 |
Welcome to the Piano World Piano Forums
Over 3 million posts about pianos, digital pianos, and all types of keyboard instruments.
Over 100,000 members from around the world.
Join the World's Largest Community of Piano Lovers
(it's free)
It's Fun to Play the Piano ... Please Pass It On!
|
|
|
|
38 members (benkeys, Burkhard, David Boyce, 20/20 Vision, Animisha, beeboss, Cominut, brennbaer, crab89, aphexdisklavier, 3 invisible),
1,339
guests, and
281
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 9,230
9000 Post Club Member
|
9000 Post Club Member
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 9,230 |
A highly recognized pianist, now Yamaha artist, that checked side by side the Phoenix and normal Steingraeber, told me he was surprised that the Phoenix (bridge agrafes and other modification) was even considered "better ".
It was so evident to him the classical version was more interesting, more manageable tone essentially.
I think some process add power or sustain, or partials to the tone. They leave then a strong coloration that tend to be heard at all level of playing.
The pianists seem to like pianos that can be driven "wild" playing with saturation level(s).
A similar thing happen with pianos that sound good whatever the touch quality of the pianist.
They can be a little deceiving as they help too much in rounding the tone.
The saturated tone is not always pleasing, too so on some pianos the power input from the hammers need to be lessened.
Last edited by Olek; 10/04/15 08:33 AM.
Professional of the profession.
Foo Foo specialist
I wish to add some kind and sensitive phrase but nothing comes to mind.!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2012
Posts: 1,119
1000 Post Club Member
|
|
1000 Post Club Member
Joined: Nov 2012
Posts: 1,119 |
I was able to listen to two large Steingraeber grands at the factory in Bayreuth a year or so back. One was fitted with the normal wood soundboard, the other with a carbon fiber board. They were both, of course, magnificent instruments and there were a lot of similarities between the two. But there were also some differences. I found the differences interesting but I liked both of them. I think many -- possibly not most but it would be interesting to find out -- would have found each of them to be a more than satisfactory instrument. But I also think many -- again, most? -- would have found that they didn't really like the piano with the carbon fiber soundboard once they knew it was not wood.
I do know from actual experience that people who initially really liked how a certain piano sounded when they thought it was using a solid spruce soundboard ended up deciding they really didn't like it all that much once they learned it was actually using a laminated panel.
I'd love to design a test of this just to find out how much our prejudices affect how we "hear" the piano.
ddf
This is a great point and some research on it would be very interesting. My limited experience playing and comparing spruce and carbon fibre soundboards at Hurstwood Farm Pianos has led me to the exact same conclusion.
Last edited by Mark Polishook; 10/04/15 11:29 AM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 5,534
5000 Post Club Member
|
|
OP
5000 Post Club Member
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 5,534 |
What was it that caused you to prefer one over the other?
The sound  The one with the carbon board sounds not bad, too. After all it´s still a Steingraeber. But the other sounds just better. Thanks, Gregor, but that doesn't tell us much. Could you be a little more specific? ddf
Delwin D Fandrich
Piano Research, Design & Manufacturing Consultant
ddfandrich@gmail.com
(To contact me privately please use this e-mail address.)
Stupidity is a rare condition, ignorance is a common choice. --Anon
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2008
Posts: 483
Full Member
|
|
Full Member
Joined: Oct 2008
Posts: 483 |
Could you be a little more specific?
I feared that this question could come up  To be honest: no, I can´t. It´s generally hard to express a sound in words. Particularly in a language that is not my first and furthermore from memory. But I remember that the first word that came into my mind while playing was: flat, shallow. Of course only in comparison with the normal wood board instrument. I.e., it sounded well, but the other was more refined, somehow.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 32,060
Yikes! 10000 Post Club Member
|
|
Yikes! 10000 Post Club Member
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 32,060 |
The problem with any sort of comparison of pianos is that there is so much variation of sound that you can get from seemingly identical pianos, not to mention the variation in touch that different pianists can make on the same piano, that comparing one feature is pretty much hopeless.
Even then, people often do not try. There have been so many demonstrations of what purport to be different tunings elsewhere on this board, but they are always announced, so there are no blind tests of preferences.
Semipro Tech
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 5,534
5000 Post Club Member
|
|
OP
5000 Post Club Member
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 5,534 |
Could you be a little more specific? I feared that this question could come up To be honest: no, I can´t. It´s generally hard to express a sound in words. Particularly in a language that is not my first and furthermore from memory. But I remember that the first word that came into my mind while playing was: flat, shallow. Of course only in comparison with the normal wood board instrument. I.e., it sounded well, but the other was more refined, somehow. I understand. I'm hoping to get an idea of what the sound spectrum might have been like both with the piano you liked and with the one you didn't like. I have a pretty good idea what the standard Steingraeber with a wood board might look like but not with the carbon fiber soundboard. ddf
Delwin D Fandrich
Piano Research, Design & Manufacturing Consultant
ddfandrich@gmail.com
(To contact me privately please use this e-mail address.)
Stupidity is a rare condition, ignorance is a common choice. --Anon
|
|
|
|
Forums43
Topics223,385
Posts3,349,183
Members111,631
| |
Most Online15,252
Mar 21st, 2010
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
