Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

Isn't this obvious? Why was this a study? Did you think a hundred years of pianists and piano teachers were just bullshitting you?


To be honest, as a pianist and physicist I’m still sceptical. The only thing you can influence at a mechanical keyboard is the speed with which the hammer hits the strings because by the time contact happens the escapement mechanism has removed the connection between hammer and key. One cannot influence its weight, momentum, angle, etc. So if all there is is a single variable (speed of the hammer), I find it hard to believe that one can change timbre independently on its own.


You are right to be skeptical: the study in question only looked at 'perceived timbre' in the context of pieces performed by pianists. https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2425073122


They should have looked at spectrograms at least -_-


In piano performance you often can hear the mechanical sound of the keys themselves as well as the breathing and humming noises from the pianist. Not to mention a performance will be played in an environment where environmental sounds will be correlated with the perception of timber and the pianists physical movements. I don’t see mention if they controlled for all these things.


eg: the Keith Jarrett / David Helfgott recording inversion, performances where you can often hear the notes of the piano over the sounds of the pianist.


But why would you not expect the speed to change the timbre? Lower speed = less force of the hammer hitting the strings = less chaotic excitation of the string during the attack phase = less distortion in the upper harmonics, as well as less sympathetic resonance.


I expect change in timbre, but not independent of intensity and all that changes with a difference in hammer speed.

If all they are saying is that there is a change in timbre tout-court, then it’s trivial. If they’re saying one can change the timbre while keeping the intensity constant, then I have issues.


"Please don't post shallow dismissals, especially of other people's work. A good critical comment teaches us something."

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html


The purpose of most studies like this is not simply to establish a binary yes or no, but to measure, quantify and explain how something works in more detail than is currently known.


Adding an example to this.

People knew that you would die if you were kept from breathing, but they didn't really know why that was, nor did they know the exact action by which breathing even occurred postulating that it air entered the body through the skin, or perhaps air somehow was necessary to cool the heart which at the time was theorized to be where all thought occurred.

Study as follows: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25532022/


You don't even have to know how to play a piano, just be allowed to touch one, to realise that hitting the keys differently will produce slightly different sounds.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: