I am posting this as a new thread as I did not want to sabotage the Bosendorfer thread getting so much attention
If we are discussing alternative materials, why would we not these days consider plastic cases.
With the materials now available and the pressing technology a case could be made out of a plastic or composite material, so that with the colour all the way through the material, scratches would no longer be an issue as all that would be required is a quick polish.
Placement for Plastic pianos would also be less troublesome as they would not be suseptable to humidity or sunlight, and even help to keep the strings at a constant temperature due to better thermal qualities than timber.
We then have frames made from carbon fibre/kevlar.
Further to.. actions could primarily be produced out of nylon and neoprene set into kevlar "Chassis" and therefore virtually indestructable.
OMG....this is technology already being used in the automotive and aero industries.
Could it be a case of the piano industry and purchasing habits being so steeped in tradition that all manufacturers are too scared to market something outside the square?
Would any of the car or aero makers make this technology available to the piano industry through some type of joint venture?
Would the piano world accept an instrument that was made by GM or Ford under license from Yamaha, Kawai, or if I may be so bold as to even mention Steinway or Bosendorfer?
I do not see alternative materials and construction as the next big thing in accoustic piano evolution...it is the only thing in the evolution of the accoustic piano.
But then, is the R&D Costs associated with this type of thing justifyable against potential sales? and beggs the question.....
Is there any real need to own an acoustic piano (either an upright or a grand) when electronic pianos are capable of producing a very respectable sound and even mimic the "feel" of a mechanical action and can be recorded straigt onto a hard drive and reproduced all over the world within minutes?
Other than it gives us as players and in some cases only as owners a warm and fuzzy feeling to do so.
And...finally, is the piano world that tied to its past, so shackled to the old ways that manufacturers and players would not adopt or accept such technologies simply because that is not how they were made back when pianos were to home entertainment way back when what DVD and plasma screens are now?
Just my 2 cents.
Alternative materials, Bosendorfer & Heracy?
Moderators: Feg, Gill the Piano, Melodytune
Alternative materials, Bosendorfer & Heracy?
Gustav Hagspiel 5'10" Burl Walnut Baby Grand Serial #: 980
Melbourne Australia
See it at: www.myspace.com/harryg73
Melbourne Australia
See it at: www.myspace.com/harryg73
Sigh. I don't really know where to begin. I suppose if you genuinely feel that's what electronic pianos can do than there is indeed no need to own an acoustic piano. Like there's no real need to get yourself a lady-friend when you can get a blow-up doll that's capable of...........Is there any real need to own an acoustic piano (either an upright or a grand) when electronic pianos are capable of producing a very respectable sound and even mimic the "feel" of a mechanical action
-
Barrie Heaton
- Site Admin
- Posts: 3647
- Joined: 30 May 2003, 20:42
- Location: Lanc's
- Contact:
Re: Alternative materials, Bosendorfer & Heracy?
Transmission of sound the case is very much part of the tone of the piano and wood is very goodBig Bird wrote:
If we are discussing alternative materials, why would we not these days consider plastic cases.
CostBig Bird wrote: With the materials now available and the pressing technology a case could be made out of a plastic or composite material, so that with the colour all the way through the material, scratches would no longer be an issue as all that would be required is a quick polish.
Hmm LindnerBig Bird wrote: Placement for Plastic pianos would also be less troublesome as they would not be suseptable to humidity or sunlight, and even help to keep the strings at a constant temperature due to better thermal qualities than timber.
Again costs but the remove men would like itBig Bird wrote: We then have frames made from carbon fibre/kevlar.
They said that about the B&R ActionBig Bird wrote: Further to.. actions could primarily be produced out of nylon and neoprene set into kevlar "Chassis" and therefore virtually indestructable.
Bigger markets spreads the costBig Bird wrote: OMG....this is technology already being used in the automotive and aero industries.
But its only just a respectable sound to most. There may come a day when that is all we will have just recording and samples of the real thingBig Bird wrote: Is there any real need to own an acoustic piano (either an upright or a grand) when electronic pianos are capable of producing a very respectable sound and even mimic the "feel" of a mechanical action and can be recorded straigt onto a hard drive and reproduced all over the world within minutes?
I am seeing more and more new clients who had a digital to start with and now have moved on the real thing. A lot are loyal to the Yamaha brand and tend to go for U3S manly women perhaps they have a more discerning ear! or may be its because Men seem to like play with their nobs and things
or it could be that women have more disposable income these days
Barrie,
Barrie Heaton
Web Master UK Piano Page
Web Master UK Piano Page
Many many suggestions have been made for the substitution of materials in pianos ranging from carbon fibre frames to fibre soundboards (Ovation have used this in their popular but rather dead sounding guitars for years) but the only area in which there has been progress is in actions, the most successful being the use of ABS in Actions by Kawai and Yamaha. The ultimate example thus far is the ABS-Carbon used in the Kawai Millennium III action.
The use of soft plastics such as nylon and waxy plastics such as polypropylene are far less successful, and have very bad associations for the trade because they recall the appalling mistakes made in the '60s and '70s by Bentley and Rippen/Lindner.
The Bentley "Richard-Harley Check action" was an abomination designed by a few misguided souls at the Bentley Piano Co which substituted self-lubricating unbushed polypropylene flanges for the traditional bushed wood items. Polypropylene has a tendency to 'creep' over the years and the forks of the flange tended to contract inwards, thus tightening the flange and replacing the problem it was designed to solve with a worse one. Undaunted, the engineering company subcontracted by Bentley suggested casting the forks slightly outwards to compensate, and actions can function for decades before the instability of the plastic causes the flange to disintegrate into fragments or granules.
The Lindner went a few stages further and used polypropylene flanges which were spring-clipped onto an aluminium beam rail; nylon hammer butts, polystyrene keys and finest cotton string instead of tapes. The balance pins were dispensed with as were the bat-pins and key location was nominally provided by a spring-blade which connected to the fulcrum point of the key with a polypropylene plug and another polypropylene flange and spring-clip arrangement to the keybed. The frame of this wonderfully wrong piece of kit was not of cast iron, but welded steel enrobed in fine blue Hammerite, and the wrestpins were crammed together into a small area at the top of the frame occupied by the minimal amount of laminated wrestplank. The wrestpins were unusually small, and had a reverse thread, the logic being that as you tightened the pin, more wire was drawn round the coil and more room between coil and plank were required.
Both these designs achieved unreasonably good sales figures, mainly due to low showroom prices, and more than a few Bentleys struggle on to this day. Thankfully the dreadful Lindner was gimcrack enough to have a mercifully short lifespan, and those remaining are mainly in the hands of nutters.
...And you ask why the piano industry isn't more adventurous?
The use of soft plastics such as nylon and waxy plastics such as polypropylene are far less successful, and have very bad associations for the trade because they recall the appalling mistakes made in the '60s and '70s by Bentley and Rippen/Lindner.
The Bentley "Richard-Harley Check action" was an abomination designed by a few misguided souls at the Bentley Piano Co which substituted self-lubricating unbushed polypropylene flanges for the traditional bushed wood items. Polypropylene has a tendency to 'creep' over the years and the forks of the flange tended to contract inwards, thus tightening the flange and replacing the problem it was designed to solve with a worse one. Undaunted, the engineering company subcontracted by Bentley suggested casting the forks slightly outwards to compensate, and actions can function for decades before the instability of the plastic causes the flange to disintegrate into fragments or granules.
The Lindner went a few stages further and used polypropylene flanges which were spring-clipped onto an aluminium beam rail; nylon hammer butts, polystyrene keys and finest cotton string instead of tapes. The balance pins were dispensed with as were the bat-pins and key location was nominally provided by a spring-blade which connected to the fulcrum point of the key with a polypropylene plug and another polypropylene flange and spring-clip arrangement to the keybed. The frame of this wonderfully wrong piece of kit was not of cast iron, but welded steel enrobed in fine blue Hammerite, and the wrestpins were crammed together into a small area at the top of the frame occupied by the minimal amount of laminated wrestplank. The wrestpins were unusually small, and had a reverse thread, the logic being that as you tightened the pin, more wire was drawn round the coil and more room between coil and plank were required.
Both these designs achieved unreasonably good sales figures, mainly due to low showroom prices, and more than a few Bentleys struggle on to this day. Thankfully the dreadful Lindner was gimcrack enough to have a mercifully short lifespan, and those remaining are mainly in the hands of nutters.
...And you ask why the piano industry isn't more adventurous?
I simply started this thread to promote the healthy discussion of such an issue.
I think that yelling "wood is better" louder than anyone else does not make your statement or point f view the right one.
Before I go any further...I am not a concert pianist, and am maybe therefore lacking in the appreciation of the subtle differences between a Steinway and a Yamaha or a Bosendorfer.
And...if in fact there are subtle differences between them what would make one of them better than another...it would just make them different.
So agreed... a piano constructed of completely modern, man made materials may sound different, but would it be any less pleasurable to play or even to listen to, or would it just be different?
I only asked these questions based on the following perspective...
Karl Benz built the first internal combustion powered car in the late 1800's, since then there has been a heap of money thrown into R & D to find alternative materials to make them better, easier to use and own, more long lasting and provide greater reliability.
On the other hand...the modern day accoustic piano still scratches easily, can't hold it's tune significantly longer than one that was built 100 years ago, is just as susceptable to changes in humidity and temperature as they always have been.
So is it wrong of a novice like me to ask the questions, or for an "expert" like you to attempt to stymie the debate.
Whether right or wrong "get over yourself!"
I think that yelling "wood is better" louder than anyone else does not make your statement or point f view the right one.
Before I go any further...I am not a concert pianist, and am maybe therefore lacking in the appreciation of the subtle differences between a Steinway and a Yamaha or a Bosendorfer.
And...if in fact there are subtle differences between them what would make one of them better than another...it would just make them different.
So agreed... a piano constructed of completely modern, man made materials may sound different, but would it be any less pleasurable to play or even to listen to, or would it just be different?
I only asked these questions based on the following perspective...
Karl Benz built the first internal combustion powered car in the late 1800's, since then there has been a heap of money thrown into R & D to find alternative materials to make them better, easier to use and own, more long lasting and provide greater reliability.
On the other hand...the modern day accoustic piano still scratches easily, can't hold it's tune significantly longer than one that was built 100 years ago, is just as susceptable to changes in humidity and temperature as they always have been.
So is it wrong of a novice like me to ask the questions, or for an "expert" like you to attempt to stymie the debate.
Whether right or wrong "get over yourself!"
Gustav Hagspiel 5'10" Burl Walnut Baby Grand Serial #: 980
Melbourne Australia
See it at: www.myspace.com/harryg73
Melbourne Australia
See it at: www.myspace.com/harryg73
Exactly so - and cheap wood doesn't work as well as expensive and expertly put together wood.....Openwood wrote:Let's talk turkey; electronic pianos DON'T sound as good as acoustic pianos and the action ISN'T like an acoustic piano. As for materials, nothing works as well as wood - get over it.
There's a reason why Steinway (and all the others in their price bracket, including the handmade Yammies) are the price they are.....
......and its not snob value
Big Bird; no offence was intended, please forgive my lack of tact - I was writing in a hurry and didn't think through my wording properly. I'm not yelling that 'wood is best' - electric pianos can be perfectly satisfactory in the right context (I have one myself in addition to an acoustic instrument) but it just isn't the same experience at all.
With regard to the possibility of using alternative materials, I'm pretty sure that a company like Yamaha or Kawai would get straight in there if they thought they could produce a lighter piano that could match the quality of sound of a wooden one. The fact that neither they, nor (to the best of my admittedly limited knowledge) any other major manufacturer has chosen to do so suggests to me that there's more to it than simply clinging to traditional materials for whatever reason. After all, traditions tend to get dumped pretty quickly when there's money to be made.
You have raised a good question - which of course is what the forum is for - and it would be interesting to know if there are any companies out there researching alternative materials.
Best wishes with your piano project.
With regard to the possibility of using alternative materials, I'm pretty sure that a company like Yamaha or Kawai would get straight in there if they thought they could produce a lighter piano that could match the quality of sound of a wooden one. The fact that neither they, nor (to the best of my admittedly limited knowledge) any other major manufacturer has chosen to do so suggests to me that there's more to it than simply clinging to traditional materials for whatever reason. After all, traditions tend to get dumped pretty quickly when there's money to be made.
You have raised a good question - which of course is what the forum is for - and it would be interesting to know if there are any companies out there researching alternative materials.
Best wishes with your piano project.
-
sussexpianos
- Persistent Poster
- Posts: 363
- Joined: 19 Aug 2006, 17:01
- Location: East Sussex
- Contact:
wood is a good transmitter of sound, a pianos tone is very important.
The Kawai CA-91 is an electric piano with wooden keys and a spruce soundboard. Its the only digital piano with a wooden soundboard. Speakers are directional, sound from piano is un-directional and makes a fuller sound. The keys in the CA-91 are wooden, it gives a better touch and you can feel the sound vibrations running through the keys as you play.
Im not going into all the science ( read a book called "Piano Tone Building" and you will understand why wood plays an important part in a piano.
To ask the question, are there alternative materials? then yes there are, but they arent used because of either cost or the desired tone cannot be acomplished.
When people buy a piano, the typical stereo type is a married couple where one ( most likley the woman) looks at the case and will it match the furniture, and the other concentrates on the touch & sound. Both views will incorperate wood until a time when digital pianos have a quality wood look and piano shape.
Another thing, digtal sound is compressed, which means the infomation to make the sound is made small but quality suffers.We are a long way off from a high quality piano sound.
I sell both accoustic and digital pianos, there are good points and bad points on both. One comment I always use is that with an accoustic piano, you can put your heart and sole when playing it, with a digital, its just a small amount numbers of information.
Vorsprung durch Technik
Progress through technology
The Kawai CA-91 is an electric piano with wooden keys and a spruce soundboard. Its the only digital piano with a wooden soundboard. Speakers are directional, sound from piano is un-directional and makes a fuller sound. The keys in the CA-91 are wooden, it gives a better touch and you can feel the sound vibrations running through the keys as you play.
Im not going into all the science ( read a book called "Piano Tone Building" and you will understand why wood plays an important part in a piano.
To ask the question, are there alternative materials? then yes there are, but they arent used because of either cost or the desired tone cannot be acomplished.
When people buy a piano, the typical stereo type is a married couple where one ( most likley the woman) looks at the case and will it match the furniture, and the other concentrates on the touch & sound. Both views will incorperate wood until a time when digital pianos have a quality wood look and piano shape.
Another thing, digtal sound is compressed, which means the infomation to make the sound is made small but quality suffers.We are a long way off from a high quality piano sound.
I sell both accoustic and digital pianos, there are good points and bad points on both. One comment I always use is that with an accoustic piano, you can put your heart and sole when playing it, with a digital, its just a small amount numbers of information.
Vorsprung durch Technik
Progress through technology
Dear Lovers of wood timber and Lumber,
There have been some amazing advances in polymer technology simce the 1980's.
Are you guys trying to tell me that in this day and age when we can break the sound barrier, split the atom and travel to the moon and back that we cannot find a better material than wood to transmit sound?
Don't get me started on the other bits.
There are much harsher environments than the inside of a piano that have been tamed with modern materials.
Yours sincerely
The Devils Advocate.
There have been some amazing advances in polymer technology simce the 1980's.
Are you guys trying to tell me that in this day and age when we can break the sound barrier, split the atom and travel to the moon and back that we cannot find a better material than wood to transmit sound?
Don't get me started on the other bits.
There are much harsher environments than the inside of a piano that have been tamed with modern materials.
Yours sincerely
The Devils Advocate.
Gustav Hagspiel 5'10" Burl Walnut Baby Grand Serial #: 980
Melbourne Australia
See it at: www.myspace.com/harryg73
Melbourne Australia
See it at: www.myspace.com/harryg73
-
sussexpianos
- Persistent Poster
- Posts: 363
- Joined: 19 Aug 2006, 17:01
- Location: East Sussex
- Contact:
why is the inside of a piano harsh? I do not understand?
Anyway, my tutor always said, if it works, leave it!
Man made materials are not always good. Anyway, isn't using wood as oppose to chemically made materials greener??
Im sure that I wouldn't want a piece of plastic in my living room, and it would probably sound rubish as well.
Anyway, my tutor always said, if it works, leave it!
Man made materials are not always good. Anyway, isn't using wood as oppose to chemically made materials greener??
Im sure that I wouldn't want a piece of plastic in my living room, and it would probably sound rubish as well.
Digital sounds
There's a lot of rubbish talked about how digital compression isn't the same as the 'real thing'. No it isn't, but you'd have to have hearing that is able to hear to 60kHz plus to a phenomenal level of accuracy (distortion figures of < 0.1%) to tell them apart.
In the late 1960's I was involved in recording Berlioz's Trojans on 15ips reel to reel Revox tape recorders with quality comparable to a CD (or better). When I heard the LP set that was made from these recordings, I could have wept. The whole recording was completely compromised with loss of presence, loss of high frequencies and so on. I've never much liked LPs since, and am totally bemused by afficianados who claim that the demise of LPs was a disaster to the musically aware. It wasn't; it was a blessing and the CD is what we actually recorded!
I had exceptional hearing at 20 and could hear up to 18kHz. These days it's down to 12 or 13kHz, and I have difficulty with picking up directionality, all because I'm nearer 60 than 50, and I suppose it'll only get worse as the years go on ...
If you're listening to a digital recording of a live event as on a CD, then the analogue signal that comes out of the amplifier (of almost any device) that feeds into the loudspeaker will be indistinguishable from the original. It is almost always the loudspeakers which will let the whole thing down. First of all there's a trade-off between linearity and efficiency, a property known as compliance. Really good speakers are very inefficient (convert only a tiny amount of energy into sound), but their faithfulness (linearity) is excellent. Cheaper speakers convert much more of the energy into sound but they introduce distortion and aren't that linear across the frequency range they cater for.
If you're listening to a pre-recorded waveform used to synthesize a sound as in a electronic keyboard, there are two problems. The first is the question of seaming of waveforms where all the harmonic frequency shifts have to match. As this is so hard, many percussive sounds (such as a piano) resort to longer samples and avoid seaming altogether. The second problem is that an acoustic piano has feedback between all the notes that are currently 'down' (all of them if the sustain pedal is pressed), known as 'resonance'. This is almost impossible to reproduce digitally, largely because of 'seaming'.
Add to all this, the well known problem that a loudspeaker is a point source whereas a sound board of an acoustic piano is an area source.
I suppose what I'm trying to say is that an acoustic piano is extremely difficult instrument to reproduce 100% using electronics, digital and/or analogue. The sound samples and waveforms are already as good as you'll ever get, the problems tend to be downstream from there.
In the late 1960's I was involved in recording Berlioz's Trojans on 15ips reel to reel Revox tape recorders with quality comparable to a CD (or better). When I heard the LP set that was made from these recordings, I could have wept. The whole recording was completely compromised with loss of presence, loss of high frequencies and so on. I've never much liked LPs since, and am totally bemused by afficianados who claim that the demise of LPs was a disaster to the musically aware. It wasn't; it was a blessing and the CD is what we actually recorded!
I had exceptional hearing at 20 and could hear up to 18kHz. These days it's down to 12 or 13kHz, and I have difficulty with picking up directionality, all because I'm nearer 60 than 50, and I suppose it'll only get worse as the years go on ...
If you're listening to a digital recording of a live event as on a CD, then the analogue signal that comes out of the amplifier (of almost any device) that feeds into the loudspeaker will be indistinguishable from the original. It is almost always the loudspeakers which will let the whole thing down. First of all there's a trade-off between linearity and efficiency, a property known as compliance. Really good speakers are very inefficient (convert only a tiny amount of energy into sound), but their faithfulness (linearity) is excellent. Cheaper speakers convert much more of the energy into sound but they introduce distortion and aren't that linear across the frequency range they cater for.
If you're listening to a pre-recorded waveform used to synthesize a sound as in a electronic keyboard, there are two problems. The first is the question of seaming of waveforms where all the harmonic frequency shifts have to match. As this is so hard, many percussive sounds (such as a piano) resort to longer samples and avoid seaming altogether. The second problem is that an acoustic piano has feedback between all the notes that are currently 'down' (all of them if the sustain pedal is pressed), known as 'resonance'. This is almost impossible to reproduce digitally, largely because of 'seaming'.
Add to all this, the well known problem that a loudspeaker is a point source whereas a sound board of an acoustic piano is an area source.
I suppose what I'm trying to say is that an acoustic piano is extremely difficult instrument to reproduce 100% using electronics, digital and/or analogue. The sound samples and waveforms are already as good as you'll ever get, the problems tend to be downstream from there.
Otto
Thankyou for that insight Otto, and proving my point.
With modern materials there is no reson why a polymer case would not be able to perform the same way as a timber one, or at least within the parameters of human hearing.
My other point is that the inside of a piano is not a harsh environment, and therefore new materials such as nolathane and polypropalenes should be able to provide greater longevity.
All of the assumptions I have made are however based on the notion that at least the major manufacturers are committed to building a better mousetrap.
With modern materials there is no reson why a polymer case would not be able to perform the same way as a timber one, or at least within the parameters of human hearing.
My other point is that the inside of a piano is not a harsh environment, and therefore new materials such as nolathane and polypropalenes should be able to provide greater longevity.
All of the assumptions I have made are however based on the notion that at least the major manufacturers are committed to building a better mousetrap.
Gustav Hagspiel 5'10" Burl Walnut Baby Grand Serial #: 980
Melbourne Australia
See it at: www.myspace.com/harryg73
Melbourne Australia
See it at: www.myspace.com/harryg73
In a completely non-shouty way I suppose it would be up to the manufacturers to prove that a non-wooden piano can offer a better sound. Otherwise an unreconstructed tree-hugging git like me is never going to buy one.
The sound's the only thing that really matters; if you could prove that a piano made out of cheese made the best possible sound then it wouldn't be long before the Albert Hall had a Stilton & Sons on its stage.
Mind you, even if the sound WASN'T as good as acoustic maybe there could be two markets; one for e.g. schools and pianists whose priority is price and ease of mobility and the other for concert/professional use. That might be an interesting avenue to explore.
The sound's the only thing that really matters; if you could prove that a piano made out of cheese made the best possible sound then it wouldn't be long before the Albert Hall had a Stilton & Sons on its stage.
Mind you, even if the sound WASN'T as good as acoustic maybe there could be two markets; one for e.g. schools and pianists whose priority is price and ease of mobility and the other for concert/professional use. That might be an interesting avenue to explore.
-
WinstonChurchill
- Regular Poster
- Posts: 39
- Joined: 13 Mar 2007, 11:16
- Location: Where it's at
No, I don't think the sound is the only thing that matters. What about aesthetics? What about craftsmanship? I personally would never want to play (let alone own) some plastic monstrosity, no matter how good it sounds.
Why buy an expensive watch with a mechanical mechanism when a $4 quartz will tell the time far more accurately? Because the auto is infinitely cooler, and accuracy is only one consideration.
Surely there's more to owning a piano than mere utility, than bare acoustic fidelity. A piano is something you live with, and you have to be able to love it.
Otto's comments were very interesting, but the point he made was that "an acoustic piano is extremely difficult instrument to reproduce 100% using electronics, digital and/or analogue", which is exactly what Openwood was suggesting when he said (correctly) that there's not a digital piano out there that feels as good to play as an acoustic.
It's not about how one would go about about building a better mousetrap: it's about whether anyone could be convinced to buy it.
Why buy an expensive watch with a mechanical mechanism when a $4 quartz will tell the time far more accurately? Because the auto is infinitely cooler, and accuracy is only one consideration.
Surely there's more to owning a piano than mere utility, than bare acoustic fidelity. A piano is something you live with, and you have to be able to love it.
Otto's comments were very interesting, but the point he made was that "an acoustic piano is extremely difficult instrument to reproduce 100% using electronics, digital and/or analogue", which is exactly what Openwood was suggesting when he said (correctly) that there's not a digital piano out there that feels as good to play as an acoustic.
It's not about how one would go about about building a better mousetrap: it's about whether anyone could be convinced to buy it.
Last edited by WinstonChurchill on 12 Dec 2007, 19:53, edited 1 time in total.
Personally speaking I agree with every sentiment in your post, Winston! I would never want to own a non-wood piano for exactly the reasons you mention. I just wonder if those people who need an instrument for more utilitarian purposes (e.g. school music rooms, dance studios etc) might be prepared to compromise on aesthetics for a much cheaper basic product that performs reasonably well? Mind you, I suppose these are called Clavinovas......No, I don't think the sound is the only thing that matters.
Actually I'm not sure that I did.Thankyou for that insight Otto, and proving my point.
If wood had only just been discovered we would all be extolling its phenomenal properties, and claiming it to be the wonder material to replace all previous wonder materials.
The fact that it's been around longer than humanity leads us to take it completely for granted. It's light, strong, and thanks to its construction (thousands of tiny tubes parallel to each other) it can be shaped, worked and all the other things we just know intuitively.
Another property that I keep banging on about is this Young's modulus, which describes how 'stretchy' something is. This is important since it determines how materials will behave when subjected to loads, as well as determining how fast sound propagates in it.
The whole human existance is geared around our natural world. We hear sounds best at frequencies that are the most common to us in our world - between 30Hz and 16kHz. We are all geared to hearing resonances in wood, be it hearing a woodpecker beating up a local tree trunk or death watch beetle wrecking the joint. Change the materials and you'll move the whole frequency ranges somewhere else - possibly making sound inaudible to the human ear.
You have other properties of wood to consider when looking at piano parts, such as weight, inertia, resistance to abrasion (linked to self lubrication too), and you're going to find it's a really hard act to follow, especially in the action.
So I'm with OpenWood (presumably 32ft as he's rather grand), and say that it's up to someone else to prove the weaknesses of pianos and demonstrate improvements, rather than piano manufacturers taking up the latest 'wonder material' blindly. I can tell you that it ain't going to be easy ...
I'm lucky enough to have a Steinway and I wouldn't swap it for anything else I've ever played, (although a 1932 9ft Chickering was tempting).
Otto
I think that's exactly the point; you wouldn't try to make a clarinet outta brass or a soprano sax outta wood - the expectations of the tonal qualities of the instrument are wrapped up in the materials used in its construction because of the way instruments are developed, in an organic process intrinsically connected to our physiology, our emotions, and so on.Otto wrote: The whole human existance is geared around our natural world. We hear sounds best at frequencies that are the most common to us in our world - between 30Hz and 16kHz. We are all geared to hearing resonances in wood, be it hearing a woodpecker beating up a local tree trunk or death watch beetle wrecking the joint.
We've found that we can use wood for shelter, for heat, for transport on land and sea... and yes other materials (especially in conjunction with developing technologies) supplant it in certain situations... but I'd argue that for heating your house, a radiator is as good as a log fire, but ask ten people which they'd rather cuddle up with their sweetheart in front of, they'll all give the same answer.
Automotive industries adopt new materials for specific advantages: eg carbon fibre to save weight for the specific reason of improving acceleration - a vital feature of cars which use it. But how important is weight to piano buyers? Sound, looks, features, price, resale value, warranty, impressing their neighbours... probably a dozen more features before weight for 99% of people.
One parallel: I remember a manufacturer bringing out lightweight cymbal stands a while ago - now drum kits get moved a heck of a lot more than pianos I'll warrant, and yet most people still opt to get the heaviest stands they can afford. Convenience in transporting is less important than function wile performing!
As for sound: well people may have an individual preference about the sound of Bosies, S&S, Faz, Bechs, whoever, but at that level I don't think any criticism can be attributed to shortcomings in design/manufacture/materials... I played a S&S Model D for the first time in years last month and could I envisage the sound being "improved" (objectively) in any way? I don't think so - as a piano (definition: wooden box full of wire strings hit with felt hammers) there's nothing requiring changing. Inventing a new instrument, designed to sound different - filling a gap in timbre of kb instruments - using new materials and technology would make sense to me; trying to reinvent the piano from such a different perspective when so many people love them as they are makes less sense to me.
Eek, longer first post than I expected, hello all!
Following up form djtoast's post, I would draw similarities to the clarinet. I've played a reasonable Yamaha (plastic - of whatever type) clarinet. It works well. It sounds nice and bright, plays easily and hey, if you forget to clean it out afterwards well its not the end of the world. I own a fairly old Boosey & Hawkes rosewood clarinet. If you play the one, then the other the differences will tell you all you need to know about the superb tonal qualities of wood. The B&H sounds hauntingly mellow and makes the Yamaha sound like a Gazoo; its just dead. Perhaps its all down to cost? I don't think so. A friend of mine bought a clarinet several years ago. It cost several £k. It was wooden. They already have the technology to make a whole clarinet from plastic and yet all the really expensive ones are still wood.
I also own a rather old baby grand (as some folks here will know
). Its not in great shape right now and is rather hard to play. About 9 months ago I bought a Roland RD700sx which was the best electric piano I could find. I need this for playing gigs and with a rehersal band I've set up. It sounds quite good - Piano No. 1 is a reasonable Steinway sample. But it is dead, theres little feedback through the action, its heavy to play and despite its bad shape I still prefer to bash out a few tunes on the baby grand.
As for sound quality, no, the RD700sx is not brilliant, there aren't enough samples and you can hear when the velocity changes and you switch to a different sample set. That said, I've heard demos of Synthogy Ivory which provide you with gigabytes of piano samples. You need a hugely capable PC to run this software piano but it does sound so good you really can't tell the difference to a real piano. So perhaps it is possible to mimick the sound of the real thing, but I've never played any electric piano that even comes close on the touch.
Playing a really good accoustic piano is a sobering experience. The machine feels alive, the sound is fantastic and the instrument seems to extract playing abilities you never knew you had. Whilst I've had fun playing electric pianos, they are still a long long way off.
I also own a rather old baby grand (as some folks here will know
). Its not in great shape right now and is rather hard to play. About 9 months ago I bought a Roland RD700sx which was the best electric piano I could find. I need this for playing gigs and with a rehersal band I've set up. It sounds quite good - Piano No. 1 is a reasonable Steinway sample. But it is dead, theres little feedback through the action, its heavy to play and despite its bad shape I still prefer to bash out a few tunes on the baby grand. As for sound quality, no, the RD700sx is not brilliant, there aren't enough samples and you can hear when the velocity changes and you switch to a different sample set. That said, I've heard demos of Synthogy Ivory which provide you with gigabytes of piano samples. You need a hugely capable PC to run this software piano but it does sound so good you really can't tell the difference to a real piano. So perhaps it is possible to mimick the sound of the real thing, but I've never played any electric piano that even comes close on the touch.
Playing a really good accoustic piano is a sobering experience. The machine feels alive, the sound is fantastic and the instrument seems to extract playing abilities you never knew you had. Whilst I've had fun playing electric pianos, they are still a long long way off.
From my recent experiences of visiting showrooms I would agree with this, but I've never been able to articulate exactly what it is. We hear vague terms like feel and touch etc. but what are the characterisitcs of that one inch return journey of a key that are so different for digitals? You would have thought that Yamaha would have been able to map the feedback of an acoustic action into their digital pianos by now.jamesp wrote: So perhaps it is possible to mimick the sound of the real thing, but I've never played any electric piano that even comes close on the touch.
In fact I tried a digital piano that I was told had hammers to mimic the feedback but it still felt artificial. I wonder how much my judgement was clouded by the etched idea that digitals comprimise convenience with quality. I'm sure my opinion of it would have eased had I blind tested it.
In music lessons at school I sometimes do an exercise with the pupils where we stop what we're doing and listen to the sounds in the room for thirty seconds. Then we try to recreate precisely those thirty seconds. Of course, you never can. That was the point behind John Cage's 4'33'' - there's no such thing as silence and you will never hear again precisely the same four minutes and thirty-three seconds.
Perhaps it's a bit like that with pianos. Why WOULD electronic devices ever be able to reproduce precisely the sound of an acoustic piano - in fact why should we even expect them to?
As a doctor, sorry, I mean organist, I'm often asked what I think of digital organs. For me they are a useful option when a pipe organ is not viable, but they don't sound exactly like the real thing and I doubt they ever will. It doesn't make them redundant but it's just a fact that they don't have the same physical properties of the genuine article. I wonder if hoping for digital instruments that can fool everybody all of the time is a case of barking up the wrong tree?
Perhaps it's a bit like that with pianos. Why WOULD electronic devices ever be able to reproduce precisely the sound of an acoustic piano - in fact why should we even expect them to?
As a doctor, sorry, I mean organist, I'm often asked what I think of digital organs. For me they are a useful option when a pipe organ is not viable, but they don't sound exactly like the real thing and I doubt they ever will. It doesn't make them redundant but it's just a fact that they don't have the same physical properties of the genuine article. I wonder if hoping for digital instruments that can fool everybody all of the time is a case of barking up the wrong tree?