- Joined
- Feb 23, 2016
- Messages
- 20,863
- Likes
- 37,852
Did they test one of these?
Interesting... I have a 1905 upright which, to me, sounds like a 'proper piano' - although I have heard stronger bass notes from later pianos. It's got a metal frame so stays in reasonable tune, although it is by now a semitone down from normal pitch. Maybe it was a good one in its day. This catalogue dates from a few years after my piano.EDIT: Among piano players, at least, I don't think there exists any myth about old pianos being better. Everybody knows that a piano deteriorates with age.
Interesting... I have a 1905 upright which, to me, sounds like a 'proper piano' - although I have heard stronger bass notes from later pianos. It's got a metal frame so stays in reasonable tune, although it is by now a semitone down from normal pitch. Maybe it was a good one in its day. This catalogue dates from a few years after my piano.
I recently went round to friend's house where they have a brand new Yamaha upright (I think) and I was immediately struck by (a) how loud, and (b) how 'synthetic' it sounded. It played and sounded more like a typical electronic piano than a real one. In the humble world of uprights, at least, I would prefer my £50 antique over that particular modern one.
OK, that puts me in my place!Here's a thread on a piano forum where the technical reasons for this are outlined: http://forum.pianoworld.com/ubbthreads.php/topics/266616/1.html
In my opinion, people who say they have hundred year old pianos that they say sound and play good have a high tolerance for poor sound and loose clattery actions.
I don't think so.
I haven't been able to find the names or prices of the modern violins. This is the same team that have done two other blind tests. In those they used modern violins in the $5k-$10k range.
I do love when people make statements that defy physics and then act all hurt when it turns out not to be so.
Experts say these antiques possess the curious ability to sound quieter under the player’s ear, yet project sound farther and better in a concert hall than newer models.
I saw another professional violinist say, Modern instruments are incapable of projecting sound beyond the 6th row no matter how they are played
Does it really take a blind test to refute that kind of thinking? Wimpy violins project wimpy sound and it runs out of juice at the 6th row and dies. We need special speakers that do that so we could cut down on sidewall reflections and bass build up indoors.
<snip>
I do love when people make statements that defy physics and then act all hurt when it turns out not to be so.
Experts say these antiques possess the curious ability to sound quieter under the player’s ear, yet project sound farther and better in a concert hall than newer models.
I saw another professional violinist say, Modern instruments are incapable of projecting sound beyond the 6th row no matter how they are played
Does it really take a blind test to refute that kind of thinking? Wimpy violins project wimpy sound and it runs out of juice at the 6th row and dies. We need special speakers that do that so we could cut down on sidewall reflections and bass build up indoors.
If we think the world needs louder violins, why not test them objectively using, say, a calibrated spinning disc instead of a human player with a bow? I would imagine it will probably turn out that the playability, feel, smell and 'cachet' of an older violin is the key to the way a player perceives its sound, but clearly there is an issue of 'engineering' involved in building such a thing.It seems so, that blind tests are needed but it will take a long time to change what people think. I´ve read a statement of a professional violonist from 2016 who still asserted that a old violin projects much better. (given the context of the interview he apparently meant that old violin generally project much better)
If we think the world needs louder violins, why not test them objectively using, say, a calibrated spinning disc instead of a human player with a bow? I would imagine it will probably turn out that the playability, feel, smell and 'cachet' of an older violin is the key to the way a player perceives its sound, but clearly there is an issue of 'engineering' involved in building such a thing.
I declare that, for me as a listener, a violin is just a violin (likewise a piano) when it comes to the recorded sound. I think the position of the mic and the recording venue's acoustics have far more of an effect on the sound than whether it's a Stradivarius or not. I imagine the player can tell more about it, because they probably adapt their technique to maintain something like the sound they are accustomed to; if it's easier to play they will perceive it as projecting better.
There was a study years ago (I cannot find reference, it was linked on a musician's forum) showing listeners could clearly pick out a Stradivarius from a modern violin. Further research revealed that the player actually played the selection better on the Strad, perhaps knowing the instrument was that revered old fiddle. They took the same player blindfolded and repeated the exercise, again requesting identical performances. The second time nobody could reliably tell Strad from modern. I don't know if it was the same study or even relevant, but wanted to relate a tale showing how hard it is to account for all the variables.
Chances are if I have a Blackburn (very nice, expensive) trumpet in my hand, and know it, I am going to try my best to play up to it whereas I might just blow through the selection on a student horn just because my mind "knows" what to expect from each horn.
When I was in college studying pre-med stuff one of the courses highlighted the Driver's Ed Effect. A bug study was done showing students with Driver's Education were better drivers and also had better grades and such. Later studies revealed that the student's who took driver's education were generally better students to begin with, and with or without driver's education the students with better grades were better drivers.