piano touch sensitivity research

iternabe

MRC as soon as the hammer “escapes”, there is no more acceleration, right? The only factors affecting a free flying hammer is inertia, gravity, and friction.

MRC

iternabe MRC as soon as the hammer “escapes”, there is no more acceleration, right? The only factors affecting a free flying hammer is inertia, gravity, and friction

As I said, the only acceleration the hammer undergoes from the escapement point onwards is the acceleration caused by gravity.

MRC

pianoloverus Actually now reading your next paragraph I'm a bit more confused. You seem to be saying even if the acceleration at escapement was different, if the speed at escapement was the same then speed when striking the string would be the same and the tone would be the same. If that's a correct understanding of what you're saying, it would seem to disagree with what the testers concluded IE that the acceleration at escapement was the critical factor. Have I understood you correctly?

You have indeed understood correctly. Previous studies found that the only determining factor was the speed at escapement. If two pianists manage, by whatever means, to produce the same speed at escapement when playing the same note, the resulting sounds are identical.

(there may be slight differences caused by the extra sound of the pianist's finger hitting the key, but this is usually perceived as an extraneous noise, not a difference in timbre).

I'm waiting to see the whole study to see in what way the acceleration at the moment of escapement was apparently able to affect the timbre.

Josephine

MRC

When you have to play the same note a few times after each other in a slow melody line for instance, so it's not repeated very fast, so you could release the key completely, would you then use the double escapement sometimes on purpose and use that too for altering the sound?

pianoloverus

Josephine I don't think double escapement can be used to alter the sound.

MRC

Josephine When you have to play the same note a few times after each other in a slow melody line for instance, so it's not repeated very fast, so you could release the key completely, would you then use the double escapement sometimes on purpose and use that too for altering the sound?

Good question. If you let the key move up to the point where the double escapement resets, but the damper has not yet touched the string, the next note will be produced by the hammer hitting an already vibrating string, which produces a slightly different sound than a hammer hitting a static string to start it vibrating.

This is doable, but I don't find it particularly useful. You need to be extremely careful not to let the key move too high, which will bring the damper down and break the legato. It's easy to become tense, which ruins your control over fine dynamic shading. In situations where I want repeated notes in a melody to be legato, I prefer to use the pedal: you get not only the subtle effect of the hammer hitting an already vibrating string, you also get the sympathetic resonance from the other strings. And you can relax between each note, so it's much easier to control the dynamic shape of the whole phrase, which is the most important thing.

If you do let the key come back enough to bring the damper down on the string, there is nothing to be gained from launching the hammer from the double escapement point instead of its normal rest point: for a given dynamic level, the timbre will be the same.

pseudonym58

As a practical matter, I would suggest that very little of this fine discernment is obtained by a pianist from analytical study. My sense is that you play, you make sure your muscles are not unnecessarily tensed, you listen carefully, making physical adjustments in various different ways, and if you're able to obtain the desired sound through experimentation then that's your reward.
But that should not be construed as my saying that none of this is worth studying.

pianoloverus

MRC Although this is theoretically possible, it's hard to for me to imagine that virtually anyone ever adopts this approach. What you describe in the next to last paragraph is what makes sense.

Josephine

MRC

Thanks for explaining!

MRC

I've acquired a copy of the paper referenced in the article: Motor origins of timbre in piano performance by Kuromiya et al. There's a lot of statistical information, but many questions remain unanswered. I'll concentrate on the second part of the study, which is introduced thus:

A professional pianist participated in a performance experiment designed to produce two distinct types
of single-tone keystrokes. The two keystrokes were characterized by a marked difference in the acceleration at the escapement point of the key, while the other features—including key velocity at escapement, mute velocity and acceleration, duration, and both onset and offset noise —were kept approximately constant. Specifically, the pianist was instructed to manipulate only the acceleration at the escapement point while minimizing changes in the other variables in a single-note keystroke.

I have bolded the last phrase of that paragraph, because I have never encountered a pianist who could knowingly influence only the acceleration at the escapement point. I would like to have more information on how the pianist achieved this result.

Other points of interest:

The study took into account the noises when the finger hits the key, when the key reaches the keybed and when the note stops. The relationship between these noises and the main sound of the note as transmitted by the soundboard is dependent on the placement of the listener, or in the case of this study, of the microphone(s). The only information given on the recording process is that the piano was a Shigeru SK2, recorded in a soundproof room with a Neumann U87 Ai microphone. It is not stated where this microphone was placed.

The pianist played a single note many times, apparently for a duration of about 400 ms (less that 1/2 a second). I couldn't find out if this was always the same note, or if notes in different ranges were tested. The scientists identified keystrokes that differed primarily in terms of the acceleration of the key at the moment of escapement
(more than 12%), whereas the other factors, in particular the velocity at escapement, had much smaller differences. The listeners (16 professional pianists) were able, to a degree better than that of chance, to class the lower acceleration tones more often as "lighter" or "clearer" than the higher acceleration ones.

The magnitude of this perceived difference was not discussed at all. Since the listeners were not all in agreement - on average, they were just more likely to class the low acceleration tones as clearer - I imagine that the effect is very subtle. I doubt that it is particularly relevant for practical purposes, as I am sure that other factors that we pianists strive to control - dynamic shaping of a phrase, dynamic balance, pedalling, articulation and rubato - have much more influence on the music we communicate to our listeners.

pianoloverus

MRC I have bolded the last phrase of that paragraph, because I have never encountered a pianist who could knowingly influence only the acceleration at the escapement point. I would like to have more information on how the pianist achieved this result.

Exactly. This does not seem at all possible to me and sheds immediate doubt on the usefulness of any result. I had assumed in this experiment that the testers mechanically manipulated the key somehow to supposedly achieve everything you mentioned.

Can anyone imagine a teacher telling a student "Now I'm going to teach you how to vary the acceleration at escapement while not affecting the velocity at escapement, dynamic volume, articulation, voicing, etc".? And all this occurs within the 1/4" - 1/2" distance the key from when it's depressed to escapement.

I find the whole idea of this experiment quite ridiculous. And even if there is a change in sound when the acceleration and escapement is different while everything else is constant it's apparently so small as to be insignificant in comparison to key velocity, articulation, pedaling ETC.

KikiMann

MRC I so agree -- " ... I am sure that other factors that we pianists strive to control - dynamic shaping of a phrase, dynamic balance, pedalling, articulation and rubato - have much more influence on the music we communicate to our listeners."

As I have stated in another reply -- the role of the psychology and physiology of the human ear and hearing is completely ignored in this mad dash for "numerical 'truth' " ... an interesting pursuit for those who's reality is formed more by numerical data than subjective ("ugh" ;-) auditory experience ...

The rest of us simply enjoy playing and listening - sans numerical "validation"

Greg_R

pianoloverus I would think this research is important to makers of digital pianos or DAWs who are trying to mimic a grand piano. I don't think the research is intended to tell people how to depress piano keys or technicians to shave a millimeter of an escapement.

KikiMann

What is conspicuously absent from discussions on this topic are:

variations in the design and setup of the instrument: stringing scale, strike point, voicing - hardness and shape of the felts, duplexing, resonance - to name but a few.
the role of the human ear and brain in the perception of sound: The brain continues to "hear" a note for up to 4 seconds, a phenomenon known as echoic memory, though the initial, more immediate sensation of sound lasts for about 0.1 seconds. This longer-term sensory memory allows the brain to process sounds like music and speech.

Initial sensation: For about 0.1 seconds (or 1/10th of a second), the brain maintains the sensory experience of the sound, which is why we can perceive echoes.

Echoic memory: The brain can hold onto sounds in "echoic memory" for much longer, with durations often lasting up to 4 seconds, though this can vary between individuals.

Processing: This echoic memory is crucial for understanding language, as it provides a buffer for the brain to process auditory information and distinguish between different sounds.

Factors influencing duration: Age, hearing impairment, and other brain conditions can affect how long echoic memory lasts

Briefly ...

if you were to set up a machine which can be calibrated to execute a precise velocity of key press, then apply the exact same key press to a Steinway D and a Yamaha CFX you would get two completely different sets of relative volumes of overtones.
the pianistic artist not only plays "the piano" -- they "play" the human ear -- using their own ear as a guide. Like a consummate chef who blends just the right amount of seasonings to create the exact overtones of flavor their palate demands, so the pianists use their ears and musical palate to blend the series of overtones to create the desired sensation on the listener's ears -- constantly mixing and adjusting the relative volumes and the degree of space or overlap of tones and overtones. There is a near-infinite number of combinations available to the artist with only two notes. If sounded together, the balance of the combined set of overtones is affected by which of the two -- if either -- is struck louder, and, depending on the notes, where and to what extent there is overlap of exact overtones or slightly disparate overtones, and how the ear and mind process them. If played in sequence, not only does the relative force of each note apply, but the distance between the first and second note. The mind has only heard the first note and is still processing it when the second note is joined -- causing the mind to now have to add the additional set of overtones to the ones it's already processing. Was the connection staccato? Legato? The second set of overtones will be processed differently in each case.

And not forgetting to include the acoustics of the room. Steinway's "sing" because playing the strings louder or softer produces a different timbre -- a different mix of overtones -- similar to the change in timbre that occurs naturally with the human voice and wind instruments as they move through their registers. Yamaha's do NOT "sing" because playing the strings louder or softer does NOT produce a different timbre. In comparing Yamaha's to Steinway's, Yamaha's have a much flatter spectrum of overtones over the range of volume and pitch -- which is exactly why they are preferred for some applications.

Yes -- you can measure and weigh and discuss physical and acoustic phenomena all you want. Failure to include the EXACT differences in the physical characteristics of each instrument -- and, again, the acoustics -- is the first shortcoming -- too much barking up the wrong tree. Failure to include the role of the human ear and mind in the process of hearing as it informs the performer and the listener is the second. It is not a single physical science -- it's the phenomena of human ear and mind that needs to be included in the assessment.

Rather than continue the debate over whether the pianist can affect the "tone" after the hammer is thrown to the string, what might be more beneficial would be to have the same composition(s):

played by the same pianist in the same room on three to five different instruments.
played by three to five different pianists on the same instrument in the same room

The conclusion will likely be that, while the build and setup of each instrument is a factor and provides the pianists the tools and parameters of what is available to them, the ultimate outcome is the manner in which the pianists utilize the tools and parameters available to them.

I wholeheartedly concur with pianoloverus ...

pianoloverus

KikiMann I wholeheartedly concur with pianoloverus ...

Much of your post was beyond my comprehension but I'm glad you concur with me!

KikiMann

pianoloverus YES -- I agree primarily that " ...whole idea of this experiment quite ridiculous." This is the day-to-day stuff of piano technicians and designers (NOT ridiculous for them, btw). Of course there are things which affect the sound of the piano. But it boils down to -- to carry the chef analogy a bit further -- does sharpening the blade of a chef's knife at a 30-degree angle make a steak taste better than sharpening it at a 29-degree angle, or a 31-degree angle. The instrument decidedly contributes the raw materials with which the performer has at his or her disposal, but it is, as you say " ... insignificant in comparison to key velocity, articulation, pedaling, ETC." The artist WILL choose an instrument that serves his or her preferences and needs. We see and hear this all the time -- the choice of instrument at a major piano competition, concert, etc.

But the thesis statement -- "Research on the extent to which an acoustic piano action is sensitive to aspects of touch other than pure velocity alone" consistently barks up the wrong tree when deep diving into the mechanics of the instrument for the answer. Yes -- the mechanics make an overall difference -- but none of it has to do with anything other than the resulting effects produced by the velocity of the hammer as far as each instrument is concerned.

The opening statement in the article is almost farcical: "Scientists confirmed that pianists can alter timbre through touch, using advanced sensors to capture micro-movements that shape sound perception." Ok --- great -- good for you scientists! Which boulder have you been living under whilst pianists have been doing this for the past 100 years? The more accurate statement would be: Scientists have measured the degree to which timbre -- the relative strength of overtones -- is altered through variations in the velocity of a hammer striking a string.

And I have to love this part: "The involvement of science and technology in music learning has lagged behind significantly, compared to that in fields such as sports and medicine. As a result, many artists all over the world have long been beset with the problem of embodying artistic expression and creativity while being constrained by physical and mental limitations. The knowledge regarding the foundational skills for producing diverse expressions provided by this research will contribute to the creation of a future society where artists are liberated from physical and mental constraints and can fully embody their creativity. This will be achieved through the establishment of a new evidence-based form of music education grounded in dynaformics, the science of music performance."

Really? I would submit that a person who is not gifted with the aural and musical sensitivity to perceive the effects of what they are doing and make adjustments based on that feedback will play as robotically as a machine programmed to play notes at precise velocities and intervals-- it's called a Disklavier.

As I stated above, depending on the setup and design of the instrument -- YES! different velocities WILL produce a different spectrum/balance of overtones -- which translates into a different timbre. All of the other effects are the result of the performer altering relative volumes and degree of overlap of the tones and overtones. And again I agree with you -- despite all the scientific gyrations -- " ... they aren't saying anything that hasn't been known forever." They just put a microphone on it and collected some audio data -- and created an interesting paper. I WOULD be interested to know WHICH piano was used -- and even more significantly, if DIFFERENT pianos were used. I would like to see the same experiment replicated with the same artists, same repertoire, and same conditions over AT LEAST three different instruments of comparable size, including a Steinway D, a Yamaha CFX, an a third instrument. Needless to say there should be a detectable difference overall, and even to specific notes -- middle C, for example. I would also like to see the experiment done comparing a 9-foot grand and a 6-foot grand. That would likely be more informative of the true subject matter -- the effects of differences in design and setup on the resulting set of available ranges of timbre. I think it would be great if they could demonstrate -- in graphs and charts -- exactly why the timbre of middle C on a 9-foot grand sounds different from the timbre of middle C on a 6-foot grand. Like seriously guys -- give me a chart showing the relative strength of each overtone of middle C on the respective instruments. Give me a complete spectrum showing why there is a greater change in timbre on a Steinway D than on a Yamaha CFX. Why should I have to rely only on my ears to tell me when I could have a complete spectrum analysis that explains to me what I'm hearing -- right?

I think this video of Tiffany Poon selecting an instrument for an upcoming performance has MUCH to say about the entire discussion -- for those who have ears to hear.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AFfzkSk1e94

pianoloverus

KikiMann I think this video of Tiffany Poon selecting an instrument for an upcoming performance has MUCH to say about the entire discussion -- for those who have ears to hear.

I honestly can't hear virtually any difference in the two pianos. Either I don't have good enough ears or hopefully, it's just because I'm listening through only the computer's speakers.

KikiMann

It's somewhat discernible through the computer speakers -- but not nearly so much as it would be live. Tiffany is giving great clues as to what she's hearing and experiencing relative to the touch and the response she's getting back.

pianoloverus

Greg_R Possibly, but neither the discussion here or on many similar threads or the article seems mention that as far as I can see. And, of course, hybrid pianos completely solve the touch problem although they are usually more expensive than digitals.

iternabe

Greg_R Here is a PH.D dissertation on how to create a digital action that can best mimic acoustic action: Haptic Displays of Systems with Changing Kinematic Constraints: The Virtual Piano Action

« Previous Page