• Welcome to ASR. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!

The Truth about many "Audiophile" Piano Recordings

Reproducing the sound of a piano indistinguishable from the real thing is a hard ask, so I wouldn't be expecting it.

Some people have taken up the challenge. In France, Georges Cabasse and his closer associates, sound engineers Bernard Neveu and latter on Philippe Muller, have repeatedly made direct comparisons between reproduction and live sound over decades, especially with piano. Several bars of the score were replayed by the artist followed by several bars of reproduction of the prerecorded performance in the same venue, and so on and so on. In order to improve the consistency of performance of the real instrument, Cabasse also used a mechanical piano for this kind of exercise.

Here is a rare picture of the recording phase of one of this experiment (1978):
georges-cabasse-live-music-afders-1978.jpg
(Source)

As can be seen, the recording technique that Cabasse and friends used to use was invariably a largely spaced pair of microphones, always omnidirectional microphones of the best possible quality. But they have also done multichannel recordings based on the same principle (1 microphone=1channel, no mixing or any signal processing of any sort).

This type of stereo recording was described in a piano disc album sponsored by Cabasse (BNL 112734) of the Israeli classical pianist Natan Brand playing Schumann's Kreisleriana and Chopin's 2nd sonata on a Bösendorfer Imperial:

index.php


It is my understanding that the famous John M. Eargle (RIP) used to use a very similar technique for some of his solo piano recordings, as one of his colleagues, M. Lutthans, has told us:
Perhaps the Audiofon way of recording piano that was discussed above from post #272 is comparable.

As the recording method is both consistent and very well documented, albums from disc labels BNL and Syrius (B. Neveu) and Passavant Music (Ph. Muller) and possibly most piano albums recorded for Delos by J. M. Eargle can be good starting points for a discussion about the merits of this type of recordings.
 
Last edited:
John Eargle's book, The Microphone Book, 2nd ed., 2004, Focal Press actually describes two methods, one using far-field omni's and crossed Blumleins, and one using nearfield cardioid:

IMG_20250505_0001.jpg


IMG_20250505_0002.jpg


I remember the early 1980's album by Carol Rosenberger (Delos), Water Music of the Impressionists. I consider it to be one of the singularly worst-recorded piano albums that I own (vinyl and CD). The pads on the piano hammers were softened, clearly to soften the presentation using close miking. I think that after that album, Ms. Rosenberger started to use John Eargle as her recording engineer. It barely sounded like a piano--it was so dull.. I actually tried to rebalance my setup's EQ, thinking that something was wrong with it. Turns out--it's the recording.

Note that, while Eargle was really a master recording engineer, the mastering guys that Delos used seemed to consistently muck up his resulting albums. I've found that a little careful re-EQing of his Delos albums (and there are quite a few) really begin to show their brilliance once the mastering EQ is largely undone.

Chris
 
Last edited:
I've found that a little careful re-EQing of his Delos albums (and there are quite a few) really begin to show their brilliance once the mastering EQ is largely undone.
Did Delos publish their mastering EQ curves with each release, so they can be 'undone'?
 
This type of stereo recording was described in a piano disc album sponsored by Cabasse (BNL 112734) of the Israeli classical pianist Natan Brand playing Schumann's Kreisleriana and Chopin's 2nd sonata on a Bösendorfer Imperial:
Thank you +++ Scytales for these very interesting data about the Cabasse/BNL piano recording of Schumann's work.

According to the document you provided about it, it means that the peak level during the Forte was about 121 dB at 1m (300 W peak power for 93 dB/W/m speakers). Easy to calculate whether a system is able to achieve this instantaneous output level to reproduce a concert piano at 1/1 scale.

I have many piano recordings from BNL/Syrius and Passavant and there are the more realistic and natural I've heard so far.
 
Last edited:
I was originally thinking I could show whether the extra keys do actually add lower resonances when playing a regular note as that seems to be the primary reason for having them.
The recording equipment could have played a role in that, that the lowest harmonics are not there, but it could also have been that the piano doesn't actually produce them:

And I've seen similar spectrum graphs for bass guitar. So the big reason for having the keys might be that they produce those higher harmonics that are so densely packed and therefore give the impression of lower pitch (i.e. the missing fundamental phenomenon).

Btw, here's some "review" of that piano and at 17:08 he plays G0 and from 17:14 the rest of them:

And the spectrum of each note with marks where the first 9 harmonics for each note should be:
bosendorfer1.png, bosendorfer2.png
 
Last edited:
So the big reason for having the keys might be that they produce those higher harmonics that are so densely packed and therefore give the impression of lower pitch (i.e. the missing fundamental phenomenon).
Also known as the "Tartini effect". But if I remember correctly, Bösendorfer has designed his Imperial grand piano with an extended keyboard to satisfy the need of an artist I don't remember the name in order for him to play works requiring an extended ambitus. The effect the supplemental chords give to the timber through their resonances is a side-effect.
 
Btw, here's some "review" of that piano and at 17:08 he plays G0 and from 17:14 the rest of them:
It only costs an extra $50,000k
 
But you can't just leave it outside, a nice room for it (sized to accommodate it's acoustics when playing it), is a slight extra cost of what???
I should have added a smiley or LOL to my post.
But As being a relatively poor blue collar working dude all my life, I can't help looking at a price tag and being somewhat influenced by it. ;)
 
I should have added a smiley or LOL to my post.
But As being a relatively poor blue collar working dude all my life, I can't help looking at a price tag and being somewhat influenced by it. ;)
When I was in high school (maybe 16-17) I knew a gal that had a modest middle class home in the same type of neighborhood and was very surprised when I was invited in to find that the living room was larger than most, with a Medium Grand Piano (Steinway) in the middle of it. The other rooms seemed to be normal sized but from the outside the house was probably a little larger than some others, as the yard seemed smaller.
To this day: it's the only home that I have ever been in that had a (to me then, as it was the first non-upright piano that I had ever seen) HUGE piano in it.
 
Grand piano's need space, a space bigger than most living rooms. I never saw grand piano's in ordineary houses, only in castles. Most pianists excercise on a upright or digital piano when at home. For the grand piano they need to go to a music school or a concert hall mostly as it just won't fit their house.
 
  • Like
Reactions: EJ3
Grand piano's need space, a space bigger than most living room
Sure, not only for the physical size but for the sound to blossom..
I don't believe a Grand would sound right unless it had plenty of room for it's soundboard to come alive.
 
…and Yamaha C7, dampened to choke with everything they could, in tiny studio rooms, on millions of pop-rock records…
 
I might have mentioned this before, but I had a Steinway B in the living room for a few years. This was one of those living rooms that had the dining room extending into the living room, there was some breathing room for the instrument. The bottom octave was messed up for various reasons. However, the middle registers were lovely. I couldn't play much, but some friends could.
 
My piano, which you've seen in photos, was termed a "parlor grand" when it was made in 1885. Its length is 6'-4", making it substantially larger than a 60" "baby grand" but not quite as large as many smaller stage pianos and pits that hover around 7 feet. (Yamaha C7's might be anywhere from the same as my piano up to 9 feet.) Concert performance grand pianos for larger stages are typically 9 feet, though some are longer than that. The Bösendorfer Grand Imperial Model 290 is 290cm long--9'-6".

All that makes a big difference in what room it will fit in.

Mine is in a room that is 15x20 feet, but with a ceiling that slopes up to a loft are of about the same volume. It can be played loudly in that space, but that's probably not much less volume than a "parlor" in New York in 1885. As with most residential situations, the reverberation is pretty low. But the sound won't slam back to the musician is directly as with a flat ceiling at 8 feet or a wall four feet from the open lid. I don't think a piano player would feet all that limited by the space, though the listeners might prefer to sit in the next room :)

Rick "who causes more pain in that space with a grand orchestral tuba, but maybe for other reasons" Denney
 
  • Like
Reactions: EJ3
My Mom, who died 10 years ago yesterday, was a fairly accomplished pianist and teacher. We always had a "baby" grand piano in the house, starting with a Sohmer, followed by a Baldwin, and finally a Steinway Model L which now lives at my sister's house. She is a violinist and is regularly accompanied on the piano by her many pianist friends.

I spent what were probably hours every day when I was little under the piano with Teddy while my Mom was playing or even when she wasn't. My perception of what a recorded piano should sound like is therefore colored by my memories of listening to one from below, watching her feet on the pedals--and sometimes mischievously trying to operate them myself.
 
Back
Top Bottom