In the interest of full disclosure, I'm not a classical pianist. I'm a classic rock guitarist turned keyboard wannabe, so please be patient with me if I use the wrong terminology.
I've been auditioning the primary pianos in the M while working on a particular song so that I could get a sense of the differences. I came from the Kronos, and my favorite on that was their Steinway (German Grand). In a similar fashion, I find myself drawn to the Hamburg Grand on the M. It's brighter than the Kronos, which I like, but a particular characteristic I enjoy is what I hear from the strings. It might be resonance or just the higher frequencies that the piano produces (or how it was mic'd / mixed).
There's a characteristic of most pianos where playing ppp gives you no string brilliance at all, instead sounding more like a felt piano. As you increase velocity, the string brilliance comes into play, in different ways on different pianos. This is the primary topic of interest for me at the moment.
Neither the CFX / CFX 2 nor the Imperial have the string brilliance of the Steinway unless you really lean on them hard. In the lower couple of octaves, the Imperial not only sounds like a felt piano, but it also sounds like someone turned the sub woofer up to 11. Both the Imperial and CFX (both versions) have more of a felt piano sound to the mid and upper registers at moderate to reasonably high velocity. In the lower couple of octaves, the CFX retains that felt characteristic but without going into the woofiness of the Imperial.
With the Hamburg, I get the felt effect at the lowest velocities, but when increasing it very quickly begins to show the strings, so to speak. In short, the Hamburg absolutely barks in all registers, in all but the very lightest velocities. Unless you absolutely hammer on them, the Imperial and CFX do not bark at all.
When I hear examples of playing, both the Montage and videos of the actual 9 foot grands, people are typically playing classical pieces with lots of individual notes, runs, etc. In this context the notes are clean and crisp, the fundamental is pronounced, and it sounds good. However, I'm playing pop / rock, lots of chords and arpeggios, and thats' a style I can't seem to find in demos of the pianos.
The overall muffled / felt piano effect that I hear on all but the Hamburg makes me wonder, is this how the actual pianos sound? Or is it a matter of decisions in sampling, where they chose to give the Steinway a bright and resonant characteristic and the CFX / Imperial a more subdued personality? Perhaps the string brilliance / brightness / resonance / whatever the term is would get in the way when playing classical music, and for such expensive pianos that may be what the market is.
Being ignorant of these things I'd love to hear the perspective of real piano players. Obviously in the end I just go with what sounds good for that song, but I'm trying to understand the place and reasoning for the design of these expensive and well made instruments. Understanding their intended strengths would give me better context for their uses.
I've been auditioning the primary pianos in the M while working on a particular song so that I could get a sense of the differences. I came from the Kronos, and my favorite on that was their Steinway (German Grand). In a similar fashion, I find myself drawn to the Hamburg Grand on the M. It's brighter than the Kronos, which I like, but a particular characteristic I enjoy is what I hear from the strings. It might be resonance or just the higher frequencies that the piano produces (or how it was mic'd / mixed).
There's a characteristic of most pianos where playing ppp gives you no string brilliance at all, instead sounding more like a felt piano. As you increase velocity, the string brilliance comes into play, in different ways on different pianos. This is the primary topic of interest for me at the moment.
Neither the CFX / CFX 2 nor the Imperial have the string brilliance of the Steinway unless you really lean on them hard. In the lower couple of octaves, the Imperial not only sounds like a felt piano, but it also sounds like someone turned the sub woofer up to 11. Both the Imperial and CFX (both versions) have more of a felt piano sound to the mid and upper registers at moderate to reasonably high velocity. In the lower couple of octaves, the CFX retains that felt characteristic but without going into the woofiness of the Imperial.
With the Hamburg, I get the felt effect at the lowest velocities, but when increasing it very quickly begins to show the strings, so to speak. In short, the Hamburg absolutely barks in all registers, in all but the very lightest velocities. Unless you absolutely hammer on them, the Imperial and CFX do not bark at all.
When I hear examples of playing, both the Montage and videos of the actual 9 foot grands, people are typically playing classical pieces with lots of individual notes, runs, etc. In this context the notes are clean and crisp, the fundamental is pronounced, and it sounds good. However, I'm playing pop / rock, lots of chords and arpeggios, and thats' a style I can't seem to find in demos of the pianos.
The overall muffled / felt piano effect that I hear on all but the Hamburg makes me wonder, is this how the actual pianos sound? Or is it a matter of decisions in sampling, where they chose to give the Steinway a bright and resonant characteristic and the CFX / Imperial a more subdued personality? Perhaps the string brilliance / brightness / resonance / whatever the term is would get in the way when playing classical music, and for such expensive pianos that may be what the market is.
Being ignorant of these things I'd love to hear the perspective of real piano players. Obviously in the end I just go with what sounds good for that song, but I'm trying to understand the place and reasoning for the design of these expensive and well made instruments. Understanding their intended strengths would give me better context for their uses.
Statistics: Posted by ChrisDuncan — Sat Jul 13, 2024 9:37 pm