Piano recordings - which one do you prefer?

[fredbucket]

I would like to ask the delightful PP populace to help me in a little exercise, if you could.

Over the last weekend, I recorded the same piece twice. The piece is Fur Alina by Arvo Part. The recording conditions were the same - same location, same microphones, same positions etc etc, and, strangely enough, the same piano.

I would like your views on which performance you prefer, either Take 1 or Take 2, and why. You will need to listen carefully because the differences are in the tone, sustain and other characteristics of the piano. I have normalised each recording to -.1dB, so the volumes are much the same. All will be explained later when I have a (reasonable) number of views and (perhaps) concensus. Please reply by PM, not in this thread, and I will quote some of the comments (anonymously) in my summation in a few days.

The recordings may be found here http://www.mediafire.com/download.php?ydwzlmt1zmm and here http://www.mediafire.com/download.php?nimynnlkmzn.

Thank you for any help. You will find this to be actually quite interesting.

Regards
Fred

[Arjuna]

Well?......

[fredbucket]

Well?......

You're right - I forgot, too busy fixing PP technical issues

The two recordings were both made on the same 2.9m 102 note Stuart & Sons grand piano, with the same recording setup. The only difference was the piano action.

Take #1 was played with the normal Tokawi action that has been used on all Stuart & Sons pianos since time immemorial. Once we had finished the recording, we replaced the entire piano action (ie unscrewed it, whipped it out and put another one in!) with one using carbon fibre optimised action sourced from Wessell, Nickel & Gross, a subsidiary of Mason & Hamlin in the USA. I then recorded the same piece again as Take #2.

When I first played the CF action I was surprised at the sound difference - it appeared as though the piano was louder (i.e. I could play louder with the same finger strength, which was interesting because S&S pianos produce a lot of volume normally. I think there is a 200 watt amplifier in there somewhere but Wayne Stuart stubbornly refuses to tell me where it is )

But, when I did a frequency analysis of the individual notes (I recorded using an artificial striking mechanism which ensured constant force on the string) the frequency/time envelopes for the two actions were identical across the keyboard range. So any differences are basically in the fingers and the ear of the beholder - it is the physical 'feel' of the action that is different, not so much the raw tone that the action produces.

I sent the same recordings to a colleague of Wayne Stuart in France, and he correctly picked the action. His comments were "I would say that take 2 is with CF action. The tone is cleaner and has more density in the pianissimo. It is probably difficult to find some objective differences with spectrograms. The bigger differences are situated in transients with a lower content of wood noise, but I am not sure that the partial content, the overtones image, is so different"

There is no doubt that the CF action, once they get some niggledy quality control issues out of the way, will become a viable alternative action for high end pianos. History is littered with such attempts (Steinway had a disastrous flirtation with teflon actions some years ago) but it does seem as though this one may have a significant future.

The piano I played (with the CF action) has been in a trade fair in Shanghai for the last few months. I will do some more work with it when it comes back to the factory.

Regards
Fred