msg611127

When people chime in to assert that tone is impossible, they always conveniently neglect such factors, before asserting that a drastically simplified model (which casually omits all the important parts) is supposedly fit to serve a basis for proof. It isn't. So if you're a skeptic, do things properly and debunk those points. Tim said he's an engineer and was casually dismissive about the relevance of mechanics. But ask him to give a meaningful basis to dismiss factors that he isn't considering and you hear nothing back. Are you a proper scientist or a casual cynic, who thinks that you can disprove something by only looking at the factors which are definably irrelevant, while ignoring the rest?

[timothy42b]

Tim said he's an engineer and was casually dismissive about the relevance of mechanics.

No.  I'm more than casually dismissive about the ability of contributors on this thread to either understand or apply equations.  Much of this has been pseudoscientific garbage.

But ask him to give a meaningful basis to dismiss factors that he isn't considering and you hear nothing back.

The original claim is that the tone of the string is produced solely by the speed of the hammer and cannot be separated from the volume of the note by varying the rate at which you accelerate the key.

That claim remains unchallenged.

The assertion that you can make greater or lesser key thumps, or associated other noise say by kicking the underside of the piano is probably true but unrelated to changing the tone of the string. 

I have not measured the volume of a key thump but would be surprised if it is an appreciable fraction of the volume of the note.  (except on a digital where you can turn the master volume very low and produce a piannissimo tone while crashing your hands onto the keybed) 

[brogers70]

Here are links to a couple of relevant experimental papers

https://www.speech.kth.se/prod/publications/files/999.pdf

https://www.ofai.at/~werner.goebl/papers/Goebl-Bresin-Galembo_JASA2005_PianoAction.pdf

[nyiregyhazi]

No.  I'm more than casually dismissive about the ability of contributors on this thread to either understand or apply equations.  Much of this has been pseudoscientific garbage.

All mouth and no trousers? If I've been guilty of such gaffes, have the courtest to specificy them rather than allude.
 

The original claim is that the tone of the string is produced solely by the speed of the hammer and cannot be separated from the volume of the note by varying the rate at which you accelerate the key.

That claim remains unchallenged.

Yes, fair point. It all started when Ax defined that he was not actually speaking of the sounds as we hear them but rather a hypothetical situation in which the sound of the string is synthetically divorced from the sound perceived by the ear and isolated completely. And then we all made a consensus that we were discussing this theoretical sound that does not exist in reality rather than one that can be received by the ear.

Oh, hang on. Come to think of it, no such thing happened. That's one of the stupidest attempts to move the goal posts I've ever encountered. Why would ANYONE be discussing something so utterly irrelevant as a hypothetical isolation of sound that no human nor machine is capable of?!!!!! And it's not even true on your own irrational terms. Put the pedal down and kick the piano and the strings themselves vibrate. Give an almighty thump in loud chords and the sound is carried into the strings.

You're also ignoring that the manner of acceleration changes how the hammer moves. Kick a trolley or push it smoothly and release and it moves very differently. It's a nonsense that a moving body carries nothing but a mere speed. Hammers are not perfectly stiff and can bend or vibrate very differently based on how smoothly, they accelerate. Any self-respecting engineer should consider such issues before claiming it's straightforward. It isn't. It's one thing to debate whether these issues create tonal differences that can be detected. But to claim that science shows no basis in which you can vary anything but hammer velocity is just to hold an ignorant view, that fails to appreciate how much more is relevant. Ignorance is not a basis for dismissal. You have to prove such factors to be irrelevant.

I have not measured the volume of a key thump but would be surprised if it is an appreciable fraction of the volume of the note.  (except on a digital where you can turn the master volume very low and produce a piannissimo tone while crashing your hands onto the keybed)  

Actually, they matter the least on digitals. Because they are essentially independent of the sound. On a real instrument with a depressed pedal, they actively interact with the sound coming from the strings and influence it both directly and indirectly. So I suggest you put a little more of your engineer's knowledge into practise, before stating oversimplified nonsense as if it were conclusively agreed as unquestionable fact.

[thalbergmad]

I am so glad i lack the intelligence to understand any of this crap.

I just hit the notes and hope for the best.

Thal

[nyiregyhazi]

I am so glad i lack the intelligence to understand any of this crap.

I just hit the notes and hope for the best.

Thal

Exactly how it should be. The problem starts when a load of complete plonkers come along and assert a load of oversimplified nonsense that supposedly "proves" tone is impossible. And that it's "science" so anyone who believes otherwise believes in the paranormal. It's not science at all and these outrageous myths need to be put to bed so we can get on with playing in a way that involves caring abotu tone-production rather than pretending that science disproved such a thing.

[hardy_practice]

If I've been guilty of such gaffes, have the courtest to specificy them rather than allude.

Same old crap.  Where, I ask yet again, is your peer review?  By your same argument I can say Unicorns exist - now prove they don't!

[nyiregyhazi]

Same old crap.  Where, I ask yet again, is your peer review?  By your same argument I can say Unicorns exist - now prove they don't!

Taubman is widely peer reviewed according to wikipedia- yet their explanations are loaded with scientifically falsifiable nonsense. That's why you're far better off doing your own research into the subject. If I've made any definable errors, expose them. I couldn't care in the least what your opinion is, if you are not able to provide any specific basis for dispute. There is no evidence for unicorns. I gave you plenty of evidence to support everything I stated. It's not my problem if you haven't the understanding to set about either verifying or falsifying that evidence (and you wouldn't be interested in listening whoever were to confirm it).

Tim has said he's an engineer and he or anyone is welcome to highlight any objective errors or falsify anything I've stated, should they be able to find any grounds upon which to do so. I'm happy to discuss in terms of specifics, but I am not remotely interested in engaging any further on uninformed emotion-based speculations, presented without any rational evidence.

[hardy_practice]

So can't disprove unicorns exist eh?  or leprechauns for that matter.  Now all I need do is write pages of drivel with plenty of hubris thrown in for good measure and my claim is made fact!  Sadly, I've better things to do. 

[pianist1976]

I am so glad i lack the intelligence to understand any of this crap.

It must be an epidemic because I also feel the same (in honor of the truth I must say that I didn't read everything as it bores me to death and fortunately I have more interesting things to do, such as actually obtaining real tones from the piano instead of arguing about them).

From inside this must be the most interesting forum tread in the world, it must be for the participants as they put a lot of energy and verb to it. From outside, this thread only looks like a pissing contest or a big heads competition at best.

Poor old Emanuel giving origin to this...

[nyiregyhazi]

So can't disprove unicorns exist eh?  or leprechauns for that matter.  Now all I need do is write pages of drivel with plenty of hubris thrown in for good measure and my claim is made fact!  Sadly, I've better things to do.  

Which would all be fine, had I not explained my evidence in full. If you feel you are able to use universally accepted laws of mechanics (which are what I used to prove, beyond all reasonable doubt, that it's quite possible to vary the intensity of the key-bed thump at loud volumes of tone) to prove the existence of unicorns, I urge you to have a go. Don't worry about getting it peer reviewed first, as I'm quite certain that I'll be in a position to falsify your chain of logic at once.

If there's something wrong with mine, you can get off your backside and falsify it- rather than make speculations that really do come with as little supporting evidence as the unicorn. I'm not interested in arguing any further unless you have something of substance to contribute- rather than a poor analogy between the evidence of fully fleshed out chain of a logic, derived from accepted scientific laws, and a mythological creature for which no evidence exists.

[hardy_practice]

If there's something wrong with mine, you can get off your backside and falsify it-

And you can get off your backside and falsify unicorns! They are obviously also bound by the same mechanical and scientific laws.

[nyiregyhazi]

And you can get off your backside and falsify unicorns! They obviously take part in the same mechanical and scientific laws.

You didn't give supporting evidence for them. I detailed my reasoning in full, derived from directly from basic laws of physics. If you're not able to explicitly attack that reasoning head-on there is nothing to be discussed and we're done...

[hardy_practice]

You didn't give supporting evidence for them. I detailed my reasoning in full. We're done...

Read the works of Newton dummy!

[nyiregyhazi]

Read the works of Newton dummy!

*** off, troll. If you feel newton supports unicorns, detail how and I'll happily falsify your logic.

[hardy_practice]

You don't get it.  Your the one who has to prove unicorns don't exist by reading the complete work of Newton and thereby finding the flaw in my argument!

[nyiregyhazi]

You don't get it.  Your the one who has to prove unicorns don't exist by reading the complete work of Newton and thereby finding the flaw in my argument!

You didn't make an argument for me to debunk. I listed in full which laws I applied, to illustrate how you can achieve identical tonal intensity with a radically different level of energy going into collision at the keybed. It's not even indirect. It's the most direct application of the law of momentum itself- based on how varying the mass which proceeds into collision varies the total energy involved in that collision. If you think implying that something or other in Newton supports unicorns (and cannot even say what) is equivalent, you can go *** yourself.

I'm not wasting a further second on you, so write whatever witless response you like and then *** off. If anyone with a serious interest would like to make an informed criticism of anything I stated, however, you'd be more than welcome.

[hardy_practice]

You didn't make an argument for me to debunk.

You'll have to take the empty rhetoric as given.

[thalbergmad]

You two need to get a room.

Thal

[pts1]

[dima_76557]

-

[vansh]

IMHO, a good LIVE experiment (no doctored sound samples!) would contain:
1) pianists that are known to have "good tone" vs those who sound rather "gray" in that respect;
2) an instrument that actually allows for those differences to be heard (I suspect that only a good Steinway grand under very capable hands qualifies;
3) a location with "workable" acoustics
4) an audience that is capable of detecting fine differences in sound nuances (could be verified/pre-tested before allowing them to participate in the actual experiment.

I don't think that's actually necessary. I think the experiment should actually be fairly easy to conduct.

Let's assume that tone is the result of the combination of different frequencies of sound being activated simultaneously. What combination isn't relevant here, just that some are more pleasant-sounding than others. If this is the case, then whether or not there is a difference in tone can be experimentally (and quantitatively) investigated by using a spectrum analyzer on the sound produced. If this is not the case, then someone needs to explain what they mean by tone that doesn't have to do with the relative magnitudes of sounds at different frequencies.

No need for an audience; keep in mind that once you introduce humans into measurement you also introduce any measuring errors by humans, who are notoriously inexact. There is a difference between whether or not there is a difference in tone with whether or not a given person is able to perceive it; there is also a difference between whether or not there is a difference in tone and what tone is good vs bad.

The experiment then is to have a competent pianist play a note under different methods, and see if there is any difference in the spectrum of sounds produced. The damper would be depressed prior to pressing the note, so that it does not affect the sound (i.e. we're not investigating how the damper lifting from the strings might change the sounds produced). The person would play the note with multiple intensities for each method, i.e. from soft to loud. The spectrum analyzer could then be used to match up which trials across different methods had the same volume, for example by looking at the magnitude of the frequency of the note being pressed (which I assume is the loudest).

Which methods to test then deserves some discussion. So far what I can think of is whether the finger is static and touching the key just prior (i.e. nonpercussive) versus hitting the key starting from a given height (i.e. percussive), and the finger going all the way down to the keybed versus (as much as possible) slowing down prior to reaching the keybed. In which case, I propose the following setups:

1. Thumb and forefinger together, straight, in "tweezer" position, pointing straight down on the key. This is to have as "stiff" a mechanism as possible, as if it were a hammer hitting the key.
2. Finger relatively straight, with the fleshy part facing the key, and then bending at the knuckle to contact the key.
3. Same as #2, but the action coming from curling the finger rather than the knuckle, as if "plucking" the key.

The reason for those different setups is that they should have different effects in terms of how much the fingers absorb the impact between the fingers and the key. Additionally, setup 3 should in theory have the least keybed pressure, because the finger is relatively straight as the key is being accelerated, but the curling action means that the finger is vertically decelerating very rapidly near the keybed. Keep in mind that each method has multiple trials, each with different intensities (since the pianist, being human, can't reproduce the same volume exactly each time), but it's fine because the resulting intensities can be "lined up" afterwards using the spectrum analyzer.

Alternately, I could take a hammer and (lightly!) hit the key with multiple intensities, and then put some soft padding on the key and repeat. I'd be wary of messing up the key though.

Anyway, I do have access to a Steinway Model B, and if we let me indulge in calling myself a competent pianist, I could record myself playing it under these various conditions and uploading the video and audio if people want. Anyone that has spectrum analyzer software can then analyze the audio track. I don't have a particularly good microphone though, it would be my digital camera, which has a video function. Would people be up for analyzing this?

[dima_76557]

-

[vansh]

1) There is no better spectrum analyzer than the human ear in sound ranges that are still meaningful for humans. In singing pedagogy, they are long past this kind of experiments. The human ear was right and "science" detected the so-called singing formant.

I disagree. For which tones are better than others, yes the human ear is better (at this qualitative judgment), but for whether or not a difference in tones, a spectrum analyzer is better, and it can measure this difference, as opposed to human "experts" arguing that they hear a difference because they see how the note was played etc. Consider that what you're implying is that there can be two sound samples, where a spectrum analyzer would show that both have the same spectrum profile, but the human ear can still tell that they're different. Do you believe this to be the case?

2) You seem to have forgotten acoustics as a factor.

No I haven't, even though I didn't talk about this explicitly. The samples would be from the same setup (in fact, possibly from the same recording). Acoustics would only be a factor only if they "drown out" the difference in tone produced by different playing methods. It does not matter if this particular location is acoustically better than another (i.e. if a piece sounds better or not in this location compared with at another location), as long as it affects different tones in roughly the same way. Remember, the question is not how good the tone is, it's whether or not a difference in tone exists based on how a single note is played, independent of loudness.

3) Please compare the sound result between a live concert (the tone "works" in the hall) and a recording of that same concert (the tone was trapped into a box and is unable to work the same way). There's too much that suggests that something valuable gets lost in the process. Inadequate equipment first of all and microphones that are put in the wrong places. Great artists work not only with the instrument but also with the acoustics.

For what it's worth, the piano is in Texas A&M's Flag Room. It's a large room with tables and couches and the piano in the corner. You can easily Google for a lot of images about the room (just "flag room A&M" as search terms is sufficient) , such as:

https://tamutimes.tamu.edu/files/2012/08/Piano-Flagroom1.jpg

Now granted, the microphone may be more objectionable, since I only have a digital camera to use as a microphone. Nevertheless, again, it's not a matter of whether or not the note sounded good, or how good it sounded; it's a matter of the relative magnitudes of different frequencies of sound. The microphone (or any, really) will have different sensitivities to different parts of the spectrum, but as long as it has the same sensitivity to the same part of the spectrum across the different tests, it will be fine. What I mean is that given two tones where the loudness at 440 Hz is the same, regardless of the loudness at other frequencies, the microphone will pick up the same loudness.

4) Can you make a tone that suggests that that tone has a past and a future? In his famous sonata, for example, Liszt gives ample opportunity for that (recitativo parts). This is very different from a piano tuner striking that same tone in a neutral fashion within the same dynamic range.

I claimed to be a competent pianist, not an expert one. Remember, we're talking about pressing a single note (and just once for each trial), not many notes in succession, at which point the relative strength between notes, the timing of each note, and the duration of each note comes into play. We're not even talking yet about how different techniques can affect how the damper is used, since the proposed setup is for the damper to be lifted the entire time; it is possible, for example, that non-percussive versus percussive playing affects how long the damper is lifted prior to the hammer striking the string, and this (minuscule) time difference affects the tone of the string, due to how much the string is still vibrating when it is struck by the hammer.

If you're able to find a pianist that is able to suggest "that that tone has a past and a future" on a single note, or if Liszt was able to provide ample opportunity for that in one of his pieces, please let us know if they're willing to be recorded -- although if you do find one, then it implies that an answer to this question has already been found, does it not?

[dima_76557]

-

[timothy42b]

IMHO, a good LIVE experiment (no doctored sound samples!) would contain:
1) pianists that are known to have "good tone" vs those who sound rather "gray" in that respect;
2) an instrument that actually allows for those differences to be heard (I suspect that only a good Steinway grand under very capable hands qualifies)*;

I think you're on the right track looking for experimental evidence and you seem to have an open mind for the results.

A couple of comments though:

Live is problematic because of the human factors.  The variability introduced by a human can be much greater than the variability caused by the effect you are looking for (if it exists at all).  We've run into this in the brass playing world; even the top players don't reproduce the same sound as closely as they think.  Some experimenters use rubber lips to get a consistent sound but of course players reject that as artificial. 

Second, if the effects you are looking for are so small they can only be found on the very rarest and best pianos played by the rarest and best performers, you have already defined them as vanishingly small, for all practical purposes nonexistent.  But that isn't the claim, is it?  Don't most people think tone changes are detectable on any piano played by anyone at intermediate or above?  I could hear the difference between my beginner daughter playing and her teacher playing, through a closed door on a poorly maintained spinet.  Of course I didn't believe it had anything to do with controlling the acceleration of the hammer!  But the other factors, especially voicing and amount of overlap of legato do make a difference. 

[dima_76557]

-

[hardy_practice]

Anybody posted this yet?

The second experiment looked at key-keyframe sounds that occur when the key reaches key-bottom. Key-bottom impact was identified from key motion measured by a computer-controlled piano. Musicians were able to discriminate between piano tones that contain a key-bottom sound from those that do not. However, this effect might be attributable to sounds associated with the mechanical components of the piano action. In addition to the demonstrated acoustical effects of different touch forms, visual and tactile modalities may play important roles during piano performance that influence the production and perception of musical expression on the piano.

from: https://scitation.aip.org/content/asa/journal/jasa/136/5/10.1121/1.4896461

Still, to repeat something I said pages ago, what does it matter?  There are more important reasons to not keybed.

[nyiregyhazi]

Anybody posted this yet?from: https://scitation.aip.org/content/asa/journal/jasa/136/5/10.1121/1.4896461

Still, to repeat something I said pages ago, what does it matter?  There are more important reasons to not keybed.

There is no choice. Keys land on keybeds and relaxing or pulling back within the fractions of a second achieves as much as turning off a car engine in the fractions of a second before hits a wall. It also introduces collossal margins of error that destroy control over sound. The only issue is whether you pile momentum down into the point of collision, or generate movement safely away from the point of landing (just like when a runners foot lands and he springs up, rather than collapse his body into the ground- except the ground doesn't have the cushioning shock absorber beneath like a key does).


It's really very easy to play loudly and safely, when you release that pulling back from the keybed is actually the worst thing you can do and that you simply need to try to push up and away from it rather than crush down. Being scared of it is the worst mindset any pianist can take. The only question is how, not whether you can avoid it. Perhaps you wouldn't keep going on about how modern grands are too hard for you, if you stopped simply trying to avoid keybeds and learned to contact them the right way?

[hardy_practice]

There is no choice. Keys land on keybeds and relaxing or pulling back within the fractions of a second achieves as much as turning off a car engine in the fractions of a second before hits a wall.

Poor analogy.  It's simply about applying the breaks before getting to the junction.  Your model you bounce off the traffic light pole!  

[nyiregyhazi]

Poor analogy.  It's simply about applying the breaks before getting to the junction.  Your model you bounce off the traffic light pole!  

I don't greatly care how it works in the analogy- because the equivalent to that is impossible to accomplish. In my model, I need hold absolutely nothing back in the cadenza of the rachmaninoff 1st concerto, yet I feel perfectly fine. If you want to try applying the brakes in that kind of writing, be sure to get a good doctor. Braking simply doesn't work. It's about the redirection of energy in the opposite direction to the landing.

[hardy_practice]

My analogy is maybe not quite spot on - taking your foot off the accelerator and gearing down is probably more apt.  

In my model, I need hold absolutely nothing back in the cadenza of the rachmaninoff 1st concerto, yet I feel perfectly fine...It's about the redirection of energy in the opposite direction to the landing.

The discussion is not about what you think you do!

[nyiregyhazi]

My analogy is maybe not quite spot on - taking your foot off the accelerator and gearing down is probably more apt.  

Indeed. As it doesn't notably reduce the travelling momentum until many seconds have passed, which is too late in loud pianism. When collisions are going to occur anyway, it's all about what you do during contact. Steering away and landing a glancing blow into a wall and then bumping off is better than cutting the engine or reducing the gear before coasting straight in heqd-on. Likewise, a pianist needs to actively propel movement away from the point of landing via a indirect angle plus active push off. Inactivity allows the momentum to plough straight into the impact. They put the cushion under the keybed for good reason. It's up to the pianist whether to spring away safely and positively or slump considerable momentum into it, while trying and failing to slow down in time.

[hardy_practice]

Indeed. As it doesn't notably reduce the travelling momentum until many seconds have passed, which is too late in loud pianism.

I don't believe we're after a 'loud pianism' as we slow our vehicle down to a stop, we're following the law. 

[nyiregyhazi]

I don't believe we're after a 'loud pianism' as we slow our vehicle down to a stop, we're following the law.  

You don't stop. There's a little law called conservation of momentum. The idea of slowing down a key in the milliseconds before the keybed is absolute fantasy- although the fact that you think this is possible certainly explains why so many note fail to sound completely in your youtube videos.

If you ever figure out how to play loudly on the heavy modern actions that you are constantly complaining about, you'll be in a position to have an opinion. Until then, I'm not going to waste any further time trying to have a serious discussion with someone who neither has the ability to play both loudly and safely, nor a mind that is open enough to appreciate how it can be achieved. I'll get on with actually doing it and leave you to complain about how those big Steinways are so horrible to your poor dainty little hands, whilst simultaneously pretending that you never reach a keybed.

[hardy_practice]

You don't stop. There's a little law called conservation of momentum. The idea of slowing down a key in the milliseconds before the keybed is absolute fantasy-

You do know what an allegory is!?  This isn't really about cars, it's about fingers/arms.

[pts1]

[nyiregyhazi]

You do know what an allegory is!?  This isn't really about cars, it's about fingers/arms.

Which are immune to the law of momentum? They are actually want I use when I play full force FFFF with comfortable landings. Go and continue trying to turn lead into gold.

[hardy_practice]

Which are immune to the law of momentum?  

You have no idea the level of control we have over the playing mechanism.  You confuse fingers/arms with keys!  Yes, the body can do plenty within the milliseconds range.

[faulty_damper]

Here are links to a couple of relevant experimental papers

https://www.speech.kth.se/prod/publications/files/999.pdf

https://www.ofai.at/~werner.goebl/papers/Goebl-Bresin-Galembo_JASA2005_PianoAction.pdf

"4. Conclusion
This study confirms that the difference between two equally loud piano tones due to type of touch lies in the different noise components involved in the keystroke [8, 9]. These noise components (i.e. finger–key noise) are audible when the key is struck, and absent when it is pressed down. This study provides a first systematic perceptual evaluation of whether musicians can aurally identify the type of touch that produced an isolated pi- ano tone, independently of hammer velocity. Our results suggest that only some musicians are able to distinguish between a struck and a pressed touch using the touch noises as cue, especially the finger–key noise that characterises a struck attack, whereas others could not tell any difference. Without those touch noises none of them could tell a difference anymore. When they could not hear the touch differences, they tend to rate louder tones as being struck, and soft tones as being pressed. We can only speculate about how the present findings generalise to a real-world concert situation (including pedals, rever- beration, reflections, and the listener at a certain distance away from the piano). In the light of the present results, we consider the pure aural effect of touch noises (exclud- ing visual and other cues) a rather small one."


The second article comes to the same conclusions and adds many other dimensions of mechanical sounds.  It also notes that different pianos - Yamaha, Steinway, Bosendorfer - have different mechanical acoustic properties.

I also note that Fazioli's tone varies considerably from the aforementioned pianos.  The action is very different: the hammer strikes the strings long before the key strikes the keybed.  This may be the primary contributing factor to why Fazioli's sound delicate, because the 'thud' of the key striking the keybed is buried under the tone of the strings.  The downside is that I have less control over the tone since the percussive effects all occur well after string strike.

[richard black]

On a real instrument with a depressed pedal, they [keythumps] actively interact with the sound coming from the strings and influence it both directly and indirectly.

You what? I feel that needs a bit of explanation.

Gosh, there's an awful lot of over-complication going on in this thread!

[brogers70]

" In the light of the present results, we consider the pure aural effect of touch noises (exclud-ing visual and other cues) a rather small one."

Yes, a small effect. You can detect it, but it's small.

[nyiregyhazi]

You have no idea the level of control we have over the playing mechanism.  You confuse fingers/arms with keys!  Yes, the body can do plenty within the milliseconds range.

So where is this remarkable coordination of split seconds, during the numerous notes in which you do not even succeed in timing the key depression well enough to produce any level of audible tone, within your numerous youtube films? If you can't time movement well enough to even make the keys sound all all with reliability, I wouldn't be too hopeful of managing to time a retraction to a few milliseconds, while playing loud. You don't even succeed in controlling the the tone when you pull back in piano dynamics, nevermind controlling both an exact application of force and a retraction (that is timed within milliseconds, to avoid spoiling the tonal result via retraction before escapement) during loud playing.

[nyiregyhazi]

You what? I feel that needs a bit of explanation.

Gosh, there's an awful lot of over-complication going on in this thread!

Put the  pedal down and kick the piano. The aftereffect is audible. Better still, if you have a broken key to whack, the collision itself is even louder than the echo carried by strings. This noise can be varied based on efficiency of speed transmission, as detailed in my recent blog posts. In something like loud octaves, this is not negligible. Especially in high pitched notes (as the thump is far lower and thus inhabits a different area of the sound spectrum). I've always been aware that I'm far more wary of thumping high notes with force than low ones. Bass notes are likely to disguise excess thump at least a little, whereas a thump to the treble is scarcely concealed.

A pre depressed pedal always exposes differences more. It's madness to do any scientific experiment without at least half of the results involving it. As long as it's already down., conditions of scientific controls are not breached at all. It baffles me that so few experiments that supposedly "disprove" tone fail to even involve open strings. Also, due to the frequency of thumps multiple registers must be tested before an experiment can be seen to have a shred of relevance to pianism in general.

[dima_76557]

-

[hardy_practice]

So where is this remarkable coordination of split seconds, during the numerous notes in which you do not even succeed in timing the key depression well enough to produce any level of audible tone, within your numerous youtube films?

Throwing mud is a bit desperate isn't it?  Also meaningless.   

[brogers70]

For one NEUTRAL tone out of context yes. However, those seemingly minor differences increase exponentially with the use of more tones in combination within an ARTISTIC context, especially in the forte range with open pedal. The differences become then noticeable for even the most untrained layman, although they may translate the experience of what they hear as "feeling", "imagination", "musicality", "talent", "genius", etc., while it is merely basic craft, not even art yet.

Of course. What makes a beautiful tone is the way sounds are combined over time, the way the onset of a new tone is matched to the decay of the previous tone, the way the illusions of legato and crescendo are constructed, voicing, phrasing, etc. That's why all this wrangling over the physics of the production of an isolated tone (particularly ill-spirited wrangling in the absence of experimental data) seems totally pointless. [Not that you are the one doing any ill-spirited wrangling.]

[pianoplayer002]

Of course. What makes a beautiful tone is the way sounds are combined over time, the way the onset of a new tone is matched to the decay of the previous tone, the way the illusions of legato and crescendo are constructed, voicing, phrasing, etc. That's why all this wrangling over the physics of the production of an isolated tone (particularly ill-spirited wrangling in the absence of experimental data) seems totally pointless. [Not that you are the one doing any ill-spirited wrangling.]

A single note can also sound dead and strangled, or achieve what the old masters called the "long vibration" which is the hallmark of good tone. here is an example where it is clear the way sounds are combined over time, illusions of legato, voicing, or phrasing has no part in tone:
Think of two pianists playing a piano concerto with an orchestra. One of them bangs and struggles and pounds the piano with all his might yet cannot manage to penetrate the orchestra with any clarity. The other one plays with remarkable effortlessness and is still clearly audible through the orchestra. The first pianist has bad tone, the second pianist has good tone.

[nyiregyhazi]

Throwing mud is a bit desperate isn't it?  Also meaningless.  

Not really, when you claim to time within milliseconds yet can't even time well enough to get a key sounding. It shows how damaging it is to to play negatively rather learn to deal with keybed well enough to stay positive intent. Repression is what causes notes not to sound, which is why your whole premise is flawed.

[brogers70]

A single note can also sound dead and strangled, or achieve what the old masters called the "long vibration" which is the hallmark of good tone. here is an example where it is clear the way sounds are combined over time, illusions of legato, voicing, or phrasing has no part in tone:
Think of two pianists playing a piano concerto with an orchestra. One of them bangs and struggles and pounds the piano with all his might yet cannot manage to penetrate the orchestra with any clarity. The other one plays with remarkable effortlessness and is still clearly audible through the orchestra. The first pianist has bad tone, the second pianist has good tone.

Great, if we are talking about single tones, then actually doing experiments of the sort I provided links to is possible. If purportedly tones produced by identical final hammer velocities can be reliably distinguished by listeners, then the question is resolved. I'm not sure the issue of projecting a concerto through an orchestra is relevant to the tone of a single note, and it would be quite hard to set up the relevant experiment. But for single notes, the experiments are doable, perhaps even done already.