Schwammerl

Thanks for the dealer/tech info about William's model D featured in his opener and also for your input - you're one of the best fountains of factual info on the forum! (along with William of course)

William

I always enjoy reading your stuff too. I appreciate the time you've spent on this topic. As a tech rather than a pianist, I always seem to end up assessing a piano's qualities more by its tonal range and dynamic range than by what you set out to demonstrate. That's just me. As you have just said " I started the thread wishing to point out an example of how the Steinway tone at its best can handle clarity in dense busy material with interior melodic lines, minimal right pedaling, full use of dynamic range, and full use of every range of the 88 keys." You ably demonstrated that and I've learned a little more about the whole business, thanks to you (and Luc).

Chris,

Thanks for your understanding on this. I think it's obvious now from everyone's responses here that this is a very difficult subject to keep on topic.

A good part of the difficulty is in sorting out all the components that go into a recorded performance and reckoning exactly who ( the tech, the maker, the artist or performer, the engineer, the composer) is responsible for what. With the sophistication of recording and playback equipment that you have cited and the worldwide trend toward at-home listening and away from attendance at live musical events, this particular issue is becoming more and more important.

It also seems to be particularly difficult to avoid winding up swapping samples of performances that one considers superior or disappointing whether it's Kissin, Kobrin, Lubyantsev, Trifornov, Lang Lang, or El Bacha. This brings in the subjective taste element. It's only natural.

Finally, I have to accept some responsibility here for either introducing a topic that is of minimal interest or introducing a topic of interest in a way that makes is uninteresting or confusing. Whichever that is, there are precedents.



As a musician, I always wind up looking at a performance, live or recorded, from the perspective of how clearly it illuminates what the composer put to paper: both the overriding intent and the details.

Imagine an exercise where you are given a blank sheet of notation paper and your task is to listen to unknown music and commit to notation everything you hear: the notes, the phrasing, and the dynamics. If the material is rhythmically complex, densely written, fast-moving, and goes against the more traditional harmonic structures, it's quite a challenge, one that can either be obscured by the instrument and performer or made a bit easier in certain cases. Some performer elements that make it more difficult IMO include heavy right pedaling, undue emphasis on personal virtuosity, playing on top of the keys instead of into them, and heavy reliance on loudness and booming bass resonance. Instrument elements that IMO don't help the cause are extreme voicing, overly long sustain, uneven tone across the registers, and pianos that don't punctuate the percussive attack in some manner or other. In that connection I recall Michael Spreeman's comment on the Ravenscroft thread that if you take away the attack from the sound, it's not only difficult to distinguish among pianos, but to distinguish among musical instruments in general.

There's also the very complex aspect of emotional response. Different music has different hooks for different people and some music is probably better simply enjoyed than analyzed. There's a local research group in La Jolla. CA, the Neurosciences Institute, exploring that aspect and I couldn't begin to state their findings with any clarity. I'm sure there are other researchers working on the same issue. I'm just more up to speed on this group's work.

Anyway, I think it's time for me to give this one up. The topic just doesn't seem to resonate and I'll take the blame for that. Thanks to you, Schwammerl, Kurtmen, and all who have responded to the question posed.

Not a significant loss of hammer weight but in theory and practice the less weight the less time the hammer stays in contact with the string or the faster the hammer detaches from the strings.
Therefore any increase or decrease of weight will affect the sound of the piano.

Agreed, Kurtmen.

For the number crunchers, 1gm of hammer felt (that's a lot though) makes a difference of about 5gms of touch weight.

Also, a lighter hammer, again, theoretically, creates less hammer shank bend, which, in theory, (of which there's too much) gives a better chance of the hammer striking the strings spot on. Having said all that, personally I like working with bigger hammers. No theory, that's just been my experience.

I'm surprised you got no reaction from fans of the other mainstream concert models - except one positive response from Luc (Schwammerl) on the new Yamaha CFX. Any Bechstein, Bosendorfer, Bluthner, Kawai, Sauter, Steingraeber, Yamaha fans out there?

Chris,

I think the reason for this is that within such an in depth thread of this one from William there is mereky room for disagreement on opinions and much less or no room at all to be right or wrong!

But if you want to get another go on trying to answer turnadot's original dilemma ...


... let's give it a try.

Others are struggling with the same dilemma as I found out on Pianostreet with a thread called "I don't like ^Bösendorfers"

Pianostreet - I don't like Bösendorfers

As you can see there is the camp that finds that fundamental clarity is mostly found in European painos and in Yamaha and that in the case of Bösendorfer the treble, although singing' would become a bit short in this department of clarity:



And then there is the camp that finds that although a Bösendorfer is indeed a totally different piano than a Steinway it does not fall short of anything and can indeed bring out that treble clarity.
Now I have to quote your son, Will, who was a poster here:

... and ...


I see myself in the 'second camp', especially when you read the words: "you need to work more"

Does this mean we are back to some of the comments that emphasize the role of of the pianist in all of this??

schwammerl.

Luc

Valentina Lisitsa's interview and demo at Namm on the Bose Imperial answers this and some other points better than I can. Bearing in mind it wasn't recorded in a studio or concert hall acoustic, the sound quality is pretty good. Now Luc, can you use your powers and find a good recording of Valentina on an Imperial playing the Rach Etude Tableau to compare with the opener, then we may have an answer for William.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nYeuWWsRjms&feature=related

Before I provide my explanation about Bosendorfer keep in mind that ALL piano-designs are a compromise and therefore while you gained something in one end something else has been diminished at the other end.

To understand better Bosendorfer and their sound, it is important to know that soundboards are not designed simply to transmit energy; otherwise the decay of the tone will be too fast. Soundboards are built to reflect energy or specifically to radiate energy. Energy radiation is determined by the soundboard’s stiffness; mass distribution, ribs height and placement, grain direction, wood quality. The rim plays a supporting role in reflecting energy back to the soundboard which will radiate energy back to the strings.
Bosendorfers in order to create a pure sound needs to compromise in this area (energy reflection) and emphasize in (energy transmit ion) therefore the use of a less stiff soundboard and a spruce rim. This rim is often misunderstood as an extension of the soundboard. NO this rim consumes the energy allowing the piano to have less reverberation and clarity of sound instead of creating excessive reflections. There is also here why no need for duplex.

Valentina's Imperial has the front duplex which IMO is the holy grail in adding the extra projection, power, dynamic range that a concert grand, in particular, needs.

I intended to say rear duplex.

Unfortunately not Chris.

She recorded here Rachmaninoff Project on a Steinway Hamburg.

Below is the Tableau No.6:

Rachmaninoff Etude Op;39 Tableau no.6

But perhaps you can be happy with some liszt from here on the imperial?

Bösendorfer rocks

schwammerl.

Happy? I've just booked two tickets for the Royal Albert Hall. But I wonder what piano she'll be using for that one?

Maybe the Bose Rocks clip will rekindle William's interest.....

Thanks again Luc

I quote that for asking for clarification--are you saying less clarity? (Read it without the "reverberation and" and it reads that way.

I've always thought Bosendorfer had a much finer treble end than most, able to project, with a hint of sweetness to the projection that let it sparkle without the piercing quality I hear in NY or Hamburg Steinways. I'm curious to know if you actually mean essentially, less clarity. Otherwise, I don't hear so much less "reverb" than perhaps less higher-partial string resonance. Both have their own beauty.

Wow, Luc, I love that video clip.

But I thought Bosendorfer was only good for mozart and chamber music....

I haven't lost interest. I've gotten sidetracked studying Lang Lang's facial expressions.

Seriously, I am better off sorting out what people who know more than me have to say than struggling over and over again to phrase the question correctly.

I've mulled your question for a couple of days. I think I never considered any lack of clarity to be inherent in a Steinway. I've always thought it was Horowitz' fault, as de la Rocha proved. (Thanks for the pointer to Casale. I watched all her bits and liked them.)

Eric,

I'm not sure what clip you're referring to, but just to be clear. There are two Lisitsa versions of Rachminov's Little Red Riding Hood Etude on the Net. One is the one Luc posted.

http://www.youtube.com/user/ValentinaLisitsa#p/search/1/RFMNhx2-VDE



The other is an earlier one. Production values are low since it was recorded and edited completely by university students. The sound is not top-notch. However, it did become a youtube sensation and she has referred to it more than once as being of significance in helping her career.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tVuP1BjbhAg

Borh performances are on Hamburg Steinways.

Actually William,

I found a third one of Op.32 no.6 recorded at 'the Bimhuis' Amsterdam in Nov. 2010.
It is again on a Steinway Hamburg (simply because this was the piano the studio was offering) and yet agin it is different from the other two:

Op.32 no6 at Bimhuis Amsterdam

During that same event at Bimhuis she also recorded Op.32 no.12 (same venue, same recordingcircumstances and same piano).
Here in the commnents one finds some critics on it: not the best Steinway or recording or acoustic environment or not on par with here recordings on the Bösendorfer.

Op.32 no. 12 at Bimhuis Amsterdam

At the Bimhuis she was also interviewed and talks about the very first recording of Little Red Riding (no.6), about how she became famous as a result of YouTube and (although she is a prodigee) how you have to work hard (she says she studies 12 - 14 hrs per day)
Again could it be you have to, as a pianist, work hard or work differently on each and every different piano if you want to get out of it what you intend to?

Interveiw at Bimhuis Amsterdam



I guess Eric was referring to the 'Bösendorfer rocks' clip?

schwammerl.

Sorry perhaps I didn't write properly my thoughts. I meant to say that the rim helps to have less reverb and energy reflection back to the soundboard and therefore to the strings. All these allows for more clarity.
A conventional rim made of hardwood reflects must of the energy back to the soundboard or deflect it as reverb.