To each their own, and I do agree that some modern piano recordings are over-mic'd (too many mics so
there's a closed-in feel despite nice room acoustics), but the limited frequency range and high
noise level of 78's makes them very non-ideal for piano listening to me. The piano above all solo
instruments benefits from "air and space" in a good room, mainly because the overtones and subtle
things the player is doing with finger dynamics and pedal work "bloom" out beyond the piano, and you
need a very high-fidelity recording and playback chain to reproduce anything like the sound of a
real piano being played well in a good room. No 78 I've heard comes anywhere near it.
One man's opinions, and of course to each their own. Happy New Year!
-- Tom Fine
----- Original Message -----
From: "[log in to unmask]" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Wednesday, December 29, 2010 4:38 PM
Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Thoughtful
>>> Wouldn't a more appropriate term be 'modeling'?
> Could we call it a recreation? Oh, wait, Edison already used that one. Never mind.
> Over on the pianophiles list, or was it 88s on 78s?, we had some discussion about the process some
> time ago. My personal opinion was that the weakness in the Rachmaninoff CD issued by Zenph was not
> the process itself, (that's another discussion) but the over miked sound - way too close and muddy
> to be pleasant to listen to. Ironically the modern aspect of this process has defeated the purpose
> of the historical or archival aspect. The 78s sound better and are easier to listen to IMO.
> joe salerno