Can Loudspeakers Accurately Reproduce The Sound Of Real Instruments...and Do You Care?

[MRC01]

... Modern pianos - much like speakers by the way - are often made to sound good at show rooms. In order to stand out of the pack they are made to be very loud and be overly bright. This may be impressive at first, but it's not ideal for the home environment and long term playing. ...

Another factor is the way the instrument sounds to a listener - 10 feet away, or further in the audience. The bright "zing" decays quickly in the first few feet of distance. This applies to other instruments too. Years ago I changed flutes for the same reason. My old one sounded great to me while practicing, which is important since we hear that sound so much. But it sounded quite different, more dull, in recordings. I switched to one that has more bright zing to the sound. To me when playing, it's a bit too much zing (not bad, but I like the old one better). But it has better projection and a more balanced, lively tone from several feet away and in recordings.

 

[oivavoi]

Another perspective on new vs old

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/05/million-dollar-strads-fall-modern-violins-blind-sound-check

Yap, that test is cool! It's of course impossible to get over the sighted bias when playing instruments. Some years ago, a French piano magazine actually did some blind testing of pianos... They asked some seasoned pianists to play different grand pianos. If I remember correctly some of the big name pianos came out on top, but quite surprisingly some of the big names also scored very low, and one cheap Chinese piano actually made it all the way to the top.

Concerning age, I certainly don't imply that older pianos are better per se, or that a piano gets better with age. That's bollocks. Humidity swings and frequent use will wear a piano down. There's no escaping that (even though a piano that gets light use and is standing in a room with good humidity control can last for many many decades). But in the golden era of the piano - the decades prior to WWII, when more pianos were made and sold than ever before or after - many pianos were manufactured in a way that may arguably be superior to mainstream budget pianos these days. One thing is the things I mentioned, the tonal philosophy and the ivory (which rightfully has become banned). Another thing is size: Upright pianos were generally bigger before WWII. Size matters. Taller pianos have a larger soundboard which makes for a richer tone. Many of them were also deeper, which allows for actions with better dynamic control.

Hence my preference for old pianos which are rebuilt/restored and made to be like new. The best of the old piano building philosophy, but with newer materials which haven't been worn out. But would I think the same in a blinded test? Impossible to know!

 

[Cosmik]

My favorite pianos are often older pianos which have been completely rebuilt and restored. I like the older tonal philosophy, and I must admit that I also really like playing on ivory (my apologies, all ye endangered ivory-carrying species of the world).

I believe that ivory has the handy property of being able to absorb sweat. Playing plastic keys for long periods does seem to make my fingers a bit sore, but maybe they'll toughen up like a guitar player's.

Have you tried the Yamaha 'Transacoustic' pianos?

TransAcoustic™ technology does not rely on speaker units to produce sound; instead, transducers are used. Transducers convert audio source signals into vibrations, and then relay them to the soundboard. The soundboard amplifies the vibrations, and the entire piano vibrates sympathetically. Even digital audio sources go through the same mechanism of resonance, so that the sound that reaches your ears is as rich as that of an acoustic piano.

 

[oivavoi]

Another factor is the way the instrument sounds to a listener - 10 feet away, or further in the audience. The bright "zing" decays quickly in the first few feet of distance. This applies to other instruments too. Years ago I changed flutes for the same reason. My old one sounded great to me while practicing, which is important since we hear that sound so much. But it sounded quite different, more dull, in recordings. I switched to one that has more bright zing to the sound. To me when playing, it's a bit too much zing (not bad, but I like the old one better). But it has better projection and a more balanced, lively tone from several feet away and in recordings.

That's interesting!

Yes, I think that instruments which are made to sound good for concerts or recordings may not be ideal for solo practicing, and vice versa. The same applies to pianos. Pianos for ensemble playing - or studio recordings - are usually brighter, in order to stand out more from the pack. I guess you could call it zing. But for solo practice in a typical living room, that zing will become fatiguing.

 

[oivavoi]

I believe that ivory has the handy property of being able to absorb sweat. Playing plastic keys for long periods does seem to make my fingers a bit sore, but maybe they'll toughen up like a guitar player's.

Have you tried the Yamaha 'Transacoustic' pianos?

We feel the same way about plastic keys then!

The transacoustic is actually the one high-end digital piano I haven't tried. I have in on my todo list. I think the design philosophy makes sense. My own DP from Kawai, the CS10, also has a soundboard, in addition to regular speakers. I find that this soundboard makes the playing experience much more believable, by adding resonance and vibrations which makes me feel the instrument more, in a way.

EDIT: But I'm about to sell the CS10, get an acoustic upright, and get a small digital slab piano for silent practice at night

 

[MRC01]

... the older philosophy was to tune the bass to be "fat"; and the mid and treble to be clean and clear. When using the piano as a solo instrument, this is arguably better. This way you get a warm feel from the fat bass, but you also get a sense of clarity and singing from the higher registries. ...

This reminds me that different approaches can be suitable for different types of music. For example, I heard several versions of Bach's Goldberg Variations on piano (both recorded & live) before I heard it played on harpsichord for the first time (Pinnock's 1979 performance on Archiv). It was like a different piece of music. The harpsichord's lower octaves have similar articulation & timbre to the upper, which revealed the L and R lines as equal melodic partners in the music, opening up a new dimension to this music that I had not heard before.

Also: my favorite version of Schubert's impromptus has always been Lupu's classic Decca recording; a fantastic recording & sublime performance. Recently I got Schiff's performance on ECM that just came out last month. Played on an 1820 Brodmann having 4 pedals, the pieces are artistically transformed. The tone, dynamics, timbre of each octave, and pedal effects, are totally different from a modern piano. It's not the same piece performed with a different sound; musically and artistically they are like different pieces that happen to use the same familiar notes. Given the dates, probably closer to Schubert's original artistic intention. We perform and interpret music using the tools we have, so those technical differences lead to differences in artistic interpretation.

 

[MRC01]

PS some notes from the liner notes of the Schiff recording:

The Franz Brodmann fortepiano (Vienna, c. 1820) has a range of six octaves (contra-F - f 4 ), and four pedals (from left to right: soft pedal, bassoon, moderator and sustaining pedal), whereas the modern piano has only the soft pedal (albeit with a much weaker effect on the sound) and the sustaining pedal. On the forte piano the soft pedal (due corde) produces a sound that is not only quieter, but also much thinner, and which can approach that of a harp.With the bassoon-stop, a strip of parchment and silk curved into a semicircle and mounted on a piece of wood is pressed against the strings of the hass register. This produces a buzzing sound like that of a bassoon. With the moderator a piece of cloth is inserted between the hammers and the strings, to mute the attack and the sound. Without this pedal, for example, the sound of Schubert's piano music cannot be appropriately conveyed. The sustaining pedal can be generously applied, since in comparison to a modern instrument the much thinner strings of a fortepiano have notably less sustaining power.
...
Franz Brodmann has until now not been put on record, but his brother Joseph was one of the city's best piano manufacturers. Ignaz Bösendorfer, who took over his workshop in 1828, the year of Schubert's death, was his apprentice.

 

[Hifi]

What is your opinion of the digital pianos that proliferate? i.e. literally trying to replace an instrument with speakers?

I guess I have never gave a digital piano much more consideration than a synthesizer regarding my critical listening. For me the “Realism” killer is the recording style engineers use on most performances with piano , solo or otherwise. When I listen to most recordings I am reminded again and again that putting mic(s) inside a piano is wrong for me. Not they way I want it to playback.

Much of my thought process comes from my growing up in a home with a piano so I believe I have a more intimate relationship.

This may be a bit off topic . . . This is a great artist and recording label. The mics were carefully placed and the artist is powerful. Available in SACD and 45rpm 180 gram

 

[Hifi]

I have piano power. Krell KMA250 mono blocks and Krell MDA500 mono blocks.

 

[MRC01]

And, if my eyes can be trusted, tube traps, and Samson stands from Mapleshade!

 

[MattHooper]

Matt....l had asked ....

Question for you regarding your listening set up . . . What instrument would you say is the most difficult for your speakers to reproduce with realism?

I will open the question to all.

I will go first. Piano. Not just in my speakers and system but in about every system I listen to.

As there are so many instruments, I don't know that I've decided on which particular instrument is hardest to reproduce.

Probably full orchestral sections, like a full string section.

Individual instruments?

Maybe full drum sets? I've owned speakers that can reproduce the *timbre* of the different drum parts pretty well, and if the recording isn't too challenging the drums can sound remarkably realistic. Some of Joe Morello's drumming on Dave Brubeck at Carnegie Hall can sound eerily real (especially his solo in St. Luis Blues and his delicate soloing in Castilian drums! But truly, no system I've had actually reproduces the dynamic power and acoustic force of a real drum set.

I'm also inclined to agree that Piano is a hard one. Most pianos through sound systems sound to me like they have a plastic quality. It seems such an incredibly hard balance to get the upper frequencies, sense of "air" and sparkle without the notes sounding artificially sharp and bright, but it seems just the wrong turn towards less high frequency information yields that "plasticy electric piano" sound I often hear. Plus, most pianos, like most acoustic guitars, tend to come through sound systems like they are strings, or keys just playing in the air, not attached to any body.
Whereas anyone knows the acoustic presence of a real piano, with a real soundboard. Those few better recordings that maintain some body to the sound can actually come off as pretty darned convincing in the "does it sound real from outside the room" test, especially with the way the MBLs radiate sound in to the room.

 

[Hifi]

And, if my eyes can be trusted, tube traps, and Samson stands from Mapleshade!

Timber nation under four mono blocks a Samson Rack for all other gear in system

 

[Daverz]

Matt....l had asked ....

Question for you regarding your listening set up . . . What instrument would you say is the most difficult for your speakers to reproduce with realism?

I will open the question to all.

I will go first. Piano. Not just in my speakers and system but in about every system I listen to.

I think it's quite hard for speakers to reproduce massed double basses without blurring and bass drum without a lot of overhang and room modes dominating.

Recording with lots of bass drum to try: Shostakovich Symphony No. 7 - Nelsons/Boston Symphony in Symphony Hall.

https://open.qobuz.com/album/t9mvjgf9pgicb
https://tidal.com/album/104156121

 

[TG1]

I'm no scientist, so my reply is probably too naive, but the notes produced by real instruments are not the same as the notes produced by speakers. The source is different, so it sounds different.
I recently got an LP of Bach's cello suites. It is a single instrument playing and while my set up is hardly big league it is not too bad and I get lots of resonance and richness of tone. But it is not the same as having a real cello playing in the room. What would be pouring out of that cello is something living, and altogether more resonant than anything that can come out of a speaker that is dependent on an electrical signal.
Surely the sound of the cello from the speaker is being approximated by the speaker cones. How could that be the same as the sound produced by the drawing of a bow across a set of strings?

 

[andreasmaaan]

I'm no scientist, so my reply is probably too naive, but the notes produced by real instruments are not the same as the notes produced by speakers. The source is different, so it sounds different.
I recently got an LP of Bach's cello suites. It is a single instrument playing and while my set up is hardly big league it is not too bad and I get lots of resonance and richness of tone. But it is not the same as having a real cello playing in the room. What would be pouring out of that cello is something living, and altogether more resonant than anything that can come out of a speaker that is dependent on an electrical signal.
Surely the sound of the cello from the speaker is being approximated by the speaker cones. How could that be the same as the sound produced by the drawing of a bow across a set of strings?

I basically agree with you, but just not for the reason that I think you're suggesting In terms of causing air pressure fluctuations that are the same as those that would be produced by a bow being drawn across a cello, a loudspeaker can actually get extremely close. By that I mean that it can produce something very close to the same resonances and harmonics that a cello can, so close that any differences between what the mic recorded and what the speaker reproduces may well be inaudible, or extremely close to inaudible.

The bigger issue is that the signal the speaker receives is either:

1. a recording of a cello which contains both direct and reflected sounds from the space in which the cello was played, or
2. a close-mic'd or anechoic recording of a cello that contains (more or less) only the direct sound from the cello

If it is (1), upon playback the loudspeaker is forced to be the source of all direct sound and all reflections, but instead of these coming from different locations around the listening room as they would if a real cello were there, all these sounds originate in the listening room from the location of the speaker.

If it is (2), there's a theoretical problem, because there is no single correct location in an anechoic chamber or with a close mic to record the cello (you can't put a mic at the same location from which the cello produces sound). So you've captured only the sound of the cello as it was at one specific location.

Moreover, the loudspeaker has a polar response that is different from a cello. So when it replays the recording taken by method (2), it will send it out into the listening room with a different polar pattern than the cello had IRL.

This is why, generally, the best a loudspeaker can hope to do is to accurately reproduce what's on the recording - whatever that is - not the cello that was recorded. Notwithstanding this limitation, good loudspeakers can actually do this very well (i.e. produce near identical resonances, harmonics, etc. as contained in the recording of the cello or whatever instrument(s) happen to be present).

 

[Hifi]

I'm no scientist, so my reply is probably too naive, but the notes produced by real instruments are not the same as the notes produced by speakers. The source is different, so it sounds different.
I recently got an LP of Bach's cello suites. It is a single instrument playing and while my set up is hardly big league it is not too bad and I get lots of resonance and richness of tone. But it is not the same as having a real cello playing in the room. What would be pouring out of that cello is something living, and altogether more resonant than anything that can come out of a speaker that is dependent on an electrical signal.
Surely the sound of the cello from the speaker is being approximated by the speaker cones. How could that be the same as the sound produced by the drawing of a bow across a set of strings?

I’m going to, at least, try to answer.....

The very same way I have heard live voices and those same voices played back on a system. I hear, in total, enough information that I know it’s the very same person. I have the same experience with acoustic guitar listening and then playback on a sound system. As a teenager my roommate played his drums as we listened to The Clash and Elvis Costello. The live drums sound just like playback drums. I noticed the biggest sound difference was his live Kik verse the recorded Kik drum...but both were real After my ears and brain processed. I think different artist personally tune their Kik to wide variations and recording of Kik is often handled differently from various recording studios. The quick and hard hit of the snare was spot on. In total the recording of drums sounds like drums in a decent Two Channel audio system.

So yes the source is different.... but with enough information your brain will say it’s real. . . And there is some science that supports.

You stated your LP of solo cello would sound different than a solo cello playing live in your room. It absolutely should sound different even if speakers were “approximating” to a extremely high degree. That is in a very large part to do with you are listening to a recorded cello in a likely brilliant space (church?) and playing back in , guessing, a room with four walls and average ceiling. Two very different sounds. Your brain should still process enough information to enjoy some authenticity. I think things get spooky real , in a Two Channel audio system, when the playback “Room” is fixed. For now I will use “fixed” loosely. If one can get playback room issues tamed it doesn’t require “big league “ equipment to make “magically real sounding” sound.

 

[MRC01]

... there is no single correct location in an anechoic chamber or with a close mic to record the cello (you can't put a mic at the same location from which the cello produces sound). So you've captured only the sound of the cello as it was at one specific location.
...
good loudspeakers can actually do this very well (i.e. produce near identical resonances, harmonics, etc. as contained in the recording of the cello or whatever instrument(s) happen to be present).

Are you suggesting the limitation to realism is more in the microphones/recording, than in speakers/playback? Put differently, playback/speakers can be more transparent than recording/microphones?
The better an audio system is, the more different recordings sound, which suggests this may be true. Or at least, playback is transparent enough to resolve limitations/difference in recordings.

 

[andreasmaaan]

Are you suggesting the limitation to realism is more in the microphones/recording, than in speakers/playback? Put differently, playback/speakers can be more transparent than recording/microphones?

It depends on what you mean by "limitations".

I'm not suggesting that speakers are capable of lower distortion than microphones (they aren't), but rather that the inherent limitation of having to record a number of sounds (direct and reflected) at a specific point in space, and then play these back from just one specific point in a different space, is a greater limitation than a good loudspeaker's ability to accurately reproduce a recording.

The better an audio system is, the more different recordings sound, which suggests this may be true. Or at least, playback is transparent enough to resolve limitations/difference in recordings.

100% agree!

EDIT: my point here is really that loudspeakers don't reproduce instruments; they reproduce recordings! So the question of whether a loudspeaker can accurately reproduce the sound of a real instrument is not the right question

 

[JJB70]

I think that the quality of recording is more important than the quality of the replay equipment. A bad recording will be a bad recording regardless of what you use to listen to it. A top quality recording will still shine on a modest but decent set up.

 

[Hifi]

I would answer that question YES

The mic, the way the instrument is recorded in its space and the least amount of engineering of the recording.