Pianotech

In various soundboard design threads over the years, a fair amount of time is spent working words, explaining concepts, and having strong opinions about…well most things. However, the conversations about soundboard design, which are in the end discussions about sound, never include sound samples to back up any of the opinions expressed. (Adequate sound sample means recording quality sufficient to present a fair image of the instrument).    

I would like to present some recorded tonal evidence, re a recent discussion.

My premise…Pitch clarity, textural and tonal differentiation, volume at tonal break-up, and voice-like sustain require that the board's structure pass a base threshold of stiffness in order to support these attributes. Once the a new board structure achieves this base threshold, the bandwidth of stiffness a board can possess and still be tone regulated to a fine degree is huge. Boards of varying stiffness will present slightly different tone palettes, but, given serious tone regulation chops, these different tone palettes will lend personality to a piano that is, right out of the gate, pretty damn good, highly musical, and in demand from excellent players.

Reading Chris' soundboard stress thread, there is a central assumption Chris presented and David L seconded, which underlies much of their discussion. It is a premise much more limiting than what I have stated above. David , and the tenor of Chris' posts are coming at this assuming the bandwidth of stiffness built into a board, which will result in an aesthetically acceptable piano sound, one which serious musicians are expecting to hear, presents a significantly smaller target to hit, than the stiffness profiles I have had success with.

David said "the targets, ultimately, are not as wide as you might think and if you venture too far afield you'll produce something unexpected and quite possibly unwanted"

… and then…

"but the test is simple, it should basically have the capacity to capture the range of the requirements of the piano literature, from Rachmaninov to Satie." (Note the literature range stated is a rather limited period of time, and limited style of repertoire as well.)

 

I disagree with their premise in the strongest possible terms. So, I present here tonal evidence in support my premise…evidence illustrating the success of boards I have designed with quite stiff structures. I make this assertion in the interests of encouraging the next generation of soundboard designers to take up the challenge, comfortable in their chances of success. Given adequate thought, research, commitment and time required to mess around with belly and high level (but vanilla) tone regulating skills, success can be had on the first or second board.

So, can a very stiff board, one that has a different structural profile, fabrication technique than is …uhh…usual(?)…traditional(?), produce a sound that serious players will find inspiring? Will they be able to technically navigate the instrument and create a sound that they, as professionals, can relate to as appropriate to their literature?

My experience is…Yes.   The bandwidth or target is huge, as long as a minimum threshold level of stiffness has been achieved or exceeded, and as long as tone regulating chops have been developed to a high degree.  

I present the following sounds as evidence in support of my premise.

A vintage Steinway C, completely re-manufactured with an other-than-the-usual rib setup, resulting in, a very stiff structure (rib crowned and supported). String scale also utilizing iron wound wraps, completely rethought string scale, Paullelo wire with type O well into the high tenor, Ed Mcmorrow's patent FTDS duplexes. It combines the high impedance board   with a "speaking" duplex, amongst other things. The aesthetic point of the design being, as I mentioned above, Pitch clarity, textural and tonal differentiation, volume at tonal break-up, and voice-like sustain. Add to that, pitch clarity into and through the wraps, by reducing the usual wrapped string enharmonic (non-partial) content.

The response to this piano at the Bunker Studio in Brooklyn, from a musical perspective relevant to this post/thread, has been enthusiastic. Further, recently Brad Meldau, a world class jazz pianist, chose this piano/studio to record his most recent solo album. Its not released yet. While awaiting that release, these videos of an   composer/pianist, Jesse Elder, give a pretty good view of some of the musically appropriate attributes which this piano and this piano design possess… (offered in grateful memory of Ron Nossaman who was a mentor. Even though we had some rocky times, and I have gone my own way, he has been a valuable mentor…many thanks, Ron).

Other sound samples of pianos exhibiting different impedance characteristics welcome.

 

Jesse Elder/Toni Middleton Thai Silk

 

Jesse Elder Trio Growth Rate

 

Jesse Elder Trio Sonrisas

------------------------------
Jim Ialeggio
grandpianosolutions.com
Shirley, MA
978 425-9026
------------------------------

The recordings sound very good. Why don't you post your design specs (just rib dimensions and species and panel thickness and type) and I'll tell you if I think they fall outside what I would consider the "bandwidth of stiffness", as you put it,  Otherwise this discussion is pretty hard to make sense of.

I do think the piano has to be able to capture the requirements of the literature, something you said you disagree with in the strongest terms??? My citing of Rachmaninoff to Satie was simply for illustration. I don't consider jazz requiements to be something that different or outside that range. Nor do I think the sound characteristics as presented by the recording are outside the bandwidth of tone that I woukd expect to hear. 

FWIW, and as you know, recordings are tricky in terms of knowing what the piano sounds like in real life. I have a friend with a recording studio and he uses a 1970 Kawai, 6'7"ish. In person the piano diesn't sound very well but recorded sounds fabulous with a lot of post production EQing and limiting. So I'm cautious in making judgments about pianos from recordings. 

In this recording what I don't get a sense of is the piano's upper dynamic range. I'll listen more carefully through it again, but I don't hear much above mf.  Very stiff boards will do well mf on down but will be limited mf on up. In a recording studio that's not really a problem. Clarity and a highly controlled attack can be a real benefit given the inherent problem in pianos of red lining the attack while trying to capture the sustain part of the envelope which occurs at much lower db level.  Close micing can add depth and power to the attack as well, if needed, where it might otherwise be lacking in real life.  But outside the studio, or on stage, a very stiff assembly can be a problem in terms of projection and volume. Some proponents of very stiff assemblies have argued for using amplification on stage for that reason. For many pianists that would be an issue and probably would push them to using something else.

Hopefully I can hear one of your pianos in person at some point. I have heard, and built, several pianos along the lines of what you describe (pushing the stiffness envelope, RC&S) and while they all have had some very positive qualities the overall dynamic range has suffered some limitations as I describe above which eventually caused me to abandon, or at least back off, at least some of those ideas.

But unless I know what the actual rib specs are it's hard to know if we have real differences or not.

Thanks for posting the recordings.

------------------------------
David Love RPT
www.davidlovepianos.com
davidlovepianos@comcast.net
415 407 8320
------------------------------

Original Message:
Sent: 06-04-2017 19:33
From: Jim Ialeggio
Subject: Relative Soundboard Stiffness Designs

In various soundboard design threads over the years, a fair amount of time is spent working words, explaining concepts, and having strong opinions about…well most things. However, the conversations about soundboard design, which are in the end discussions about sound, never include sound samples to back up any of the opinions expressed. (Adequate sound sample means recording quality sufficient to present a fair image of the instrument).    

I would like to present some recorded tonal evidence, re a recent discussion.

My premise…Pitch clarity, textural and tonal differentiation, volume at tonal break-up, and voice-like sustain require that the board's structure pass a base threshold of stiffness in order to support these attributes. Once the a new board structure achieves this base threshold, the bandwidth of stiffness a board can possess and still be tone regulated to a fine degree is huge. Boards of varying stiffness will present slightly different tone palettes, but, given serious tone regulation chops, these different tone palettes will lend personality to a piano that is, right out of the gate, pretty damn good, highly musical, and in demand from excellent players.

Reading Chris' soundboard stress thread, there is a central assumption Chris presented and David L seconded, which underlies much of their discussion. It is a premise much more limiting than what I have stated above. David , and the tenor of Chris' posts are coming at this assuming the bandwidth of stiffness built into a board, which will result in an aesthetically acceptable piano sound, one which serious musicians are expecting to hear, presents a significantly smaller target to hit, than the stiffness profiles I have had success with.

David said "the targets, ultimately, are not as wide as you might think and if you venture too far afield you'll produce something unexpected and quite possibly unwanted"

… and then…

"but the test is simple, it should basically have the capacity to capture the range of the requirements of the piano literature, from Rachmaninov to Satie." (Note the literature range stated is a rather limited period of time, and limited style of repertoire as well.)

 

I disagree with their premise in the strongest possible terms. So, I present here tonal evidence in support my premise…evidence illustrating the success of boards I have designed with quite stiff structures. I make this assertion in the interests of encouraging the next generation of soundboard designers to take up the challenge, comfortable in their chances of success. Given adequate thought, research, commitment and time required to mess around with belly and high level (but vanilla) tone regulating skills, success can be had on the first or second board.

So, can a very stiff board, one that has a different structural profile, fabrication technique than is …uhh…usual(?)…traditional(?), produce a sound that serious players will find inspiring? Will they be able to technically navigate the instrument and create a sound that they, as professionals, can relate to as appropriate to their literature?

My experience is…Yes.   The bandwidth or target is huge, as long as a minimum threshold level of stiffness has been achieved or exceeded, and as long as tone regulating chops have been developed to a high degree.  

I present the following sounds as evidence in support of my premise.

A vintage Steinway C, completely re-manufactured with an other-than-the-usual rib setup, resulting in, a very stiff structure (rib crowned and supported). String scale also utilizing iron wound wraps, completely rethought string scale, Paullelo wire with type O well into the high tenor, Ed Mcmorrow's patent FTDS duplexes. It combines the high impedance board   with a "speaking" duplex, amongst other things. The aesthetic point of the design being, as I mentioned above, Pitch clarity, textural and tonal differentiation, volume at tonal break-up, and voice-like sustain. Add to that, pitch clarity into and through the wraps, by reducing the usual wrapped string enharmonic (non-partial) content.

The response to this piano at the Bunker Studio in Brooklyn, from a musical perspective relevant to this post/thread, has been enthusiastic. Further, recently Brad Meldau, a world class jazz pianist, chose this piano/studio to record his most recent solo album. Its not released yet. While awaiting that release, these videos of an   composer/pianist, Jesse Elder, give a pretty good view of some of the musically appropriate attributes which this piano and this piano design possess… (offered in grateful memory of Ron Nossaman who was a mentor. Even though we had some rocky times, and I have gone my own way, he has been a valuable mentor…many thanks, Ron).

Other sound samples of pianos exhibiting different impedance characteristics welcome.

 

Jesse Elder/Toni Middleton Thai Silk

 

Jesse Elder Trio Growth Rate

 

Jesse Elder Trio Sonrisas

------------------------------
Jim Ialeggio
grandpianosolutions.com
Shirley, MA
978 425-9026
------------------------------